House of Commons
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
I remind the House that the ballot for the election of Select Committee Chairs is currently taking place in Committee Room 15. It will close at 4 pm.
Business Before Questions
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
This is my first oral questions session as Welsh Secretary, so I congratulate and welcome all Members elected to represent Welsh constituencies, particularly the 84% of those Members who sit on the Labour Benches. I also welcome the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), to the Front Bench—for Wales questions. Finally, I pay tribute to our fantastic Welsh Olympians and Paralympians, who have brought home a record medal haul to a very proud nation.
I recently met the Energy Secretary and visited the energy cluster in Pembrokeshire with the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government have established Great British Energy to drive down bills, create jobs and deliver energy security. Its new partnership with the Crown Estate will boost new green technologies, such as floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea. That will supercharge the work already undertaken by the Welsh Government, which the Prime Minister saw at first hand in west Wales with the new First Minister.
Nick Smith
I support my right hon. Friend’s sentiments, and wish her well in her job. In advance of the statement, what can she say about jobs and investment in this crucial sector?
Jo Stevens
I am delighted that seven Welsh tidal, solar and offshore wind projects were successful in securing contracts in the Government’s main scheme for supporting low-carbon electricity generation. Those projects will support the Government’s mission to deliver clean power by 2030, as well as creating high-quality green jobs and attracting private investment. I look forward to further Welsh projects coming through in future rounds.
Gill German
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer; I am delighted to see her in her place. I am pleased to say that the development of the skills needed for such projects is well under way in Clwyd North. Creating Enterprise in Rhyl works with local social housing providers to develop energy-efficient housing solutions, and has partnered with Rhyl College to train local people in renewable energy, green heating and solar technologies, giving them the key skills needed for the green energy sector, and us the local trained workforce that we need. Does my right hon. Friend agree that green energy offers huge growth and employment potential for areas such as Clwyd North, and will she join me on a visit to Creating Enterprise the next time she is back home in north Wales?
Jo Stevens
I congratulate my hon. Friend on winning her seat. The Government have a clear mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower by investing in home-grown energy to grow the economy, create jobs, boost skills and strengthen our energy independence. In Wales, we have the resources and skills to be a leader in cutting-edge energy technologies, creating high-quality jobs right across the country, including in north Wales. It would be a pleasure to visit Creating Enterprise with my hon. Friend.
Bill Esterson
My right hon. Friend mentioned the exciting opportunities from offshore wind for the people and economy of Wales. Can she tell the House about the discussions that she and her Cabinet colleagues have had with the Crown Estate about maximising the benefits from those opportunities?
Jo Stevens
We believe that the new innovative partnership between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate will leverage up to £60 billion of private investment into the UK’s drive for energy independence. I am delighted that the Crown Estate has today published plans to bring an additional 20 GW to 30 GW of offshore wind to market by 2030. That is excellent news for Wales’s clean energy ambitions, particularly for floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea. I recently met the Energy Secretary, and separately the Crown Estate, to discuss how this new industry can deliver jobs and growth across Wales.
Henry Tufnell
Will the Secretary of State set out how Great British Energy will deliver benefits to the port of Milford Haven and to families across my constituency?
Jo Stevens
I welcome my hon. Friend to his seat. I had the privilege of visiting the port of Milford Haven energy cluster in Pembrokeshire with him and the Deputy Prime Minister in August. I really value the critical role that the port plays in securing the UK’s energy supply, and I am proud that the region is pioneering new green technologies. We have established Great British Energy to drive investment in those technologies, which will deliver sustainable skilled jobs in Pembrokeshire and across Wales.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Ynys Môn has a long history of clean energy production, but Tory delays on Wylfa have cost the island over 400 jobs since 2010. In March, the Secretary of State urged the UK Government to get on with delivering new nuclear power. Now that she is in power, will she back those words with a concrete plan?
Jo Stevens
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. Our manifesto commitment to delivering new nuclear in places such as Wylfa still stands—we will do that. The Government have now completed the purchase of the Wylfa site, as she knows. We will end over a decade of inaction by the previous Government on nuclear power, as part of our wider plans to get Britain building again.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I congratulate new Ministers on their appointments.
The last Conservative Government spearheaded various clean energy schemes for Wales, including the Celtic freeport, which has the potential to create more than 10,000 green jobs. Will the Secretary of State join me in recognising that the last Conservative Government led the way in delivering clean energy projects for Wales? Does she recognise that the Welsh Government also have to play their part, and what discussions she has had with them about their own plans to support clean energy projects in Wales?
Jo Stevens
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. My colleague the Secretary of State for Business and Trade said immediately after the election that we do not intend to make any changes to existing freeport commitments. I am backing the delivery of the two freeports in Wales, and I am very pleased that, with the involvement of the Welsh Government, we have fair work elements in those freeports, which I fully support.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
Under my chairmanship, the transition board has moved from discussion to delivery. Last month, I announced £13.5 million for supply chain, skills and employability funds. I also announced our business and community pledge scheme, bringing together over 50 organisations in support of affected workers.
Steve Witherden
I thank my right hon. Friend for beginning to deliver funds to support business confidence and provide a safety net for workers. Will she explain how that will support workers who are dealing with great uncertainty?
Jo Stevens
The two funds that have been announced are specifically for people in businesses and in the supply chain, because we know that they have already been affected by the uncertainty of the situation at Port Talbot. They will help people to retrain and reskill into new employment, and will help businesses to diversify and go into new markets if they are a primary customer of Tata Steel.
Jessica Morden
I know that my right hon. Friend will serve Wales admirably in her new role.
Llanwern steelworks in Newport is a key strategic site that manufactures world-class automotive steel and more, and it has so much potential. We all await the statement later, but can she outline what she has been doing, alongside the Department for Business and Trade, to secure future investment in Llanwern as part of ongoing discussions with Tata?
Jo Stevens
The Government absolutely understand the importance of Llanwern as a key manufacturing facility for steel products. We have worked with Tata Steel UK to ensure that Llanwern is clearly considered in plans for the future of steel in south Wales. My hon. Friend is a dedicated advocate for the workers at Llanwern, and I know that that she will follow closely the upcoming statement from the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Today the Government are expected to unveil details of their steel plan for south Wales. From what has been briefed to the press, it seems that the new deal is, at its core, the same deal—worth hundreds of millions of pounds—that was agreed by the last Conservative Government. At the time, the Secretary of State and the Welsh Labour party appeared to rubbish the deal, and suggested that a better one was possible. Does she now regret the Labour party’s previous criticism of the deal?
Jo Stevens
I do not recognise that characterisation of the deal on which the Business Secretary will make a statement later. He will make that statement to the House—I do not want to pre-empt it, because we are a party and a Government who will always come to the House first to make major announcements—but I am confident that he will set out a sustainable future for steelmaking in Port Talbot, in Wales and across the UK.
John Lamont
The fact remains that key parts of the deal, as it appears in the press, appear to be largely unchanged from what was agreed before, including almost £100 million to help steelworkers who might lose their jobs. In its negotiations with the last Government, Tata Steel was crystal clear that no other deal was possible. Moving forward, it is crucial that funding to help retrain those who will lose their jobs reaches them swiftly, so will the Secretary of State lay out the detail of how and when the money will be sent to those impacted?
Jo Stevens
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer. We had the transition board in place for nearly 10 months under the last Government and not a single penny went out the door to businesses or workers affected. Within weeks of my taking over chairmanship of the transition board, £13.5 million has been released to help supply chain businesses and workers. That is the first tranche, with further funds to come.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
I welcome the Front Benchers to their places. They will know that the steel industry in Wales is just one of a number that have suffered in recent decades. Last year, the Industrial Communities Alliance said that tackling the effects of deindustrialisation in Wales has been hampered by competitive bidding, which forces local authorities in deprived areas to bid against each other, preventing partnership working and a more strategic approach. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether future rounds of the UK shared prosperity fund allocated to Wales will no longer be subject to competitive bidding?
Jo Stevens
This Government were elected on a manifesto that stressed a partnership approach with local authorities and an intention to stabilise the funding system, moving away from wasteful competition. Those are the principles we will seek to apply as we think about the future of local growth funding. As with all Government decisions regarding funding beyond March 2025, it is ultimately a matter for the spending review.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
Under the previous Government, the transition board met six times and formed two sub-committees, but did not distribute a single penny of the funding that was promised to support businesses and workers in south Wales. Will the Secretary of State provide an assessment of how the transition board has changed under her leadership?
Jo Stevens
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, and I look forward to engaging with her and her colleagues as they take on their important work.
As I set out, we have released £13.5 million as the first tranche of funding from the transition board. That has changed the situation radically from discussion to delivery. That is what we promised; that is what we have delivered.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
Last week, I met the Transport Secretary to discuss rail infrastructure and steps to improve cross-border connectivity. I also joined the Welsh Government Cabinet Secretary, Ken Skates, to announce the joint Network Rail and Transport for Wales programme that will increase rail capacity by 40%, with 50% more timetabled services on the north Wales main line.
Shaun Davies
It a real delight to see my right hon. Friend in her place.
The train line from Aberystwyth to Birmingham International via Telford is critical to the university, and to the economies and connectivity of mid Wales, Telford and wider Shropshire. What conversations has my right hon. Friend had with the Welsh Government, Transport for Wales and the Department for Transport about improving that line and the rolling stock?
Jo Stevens
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Cambrian line provides an important connection to and from Aberystwyth University, and it plays a key role in supporting cross-border connectivity for the people of mid-Wales and beyond. In recent years, Network Rail has undertaken work to improve infrastructure on the Cambrian line to support the introduction of new trains. Enhancements to the railway in Wales that deliver passenger benefits, including proposed electrification, are being considered by the Wales Rail Board.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llefarydd. I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in sending every sympathy to the friends and family of the late, great singer and comedian Dewi Pws.
On-the-day cancellations on the north Wales to London lines stood at 15.4% in August. We consistently have the highest on-the-day cancellation rates for the entire Avanti network, three to four times higher than the next worst part of the network. How will the Secretary of State use her role to stop Avanti punishing Welsh travellers?
Jo Stevens
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question, and concur with her remarks. The Government are clear that the performance of Avanti West Coast has not been good enough. Many times in this Chamber, we have heard about the appalling service—too many cancellations and too many delays. This Government have required Avanti West Coast to improve its performance on services, and I discussed this matter with the Transport Secretary last week. Ministers and officials are holding regular performance reviews with Avanti West Coast and Network Rail to hold them to account, closely monitoring compliance with contractual obligations and driving improvements using the contractual mechanisms.
Liz Saville Roberts
Sadly, it seems that between the Welsh Government and Labour in government here in the UK, that service in north Wales is not a priority—we see that in the rate of on-the-day cancellations. The truth is that the railways are broken, and Labour’s plan fails to address the chronic underfunding that is the cause, particularly in Wales. In 2022, the Secretary of State—then shadow Secretary of State—said that it was “utterly illogical” to designate HS2 as an England and Wales project, and called on the Conservatives to “cough up” the billions owed to Wales. Will she cough up now?
Jo Stevens
We cannot go back in time and change the way that project was commissioned, managed and classified by the previous Conservative Government. They need to accept responsibility for the chaos, delay and waste on their watch. What we can do, though, is work closely with our Senedd and local authority colleagues to develop and invest in transport projects that improve services for passengers right across Wales.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
I was pleased to meet with the Transport Secretary last week to discuss our approach to rail in Wales. She is reviewing the previous Government’s transport infrastructure commitments and will report in the autumn. We will deliver rail improvements that will make the services more accountable to the people who use them through the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, which completed its Commons stages last week, and Great British Railways, which was launched in shadow form earlier this month.
Matthew Patrick
It is great to see my right hon. Friend in her place. Connections between my constituency of Wirral West and north Wales are many, they are deep, and they are valued on both sides of the border. Sadly, though, our transport connections are lagging behind. Could she please set out what conversations she is having with Ministers and stakeholders to improve those connections?
Jo Stevens
I welcome my hon. Friend to the House and congratulate him on his election.
In my meeting with the Transport Secretary last week, we discussed a range of issues, including connections between Wales and Merseyside. I recognise the importance of cross-border travel for people across the region. The UK and Welsh Governments are committed to strengthening those connections, which are vital to unlocking economic growth and employment opportunities for people and businesses. I know that rail enhancements are required to improve services on the Wrexham to Bidston line, and will work across Government to drive progress.
Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
This Government’s No. 1 mission is to kick-start economic growth across the United Kingdom. Wales can be at the forefront of that mission, with renewable energy, advanced manufacturing, our vibrant creative sector, fintech and the life sciences each offering huge opportunities to create jobs and drive growth.
Torsten Bell
I thank the Minister for her answer and congratulate her on her appointment. Welsh universities are central to economic growth in many of our communities, but these are difficult times: Swansea University has already seen 200 voluntary redundancies, and many more are happening across Wales. Our universities are affected by decisions of the Welsh Government as well as those of the UK Government, so can the Minister update the House on how the two Governments will work together to nurture those crucial institutions?
Dame Nia Griffith
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place, and am very sorry to hear about the recent redundancies at Swansea University. Only last week, the Secretary of State and I met with Professor Paul Boyle, vice-chancellor of Swansea University and chair of Universities Wales, to discuss the challenges facing Welsh institutions and ways of supporting the higher education sector in Wales. We recognise that Welsh universities, including Swansea, have a huge contribution to make, both to our mission of growth in the economy and within their local regions. Colleagues at all levels in the UK and Welsh Governments are working closely together to safeguard those universities’ potential amid the difficult economic circumstances we have inherited.
Claire Hughes
As has already been said, passengers on the north Wales coast are being let down by the poor performance of Avanti. This issue is affecting passengers and businesses, and hampering economic growth in my constituency of Bangor Aberconwy. What specific discussions has the Secretary of State had with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on this issue?
Dame Nia Griffith
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. As she quite rightly says, transport plays an essential role in driving economic growth across Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Transport Secretary last week to discuss rail connectivity, including the performance of Avanti. As the Secretary of State has set out, the Government are clear that the performance of Avanti has not been good enough, with too many cancellations and delays. So Ministers and officials are now holding regular performance reviews with Avanti and Network Rail, and monitoring Avanti West Coast compliance with its contractual obligations, with the aim of securing better services for her constituents.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
One of the biggest contributions to economic growth is the agrifood sector. With today being Back British Farming Day, does the Minister agree that farmers, whether they be in Wales or Northern Ireland, need the support of this Government to ensure they reach their full potential to contribute to economic growth?
Dame Nia Griffith
As the hon. Member quite rightly says, farmers make a huge contribution both to the economic growth of this country and to our food security. That is why we are absolutely determined to work hand in hand with the Welsh Government to ensure that we can offer the very best to our Welsh farmers.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
Nuclear energy can play an important role in helping to achieve energy security and clean power, while providing thousands of skilled jobs. Great British Nuclear has acquired the Wylfa site with a view to developing a new nuclear project. Decisions on the project and the technologies to be deployed at Wylfa will be made in due course.
Sir Ashley Fox
The last Government announced the biggest expansion in nuclear power for 70 years, including the commissioning of Hinkley Point C in Somerset. Does the Minister agree that a new nuclear power plant at Wylfa is vital to the UK’s energy security, and can she give a timeline for its development?
Dame Nia Griffith
As a previously designated nuclear site that has hosted nuclear power, Wylfa is ideally placed either to be used for large-scale nuclear, or to be used for a series of small modular reactors. We will be setting out our plans for the site in due course.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
This Government are committed to improving digital connectivity, as demonstrated by our commitment to full gigabit and national 5G coverage by 2030. I have recently met internet and mobile providers as well as Ofcom. The hon. Member will be aware that, thanks to the UK Government’s shared rural network, 4G connectivity has been boosted in his constituency as a result of the activation last month of two additional masts.
David Chadwick
Many of my constituents living in areas such as Llanwrthwl and Llanafan Fawr have been missed out by previous roll-out schemes. Are the Government committed to ensuring that funding is available to ensure that people living in so-called hard-to-reach areas can be connected?
Dame Nia Griffith
I very much appreciate the concern that the hon. Member has for his constituents, particularly in a rural area that has so many challenges for connectivity. I can tell him that over 90% of premises in his constituency can access superfast broadband speeds. To extend gigabit-capable coverage further, approximately 3,000 premises in his constituency are currently expected to receive gigabit-capable connection through the Project Gigabit cross regional procurement framework. Alongside this, there are 21 voucher projects across the constituency, which will cover approximately 5,000 premises. However, if he has any concerns, perhaps he could come and see me on the matter.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
We recognise that the NHS in Wales faces unique challenges, and we are committed to working closely with the Welsh Government to improve NHS waiting times. Our approach is grounded in the belief that public services, such as healthcare, should not just be fit for purpose today, but be robust and resilient for the future.
Jerome Mayhew
Treating cancer early is critical for survival rates. In England, the target is to have 85% of patients treated within 62 days. In Wales, that target is more generous; it is just 75%, yet it has never been achieved. The current rate is an appalling 56.7%, much worse than the equivalent figure in England. Why is it that Welsh Labour is underperforming England? Is it really still the blueprint for Government?
Jo Stevens
More people in Wales have been told that they do not have cancer than ever before, and that is good news. Performance increased against the 62-day target for treatment in June compared with the previous month, and over the past two years, the number of patients waiting longer than two years has reduced. Average waits for treatment remain steady.
Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
This weekend we remembered the late Queen and her enduring legacy of service and devotion to our country, and I was proud to announce a new national monument located at St James’s Park to honour her memory. I know that the whole House will join me in sending our best wishes to the Princess of Wales as she completes her treatment.
This afternoon we will introduce the Renters’ Rights Bill. After years of inaction, this Government will oversee the biggest levelling up of renters’ rights in a generation, and I urge the whole House to get behind it. Later this week, I will visit Washington to meet President Biden for a strategic discussion on foreign policy.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Torsten Bell
Back in the 1990s, the Conservatives claimed that the minimum wage would cost 1 million jobs. Instead, low earners have seen the fastest pay rises year after year, with no effect on employment—[Interruption.] They opposed it. Today, and on their watch, 1 million workers are on zero-hours contracts and more than 1 million people have no sick pay whatsoever, facing risks that nobody in this House would bear. The details matter, but it is outdated nonsense—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please sit down. One, it is easier if you face me—I can hear it better. The second part is that it is meant to be a question, not a statement. [Interruption.] No, I decide. I call the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
Economic growth is our No. 1 mission, and that is why we forged a new, positive relationship with business, but too many people are insecure at work, and that holds them back and holds our economy back. This Government were elected to deliver for working people, and that is exactly what we will do.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I join the Prime Minister in his words about Her late Majesty the Queen and in his words about the Princess of Wales. She has been in the thoughts of everyone across the country, and I know that everyone in the House will be delighted and relieved at the progress she has made.
May I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to Nicholas Howard? This is his last Prime Minister’s questions after supporting eight consecutive Prime Ministers through these sessions. It was never my favourite part of the week, but his commendable service made it far more manageable.
Yesterday, Labour MPs voted to remove the winter fuel payment from more than 10 million British pensioners, including those with just £13,000 of income. With that decision debated and made, it is now important that the House understands the full consequences of the Government’s choice. May I specifically ask the Prime Minister this: will he now publish the impact assessment before the House rises?
The Prime Minister
The fact of the matter is this: the Conservatives left a £22 billion black hole, and they hid it from the Office for Budget Responsibility. Richard Hughes is absolutely clear that it is the “largest year-ahead” overspend outside the pandemic. Of course, when it comes to mitigations and impacts, we have put those in place, ramping up pension credit, dealing with housing benefit and linking it—something that the party opposite did not do for years. Because of the tough decisions that we are making to stabilise the economy, we can make sure that, through the triple lock, increases in pensions will outstrip any loss of payment. But before the right hon. Gentleman complains about us clearing up his mess, perhaps he would like to apologise for the £22 billion black hole.
Rishi Sunak
When I was in government, I delivered record increases in the state pension. We protected the winter fuel payment, and we gave pensioners cost of living benefits. The Prime Minister is the one who is taking money away from pensioners on £13,000. This has got nothing to do with the public finances. Just this morning, his own Chancellor—his MPs may not have been listening to her—admitted that she would prefer it if this policy did not even raise any money. Obviously, the Government would not have made this decision without an impact analysis. Yesterday, the Energy Minister confirmed that. So I ask very simply again: why will he not publish the assessment now?
The Prime Minister
I remember the days when the Conservative party was concerned about balancing the books. It has left a £22 billion black hole; responsibility for this decision lies there. The only way we can rebuild our country, invest in our public services and make sure that everyone is better off is if we clear up that mess and deal with the £22 billion black hole.
Last week, we learned that the shadow Housing Secretary was calling for means-testing of winter fuel payments, and now it turns out that the shadow Paymaster General agrees with her and even boasted about texting his own mother saying that she did not need the payment. Until the right hon. Gentleman apologises for the mess that the Conservatives have created, he is in no position to criticise the action that we are taking.
Rishi Sunak
They are shouting now, but those arguments did not even convince 50 of the Prime Minister’s own MPs, who suddenly found yesterday that they had urgent business elsewhere. We know why the Prime Minister is hiding the impact assessment: the Labour party’s own previous analysis claimed that this policy could cause 3,850 deaths. Are the numbers in his impact assessment higher or lower than that?
The Prime Minister
We are taking this decision to stabilise the economy. That means that we can commit to the triple lock. By committing to the triple lock, we can make sure that payments of state pension are higher, and therefore there is more money in the pockets of pensioners, notwithstanding the tough action that we need to take.
The right hon. Gentleman goes around pretending that everything is fine. That is the argument that he tried in the election, and that is why he is sitting on the Opposition side and we are sitting on the Government side.
Rishi Sunak
Pensioners watching today will have seen that the Prime Minister has repeatedly refused to admit or to publish the consequences of his decision. We will continue holding him to account for that.
Changing topics, today is Back British Farming Day, when we recognise that British farmers produce food that is of higher quality and has higher welfare standards and higher environmental standards than imported food. At a time of increasing global volatility, it is also crucial for our food security and national security. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm whether he will be adopting the National Farmers Union’s recent proposal to enshrine a national food security target in law?
The Prime Minister
Food security is really important; I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman raised that. We have talked to the NFU about it. Rural issues are really important—that is what we fought the election on and why we have a lot of rural constituency Members sitting behind me now. We will continue to talk to the NFU. We take food security very seriously.
Rishi Sunak
I am not sure I heard a specific answer, but farmers also do great work to preserve the beauty of the British countryside—something I am sure the Prime Minister will appreciate, given his new-found preference for landscapes over political portraiture. When it comes to land use, protections are currently in place to ensure that the most productive farmland is used for food production rather than alternatives like solar. Does he agree that it is not appropriate or right that developers with a vested interest grade the quality of that farmland themselves? Will he look at making that process independent?
The Prime Minister
Rural communities were neglected under the last Government. Confidence was at an all-time low, and thousands of food and farming businesses are being forced out of business. Of course, we will work with them and get the balance right but, again, we are picking up and clearing up the mess, and rebuilding our country.
Rishi Sunak
As a glimpse, in Wales, the Labour Government hammered farmers, hitting them with top-down eco-targets. Labour’s own assessment of those plans said that it would lead to thousands of job losses, less food security and would destroy rural incomes, while farmers described it as bleak and damaging. Will the Prime Minister reassure English farmers that he will not threaten their livelihoods, and will he rule out imposing those same top-down targets here?
The Prime Minister
We will work with farmers across the whole of the United Kingdom, as we have made clear, to support them. But here we are, and it is absolutely clear: no contrition and no responsibility for the economic black hole, the broken NHS or the prison crisis—the ruinous legacy of 14 years of failure. We have started rebuilding the country: renters’ reform, house building, GB Energy, the national wealth fund and the border security command—I could go on. While the Opposition try to rewrite history, we are getting on with building a better country for the future.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Let me start by saying that I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to the family of Lieutenant Leyshon.
I agree on the desperate need for affordable housing, which is why we will deliver the biggest social and affordable housing uplift in a generation. We will get Britain building again—1.5 million houses—because the dream of home ownership was snuffed out under the last Government.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I associate myself and my party with the earlier comments from the Prime Minister about our amazing late Queen, and join him in sending our best wishes to her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. I do not think anyone could not have been moved by her powerful video, and we hope that she will make a full and speedy recovery. When it comes to fighting cancer, we know all too well that every day counts. In the last year of the last Government, over 100,000 patients waited more than two months just to start their urgent cancer treatment—the worst on record. Will the Prime Minister help boost cancer survival rates by guaranteeing that every patient can start their cancer treatment within 62 days?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question on a really important issue. A report by Lord Darzi will be out tomorrow, which will set out in stark terms the failure in cancer treatment under the last Government, which is a really serious issue. This timeline matters, which is why we are taking steps straight away to ensure that we comply with it, because lives depend on it. We have already taken the decision to put in more scanners and to use technology to catch this earlier. It is a very serious issue, and a very serious failure by the last Government.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. I will look at the plans the Government are putting forward.
Last night, Liberal Democrats voted against withdrawing winter fuel payments. We believe it is just wrong to balance the books by removing this support from pensioners, but we do understand that there are difficult choices to be made to clear up the appalling financial mess left by the last Conservative Government. One of the many reasons for that mess was the Conservatives prioritising tax cuts for the big banks, costing £4 billion a year. Will the Prime Minister instead reverse those cuts, so we can afford to support millions of struggling pensioners through this very hard winter?
The Prime Minister
I will resist the temptation to get ahead of the Budget. What is important is that we recognise there is a £22 billion black hole that has been left by the previous Government. [Interruption.] Their practice was to ignore it and kick it into the long grass. We are taking the tough decisions, because I am absolutely convinced that that is the only way we can start rebuilding our country, investing in our public services and making sure that everybody is better off.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We stand with those who tragically lost their loved ones in this heinous attack. I did go up to Southport the day after, and went back three days after that on a private visit, to meet some of the first responders who had been at the scene, simply to say thank you to them. I cannot tell the House how angry I was when I got back to London and saw that those same officers who had responded were having things thrown at them by far-right thugs.
We will work tirelessly to support my hon. Friend’s constituents. I thank him, as well, for his hard work at this difficult time, working with Sefton borough council and Liverpool city region combined authority to deliver a support package. The community has endured a horrendous event and should be supported, and I know it will be across the whole House.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
Yesterday, we witnessed some extraordinary celebratory scenes outside Britain’s prisons, where in some cases serious career criminals were released. That was to make way for—yes—rioters, but equally those who have said unpleasant things on Facebook and elsewhere on social media. Does the Prime Minister understand that there is a growing feeling of anger in this country that we are living through two-tier policing and a two-tier justice system?
The Prime Minister
I am angry to be put in the position of having to release people who should be in prison because the last Government broke the prison system. The last Prime Minister was repeatedly warned—he had his own release scheme—that he had to adopt the scheme that we have put in place. The former Justice Secretary said that if they did not do it, they would have to get down on their knees and pray. Police chiefs made it absolutely clear, in a letter to the last Prime Minister before the election, that he needed to take action, saying that they would not be able to discharge their duties and that the risk was a loss of the ability to detain suspects. That means an inability to arrest people committing offences—that is how bad it was. They warned him that further delays until after the general election would increase the risks significantly. What did he do? He delayed and increased the risks.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. One of the first Bills we introduced was to reform our railways after 14 years of chaos. Great British Railways will unite track and train under a single leadership. That means closer collaboration across the industry and faster, more effective decisions on critical infrastructure, and I know how vital that will be in relation to both Luton and Leagrave stations in her constituency. We are carefully considering the best approach, but I assure her we are committed to ensuring that our railways will be open to everyone.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Prime Minister
This is a really important issue; our rural communities were neglected by the previous Government, which is why confidence is at an all-time low. We will protect farmers from being undercut in trade deals, make the supply chain work more fairly, and prevent shock rises in bills by switching to GB Energy. We will not pre-empt the Budget in relation to this matter, but we will put the support in place.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I first welcome the first-ever Labour MP for Basingstoke? Yes, we will reiterate our commitment to act to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end and ensure that leaseholders can benefit from more rights, power and protections over their homes.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We are complying with international law. We have set out our reasoning, and I think all fair-minded Members of the House would support the decision that we have taken. The most important thing now is that we get a ceasefire in place—that is one of the topics that I will be discussing on Friday—to ensure that the remaining hostages can come out, the desperately needed aid can go in, and we can start the process to a two-state solution, which is the only way to lasting peace.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for championing his constituency, including the work at Rosyth dockyard. The strategic defence review will ensure that defence is central both to security and to economic growth and prosperity. The review will consult widely, including across the devolved nations, and I know that the reviewers recognise the strategic importance of constituencies like his. I will ensure that he gets the chance to meet the relevant Minister to discuss the particular issues in his constituency.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. I am determined to hear this question. I do not expect Members on the Front Bench to be shouting me down, and it will not happen.
Dr Hudson
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The previous Conservative Government committed themselves to rebuilding Whipps Cross hospital and Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow, and to the establishment of a new community diagnostic centre at St Margaret’s hospital in Epping. Will the new Labour Government honour those commitments in full and make progress with those projects, which are vital to improving the health services needed by my constituents? If it helps the Prime Minister at all with his answer, I can tell him that those services will also help some of the constituents of his Health Secretary, just next door in Ilford North.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to champion the hospitals in his constituency. The problem with what the last Government promised was this: they promised 40 new hospitals, but there were not 40, they were not new, and many of them were not hospitals. We need to review what we can do and put it on a sustainable, deliverable basis, but we will do that, and the hon. Gentleman is right to champion those in his constituency.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Last week, I met my constituent Cheryl Korbel, the mother of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, the nine-year-old who was tragically murdered in 2022. Cheryl is campaigning for Olivia’s law, which would compel convicted criminals to attend court to face the judge and receive their sentence. Will my right hon. and learned Friend commit himself to supporting Olivia’s law, and will he meet Cheryl to discuss how we can move this forward without delay?
The Prime Minister
In the King’s Speech, we confirmed that we intended to introduce legislation in this Session so that courts would have the power to order the most serious offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. This is really important, and I know that that is felt across the House, because to deprive victims and their families of seeing the sentencing exercise is to deprive them of justice. I will meet Cheryl; indeed, I have already met Cheryl, and I gave her a commitment last August that we would do this. I repeat that commitment today, and I pay tribute to the campaign that she has led.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We have to be clear about why this decision is being made: there is a £22 billion black hole. The last Government would walk past these tough decisions and pretend they were not there—they would kick them into the long grass—but we are not prepared to do that. Because we are taking tough decisions, we can commit ourselves to the triple lock, and that means that the state pension will increase by more than any loss of the winter fuel payment. But I will just say this: the biggest impact on pensioners in recent years was when the Conservative Government lost control of inflation and allowed energy prices to go through the roof, and we went through a cost of living crisis. We are stabilising the economy to make sure that pensioners never, ever have to live through that again.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Annabel is five years old and lives in my constituency. She has high-risk neuroblastoma. Annabel has endured 15 months of chemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, stem cell harvest, proton therapy, immunotherapy, hair loss and nasal feeding. Now she urgently needs the drug DFMO, which is not yet available in the UK. It must be administered within 90 days of the end of immunotherapy; 91 days is too late. Will the Prime Minister please meet Annabel’s parents to discuss the lifesaving care that she needs?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to Annabel for her incredible bravery. I understand how important it is that cancer patients are able to benefit from rapid access to effective new treatments. The manufacturers of this drug have applied for a UK licence through Project Orbis, which allows the rapid review and approval of new cancer treatments. We will ensure that that process is completed as quickly as possible, and I will also ensure that the Health Minister sets up the meeting that my hon. Friend has asked for.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My choice is to stabilise the economy after 14 years of failure, and I will tell the House why: when a Government lose control of the economy, it is working people who pay the price. I will not let that happen under a Labour Government.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
More than half of people with pancreatic cancer die within three months of diagnosis, and seven in 10 never even receive treatment. Every two minutes in the UK, someone is diagnosed with cancer, but for those diagnosed with the least survivable cancer, time has too often already run out. I am really proud of the Labour Government’s commitment to our NHS, but will the Prime Minister now commit to reviewing the long-term cancer strategy so that we can improve diagnosis and treatment rates in this country?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue; it is the second time it has been raised in this session. I will have a lot more to say tomorrow, when I deal with Lord Darzi’s report. I pay tribute to her for her tireless campaigning, particularly in relation to pancreatic cancer. Cancer patients have been failed by the last Government, and have been waiting far too long for diagnosis and treatment. We will get the NHS capturing cancer on time, diagnosing it earlier and treating it faster, so that more patients survive this horrible set of diseases.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, I am not going to pre-empt the Budget. It will all be set out in due course.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
May I pass on the heartfelt thanks of the Bolton Council of Mosques, which greatly appreciated the dedication and leadership that the Prime Minister showed during the riots over the summer? Does my right hon. Friend agree on the importance of supporting inter-faith and community groups, which play a vital role in bringing people together?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. We owe an incredible debt of gratitude to our police for their courage in dealing with the recent disorder, and we took action to ensure they had the resources and powers that they needed to tackle violence and restore order to our streets. We also provided additional security for mosques, ensuring freedom of worship and protection from racist threats. In the aftermath, we saw communities who really represent Britain coming forward, led by faith groups and community organisations. They showed unity and demonstrated our values of tolerance and respect.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The Prime Minister
We are absolutely committed to the transition to renewable energy, because it gives us energy dependence. It lowers bills and, of course, the next generation of jobs are tied up with it. We have to do it in a cost-effective way, but we will make those decisions in a cost-effective way.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The UK steel industry needs a serious Government who work in partnership with both businesses and trade unions to secure a transition that is right for the workforce and delivers economic growth in Wales. We know that deindustrialisation can be devastating for communities, so can the Prime Minister tell me how the Government are safeguarding jobs and securing the future of steelmaking communities like ours for generations to come?
The Prime Minister
We are taking every step we can in relation to the steel industry because it is vital that we give it the support that it needs. We need steel in this country. We need to steel made in this country, and our plans and our missions mean that we are going to need more steel, not less. It is the duty of the Government to ensure that jobs, communities and people are not ignored in the transition and that jobs are protected. The Business Secretary will provide an update to the House this afternoon.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue, which is important for his constituents. We are committed to putting passengers at the heart of our railways. Great British Railways will work closely with regional government mayors, operators and passenger groups to ensure that rail investment meets the needs of communities, and I will ensure that he gets the meeting he wants with the relevant Minister to discuss the issues in his constituency.
Mr Speaker
That completes Prime Minister’s questions. I will let the Front Benches clear.
Port Talbot Transition Project
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the improved deal that this Labour Government have secured for the workers of Tata Steel, specifically as it relates to its plant in Port Talbot. As well as setting out the details of this improved deal, I am also announcing today our ambition for a new UK-wide steel strategy—one that equips our steelmaking industry with the right support not just to adapt but to thrive in the new green economy. But before I do so, I want to address the situation we have inherited.
Since becoming Secretary of State two months ago, I have had to respond to a series of challenges, not just with the steel industry but in shipping—such as at Harland & Wolff—and in other areas where the previous Government had simply ceased to make decisions and decided to leave them for us to deal with. That was a dereliction of duty and it has left the steel industry in particular in an extremely perilous position. The previous Government had been promising a plan for the steel industry for years. With what I am able to announce today—with the signing of a legally binding deal that enables Tata to order its electric arc furnace as part of a significantly improved package—this Government have made more progress in two months than they made over the previous Parliament. But if we had started these negotiations even a year ago—never mind years ago as they had the opportunity to do—I have no doubt that we would have secured an even better deal for the community.
So I start with an apology to the people of Port Talbot, because they were let down by the previous Government. While this deal is much improved, I acknowledge that it falls short of what would be my ideal. I have, however, been to Port Talbot several times and met the workforce there, along with the reps and the generations of families who have literally forged Port Talbot as we know it. That is why, when Tata first announced that it would be closing the blast furnaces, resulting in some 2,800 job losses, I knew that the workforce deserved so much better. I warned my predecessor not to proceed with what they had negotiated. Why? Because I was confident that the Government could secure a better deal: a better deal for Tata’s workers and a better deal for the people of Port Talbot. And I am able to announce today that this Government have secured that better deal, but I reiterate that if we had had the opportunity that the previous Government had over so many years we could have done more.
The key features are as follows. First, we have agreed a process with Tata to assess investment opportunities for new, additional capabilities that will deliver more secure, long-term jobs than the deal we inherited. This is on top of the plans for the instalment of the electric arc furnace. We have agreed a process with Tata to take this forward, and I will report back to the House on that progress. But this is the most important element, so I am announcing the deal now, rather than after the process is complete, because for Tata to secure the build slot for the electric arc furnace, that element needs to be sorted now. Further delays would put the whole project at risk and could lead to a much worse outcome.
Secondly, in every conversation I have had with Tata’s directors, I have stressed the need to avoid compulsory redundancies wherever possible. I have asked them to channel their efforts instead into job matching and retraining so that the steelworkers of Port Talbot, who have dedicated so much to the industry in the past, can now help shape its future as they will be able to transition and move within the business. As well as that, Tata is agreeing to offer a comprehensive training programme for any employee as an alternative for those at risk of compulsory redundancy. This would be on full pay for one month, then £27,000 a year per employee for 11 months. Tata will fund all those costs. Employees will be able to choose from recognised qualifications to develop sought-after skills that will be in high demand in the local economy now and long into the future. We know, too, that Tata expects that during the construction of the electric arc furnace at least 500 new jobs could be created, which will tap into the local labour market wherever possible.
Thirdly, where we cannot secure new jobs or training, working closely with the unions we have helped to secure improved terms on redundancies. Tata’s employees are now able to express an interest in the most generous voluntary redundancy package the company has ever offered for a restructuring of this size. Employees will now be paid 2.8 weeks of earnings for each year of service up to a maximum of 25 years. At the same time, we are ensuring that there is a minimum redundancy payment—£15,000 pro rata—and a retention payment of £5,000 for employees leaving the business because of these closures. Over 2,000 members of staff have expressed an interest in voluntary redundancy who will be eligible on these terms.
Fourthly, as part of the deal the company will also be releasing 385 acres of its site for sale or transfer. This is valuable real estate which will help bring in more companies and more employers not just from the steel sector but from a whole host of other industries too, helping to diversify the workforce at Port Talbot.
While Conservative Members told us that there was no alternative to the original proposal, we knew that there was, and we have bargained hard for it. And we are putting in watertight conditions within our grant funding agreement for job guarantees to claw back investment if these jobs do not materialise. For example, there is now an improved grant repayment of £40,000 for every job that is not retained post transformation. This money will be repaid directly to the Government and is a powerful incentive for Tata to deliver the 5,000 UK jobs target.
But our ambition for steel is so much bigger and broader than one single company: it is about the whole sector. The UK has always been a proud steelmaking nation, with a rich heritage stretching back to the industrial revolution. From cars to cranes to ships and scaffolding, British steel has been, and is still, used the world over, embodying our industrial might and innovation. Yet for years steel has been a neglected industry in this country. Crude steel production has declined by more than 50% in the last 10 years. Indeed, some proclaimed the industry’s decline would be inevitable in the 21st century—that it was somehow a sunset industry—but those people are wrong: we on this side of the House have never believed that decline is inevitable and while the industry faces challenges today we want to do everything we can to ensure that it can adapt and grow tomorrow.
That is why I am pleased to announce that we will introduce our new steel strategy. As hon. Members know, our manifesto included plans to make available £2.5 billion for steel, on top of the £500 million transformation of Port Talbot. Our intention is to increase our UK capabilities, something the previous Government never attempted, so that we can create a more vibrant and competitive steel sector in the UK.
As part of our steel strategy, this Government will look seriously at options to improve steel capabilities across the supply chain, including in primary steelmaking. We are clear that we cannot prioritise short-term subsidies over long-term jobs, which is why, with the help of independent experts, we will review the viability of technologies for production of primary steel, possibly including direct reduced iron.
Steel is essential to delivering on our net zero goals and building the next generation of green infrastructure, and I know that Labour Members are passionate about that. That is why, under our steel strategy, we intend to use the Procurement Act 2023 to drive economic growth and account for social value in the things that the Government buy and the projects we commission. Work is already under way to increase the role of steel as we build our manufacturing base.
We recognise that, for far too long, Britain’s energy-intensive industries, including the steel sector, have been held back by high electricity costs. More often than not, this has made the UK less attractive to international investors, but we will take action on that. Our clean energy mission will ensure that we are no longer exposed to the kinds of gas price shocks that we have seen in recent years, and that will help British businesses to compete and win in the global market. In support of that ambition, we are working with like-minded nations to tackle global trade distortions, including through our chairing of the global forum on steel excess capacity this year.
Our steel strategy will be developed and delivered in partnership with the steel sector and trade unions, and it will work in lockstep with the Government’s industrial strategy, which will set out our ambition to ramp up investment, strengthen our supply chains and create more well-paid jobs in the places where they are needed most. In order to drive forward our partnership on the steel strategy, I will shortly meet industry experts and interested parties for discussion on the industry’s future. We intend to publish the steel strategy in the spring of next year.
The Government care about steel and the communities it supports, and recognise steel’s fundamental importance to the economy. Supporting steel in this country is about being involved in the detail and shepherding individual plants into the future while protecting the people in them, but it is also about providing a direction of travel, an inspiration for investment and a cause for confidence, so that the sector can play its part in the next 10 years and beyond.
We are not naive about the scale of the challenge before us. Although the situation is still challenging, this is a better deal for Port Talbot than was on the table, and it is the maximum improvement we could make in two months. It represents a better destination and a better transition to the bright future that steel will have under this Government. I commend the statement to the House.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. I wish I could say that I am surprised by any of its content, but the media and the press have, of course, been relentlessly briefed on it over the last couple of days.
It is also no surprise that, once again, Labour is presiding over the demise of our steel sector. Output fell by 47% under the last Labour Government, and 56% of jobs were lost. Today’s deal means that 100% of output will go at Port Talbot. An electric arc furnace will take five years at best to get up and running; some suggest that it will be eight to nine years before a single new job is created, if we see any new jobs at all. As the statement says, this is a transition, but it is a heartbreaking transition for thousands of people—a transition from being in work to being out of work. In his discussions with Tata, why did the Secretary of State not take steps to ensure that the blast furnace will not be closed before the new electric arc furnace opens? Is this not the New Labour playbook—scrap jobs, scrap production and become reliant on higher-polluting countries for imports? That is not what I call decarbonisation. I must say, I feel a little sorry for the Secretary of State, who has been dispatched here to announce these spending decisions just a day after Labour’s day of shame on winter fuel cuts for pensioners.
In government, the Conservatives provided a grant of £500 million towards the £1.25 billion invested by Tata Steel, one of the largest support packages in the government’s history. At the time of the last Government’s announcement, that support was expected to save at least 5,000 jobs in the company. We worked with the Welsh Government and Tata Steel to establish a dedicated transition board to support affected employees and the local economy, backed by £100 million in total. Will the Secretary of State provide an update on any of those job projections?
Today’s announcement is notable for the absence of any reassurance or plans for the thousands of steelworkers in Scunthorpe who may not have jobs by Christmas. Equally notable is the Government’s failure, once again, to provide any detail on the domestic production of virgin steel. The Secretary of State says that we will have a steel strategy in the spring, but thousands of jobs, along with production capacity, have been scrapped today.
It was no surprise that last week, during the urgent question on steel, four times, the Minister for Industry failed to commit to safeguarding the future of virgin steel production in this country. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not need reminding that if he allows the Scunthorpe works to close, too, we will be the only G7 country unable to produce virgin steel. That leaves us open and vulnerable to cheap foreign imports, particularly from China. To his credit, he has always argued against offshoring our steel industry. He conceded once that it would be a “fundamental political mistake”. What conversations has he had with the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Defence about the impact of the Government’s new steel policy on our national security and ability to deliver infrastructure? Will he assure the House that he is doing everything in his power to ensure that we do not lose virgin steel manufacturing in the United Kingdom?
For the benefit of new colleagues, the Government, when in opposition, were committed to £28 billion a year of borrowing to fund their decarbonisation plans—a price tag that has magically disappeared, although the target has not. The Secretary of State made promises about that to the steel industry, but where are those promises now? Where is that money? Is he still battling the Chancellor? We know that Labour’s unions are quite successful in squeezing money from the Treasury, so maybe he can send them to stand up to the Chancellor if he is having problems.
The Government have our support in ensuring that the future of steelmaking in this country is sustainable. That goes beyond Tata and South Wales. Only in Labour’s world can the word “improved” mean fewer jobs and higher-polluting imports. When he returns to the Dispatch Box, I hope the Secretary of State will do better for UK steelmaking.
Jonathan Reynolds
I have been a Member of Parliament for 14 years, in which I have seen some interesting political events, but I do not think I have ever heard a contribution with such brass neck. That is quite something, because there is quite a menu to choose from.
Let me explain what I was doing during polling week, in the lead up to 4 July. Parliament was not sitting, and I was shadow Secretary of State. I was going between key seats, as would be expected, negotiating with unions, Tata, my colleagues in the Welsh Government and every relevant body to prevent action that would have resulted in the entire closure of the Port Talbot works on polling day. It was as though the Government had already gone; they were not on the pitch. The first thing I had to do, before I even became Secretary of State, was ensure that there was something there to save, because it would have gone under the Conservative party. [Interruption.] Conservative Members really need to listen, because my contributions are factually accurate, and I will help them to understand the real situation.
The point of the new investment is to save jobs. There will be better terms for the people who are unable to get the new jobs, including better cushioning during their retraining for entry into the rest of the economy. I have explained why it is a better deal, as I hope the shadow Minister has seen. He mentioned media reports; they have not come from my Department, but I appreciate that there were lots of interested parties. The unions and the Welsh Labour Government recognise that this is a better deal. I hope that the Conservative party recognises, on taking a step back from the statement, why the deal will make such a difference.
The shadow Minister mentioned virgin steel. Let me talk about my frustration about that. He will understand that the two blast furnace sites, Scunthorpe and Port Talbot, lose a great deal of money every day. The managers are so fed up with the lack of action under the last Government that they have put timescales on their closure. The simple truth is that I do not have the timeframe that was available to the Conservative party. Moreover, when it comes to Scunthorpe, I do not yet have the carbon capture infrastructure in place that will be necessary for the ideal solution. I would love to be a position to look at the hybrid solution that the shadow Minister put forward—keeping the blast furnaces open while we bring the electric arc furnaces online—but all the time that could have been used to work on that was during the Conservative Government, and they did not do that work. There are therefore far fewer options available to us, and the situation is far more challenging.
Since I became Secretary of State, I have had many meetings with the UK management about Scunthorpe, and have had three meetings, I believe, with Mr Li, the principal shareholder. I also met him when I was shadow Secretary of State. We have been clear that we want a transition in Scunthorpe, and want to put up Government money alongside what the company may offer, but that has to be part of a transition to the future. The workforce and the route that is offered to them has to be part of that.
Even if we are successful in doing that, my frustration is that the options available are very difficult for the area. The solution I would ideally deliver, which could have been delivered by the Conservatives in those 14 long years, is not available. When Conservative Members leave the Chamber today, I hope they reflect on the mistakes they made, their lack of action, the legacy they bequeathed us and, fundamentally, the improvements we have been able to make in such a short time.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I am not yet Chair of the Committee, Mr Speaker, but fingers crossed. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. I hope the whole House will recognise that what he has brought us today is not a set of sound bites but a strategy. In the long term, that strategy will benefit from a stronger cross-party consensus, so I hope that it can be the subject of a future Select Committee inquiry.
The Secretary of State puts his finger on the key issue: to safeguard the future of the steel industry, we need to de-risk the demand for steel in this country. What reassurance can he give the House about how we will use procurement and, crucially, the creation of a bigger offshore wind industry in this country to drive demand that will keep the furnaces going at Port Talbot and elsewhere? This country pioneered steelmaking; now we need to reinvent its future.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I say to Members, especially senior Members, that when they speak facing the opposite direction from where I am sitting, I cannot hear what they say? Please, speak towards the Chair. That is how we keep neutrality working as well.
Jonathan Reynolds
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are not just seeking to deliver new, improved transition deals for the key sites, but want to improve the overall business and investor environment for steel in the UK. I believe that can be done. The kind of investments in core capacities that we are thinking about could be very successful in the United Kingdom. Obviously, two months is insufficient for the due diligence that is required on some of the elaborate and considered business cases necessary, but the process is about delivering that. We can turn this into an extremely positive story for UK steel.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Steelmaking is of vital strategic importance to the UK. We need it to build the crucial infrastructure necessary to generate sustainable growth and safeguard our national security. The neglect of the steel industry in recent years is just another part of the previous Government’s disastrous legacy.
Today’s announcement is a welcome sign of change. The steps the Government have outlined to help protect jobs and, crucially, to develop a steel strategy are long overdue. We need to finally move on from a patchwork of last-minute rescues to a long-term plan that will set the industry on a sustainable footing. This is true of the steel industry and across our economy. We desperately need a real industrial strategy that works in tandem with this plan for steel.
Will the Secretary of State assure us that his steel strategy will be fully aligned with a wider industrial strategy, and will take a view on steel’s importance to our economy and society as a whole? Will it aim to balance the need for infrastructure, national security and net zero commitments? Will he assure us that he will bring the strategy to this House by spring next year for scrutiny and debate, so that the industry can finally move on with certainty?
Jonathan Reynolds
I very much welcome the hon. Member’s words and her recognition of the improvements that we have made with this deal. Fundamentally, we have recognised the need for a better business environment, moving away from relatively short-term responses to that much better, more secure long-term framework. She will understand that the significant increase in investment that this new Government are willing to make can make a substantial difference. However, the emphasis must be on long-term investments for the future, so that we can secure those long-term secure jobs. There are several different ways that we can do that. I absolutely agree that our method should be aligned with the industrial strategy, and we will be able to make some announcements on that in the near future, leading up to the launch of the steel strategy next year.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
That is incredibly gracious of you, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] I think your words were heard across the Chamber.
May I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and underline the importance of his commitment and the strength of his negotiation? I add my voice to those who talk about the importance of public procurement, but may I draw his attention to the carbon border adjustment mechanism? As I understand it, we have a disadvantage in this area because of how the mechanism was established in the UK. It is due to be introduced on 1 January 2027, which is later than in the EU, clearly disadvantaging our UK producers. Will he update the House on what he plans to do in that area?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and to you, Mr Speaker, for your very skilful introduction. He is right to talk about that wider business environment, and specifically asks about the carbon border adjustment mechanism. We have inherited this situation of the UK being out of line with the EU. Obviously, because our carbon prices are lower, there is a potential carbon barrier to UK exports to the single market. I can tell him that we are looking at that. The carbon border adjustment mechanism is a key part of a wider policy environment that must deliver decarbonisation, which is not deindustrialisation. We must recognise that the current policy environment is not doing that in the way that any of us would want.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I listened to the statement from the Secretary of State with interest. Will he specifically say, first, when the strategy will be published and brought to this House? Secondly, what level of Government investment will be behind the strategy? Thirdly, what assurances can he give to steelworkers across England—at Port Talbot and Scunthorpe in particular—that their jobs will not be put at risk because of steel being dumped in the UK from China?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for her questions. We will see the strategy in spring next year and the resources behind it, including the existing Government allocation for Port Talbot and the new money that the Government will put in. It is a £3 billion clean steel fund, so it is a significant investment. Obviously, I want a certain amount of return from that. I want to work with private sector partners. The kind of capital expenditure that is involved in the transition to green steel requires very significant partners who can deliver. It is not just a question of the Government doing this alone, and I think hon. Members recognise that. Steel safeguards are important. The right hon. Lady will know that steel is a significant part of the existing Trade Remedies Authority protections, many of which relate to China, but not exclusively so, and we keep them under regular review.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s announcement and for reminding us of the role that steel plays in our green transition. He has done more in two months than the Conservatives did in 14 years. Many of my constituents in Monmouthshire, especially in Caldicot and Chepstow, work in the steel supply chain and in steel. Does he recognise that his announcement today has ramifications for the whole of south Wales?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend very much for her question. Let me say again that I wish that we were in a position to do even more, but I can tell hon. Members that this is the maximum improvement that was possible within two months. I know that in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s people are seeking more than anything else a recognition that steel is not a sunset industry. It is vital to the future; it is not the case that it should be in inevitable decline in the UK. Indeed, we are an outlier in terms of the size of our steel industry among comparable G7 and OECD countries. This could be and should be a very positive story, and I am honestly confident that we can deliver that in future.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman mentions procurement, and over countless years we have had statements and new strategies for steelmaking. Will he set out his plans to secure a long-term order book for steelmaking in this country, so that investors can make sure that they get value for money as well as the taxpayer? Equally, how will he endeavour to use the public purse to purchase British steel, while at the same time encouraging the export of British steel to other parts of the world?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question and very much agree with him. As the shadow Secretary of State, I avidly read the statistics that the Department published about UK content in domestic steel procurement. We must recognise that it is usually relatively high, but only in the sectors where we are producing particular grades of steel. Part of the strategy has to look at future demand, not just for what we already produce, but in terms of gaps and business opportunities. If we are improving the business environment, we need not just to help incumbent producers in the United Kingdom transition, but bring in new entrants, creating more competition in the market. I can see that there is significant demand in the market. It is the market that is driving the demand for green steel. I have no concerns about the future order book; it is the business environment taking advantage of that demand that this strategy needs to address.
Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for all his hard work in recent months. It is clear that the delays in the negotiations have had a very real cost. When I was visiting Port Talbot on Friday, what the workers and the management wanted to know was whether those delays had now come to an end. Can he reassure the House that we will do everything we can to make sure that the construction does now get going on the future of this plant?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for recently visiting the site to speak to management and the workforce. He is right about the understandable level of concern in the workforce. Obviously, that is often speculated on in the media, and there is a huge amount of interest in it. I made this statement today because of the need to proceed with part of the plan, and not to lose everything entirely. I also wanted to be able to answer questions such as his and to make it clear that the Government’s manifesto commitment to the steel transition fund forms part of a wider ambition, a coherent strategy, for the future of steel across every part of the UK.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The loss of virgin steel production in Wales is a serious economic blunder that will devastate the community of Port Talbot. Unions have previously called for additional investment of £683 million in Port Talbot to save jobs. Meanwhile, Germany has invested €1.3 billion in decarbonising steel in one region alone this year. Can the Secretary of State explain why he will not match the ambition of the workers here and Governments of other countries to save Welsh steel?
Jonathan Reynolds
The levels of ambition and resource that we have as a new Government are actually greater than the figures that the hon. Lady has just given. To do the work that she describes requires a private sector partner. The Government cannot alone meet the capital expenditure needs. Indeed, to be successful it is better to work with a private sector partner to deliver that. Having a partner to retain virgin steel production is part of what the strategy will be able to address. If I had a partner willing to keep blast furnaces open, I would be very interested in that. However, I do not want to spend this very large sum of money in our clean steel fund on subsidising operating losses for one or two years, which would eat up most of that £3 billion and leave us with nothing at the end of it. I want to co-invest with the private sector for good, secure, long-term jobs, which are much in demand. She is right to say that other European countries have been way ahead of the UK in the past few years, but the level of ambition from this Government not only matches that among some of those European competitors but exceeds it.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the workforce and their unions about this improved deal?
Jonathan Reynolds
The answer is a great many, as my hon. Friend will understand. I have always been conscious not just of the specific impact on the workforce at Port Talbot, but of the fact that some of the big industrial transitions of the past in the United Kingdom, in the north-east of England where I grew up, were not handled well. I think people recognise that. I thought that the previous Government’s levelling-up strategy was a recognition of the long-term damage that was done in the late ’80s and early ’90s by that transition. Getting that right, and showing the workforce that this is a Government who care, have always been paramount. I have been to Port Talbot several times. I last met the community reps a week ago, and was able to have frank conversations with them. In everything that I have said, and will continue to say, I recognise that we wish that we were in a position to do more, but within the parameters of what we had and where we almost were, in terms of the entire loss of the site, I am confident that this is the biggest improvement that was possible in two months. We will always work with them to ensure that we are getting everything that we can for the site.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The wholesale price of electricity in this country is already pretty much the highest in Europe, and it will probably get worse as we shift towards renewables, with the possibility of outages and intermittency. That means that electric arc furnaces will become more expensive. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that suppliers do not, perfectly legitimately, turn to China for its virgin steel, produced in dirty blast furnaces?
Jonathan Reynolds
The right hon. Gentleman will know that this has long been a campaigning issue of mine. I have talked repeatedly about the relationship between decarbonisation and the potential for deindustrialisation, and the policy environment in this country not being fit for purpose to deliver that. On the wholesale electricity prices of energy-intensive industries, for most of the time under the previous Government the UK’s prices were wildly uncompetitive. There was some movement, as he knows, with the supercharger policy near the end. More can be done, and there is an even more exciting longer-term position that we could get to. He will have to wait for the Budget, and maybe the spending review, for some more detail on that, but this issue has to be an essential priority for the competitiveness of the UK. We have to recognise that a lot of the industries that we will transition to are very heavy users of electricity—not just clean steel, but for instance gigafactories. This will be a key tool in the future that we have to do better on than we have in the past 14 years.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this improved deal. I know how hard he has worked over many years, not just in the short term before and since the election, as he referred to in his answer to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). On procurement, will there be a presumption in favour of using British-produced steel both in nationally significant projects in green energy and in defence? That would be in stark contrast to what the previous Government did, in particular with the fleet solid support contract.
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for all his support during our years in opposition, when we tackled many of these issues. He asks about procurement. Of course, anything that we do as a Government will be consistent with international trade rules and our commitment to open markets and multilateralism. There is a legitimate way in which social value can be considered in Government procurement. Given the value and quality of what we produce in the UK, I am very confident in procurement playing a bigger part in the future of the steel industry. On defence and the blast furnaces, he will know that neither Scunthorpe nor Port Talbot plays a direct role in some of the key Ministry of Defence contracts. Sheffield Forgemasters plays more of a role in that. There are more capacities and capabilities that we can look to as a country for opportunities in the future.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The truth is—and the country needs to know this—that the thousands of jobs and the loss of the blast furnaces announced today is because of both main parties’ obsession with net zero. The reality is that blast furnaces have been losing money because of high energy costs caused by very expensive renewable energy, but we are where we are. In the event that Tata does not build the electric arc furnaces that are being promised, will the Secretary of State guarantee the House that the taxpayers’ money will be returned to the taxpayer?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am afraid that the hon. Member is misinformed as to what this is about. The issue is that these sites lose approximately £1 million a day. They have done so for a long time, and the owners are fed up and want to know that there will be a plan for the future. The role of the Government is to make that future better than it would otherwise be were we not on the pitch delivering it. There are issues around the competitive cost of industrial electricity in the UK, but they are not the issues that he says.
On the guarantee that he seeks, he will have heard my statement. The contractual terms of the grant funding arrangement include that clawback capacity, not just for the overall project but even down to the number of jobs retained. Those are the kind of job guarantees that I want in the public-private relationship going forward.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to introducing a new steel strategy. Steel is not a sunset industry; it is critical for our economy and national security. I know that he is a friend of Teesside. Will he give us some clarity on the status of discussions around investment in steel in Teesside at the moment?
Jonathan Reynolds
My hon. Friend is right to make that point. We cannot say enough that this is not a sunset industry; it should have a bright future. We can get this right. On the negotiations, my hon. Friend will know what I have already said about the conversations with British Steel. It is a very challenging issue. We have made it clear that the Government are there to play a part, and we obviously want that to be part of a transition. We have made that as clear as can be. As soon as I have further information, I will update the House.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As a supporter of industrial strategy, I welcome the idea of a steel strategy in the future, but I will ask a couple of specific questions on the detail. First, is it the Government’s policy that the domestic manufacture of primary steel is a strategic industry that must be protected and guaranteed? What do the Government intend to do about the sourcing, either domestically or through the import of coking coal? Earlier, he seemed to suggest that he would not intervene to support British Steel in Scunthorpe. Can he confirm that, if we lose that capacity, we may go five, six or seven years without steel manufacture in this country?
Jonathan Reynolds
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for industrial strategy. I have said many times that there should be, as there is in many countries, cross-party agreement—perhaps not on the detail, but on the premise and what we are trying to achieve. He asks about domestic manufacture and the blast furnaces remaining open. That is of course my preference, but I need a business partner—a company that is willing to do that. I do not think that it would be reasonable to spend the very considerable sum of money that we have pledged on subsidising short-term losses rather than on the ability to deliver new things. He also asks about coking coal. Obviously, that depends on the long-term future of the blast furnaces. That is what they need.
In relation to British Steel, I want a transition plan. My comments earlier were about my frustration that, for me, the ideal deal in a place like Scunthorpe would have been to build the future alongside operating what we currently have. That was available to the last Government; they did not proceed with it. The kind of infrastructure needed for the long-term future of operating blast furnaces would require carbon capture and storage. It was cancelled many times by the previous Government, and is not there. I am heavily constrained in my options, but I am still doing everything that I can to get a deal for the workforce, and to ensure that there is a business there that commands the support of its customers to transition in the future.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on announcing the steel strategy after such a short period in office. The industry has been crying out for it for a very long time. The Conservative party failed the industry by not producing it. Will he say a bit more about what he hopes the strategy can achieve for the steel industry throughout the UK, in particular in Motherwell in my constituency?
Jonathan Reynolds
There are future opportunities, particularly from renewables, some of the steels that will be necessary in the automotive sector, and some of the new technologies that are being taken up around other European countries. There is particular excitement about direct reduced iron. How we deliver the business environment, hopefully with new and existing partners, is absolutely key. I hope that that is what the strategy will deliver.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which shows the priority that the Government are giving steel, in direct contrast with the previous Government, who had absolutely no industrial strategy—it was a real cheek of the shadow Minister to suggest otherwise earlier. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the plans for Llanwern? Its dedicated workforce has been through hard times recently. With support, Llanwern can turn into the finest automotive finishing line in the world. Will he commit to developing that and to safeguarding the future of the plant?
Jonathan Reynolds
I say again that had the election not been called, a statement such as this would not have been not possible. It would have passed us by; that was the situation that we faced. My hon. Friend rightly talks with pride about her constituents at Llanwern, which is an incredibly important and successful part of the industrial supply chain in the United Kingdom. I will ensure, as part of the transition, that the downstream functions, which are so valuable and praised, and which carry such respect in the industry, are protected, and that the transition plan does not disrupt the business model, which is, again, proof of the sector’s success and of future opportunities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement, and I welcome his endeavours, which I think we all recognise, to create firm foundations for the sector as it moves forward. I also recognise his commitment to Harland & Wolff, to which he referred. That is indeed great news, not just for workers but for the construction sector in Northern Ireland. However, the steel industry faces the problem of affordable energy, which he mentioned in his introduction. Will he safeguard the long-term sustainability of that and other industries by immediately addressing the energy price crisis and implementing the necessary long-term green energy fixes?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for his support for what we have announced. Having a competitive environment is an absolutely key issue. I am already having extensive conversations with the Chancellor and key Cabinet colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, about the way to do that not just in the short term but in the longer term, when we will clearly have a significant renewable energy base. There are a lot of exciting options available, including in how we use some of that capacity in areas of low consumer demand. I can tell him that that is a key priority for getting this right in future.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the deal that he has announced. As a former British trade commissioner to India, I assure him that it is a better deal from a better and more serious Government than the Conservative Government. Will he tell the House what direct conversations he has had with Tata about future investments in the UK?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Although I know that the workforce has, at times, been frustrated by Tata’s plans, I understand why Tata itself was frustrated by the previous Government and how long it took to do the deal. In opposition, I had extensive conversations with Tata to build the kind of relationship that has been necessary to deliver something like this. I met executive chair Chandra at Davos and then flew to Mumbai, as colleagues may remember, to build that relationship. I also saw him yesterday, alongside the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, because he was in the United Kingdom. We are continuing those conversations and working with all partners to deliver the kind of opportunities that we think will be available in the UK in future.
Patrick Finucane Murder
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the death of Patrick Finucane.
Patrick Finucane was a human rights lawyer. On 12 February 1989, he was brutally murdered in his home in north Belfast by loyalist paramilitary group the Ulster Defence Association, in front of his wife, Geraldine, who was wounded, and his three children, one of whom is now the hon. Member for Belfast North (John Finucane). From that day onwards, Mrs Finucane and her family have campaigned tirelessly in search of answers about the killing of their loved one.
In 1990 an inquest was opened and closed on the same day with an open verdict. Subsequently, a number of investigations and reviews were conducted. In 2001, following the collapse of power sharing, the UK and Irish Governments agreed at Weston Park to establish public inquiries into a number of troubles-related cases, if recommended by an international judge. Judge Peter Cory was appointed to conduct a review of each case, and in 2004 he recommended that the UK Government hold public inquiries into four deaths: those of Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill, Billy Wright and Patrick Finucane. Judge Cory also recommended that the Irish Government establish a tribunal of inquiry into the deaths of former Royal Ulster Constabulary officers Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen. Inquiries were promptly established in all those cases, with one exception: the death of Mr Finucane.
Meanwhile, in 2003, the third investigation by Sir John Stevens into alleged collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries had concluded that there had been state collusion in Mr Finucane’s killing. That investigation was followed by the conviction in 2004 of one of those responsible, Ken Barrett. With criminal proceedings concluded, the then Northern Ireland Secretary, Paul Murphy, made a statement to Parliament setting out the Government’s commitment to establishing an inquiry, but despite a number of attempts, the Government were unable to reach agreement with the Finucane family on arrangements for one.
In 2011, the coalition Government decided against an inquiry. Instead, a review of what had happened, led by Sir Desmond de Silva QC, was established. Sir Desmond concluded that he was left
“in no doubt that agents of the state were involved in carrying out serious violations of human rights up to and including murder.”
The publication of his findings in 2012 led the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, to make from this Dispatch Box an unprecedented apology to the Finucane family on behalf of the British Government, citing the
“shocking levels of state collusion”—[Official Report, 12 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 296.]
in this case.
In 2019, the Supreme Court found that all the previous investigations had been insufficient to enable the state to discharge its obligations under article 2 of the European convention on human rights. The Court identified a number of deficiencies in the state’s compliance with article 2. In particular, Sir Desmond’s review did not have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses; those who met Sir Desmond were not subject to testing as to the accuracy of their evidence; and a potentially critical witness was excused from attendance. In November 2020, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced that he would not establish a public inquiry at that time, pending the outcome of continuing investigations, but that decision was quashed by the Northern Ireland High Court in December 2022.
This Government take our human rights obligations, and our responsibilities towards victims and survivors of the troubles, extremely seriously. The plain fact is that, two decades on, the commitment made by the Government to establish an inquiry into the death of Mr Finucane—first in the agreement with the Irish Government, and then to this House—remains unfulfilled. It is for that exceptional reason that I have decided to establish an independent inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane, under the Inquiries Act 2005.
I have, of course, met Mrs Finucane and her family—first on 25 July to hear their views, and again yesterday to inform them of my decision. Mrs Finucane asked the Government to set up a public inquiry under the 2005 Act, and, as I have just told the House, the Government have now agreed to do that, in line with the 2019 Supreme Court ruling and the Court of Appeal judgment of July this year.
In making this decision, I have, as is required, considered the likely costs and impact on the public finances. It is the Government’s expectation that the inquiry will, while doing everything that is required to discharge the state’s human rights obligations, avoid unnecessary costs, given all the previous reviews and investigations and the large amount of information and material that is already in the public domain. Indeed, in the most recent High Court proceedings, the judge suggested that an inquiry could
“build on the significant investigative foundations which are already in place”.
As part of my decision-making process, I also considered whether to refer the case to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. The commission has powers comparable to those provided by the 2005 Act to compel witnesses and to secure the disclosure of relevant documents by state bodies—powers identified by the Supreme Court as being crucial for the Government to discharge their human rights obligations.
The commission was found, in separate proceedings in February this year, by the High Court to be sufficiently independent and capable of conducting article 2-compliant investigations, and while I am committed to considering measures to further strengthen the commission, I have every confidence in its ability, under the leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, to find answers for survivors and families. However, given the unique circumstances of the case, and the solemn commitment made by the Government in 2001 and again in 2004, the only appropriate way forward is to establish a public inquiry.
Many of us in this House remember the savage brutality of the troubles—a truly terrible time in our history—and we must never forget that most of the deaths and injuries were the responsibility of paramilitaries, including the Ulster Defence Association, the Provisional IRA and others. We should also always pay tribute to the work during that time of the armed forces, police and security services, the vast majority of whom served with distinction and honour, and so many of whom sacrificed their lives in protecting others.
It is very hard for any of us to understand fully the trauma of those who lost loved ones—sons and daughters, spouses and partners, fathers and mothers—and what they have been through. There is of course nothing that any of us can do to bring them back or erase the deep pain that was caused, but what we can do is seek transparency to help provide answers to families and work together for a better future for Northern Ireland, which has made so much progress since these terrible events. I hope that the inquiry will finally provide the information that the Finucane family has sought for so long.
The Government will seek to appoint a chair of the inquiry and establish its terms of reference as soon as possible, and I will update the House further. I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for advance sight of it and his courtesy call this morning. I am particularly grateful to him for bringing it forward before recess. I know the deadline that the Court gave him was 27 September, so it was important that we had the chance to hear the Government’s position and ask questions before we rose for conference recess.
The murder of Patrick Finucane, like so many murders during the troubles, was a dreadful act of violence that must not be forgotten. The Opposition stand by the findings of the 2012 de Silva report that while there was no evidence of an overarching state conspiracy in the case of his murder, there were shocking levels of collusion—something for which the then Prime Minister, now Lord Cameron, rightly apologised to the House in that year. I fully appreciate the Secretary of State’s desire to bring the matter to a close after a very long period, and I know that a full public inquiry will do it, but I wish to ask serious questions about the decision to choose a full public inquiry over one of the alternatives that he mentioned.
It is clear that the Finucane family, who have suffered so much, are owed a further and deeper investigation. That much was made clear by the Supreme Court’s finding in February 2019, when it noted that the de Silva report had not been able to compel witnesses or take its evidence in public. In other words, it had not been article 2 compliant. However, as the Secretary of State said, this year the Belfast High Court concluded that the ICRIR was capable of conducting an article 2-compliant investigation and was sufficiently independent to do so.
My first question to the Secretary of State is: given that the ICRIR has powers to compel witnesses and take evidence in public, what is it that a full public inquiry will be able to do that the ICRIR cannot? This is important because the ICRIR is already fully staffed and active and could begin work quickly, whereas the establishment of a full public inquiry and the building of that team will inevitably take time. Given the opportunity for further delay, I ask him to set out for the House what steps he is taking to ensure that the public inquiry is conducted as quickly as possible. Can he give an undertaking to have appointed a chair and agreed terms of reference before the end of the year, say? In his statement, he referred to the High Court proceedings, where the judge suggested that an inquiry could
“build on the significant investigative foundations which are already in place”.
I hope that will mean that we can have terms of reference relatively fast.
Similarly, in the Secretary of State’s conversations with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, has the Secretary of State set an expectation of time and costs? We know from previous public inquiries that unless these things are considered early on, the inquiries can take a long time and cost a great deal.
On the issue of the ICRIR itself, I am pleased to hear that the commission has the Secretary of State’s confidence. We agree that it is showing itself to be an excellent and effective body with a highly capable chair. I note that it was also the creation of the previous Government. It was created, as he knows, by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which his Government have committed to repeal. Indeed, the House will appreciate that a large part of that legislation is given over to the creation of the ICRIR. I ask him to reassure us that he has no intention of repealing that part of the Act.
Returning to the public inquiry that has just been announced, there is one other issue on which we should seek clarity today. In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to the “unique circumstances” of the case. It is important that we understand exactly what those unique circumstances are, because it is important that the Government do not unwittingly set a precedent for many more public inquiries. As a veteran of the Cabinet Office, I became acutely aware of a danger that public inquiries could cease to be the exception and become the rule. Given that there are thought to be thousands of murders from the troubles still unsolved, there is a risk of setting a precedent that would make inquiries the rule. There will be those who ask that if there is to be a full public inquiry in one murder case, why not in another, or in many others? To avoid that happening if this case is, as the Secretary of State says, genuinely unique, the Government have a responsibility to set out why that is. We must not risk turning the system of public inquiries into a more routine process. I am sure that he will feel the same way, and I ask him to make that commitment. I thank him for his statement.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the Opposition spokesperson for his opening remarks, and I will respond directly to his very legitimate questions.
What is unique about this case—I apologise for the length of the opening statement but I thought it was really important to take the House through the history—is the commitment given on two previous occasions by the Government of our country that there would be a public inquiry. To come to his last question, it sets no precedent, but there were exceptional circumstances relating to this case that led me to take this decision.
I will of course, especially as the Finucane family have been waiting 35 years, seek to establish the inquiry as quickly as possible. We have to appoint a judge. The judge then has to be consulted by myself about the terms of reference. The time it takes will depend on how the inquiry unfolds. I am acutely conscious of cost—the hon. Gentleman’s point was extremely fair—which is why it seems to me that, given all the material and information that is already out there, what the inquiry can most usefully do is not seek to go over all of that, but interrogate the information, material and witnesses as necessary. As the Supreme Court made clear, that is what has been missing that led it to conclude that this was not article 2 compliant.
We have a commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, and we will begin that process shortly, finally laying to rest the conditional immunity. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Government have said about civil cases and inquests. On the independent commission, while I shadowed this role in Opposition and since taking up the office of Secretary of State, I have been very clear that while we want to return to the principles of the Stormont House agreement, there needs to be information recovery and there needs to be continuing investigation. It is true that the agreement envisaged two separate bodies, but those functions are combined in the ICRIR. As I have been very frank in saying, now that body has been established and all its staff appointed, I really do not see the point in abolishing it only to recreate something that looks very much like what we have today. It is a pragmatic decision that I have taken. I also made clear in my statement that I am committed to considering further steps to strengthen the ICRIR’s independence and its powers as necessary. I hope that provides the hon. Gentleman with the reassurance he was looking for.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
On 17 January 1989, Conservative Minister Douglas Hogg claimed in Parliament that solicitors in Northern Ireland were
“unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 January 1989; c. 508.]
Seamus Mallon MP responded that he had
“no doubt that there are lawyers walking the streets or driving on the roads of the North of Ireland who have become targets for assassins’ bullets as a result of the statement that has been made tonight.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 January 1989; c. 519.]
Three weeks later, lawyer Pat Finucane was shot 14 times and murdered in his own house in front of his wife and three children.
I commend Geraldine Finucane and the Finucane family, including of course the hon. Member for Belfast North (John Finucane), on their tireless campaigning to get to this point, and I thank the Secretary of State for finally doing the right thing on behalf of the British Government in announcing this inquiry. When does he envisage the inquiry beginning?
Hilary Benn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his appreciative words. He alludes to a very, very unhappy history in this and many other cases. I do take the point made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) about all the pain and suffering that all families have experienced, but in this particular case, I have decided that this inquiry is the right thing to do.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The murder of Patrick Finucane remains a shocking crime even now, 35 years on, and even in the context of so many tragedies that took place during the troubles in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the thoughts of everyone in the House are with the family of Patrick Finucane, as mine are. They have suffered for so long waiting for answers after that terrible day, and I hope that the independent inquiry announced by the Secretary of State will go some way towards bringing at least some closure for the family after all these decades.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and his announcement of the independent inquiry, but does he agree that there is a need to acknowledge the wider need for truth and justice in Northern Ireland? In contrast to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), I ask him whether he will come to the House with a wider statement on repealing the legacy and reconciliation Act, which of course the Liberal Democrats opposed in the last Parliament, and talk more widely about the role of legacy in Northern Ireland, which of course is so important. Can I also ask the Secretary of State to clarify the ability of this inquiry to compel documents and witnesses, and like others, can I ask about the timescales of the inquiry? I am sure he agrees that Patrick Finucane’s family have waited long enough already.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the inquiry, and I am very happy to give him and all Members of the House an assurance that as we develop our proposals, I am in the process of talking to lots of people about how to give effect to the “repeal and replace” commitment that was in the Gracious Speech. I will, of course, come back to the House with proposals in due course and keep it informed. The honest answer to the question he and other Members have put is that I want to get on with this inquiry as soon as possible, but I have certain duties that I have to undertake in order to give effect to it. However, after this long period of time, let us get going with this inquiry as soon as we possibly can.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
The brutal murder of Pat Finucane in front of his wife and children was mired in collusion before the killing, as it has been in the many long years since. Today is about the tenacity of the Finucane family, including my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Belfast North (John Finucane), but it will have resonance for many other victims of the troubles whose needs have, for many years, been put behind the needs of the victim-makers who want the truth to remain covered up. I am so glad that the truth may now finally out for this family.
As the Secretary of State knows, many other families have faced obstruction from state and non-state actors in their quest for truth and a reconciled future. I am thinking of families such as those of the victims of Freddie Scappaticci, the family of Sean Brown, and many others. Will the Secretary of State commit to the same swiftness and determination in removing the barriers that have been placed in front of those families in their quest for truth?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Member has alluded to a number of cases. Of course, we are awaiting the final report on Operation Kenova, the interim report having been published early this year. I undertake and make a commitment, as any holder of this office would do, to carefully consider each individual case and reach what I think is a sensible way forward. Collectively, there is a huge task for all of us in playing our part in enabling families to find out answers that they have not yet had.
In that context, I welcome the ICRIR’s announcement on Monday this week that it has had 85 inquiries and has already agreed to start looking into eight cases. That is significant, because there are those who say that no one should go anywhere near the ICRIR because of its origins and parentage, if I may use that phrase. However, having taken the decision that the ICRIR will remain in place, it does have powers. It has the ability to get information and to question people, and it has said that it wants to develop what it calls a system of “enhanced inquisitorial proceedings”, which is public hearings. Of course, hearings in public are really important to many families, because they want the truth to come out and to be able to ask questions, but, crucially, for justice to be seen to be done.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Can I press the Secretary of State further on the issue of other families? Months ago, under the previous Government, those families saw a Bill—which I did not support—repressing and restricting their ability to have inquests. Today, they see a full public inquiry being announced for another family. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what personal engagement he will have with those families? Inevitably, they are going to say, “We have got a public inquiry in this case, but we are being asked to wait in the queue for this legacy Bill inquest body.” They will think something is not right about that.
Hilary Benn
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who was such a distinguished holder of the office I now hold, for raising that point. Over the past three weeks, I have met a number of those families whose inquests were brought to an end—some because of the 1 May portcullis that came down and brought an end to the inquests; others because the coroners had said, “We don’t think we can take this any further because of issues to do with confidential material.” I undertake to the House to reach a decision in those cases and inform the families as quickly as possible.
As I have said before, one of the reasons why we made our commitment in relation to the legacy Act is this: what is it about this part of our United Kingdom that means citizens should be denied the right to bring a civil case—which is what the Act did—and to have an inquest? That cannot be right and proper, which is why this Government have made that commitment.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I am sure all colleagues give thanks that Northern Ireland and its people now live in peace. Can the Secretary of State tell us how he thinks this announcement will help contribute to continued and meaningful reconciliation in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
For one family, this now provides a process, but I am very conscious that many other families will say, “What about us?” That is why we need to find the most effective means to get to the truth, and that is part of the reason, as I have explained, why I decided that we would not get rid of the commission. I have met Sir Declan Morgan a number of times, and I have confidence in his ability to do his work. We have to find practical means of providing answers to all of those families, so that they feel their story can be told and they can get what they have been looking for. The point I wish to emphasise again to the House is that this particular case is exceptional for the reasons I set out in my statement.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
One of the things the Secretary of State did not outline in his statement was that the Supreme Court considered whether it was appropriate not to proceed with a public inquiry, and that the Supreme Court agreed, provided that an investigation could satisfy article 2 compliance. He has said today that the ICRIR not only has his trust and confidence, but has the ability to perform such tasks for other families. So when he rightly says that families across Northern Ireland will ask the question, “What about us?”, so too do I, because the most exceptional circumstance about this is the exceptionality of treatment. Over 1,200 families still have neither truth nor justice, and if the plans enacted last year continue, they will never get justice. I would ask him, in repudiating the ICRIR and suggesting today that it is not an appropriate mechanism for the Finucane family—and I do not besmirch their grief or their quest for truth and justice—but it is appropriate for every other, how can he honestly look victims in the eye and say that there is not a hierarchy?
Hilary Benn
There should not be a hierarchy, and the right hon. Gentleman and I shared reservations with—indeed opposition to—the legacy Act because it did cut off lots of routes to justice. In the end, I think families should have the opportunity to avail themselves of inquests and civil cases, but the commission is now in existence. The honest answer to his question is that in this particular case, and this does not apply to any of the others, the Government of our country made a commitment twice—once at Weston Park, and secondly by the then Secretary of State—to establish a public inquiry. I think it is right and proper, the Government in the past having made that commitment, that we honour it, and that is the answer I would give him.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
The state collusion in the murder of a human rights lawyer in front of his wife and children is an incredibly serious matter that chills us all, so I very much welcome the decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane. It is a decision to be welcomed, and it is a good signal from our new Government that they are meeting their commitments and obligations. However, this very welcome announcement must of course be followed by the action that the Secretary of State has rightly outlined. Will my right hon. Friend therefore give further reassurance to this House that all necessary resources will be provided, so that there can be truth and justice in this incredibly important matter?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for what he has said. Having made this decision, I think all of us would recognise the need to get on with it as swiftly as possible.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This is a bad decision today. It will cause anger and further hurt for the many hundreds of families who have not had justice for the murder of their loved ones, including the mass murder of Protestant workmen at Kingsmill, the blowing up of Protestant workmen at Teebane and the horrendous murder of worshippers at Tullyvallen, among others. I think the Secretary of State has to explain to the House why, after tens of millions of pounds have been spent on inquiries and reviews of this case, he still believes it is necessary to acquiesce in the demands of the family by having another inquiry. How does he justify it to those hundreds of families that no such resources will be put in place to seek out the truth about the murders of their family members? Given the record of inquiries of this nature being a golden goose for barristers and solicitors in Northern Ireland, how is he going to ensure that the costs are capped?
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Member recounts some of the terrible murders, and I have myself met, as I am sure others have, the only survivor of the Kingsmill massacre and heard at first hand the truly chilling story of what happened on that day. First, considerable resources are now being given to the independent commission, and it is important to recognise that, because it has a huge task on its hands. I hope others will come forward to the commission to avail themselves of what it can offer.
Secondly, and I have said this to other Members in answering their questions, in this particular case a commitment was made twice, and I think it is important that we honour it. We also have to recognise in this particular case that the Court held in 2019 that all of the investigations—I accept what the right hon. Member said about them and their extent, and of course they involved the expenditure of public moneys—did not meet the requirements of article 2. Faced with that, and faced with the quashing at the end of 2022 of the decision of a previous Secretary of State not to call an inquiry pending further investigations, it has fallen to me to look at this and to decide how we are going to go forward. I have set out my reasons as clearly as I can hope to do.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Will the Secretary of State clarify that he has now ended any opportunity for the families and loved ones who still held out hope that there would be an inquiry into the death and murder of their loved ones at the hands of terrorists across Northern Ireland? Is he saying that the only opportunity for them is to go to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery—an organisation that does not have the full support of the communities of Northern Ireland and does not have the support of and has been queried by many of the families who have lost loved ones? Can I just seek clarity from the Secretary of State that he is saying to those families that their only opportunity for truth, recovery and justice is to go through this organisation, and that he will not engage with them about a further inquiry?
Hilary Benn
I say to the hon. Gentleman that the independent commission should not be the only opportunity open to them. That is why I have indicated that this Government will restore civil cases, and we will restore inquests in the first instance in those cases where they had been brought to an end by the legacy Act. I agree with him that it would be quite wrong if one was to say that there was only one route, denying people—the families—the rights to inquests and civil cases that apply in all other parts of the United Kingdom. That was one of the things about the legacy Act that was so profoundly wrong. It did not say that we were going to establish a new body and people could use that route, but could also use the other two—inquests and civil cases—that had been available to them thus far; it shut those other routes down. That is part of the reason why the legacy Act was so widely opposed in Northern Ireland. I must be honest that it will take time, because it will obviously require primary legislation to deal with the bit of the legacy Act that stopped the inquests and the civil cases, and that will flow from the consultation I am currently undertaking.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We should all put on record our thanks to the hon. Member for Belfast North (John Finucane), his mother Geraldine and all the Finucane family, who have campaigned for so long, as have so many others, for this inquiry. I recognise the difficulties in prescribing what an inquiry should do, the cost of it and the length of time it should take, but can the Secretary of State tell us roughly when we can expect to establish the inquiry in its formal setting? Can he give some kind of outline timetable for how long it will take to hopefully bring about a resolution, after the disgraceful murder of Pat Finucane all those years ago?
Hilary Benn
As I have already indicated, I will seek to establish the inquiry as quickly as possible. How long it will take is ultimately in the hands of the judge when he or she is appointed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As he understands, the Democratic Unionist party stood against the legacy legislation, in the interests of pursuing justice for victims. What he says today will give hope to families such as those affected by Kingsmill. I had an Adjournment debate on the Kingsmill massacre in the last Session. On 5 January 1976—48 years ago—10 innocent men who just happened to be Protestants were murdered with weapons that were linked to 40 other serious Republican terrorist crimes over a 15-year period. Information has indicated that the perpetrators were helped by the Garda Síochán. Clearly some of the Garda Síochán had IRA sympathies. It could be said that by their very position, they were agents of the state of the Republic of Ireland. Will the families of those 10 innocent Protestant men be granted the same path to justice as the Finucane family? If no inquiry is granted on Kingsmill, it will be perceived—and indeed will be proven by the Secretary of State himself—that a two-tier system of justice for victims has been clearly enshrined by this Government. How disappointing, how disgusting, and how angry that makes me.
Hilary Benn
I am sorry to have disappointed the hon. Member. As I indicated, having met the one survivor of the Kingsmill massacre, I have some appreciation of just what an appalling and brutal event that was, at a time of many appalling and brutal murders. There has been an inquest, which concluded recently. As I recall, it held the Provisional IRA responsible for that murder. I am sure that the families want to proceed further, and one of the options open to them is to go to the independent commission, but at the risk of repeating myself, I need to point out that I came to my conclusion because the Finucane case is exceptional, for the reasons that I have tried to explain.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
May I begin by apologising to the Secretary of State and the House for being absent at the beginning of the statement? Secretary of State, has there ever been a family given more preferential handling by Government than the Finucane family? They have had a prime ministerial apology, multiple investigations, inquiries and now an uncapped public inquiry, after the family rejected previous Government offers of inquiries. Is not the tragic takeaway from the statement that the ICRIR is good enough for innocent victims of the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force and others, but not good enough for the Finucane family? Why is the Secretary of State perpetuating that odious hierarchy of victims?
Hilary Benn
I am not, is the answer. I know that the hon. Member was slightly late in coming to the Chamber, and from the beginning I set out my thought process. He will have an opportunity to read my statement subsequently. I clearly set out the reasons why I reached this decision. It is a fact that when the then Prime Minister David Cameron apologised from this Dispatch Box, it was unprecedented, because he referred to shocking collusion in this case. We Members of this House should take that extremely seriously, all of us who are committed to upholding our obligations. We were faced with two promises to establish public inquiries. I accept what the hon. Member says about that not happening after 2004 because of the then stance of the Finucane family, but that has now changed. There is also the Supreme Court decision of 2019; it said, I am afraid, that for all that had gone before, the state had not complied with its article 2 obligations. We will now do so.
Bill Presented
Renters’ Rights Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Angela Rayner, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Secretary Liz Kendall, Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, Secretary Ian Murray and Secretary Jo Stevens, presented a Bill to make provision changing the law about rented homes, including provision abolishing fixed-term assured tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies; imposing obligations on landlords and others in relation to rented homes and temporary and supported accommodation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 8) with explanatory notes (Bill 8-EN).
Building Safety and Resilience
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before we begin the general debate, I remind the House that on Wednesday last week, Mr Speaker renewed the waiver relating to matters sub judice in respect of ongoing or adjourned Grenfell Tower inquests and cases relating to cladding. This is to allow debate to take place on relevant policy matters, including the phase 2 report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry and the Government’s response to it. The waiver does not permit discussion of the details of individual cases. I remind hon. Members of the likelihood that both civil and criminal proceedings in the courts will follow in the coming months and years. Members will want to take special care to avoid saying anything in this House that could prejudice a future trial.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered building safety and resilience.
I rise to open this debate on the critical issue of building safety and resilience, following last week’s publication of the Grenfell inquiry’s final report. Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s findings on an entirely avoidable national tragedy were devastating, and I begin by remembering the 72 people who died, 18 of them children, in the biggest loss of life in a residential fire since the second world war. I pay tribute to the bereaved, the survivors and the wider Grenfell community, who have waited too long for the answers and justice that they deserve. It is thanks to their tireless crusade for truth, accountability and change that we are here today.
The final report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry represents a defining moment in the journey for justice. As Sir Martin stated:
“The simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable, and those who lived in the tower were badly failed over a number of years and in a number of different ways by those who were responsible for ensuring the safety of the building and its occupants.”
The report shines a light on a terrible culture in the industry in the years leading up to the tragedy—a culture of putting profit before people, and a culture in which safety took a back seat. It reveals a building safety system that was fundamentally broken, with deficiencies that went unchallenged by different Governments. The consequences of these failures are still with us today; there are too many buildings with unsafe cladding and the pace of remediation has been too slow. We will consider all the recommendations in detail, and we will respond within six months. As part of that work, we will listen to and engage with the bereaved, survivors and residents in the immediate community. We will update Parliament annually on progress against every commitment we make. As the Prime Minister said,
“There must…be more radical action to stop something like this from ever happening again.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 313.]
The recent fire in Dagenham showed us the dangers that many residents continue to face. My east London constituency is among those with the most cladded high-rise blocks in the country, so I have long campaigned for the urgent remediation of affected buildings, and I know that Members across the House grapple with similar issues in their constituency. I have seen at first hand how relentless the work can be for residents who are trying to get remediation started. Our constituents not only have to endure the fear and uncertainty of living with unsafe cladding, but face the higher insurance premiums and service charges that go with it. The delays are holding people back. They cannot make plans or get on with their life. They live in fear. They feel stuck.
As Minister for building safety, I am honoured to have the opportunity to work alongside the Deputy Prime Minister to make things right and ensure that last week’s moment of truth becomes a legacy of change, so that no other community has to go through that suffering. We will bring the full power of Government to bear on this task. Above all, we will accelerate the pace of remediation and go further and faster to drive change across the industry.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank the Minister for what she just said. On the remedial works that will be done, some will be in the public sector; most will be in the private sector. In many cases, residents are paying the price in very high insurance premiums, as she rightly acknowledged. Could those residents who have suffered a great deal of stress and cost over the past few years expect some form of compensation for their losses, because of the failure of Government and the industry to undertake the proper remedial works?
Rushanara Ali
We recognise the impact on those with high insurance premiums. We will take action to protect them, and will have the necessary dialogue to address the right hon. Member’s points and ensure that there are not high insurance premiums.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
Does the Minister agree that firefighters and the Fire Brigades Union need to be listened to, and that the Government need to deliver the statutory advisory body to ensure that the lessons of Grenfell are learned?
Rushanara Ali
We have already had discussions with key stakeholders, including firefighters and the head of the FBU. We want to ensure that we speak to all relevant stakeholders. We need to work across a range of institutions to get this right and tackle the root causes of fire risk.
I want to focus on the number of affected properties. The remediation of 4,630 residential buildings above 11 metres is being monitored by my Department. For half of them, remediation has started; 1,350 have completed remediation. However, counting the buildings that we know about is not enough. We estimate that as many as 7,000 buildings that need remediation have not yet applied for the cladding safety scheme. That is a maximum estimate—there may well be fewer than that—but those responsible for those buildings have no excuse for failing to apply. We will work with regulators to ensure that the buildings are identified.
Several hon. Members rose—
Rushanara Ali
I will make a bit more progress. We will ensure that dangerous buildings are found and dealt with. The money is there. The speed must increase. We are not leaving this task just to regulators; the Government must do more, and this Government will do so.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. It is absolutely right that the Government should be providing support, including financial support, for those buildings that need work done urgently. Of course, the problem is that the building safety fund has different rules and criteria for buildings in the social housing sector and those in the private sector. When the Prime Minister spoke about Grenfell, he spoke about the discrimination and poor treatment of social housing tenants. Will the Government rectify that by making social housing providers equally eligible for help from the building safety fund?
Rushanara Ali
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this matter. I served on the Communities and Local Government Committee under his chairmanship many years ago and learned a great deal from his work. The Government have committed up to £400 million in grant funding for the removal of Grenfell-style cladding in the social sector, and social housing landlords can apply for the grant schemes in particular circumstances, but we are working with regulators and the sector to ensure that social landlords assess the progress of remediation work. There is much to do, and I look forward to working closely with him on that and the wider agenda.
Since 2017, some progress has been made, including the Building Safety Act 2022, which Labour supported. But what is clear is that the speed of work to fix unsafe cladding is not fast enough. The recent fires in Dagenham and Slough underlined the vulnerabilities that persist in our built environment. Since coming into office, we have met regulators and other industry partners to press for action to make buildings safe. We are contacting all metro mayors in England to ask for their support in driving forward local remediation acceleration plans, working in partnership with regulators.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment, which, in trying to put right these wrongs, is to one of the toughest jobs in Government. I wish her all the best.
One of the things that would help is to improve the skills throughput in the construction industry. In my constituency, only one large block has had its cladding completely removed, and that started five years ago—it has taken that long to deal with it—so those that have had no work started are way behind. One big brake on that is skills in the construction industry. What are the Government doing to improve and enhance skills in that sector?
Rushanara Ali
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention on this really important agenda. I will say more about the remediation action plan and our response. The Prime Minister committed to making sure that we respond to the recommendations of phase 2 within six months, and we will certainly be looking at those recommendations. The point she makes, which is very important, has been raised with me over the past few months. I am also familiar with those concerns as I raised them myself when we were in opposition.
I turn to enforcement action. Our message to building owners is clear: those who fail to make their buildings safe will face enforcement action. The funding is there: the Government have committed £5.1 billion to remove dangerous cladding, and industry is providing the rest. All blocks of residential flats above 11 metres now have access to a scheme to fix unsafe cladding. Qualifying leaseholders are protected by law from crippling bills for historical safety defects.
As the Prime Minister made clear in his speech in the House last week, we will take the necessary steps to speed this up. We are willing to force freeholders to assess their buildings and enter remediation schemes within set timetables, with a legal requirement to force action if that is what it takes to tackle industry intransigence. As I mentioned, we will set out further steps on remediation this autumn.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend to her new position; I know that she will be a firm advocate for those thousands of people who are still waiting for remediation to be done on their buildings. While we need to have partnerships with the big housing builders to meet our target of 1.5 million, some of those same developers are still dragging their feet on doing the remediation on homes. Will she assure residents in my constituency and across the country that part of the deal those developers may be doing with other parts of her Department will be about taking seriously their remediation responsibilities for those buildings?
Rushanara Ali
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important point. A number of developers have already signed agreements on the remediation agenda. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the whole Government have made the clear commitment to building the 1.5 million homes. These are two sides of the same coin. We have to make sure that buildings that are not safe are made safe, and that the future homes that we build are safe and secure and address the needs of our country. She made important points, and we are very much on the same page.
There is no excuse for a building owner not to enter a cladding scheme that they are eligible for. Any owners who fail to do so will be held to account. We will not sit by while they fail to act. As well as acting now to keep people safe, we are learning the lessons from Grenfell for the long term. We are investing in and supporting local resilience to deliver strong planning, response and recovery. The Department has provided £22.5 million in core capacity and capability funding to local resilience forums since 2021. These are fundamental to our national resilience, and the Department will continue to consider every opportunity for further strengthening them, including by supporting the Cabinet Office to shape and develop the programme of engagement with local stakeholders through the resilience review.
We will ensure robust oversight, strong regulatory frameworks and an unwavering commitment to accountability at every level. That means reforming the construction products industry that made this fatal cladding. Those who compromise that safety will face the consequences. That means taking steps to make the necessary improvements. My written statement last week focused on improving the fire safety and evacuation of disabled and vulnerable residents in high-rise residential buildings in England. In our first weeks in office, we have resolved an important recommendation from the Grenfell inquiry’s first report—five long years after it was published.
The Home Office will bring forward proposals this autumn for residential personal emergency evacuation plans—residential PEEPs, as they are known. Residents with disabilities and impairments whose ability to evacuate could be compromised will be entitled to a person-centred risk assessment. This will identify appropriate equipment and adjustments, supporting their fire safety or evacuation, as well as a residential PEEP statement that records what they should do in the event of a fire. We are getting that important work going by funding social housing providers to deliver residential PEEPs for their renters. The Government will engage with representative groups as these plans are developed. The Home Office plans to lay regulations as soon as possible, with a view to the proposals coming into force in 2025-26.
In addition, we have made progress on delivering sounders—evacuation alert systems for new buildings—to reduce the likelihood and impact of future fires, as recommended in phase 1 of the Grenfell inquiry report. We will consider recommendations from phase 2 regarding construction products shortly, as I mentioned. As the House is aware, we have also announced the withdrawal of the outdated national classes for fire testing standards in favour of the more robust European standards, and we will update approved document B to make provision for sprinklers in new care homes. Last week, we also announced a further £2 million in grant funding to reopen the waking watch replacement fund, and to support more residents in buildings with fire safety defects to put in place common alarm systems. to help them keep residents safe.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Minister has talked about support for high-rise buildings in my constituency. My local authority has removed cladding from several council blocks, including one I grew up in, which are of four storeys or fewer. What support will the Government be able to give lower-rise blocks, and what checks will they do?
Rushanara Ali
The evidence shows that the risks tend to be in the high rise, and that has been the focus, but there are arrangements to ensure that lower-rise buildings with safety issues are addressed. We need to look at these issues in the round. It is important that we do not miss anything, but in the Department’s work so far, the bigger risks have been in the higher rise. I take the hon. Member’s point, and where there are issues with lower-rise buildings, we are very much willing to look at how we provide support.
Dame Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way to Members across the House. As she said earlier in her remarks and just touched on again, sometimes recalcitrant developers are really reluctant to pay and do not engage with residents. There is a danger that those residents will be left at the bottom of the heap as they compete for skills, products and so on. I am sure she is mindful of that, but is she able to give those residents any comfort about the pressure the Government can put on those recalcitrant developers, to help get on with the work and make them pay later?
Rushanara Ali
Having dealt with such cases in my own constituency, I am very aware of the challenges. The Prime Minister made it clear that if further action is needed we will take it, but we will use the existing laws and the powers we have to take action now. I assure my hon. Friend that officials are working closely with Members of Parliament to support them and their constituents, to ensure that action is taken. I hope that I can meet colleagues regularly to support them, with officials, to ensure that those who are intransigent do the work that they are required to do. We will take action, and we will work with Members to ensure they get the support they need.
In response to the recent fires in Slough and Dagenham, the Government are supporting local teams to assist those affected. Firefighters also attended a fire in my own borough—a high-rise building in Blackwall. I am very grateful to emergency workers for their bravery and quick response to those and other incidents. Following the fire in Dagenham, at a roundtable of regulators and partners the Deputy Prime Minister made clear that fixing unsafe buildings must happen faster.
Members across the House will share our resolve in wanting the findings of the Grenfell inquiry to be a catalyst for change. I want to assure the House that we will hold a further debate on the Grenfell inquiry report in the autumn, which I know many Members will want to contribute to. It will be an opportunity for them to share their insights, to discuss the specific recommendations that have been made and to work with us to bring about the change that is urgently needed. In the meantime, we will support the Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service as they complete their investigations and bring prosecutions.
This is about delivering justice and accountability, but it is also about treating everyone, regardless of where they live, with respect. In that spirit, we are listening to those affected. We are engaging with residents, local authorities, housing associations and others in the fire safety community to ensure that our policies and actions reflect the concerns of those affected. We are setting an expectation of industry to ensure that residents are listened to, protected and have peace of mind that action to make their homes safe is a matter of priority and taken seriously. Looking to the future, we will ensure that the security, health and wellbeing of residents and their wider communities will drive our mission to build 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament.
We will never forget the Grenfell Tower tragedy on that night in June 2017. Over the past seven years, the bereaved, survivors and the immediate Grenfell community have campaigned relentlessly to protect their fellow citizens, despite their personal loss and pain. As the Prime Minister said, in the memory of Grenfell we will change our country and we will bring the full power of Government to bear on this task, because that is the responsibility of service and the duty we owe to the memory of every single one of the 72 lives lost.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I would like to open by sharing the commitment of His Majesty’s official Opposition to supporting the Government in ensuring that, in particular, the legislation brought forward in the previous Parliament, broadly with cross-party support, to address the issues that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) and colleagues have outlined following the Grenfell fire, takes full effect through regulation and implementation across the sector. It is absolutely clear, as was stated by the Leader of the Opposition during the Prime Minister’s statement last week, that we share the Government’s determination to ensure that everybody in our country is able to feel safe in their home, and that risks, whether they are known or might emerge from the continuing research into this field, are properly addressed. We will do our very best to work with her and colleagues in a constructive manner to ensure that that happens.
Today’s debate is also an opportunity to consider many of the broader issues around building safety that will come into play as we consider the Government’s plans to reform our planning system, increase our housing supply, bring in new forms of building into the United Kingdom and reform building regulations. A great deal of the report from Sir Martin into the Grenfell incident focuses on the role played by building regulations and their operation in the market for materials and design in the terrible disaster that took the lives of 72 people.
However, we should not waste an opportunity to consider more broadly how other parts of our housing system and our planning system can ensure that risks that might emerge in the future are dealt with effectively. For example, we are aware when a planning application comes forward that the safety and resilience of a building is not simply down to its construction and materials; it is also affected by its location, its proximity to other sources of risk and its design from its very inception. They all have a part to play. We know from points that have been made in the past by Members from across the House about the role that housing plays in the context of public health that, in the capital, for example, air quality is often worse indoors than it is outdoors as a result of buildings designed with poor ventilation and poor mechanical systems. That creates a long-term health and safety burden for residents which can be alleviated by giving due consideration to better design and resilience at the initial stages.
I encourage the Government to consider, as they embark on this process, how to manage some of the very complex interactions when seeking to improve the safety of buildings where there are freeholders, leaseholders and tenants all occupying some of the same space. I am aware, from experience in a local authority, that Hillingdon council had to go to court on 16 occasions to gain access to council properties to undertake basic maintenance and servicing work to installations against the will of the occupier, even though that work was being carried out at no cost to the tenant. That demonstrates some of the practical difficulties that that complex relationship can create in ensuring that local authorities and others are able to fulfil the duties that this House and the legislation place upon them.
It is also clear, from both the Grenfell report and other research, that the drive towards building efficiency, in particular energy efficiency, has created a risk of a loss of focus on safety. We know that this has been part of a global move to recognise the need to address climate change through better quality insulation and the more efficient construction of buildings. Increasingly, we see buildings being brought forward with modular construction of different types. Hotels arrive in a shipping crate: pre-constructed rooms are simply stacked up and then given a brick skin. Frame-constructed homes are a significant part of the delivery of the housing market. These provide an opportunity to make the available funds go further and create more homes more quickly. That is extremely welcome, but we need to ensure that the risks that might be associated with some of those forms of construction, especially where they take place at scale, are properly considered. I would like to hear a little more from the Government in due course about how the broader context of building safety and resilience will take those matters into account.
Mr Betts
Would the shadow Minister like to reflect on the fact that around four years ago the previous Government set up a committee to look at modern methods of construction, but the last investigation showed that it had not actually met? It is important that we get this right. We can see the problems with timber-framed homes and all the difficulties they caused in the 1980s. It is important we get the techniques and construction right, but there was a bit of a gap in the previous Government’s approach, was there not?
David Simmonds
Of course, it is embarrassing to hear that. Again, from experience of local government, I know that a great deal of work has been put in to ensure that modern methods of construction are put forward for Government consideration. Often there are exemplars around the country of how new estates and new homes have been delivered. There is certainly no lack of evidence on the opportunities available.
We also have an opportunity to reflect on the many challenges in our current housing stock, and in other types of buildings such as schools and hospitals. Once upon a time, aerated concrete and asbestos were regarded as wonder materials, and house builders and Governments would have been considered inefficient if they had not ensured their use. We now know that they have created problems and risks that require significant levels of expenditure to remediate.
That brings me to another important point: building resilience is not just about homes. The BBC recently did an excellent piece of work commemorating the original Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which was implemented by Government following a number of quite appalling incidents, mainly in factories, where significant loss of life occurred because the design of buildings meant that, in the event of a fire, for example, it was difficult or impossible for people to get away.
We know that school buildings have been destroyed and that thus far not a single school has been fitted with sprinklers where fire has resulted in total loss of the building. The cost of installing that equipment at the design and construction stage is relatively modest compared with the impact of retrofitting it, so there is an opportunity for the Government to reflect on how, as we take forward their strategy on investment in new schools, we ensure that that resilience is, as far as possible, built in and that the full cost to the taxpayer that occurs when a hospital or a school is lost is considered. We must reflect also on how we ensure that office buildings and factories under construction meet the highest possible standards, especially as they often face many of the same challenges around new materials and new forms of design that are intended to make them more efficient but potentially bring in risks that it is our duty to foresee and prevent as far as we possibly can.
We will shortly consider the Renters’ Rights Bill. That will have a wider impact, especially on the build-to-rent sector. We have seen new forms of developer coming into the market with the specific intention of constructing, from the outset, long-term rental homes.
Emily Darlington
I welcome the shadow Minister’s comments about working cross-party. One thing we need to do is establish the facts, the reality of what is going on, and the confusion left by the previous Government. People are being told by mortgage providers that they need an EWS1 form, but by freeholders that they do not. They are stuck, going back and forth for years. Would he like to take this opportunity to recognise the confusing legacy left by his Government and apologise to all the thousands of people who are stuck in places feeling that they have no place to go?
David Simmonds
Given the broad cross-party consensus in the last Parliament about the importance of the new forms of legislation and the regulation that follows from it, I think we should seek to maintain that consensus as far as possible, but as somebody who in a previous life worked in banking and as a mortgage adviser, I know that the challenges around the mortgageability of properties, especially properties of novel construction, go back many decades. For instance, a very limited number of lenders will provide for properties located above shops, because of that particular sets of risks. EWS1 was a similar example; despite apparent clarity from Government, there clearly was a lot of debate within the sector and some lenders preferred to go belt and braces, demanding the provision of something that was not required by law or regulation before making a lending decision—and the then Government did significant work in the previous Parliament to bring clarity and address those problems.
That is a helpful introduction to a point that I want to touch on briefly: the role of the insurance industry, both in the challenges that will follow from Grenfell and in the wider experience of our constituents. Many people find themselves significantly challenged because, owing to a lack of clarity or to uncertainty about the construction of their building, they face significant insurance costs, sometimes to the point where only one insurance provider is available. Others face very significantly increased costs because of the behaviour of a landlord who seeks to apportion the insurance costs across all the properties in their portfolio, rather than according to the risks of a specific property that a particular tenant or leaseholder inhabits. It would be helpful for the Government to give some consideration to how they can work with the insurance industry to ensure that those who are paying for insurance are paying a fair price and that it provides the necessary cover that mortgage lenders, for example, will expect.
It is clear that, as well as the strong commitment we on the Opposition Benches can give to support the Government and the Minister in taking forward the regulations and ensuring that they address the concerns that have been expressed, we must also make the most of an opportunity to consider wider issues of building safety. In London, for example, there are significant numbers of Bison blocks, constructed with pre-stressed concrete—at the time, it was considered a wonder material and a means of delivering significant numbers of new homes efficiently and at a low cost—which have particular structural risks around them that local authorities across the capital and the wider country have had to address. We have also heard a little bit about the role of the fire service in carrying out inspections and prosecutions where properties are found not to meet the fire regulations.
All those points are indicators of risk across the system, and there is an opportunity for Government to ensure that Ministers have a clear line of sight so that such indicators can be effectively addressed. If there is a role for we politicians to play in local government and here in Westminster, it is to ensure that all these other people are doing their job. I promise that the Opposition will support the Government as they seek to achieve that, and I hope that together we will be able to take this work forward effectively, so that all our constituents can sleep safely in their beds.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), to her position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) said in an intervention a few moments ago, it is probably one of the most challenging and difficult jobs in Government. We all saw the struggles faced by Conservative Ministers who had to deal with these issues over many years; indeed, we are still struggling because we have not got to the position that we would all like to be in.
I want to comment on the many reports produced by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in the last Parliament and the one before, when I was privileged to chair the Committee. We produced two reports after Grenfell, following Dame Judith Hackitt’s initial report on the issues to the Government. We also did pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill, followed up with a report, did quite a lot of work on things like construction products, and had correspondence with Ministers on those subjects. Every one of our reports was agreed unanimously by that cross-party Committee, and I am pleased that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), has indicated the Opposition’s support for the general approach to these matters; we all want to see building safety carried out on all the buildings in our constituencies in a timely and proper manner.
As I was looking back at Dame Judith’s report and deciding what I should say today, as well as picking out one or two bits of the Select Committee’s work, something struck me. She said that it was about not just building rules and regulations but culture. The Grenfell report clearly sets out that there needs to be an overall comprehensive review to avoid the gaps in regulations. That is absolutely right, and the Government will no doubt follow that through and report on what they are going to do, but Dame Judith said that there was a “race to the bottom” culture in the building industry—that it was about how cheaply could things be done. That was shown in Grenfell, as there were examples of cheaper products being substituted for others.
In the end, the safety of individuals was put behind financial returns. Unfortunately, that is far too common in the construction industry. The Minister may even struggle more with that fundamental reform to attitudes and culture than she does with the review of building regulations, which will be a struggle enough itself. That has to be borne in mind right the way through. Nevertheless, we look forward to the Government’s response to all the recommendations of Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his inquiry.
The Minister said in a written answer to me the other day that about 4,000 homes still have dangerous cladding on them. After all this time, that really is quite shocking. I wonder whether the Minister might consider updating that figure regularly—maybe placing it in the Library every three months—so we can all look at whether progress has been made quickly enough. She might even like to provide a list of all the buildings, their owners and their developers so we can start to see who the guilty parties are. Some have legitimate reasons for not having made changes yet, which we want to know, but others simply are not interested in getting on with the work that is their responsibility.
There are some other problems and challenges that the Minister might also like to address. My attention was drawn to a particular block that could access the building safety fund for the removal of cladding, but not for other safety work that needed to be done, including replacing missing firewalls and dangerous fire doors. That is okay when developers are involved, who should be pushed to put right their wrongs of their construction, but in this case, the developer had gone bust and the building was owned by its leaseholders. Where did they go in that situation? Well, actually, the building work just stopped.
We ended up with a building safety fund that is not comprehensive—the Select Committee recommended it cover all aspects of building safety work—and covers just cladding, and because other elements of building safety are not covered by the fund, there are situations where buildings are left unsafe and there is no one really to point the finger at and say, “They’re responsible.” The Minister probably cannot give me an answer to that point today, but I hope she will think about it. If we can start to identify precisely where these buildings are, many more such situations may emerge.
Where there are recalcitrant developers and owners, how can the leaseholders get help? As has been mentioned, they are often faced with high insurance costs and enormous worries about what happens next in their life. The Select Committee talked to people who were in despair, and that was a few years ago; they are probably still in despair now because nothing has changed in their situation. On top of that, they can be faced with legal costs to challenge the developers and owners. Can the Minister give us some assurance that her Department and officials will stand ready to offer all assistance possible to leaseholders in that situation, who are really struggling and desperate in many circumstances? The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership has done good work in providing assistance, but the technical and legal advice should really be coming from her Department.
I wanted to mention one or two other key issues, although if I tried to go through all the building safety issues that came up in the Select Committee, I would be here for a lot longer than today’s debate. Skills have been mentioned. When the Committee looked at the Building Safety Bill, we recommended a national system of third-party accreditation and registration for all professionals working on the design and construction of high-rise buildings. That did not include all the people who work on buildings, such as labourers and those with other skills, but all those involved with professional skills—whether it be architects, those overseeing construction work or building safety managers—should be properly accredited, and there ought to be a national system. It is clear that there are gaps in that regard.
As for those who work in the trades involved, it is a disgrace that under building electrical safety regulations, it is still the case that the only rules relate to “competent persons”. In a high-rise building, an electrician who does work in a kitchen where there is water, or in the garden where there is water, will not be covered by any building safety regulations. An electrician who does work in the bathroom will be covered, but will have to be part of a competent persons scheme—which does not mean that the person doing the work must be competent; it simply means that the company must be registered as having someone who is competent to sign off the work at the end of the day, even if the person never sees the work that has been done. The Committee reported on that several times back in 2015 and never got any further with it, so it needs to be looked at.
Construction products were clearly a problem at Grenfell, and I welcomed the comments about that in the Grenfell report. We called over and over again for a comprehensive review of the testing of products and their safety. We called for the publication of information not only about the products that had been tested and found to be safe, but about those that had failed. What Dame Judith Hackitt found initially in her review was that companies were going from one testing house to another with their products until they found one that passed them. No one was ever notified of the failures, and that cannot be right. Sir Martin Moore-Bick has called for more transparency over product testing, so can we ensure that failures are reported, as well as successes?
In all the costs of Grenfell, while developers are being held to account to some degree, not one construction product manufacturer has been asked to pay a single penny towards the cost of building remediation, although many of them are clearly responsible for some of the problems. Why is that? We pushed the then Government about it. We last wrote to the relevant Minister in March last year. The Government commissioned a report by Paul Morrell on construction products and safety, but never responded to it in detail. Will this Minister now look at it and give a response? Will she look at the testing and categorisation of products, and at how manufacturers can be made to pay some of the costs that should not fall on leaseholders or on social housing providers?
I am pleased by the recommendation in the Grenfell report that building control officers should always be appointed by an independent third party. The developers should not be choosing—in some cases—their own friends to sign off a building. In the case of the highest-rise buildings, the building safety regulator is now responsible for appointing building control officers.
Jeremy Corbyn
Let me compliment the hon. Gentleman on all his work on this. Does he agree that one of the problems is the systemic underfunding of local authorities—leading to the inadequacy of all their inspection regimes, building control in particular—which has had such a devastating effect on the quality of building in so many parts of the country?
Mr Betts
Yes, I do. The Committee has made many recommendations in many reports about the whole issue of local authority funding and the squeezing of resources in respect of services of this kind, given the priority that authorities have to give to social care in all its forms and, now, temporary accommodation. As well as the question of resources, however, there is the question of independence. The building control officer will be beholden to the developer, whoever the developer is, because the developer will say, “If you give me a difficult time on this building, I will not give you any work for the next one.” That must be stopped. The last Government would say that they did so in respect of the highest-rise buildings, but it needs to be stopped for all buildings, and I am pleased about what Sir Martin said about that in his report.
Let me now return to the issue of social housing. I am sorry, but I must tell the Minister that I am not going to let it go away. Both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister made comments about the discrimination against and bad treatment of social housing tenants. For a long time we have had the attitude that this is poor housing for poor people who do not really matter. We must challenge that, because they do matter. Landlords in the social housing sector, housing associations and councils, will always do their best to make buildings safe, and in some cases—because there is no access to the building safety fund unless they can show that they cannot do the work, and they can always find some money to do it—that will mean squeezing the headroom in the housing revenue account or housing associations’ business plans. That squeezed headroom would otherwise be available for the building of new homes.
If the Government want to build 1.5 million new homes—and I fully support that; I think it is one of the best commitments that they are making—they will not be built by the private sector alone. A substantial number of social houses will have to be built, and that requires HRA resources and resources in the housing associations’ business plans. The more we squeeze them with other responsibilities that are not financed by the building safety fund, the less money will be available to build new social housing.
Emily Darlington
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point about the impact on the HRA. We had two such buildings where the council had to deal with compartmentation with no support from the Government, and had to rehouse 300 families in just under a year, per best practice. Does my hon. Friend agree that the pressure on councils has been much greater than it has been on private developers to move quickly on remediation and removal?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I must remind Members that contributions are made through the Chair, so it is important to make eye contact with the Chair rather than with the Minister on the Front Bench.
Mr Betts
I am sure you appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I always want to make eye contact with you. [Laughter.] I probably will not be called again for a long time after that.
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend that while social landlords in particular should take their responsibility seriously, and I think that most of them do, many are struggling.
My final ask of the Minister is this. Given the urgency of the issue, will she agree to meet me—together with Kate Henderson, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, and the representative of the local council who recently produced an excellent report about funding for council house building—to discuss this issue and the extra challenges that it poses to both housing associations and councils at what is a difficult time?
Let me end by thanking all my colleagues who were involved in the Select Committee in the previous two Parliaments. Its new Chair is to be elected today, and I offer to help and support whoever it is in any way I can, because I am sure that this issue is one that the new Committee will want to address.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Let me begin by congratulating the Minister and welcoming her to her position.
As we have already said in this Chamber, the Liberal Democrats welcome the final Grenfell report. We want to record again our thanks to the families of the victims, and, of course, the survivors, for giving their testimony, their experts and their statements to the inquiry; we know how difficult that will have been.
Much has already been said today about the issue of cladding, so I will not say anything about it in my speech. As other Members have pointed out, this is not just about the remediation of cladding; there are many other fire safety issues in buildings that need to be remedied. This is a debate about building safety, and we must discuss other matters.
There are various fire safety issues in various buildings in my constituency, particularly—I am sure that other Members will have correspondence about this in their inboxes—the need for fire door remediation. Either the fire doors were inadequate when they were installed in the first place, or they were installed incorrectly. That needs to be fixed, but the developers, the building owners and, through them, their management companies are not taking responsibility for it. Indeed, they are trying to pass the buck and make the leaseholders and the tenants pay for the replacement of the doors where that is necessary, and using defects periods that may well have expired as an excuse for not taking up those issues and not paying for remediation. In one instance, one of the leaseholders commissioned a survey before the expiration of the defects period, which identified problems with the fire doors, but the developer is still claiming not to be responsible for replacing all the fire doors in the building, although they are of identical design, and the developer has accepted responsibility for these particular doors. This is an example of where the construction industry is, unfortunately, not taking responsibility for the issues that it has created, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
There are other fire safety issues, which we will all have seen in our inboxes. Some of them will be things that we in the construction industry—I have worked in it for many years—describe as patent defects, which can be seen. When someone comes across a patent defect, they can see that something does not work, but there are many latent defects, which are hidden in the depths of a building and cannot be seen by the naked eye. Those defects become apparent much later, and we need to provide a way to help leaseholders by ensuring that they do not have to shoulder the financial burden of rectifying them. Such defects are fundamental to the building—for example, there are safety issues around gas pipes that have been incorrectly installed. In some cases, it has been found that there is inadequate shielding around the pipes, as happened in a building in my Chelmsford constituency. I could go on and on about other fire safety issues, but I know that other hon. Members want to speak and I have quite a few things that I would still like to say.
There is a huge backlog of issues that need to be remedied, and the Minister talked about the number of buildings that need to be remediated. I spoke to a fire safety expert from a local authority—not one in my constituency—who is responsible for looking at all the buildings in the authority’s housing stock. They had to put together a report that had to be submitted by the deadline, which I believe was earlier this year. When they tried to submit it to the Health and Safety Executive, the HSE said, “Whoa, hang on! Don’t submit it now—we can’t cope. We’ll let you know when we want to receive those documents. It may well not be until 2029.” So I would say that the number of buildings the Minister talked about is definitely an underestimate, and I urge her to discuss this issue with the Health and Safety Executive to see what other resources it might need to be able to move more quickly. Let us remember that people are living in buildings that they have officially been told are not safe. Every single night, they go to bed knowing that their families and children are sleeping in buildings that are not safe.
We do not know the full extent of the problem, and there are many recommendations that can come out. We can talk about how the construction industry operates and so on, but let me talk briefly about the planning system. When we are talking about fire safety, it strikes me as very strange that the fire services are still not statutory consultees on planning applications for high-rise buildings over 18 metres. Of course the fire services are experts in fire safety, yet we do not make them statutory consultees. That feels very strange to me, and it feels like a big oversight. I urge the Minister to look into that.
Members have talked about historical issues and the need to remedy them. I point out to the Minister and everyone present that these issues are not just historical. I am aware of buildings less than two years old that have fire compartmentation problems and missing firestopping. This is an ongoing issue. As one fire safety expert put it to me, “After everything that happened with Grenfell, developers are still getting away with it.” This is a systemic problem, and there are many reasons for it. It is partly driven by finances and other things, but as the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, it is also a cultural problem. There is a lot that we need to work on.
I will briefly admit to a slightly guilty pleasure: I quite like watching the programme “Air Crash Investigation”, which might seem a bit macabre. I do not want to give the impression that the airline industry is perfect, but I big up those in the airline industry. The industry investigates issues and crashes, works out what went wrong, and then does not point the finger of blame, no matter where the fault lies. It looks at how such issues could have been avoided, and how it can make sure that they do not happen again in the future. If only we could make the construction industry do the same and change the culture, rather than shrugging our shoulders, saying, “Well, it’s not my fault,” and blaming the subcontractor, the manufacturer or whoever. Having worked in the construction industry for a long time, I know that that happens a lot. If we could change the culture to be more like how the airline industry investigates problems, I would be very happy to see that.
There is another industry that the construction industry could learn something from. I have just mentioned fire safety issues and things that need to be remediated, and I am sure that many people in the Chamber have been issued with safety recall notices, whereby motor manufacturers have to recall cars and fix the safety issues. If there is a problem with the brakes, or anything in the engine is a safety issue, they recall the car and fix it at their expense. I would like to see something similar happen in the construction industry, so that people take much more responsibility.
I come back to leaseholders, because it is incredibly important that we remember the implications for them when there is delay and things are not fixed. Not only is there a fire risk—as I mentioned before, we have people who are on 24-hour watch. Other Members have mentioned the difficulty with getting mortgages. At the moment, many leaseholders cannot sell their properties and move on. That has implications for the housing crisis, because it means that there is less churn in the housing industry, as fewer people are able to move out of their flats and allow other people to move into them. That is exacerbating the crisis. As others have mentioned, there is also the problem of insurance.
Like other hon. Members, I am concerned that social landlords are not eligible for Government funds to remediate buildings, leaving many of the most vulnerable people at risk. I urge the Government and the Minister to listen to the National Housing Federation, which represents hundreds of housing associations, and the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign on these issues. I remind the House that the Liberal Democrats have been calling for the removal of dangerous cladding from all buildings, and we need to make sure that leaseholders do not have to pay for it.
To reiterate what I said earlier, this should not be just about cladding. There are other serious issues, particularly firestopping. Fire doors are incredibly important. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said to the Prime Minister just last week, we need the Government to step in and provide the cash up front to carry out the remediation in some circumstances, and then they should go after those responsible. That would alleviate a lot of suffering.
Finally, I would just like to say that fire safety is not a luxury. It should be seen as a right.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I would like to put on the record the thanks of my constituents in Kensington and Bayswater, which includes the wider Grenfell community, for the cross-party support last week when the phase 2 report of the Grenfell inquiry was published. We thank the Minister and the Government for making time today and for committing to future time, and we thank the Prime Minister for his statement and heartfelt apology on behalf of the British state for what happened. He spoke for us all, including the Leader of the Opposition.
The Grenfell legacy obviously has lots of dimensions, but one of them is building safety. I urge Members to remember the 72 victims of the fire, whose legacy has to be fixing this crisis. After the report was released, there were three immediate actions that the community wanted me to advocate in this place. The first was about criminal prosecutions, which is not a matter for discussion today. However, as the Justice Secretary mentioned in questions yesterday, it is important that we ensure that the court system is prepared for any potential decisions that come through the Metropolitan police and CPS process, and that court backlogs and the complexity of any potential trials do not result in even further delays to justice.
Secondly, the accountability of the companies is not just about criminal investigations; it is about their role in public procurement and paying for remedial work. We need to continue to push on that. Finally, we are discussing policy changes today to ensure that this never happens again, but the pace of change has been far too slow. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said, that is partly due to the culture of how tenants—social housing tenants, in particular—are treated and about their agency and power and respect. There are tens of thousands of people up and down the country who are still going to bed in buildings that are unsafe.
In my constituency—quite incredibly, given the history of Grenfell—we have one of those buildings that is not yet on the Department’s list. It underwent a fire inspection just a few months ago and flammable rendering was found. This is a good example of what many Members have mentioned. It is a building with approximately 50% social tenants and 50% shared ownership leaseholders, who have scraped together the money to get on the housing ladder and have now been hit with a £400 a month increase in their service charge, primarily driven by the dramatic increase in insurance after the fire inspection took place.
I agree with the shadow Minister’s call to look at the insurance market, because in that case there was not a competitive bid for insuring the building. I know there has been a discussion with the Association of British Insurers to see how we can bring down the costs, but I urge the Government to look at this, because in the short term, while we wait for the remedial work to take place, the situation is simply unaffordable for those leaseholders. I certainly think we need to look at the insurance industry. In addition, that building is another example of the merry-go-round of buck passing that we talked about last week between local government, national Government, developers, freeholders and housing associations.
We need clear timelines to speed this up, and I really welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment on that. We need incentives in the system—carrots and sticks—to ensure that we do not have these never-ending situations where leaseholders and tenants are unclear about when the work will be done. As the Minister said, the money is there, so this is about knocking heads together and making sure that, at an individual building level, we get the speeding up that we need. I will write to her about the specific building that I have mentioned.
Speeding up this work is obviously part of the answer, but the recommendations from phase 1 and phase 2 of the Grenfell inquiry are also relevant. They go beyond cladding, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned. I really welcome the Government’s announcement last week that residential personalised emergency evacuation plans for disabled people will be taken forward. It is a big frustration for many of my constituents that that did not happen under the previous Government. We look forward to more detail on what those PEEPs will look like. I urge the Government in the comprehensive spending review to look at funding, for multiple years, for social landlords to implement that and at a scheme to ensure that developers and freeholders cover the costs for private buildings.
We are all still digesting the full phase 2 report, and there will be time to go into it in more detail, but one recommendation that I urge the Government to think about straightaway is the streamlining of accountability in terms of ministerial responsibility and the regulator, so that we do not have a dispersed system between multiple Departments that makes it easy for things to fall through the cracks, as Sir Martin Moore-Bick made clear in his report. I hope we will have time to discuss that in detail.
Finally, on the question of who should pay, I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that he will be writing to the companies and looking at exclusions in the public procurement process to ensure that companies referenced in the Grenfell report will not be able to access public tenders. I also put on the record my thanks to the golfer Shane Lowry, who yesterday—belatedly, but he got there in the end—removed the sponsorship of one of the companies mentioned. I will not mention it by name, just out of caution. More broadly, these developers clearly need to need to pay for the remedial work.
The campaigners have done an incredible job, as the Minister said in her opening remarks. Their ask has always been for truth, which we now have from the inquiry; for justice, which we hope will come from the criminal prosecution system; and for change, which it is on all of us in this House to deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Peter Fortune to make his maiden speech.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have learned from the potential misstep of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and I promise to gaze at you throughout my entire speech. A maiden speech is, by tradition and design, quite light-hearted, and that is how I have fashioned mine, but I want the House to be in no doubt that this debate is on a very serious issue. I welcome the cross-party conversation about the disaster at Grenfell, and I know that my constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill send their thoughts and prayers to the victims and survivors and their families, and to others who have been impacted.
It is obvious that I represent the finest constituency in all of this great United Kingdom. Before I set out my case, let me say a few words about my main predecessor—noting, of course, those communities we welcome from the constituencies of both Beckenham and Orpington. The majority of my new constituency, however, is inherited from Bromley and Chislehurst and Sir Bob Neill KC. Sir Bob was and is a creature of this House, a magnificent speaker, a bon viveur and a good friend to many in this Chamber. Bob dedicated his adult life to service. He started as a councillor before moving to the Greater London Council. The GLC, of course, met its demise in 1986. Bob, unperturbed, simply hung around until it was reinvented in 2000, when he became the first assembly member for Bexley and Bromley.
In 2006, on the passing of the much-loved awkward squad Member Eric Forth, Bob fought a difficult by-election to become the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. For nearly a quarter of a century, Bob has been part of the fabric of our community, always ready to fight for those who needed a voice. Bob has a deep admiration and love for the law. He has held many positions in politics, but I believe that it was as Chairman of the Justice Committee that he reached his pinnacle. His knowledge and depth of understanding have been of unquestionable benefit to the House, but his love of the law is trumped by a love that is much deeper. It is not West Ham. It is not opera. It is not even Gibraltar, to which I know he has given so much time. His greatest love is for Ann-Louise, the woman, the wife and the friend who has made him so happy. Members will know that fate took a particularly callous decision early on in their relationship, but they will also know that Bob and Ann-Louise faced that challenge with their typical resilience and humour. I thank him for his service, and for the graciousness and kindness with which he has always treated me, and I wish his family well.
Before I move on to making the self-evident case that Bromley and Biggin Hill is the greatest constituency that has ever existed, I want to make a note of another previous Member for Bromley: the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. As Minister for housing, he took on the responsibility of meeting new and ambitious housing targets. He was not keen at first, writing in his diary in 1951 that it was
“not my cup of tea at all”.
Despite his concerns, he met the inflated target a year early, and changed the lives of families right across the country by presenting them with the opportunity to live in a safe and secure home. I wonder how he would feel—this links to the substance of the debate—if he knew that residents of North Point in Bromley are still suffering due to a cladding crisis that is no fault of their own. This is an injustice that has gone on for too long, and it is vital that the whole House work together to free those who are impacted from the shackles of poor governance and lack of accountability.
Before I talk further about the constituency, I would like to say thank you to the best people I know. I cannot linger here for too long or I shall be reduced to an emotional puddle, but I must recognise my beautiful family, without whom I am nothing. My extraordinary children make me so proud, and I am blessed with the most beautiful, talented, funny and patient wife in Anna-Marie. She is the most wonderful and kindest person I have ever met; I will never be good enough for her, but I will keep trying.
To business. Bromley and Biggin Hill is a long, thin and elegant constituency, which is why it comes as no surprise that its constituents chose me, an uncanny physical manifestation of the place. It is a wonderful place, comprising Sundridge, Bickley, Hayes and Keston, the bit of Darwin that is in the family, along with Coney Hall, Bromley common, Biggin Hill and of course the ancient market town of Bromley. Rather than give a geographical tour, I will demonstrate the amazing contributions from across Bromley and Biggin Hill to the fields of literature, sport, science and politics, and set out how we saved the world.
I will start with literature. If readers have enjoyed exciting stories of time travel or invisible men; or secretly encouraged William, the unruly schoolboy; or empathised with the buddha of suburbia, they have been enjoying a writer from Bromley and Biggin Hill. H.G. Wells, Richmal Crompton and Hanif Kureishi are all connected to the constituency. Enid Blyton was one of the first teachers at Bickley Park school, and academic writers and thinkers, including Sir Anthony Seldon, have spent time scribbling in the constituency, but perhaps the greatest intellectual offering came as a pre-ironic criticism of consumerism and a reflection on the UK’s struggling agricultural base, all expressed in musical form. Produced by an epoch-defining philosophical movement from the ’70s, the song went:
“Spam, spam, spam…spam, spam, spam, spam...lovely spam”,
and was set in the fictional Green Midget café in Bromley.
I have a pub quiz question for the sports round. Who can tell me the only English football league club in the constituency of a Conservative MP? It is indeed the mighty Bromley FC, recently promoted and going great guns, clearly due to the sound political stewardship of the constituency—and I look forward to chants of “You’ve got the only Tory” from Opposition Members when we take on Notts County at home in Hayes Lane later this week.
We have also added to the canon scientific. In 1843, Thomas John Hussey, the rector of Hayes, noticed anomalies in the orbit of the recently discovered planet Uranus. He wrote to the future astronomer royal and talked of
“the possibility of some disturbing body beyond Uranus”.
[Interruption.] Members are making their own jokes up; stop it. This led to further investigation and discovery, ultimately contributing to our modern understanding of the solar system. What I am saying is that we invented Neptune.
Moving on to politics, while we had our fair share of lefty types, notably anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin, who lived with us for a bit, my favourite local communist has always been Coney Hall’s irrepressible Elsy Borders, who led the famous mortgage strike of 1937. Elsy intentionally defaulted on mortgage payments, demanding that the structural flaws in her newly acquired building be repaired. I cannot but help think how this relates to the substantive issue we are debating.
While I have some Labour Members onside, I can delight them further by informing them that we in Bromley and Biggin Hill also invented the modern income tax—but allow me to win back Conservative colleagues by explaining that the revenue raised was used to fight the French. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I got them back. The tax was introduced by our local boy done good, William Pitt the younger, who was born and resided in the constituency. He was assisted into his political position by his father, William Pitt the elder, another resident. This original political nepo-baby went on to have an extraordinary career, with perhaps the highlight being the conversations he held with his colleague William Wilberforce around a tree in the grounds of the Pitt residence. A Wilberforce diary entry in 1788 reads:
“At length, I well remember after a conversation with Mr. Pitt in the open air at the root of an old tree at Holwood, just above the steep descent into the vale of Keston, I resolved to give notice on a fit occasion in the House of Commons of my intention to bring forward the abolition of the slave-trade”—
evidence that we in this House do occasionally get something right.
Finally, I turn my attention to the wonderful town of Biggin Hill. It is more Kent than London, with its rolling green hills and rural lifestyle, but Biggin Hill has given us so much. I urge Members to visit the wonderful Biggin Hill museum and chapel, hear the stories of “the few”, and imagine those young men strapping themselves into their Spitfires and Hurricanes, accelerating down the runway at Biggin Hill, gently pulling back on the stick and gliding free from the bonds of Earth. Imagine the cognitive dissonance that must have arisen from the exhilaration of floating in the blue Kentish sky, and the terror of the strife awaiting them across a freezing channel.
This Sunday, 15 September, is Battle of Britain Day, when we remember the service and sacrifice of those who gave their life so that we can debate the issues of the day in this place, and be both safe and free. They delivered this freedom with a bravery and selflessness that I can never begin to repay. As the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill, I recognise the honour and responsibility of forever remembering them, and I know that my privilege of serving the whole constituency was delivered by the sacrifice of those who were so much better than me.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That speech has set a very high bar. The next maiden speech is from Josh Fenton-Glynn.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) on a valiant attempt to pretend his is the best constituency in the country. I say to him: come back when you have two Nobel prize winners and a poet laureate.
I rise to give my maiden speech about the constituency of Calder Valley, where I was born and brought up, and where I now raise my family. I have had some time to consider this speech, having been elected at the fourth time of asking. I have stood that many times because I believe that the voiceless in our society need a voice; we have particularly heard that in today’s debate.
As is customary, I would like to start with a few thank-yous. I thank my local Labour officials, who for a decade have stood by me and, frankly, put up with me. I also give thanks to the campaigners who gave up so much time to something bigger than themselves; to my agent Marie Wright, who I trusted with my campaign; and to my agent at the three previous elections, Steve Sweeney, a fine councillor and a better human being, who, sadly, is no longer with us to hear this speech. No series of thank-yous would be complete without those to my family, from Calder Valley’s two smallest leaflet deliverers and door-knockers to my amazing wife and all the other family members who have given me emotional and practical support over many years. I owe so much to all of them, and I only hope that I can live up to their expectations of me.
Calder Valley, as I know to my cost, is a bellwether constituency, having gone the same way as the Government in every election since 1983. It consists of a string of towns that are all unique, but have a common heritage in the wool trade, and there is a commonality in the way they have faced the world since that trade has died away. To win in Calder Valley and represent it, a candidate has to be able to speak to different people in different communities, and successful Governments should always do so. Donald Thompson, the first MP for Calder Valley, in his maiden speech for the predecessor seat of Sowerby in 1979 referred to the shift in the use of our mills, saying:
“Not all the mills now spin and weave…Dozens of them house new industries”.—[Official Report, 19 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 1156.]
Perhaps the story of the modern Calder Valley is how we have adapted to that change.
The towns of Calder Valley run along the River Calder. That river has brought beauty, and supported the textile trade that once made our community world-famous, but it also brought the floods that hit our community particularly hard in 2012, 2015 and 2020—a visible sign of the impact of climate change, which will define many of our coming years. However, the towns have been able to rebuild, relying on an incredible community spirit and a way of being with the world that Chris McCafferty, Calder Valley’s MP from 1997 to 2010, described in her maiden speech as
“bloody-minded, proud, pernickety and independent”.—[Official Report, 21 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 573.]
I would demur from saying that myself, but I certainly recognise it in many of the people I represent. When I was 15, Chris was good enough to accept me on work experience in her office.
Each town has its own history and traditions, guarded proudly. The town of Todmorden is the traditional county boundary between Yorkshire and Lancashire, with Yorkshire governance, an Oldham postcode and an accent somewhere in between. It was home to the famous Radical parliamentarian John Fielden, who changed the law to reduce the number of hours that children could work to 10 hours a day. Over the years, the town has boasted an astonishing two Nobel prize winners and is the birthplace of Incredible Edible, which pioneered growing vegetables in community spaces.
Moving down the river, the town of Hebden Bridge was once famous for fustian trousers and the first worker-owned co-operative mill. That mill is now home to Calrec, which makes state-of-the-art mixing desks. Other mills house a thriving creative community.
From Hebden Bridge, a short hop down the Rochdale canal takes us to Mytholmroyd, the birthplace of poet laureate, and scourge of GCSE English students everywhere, Ted Hughes.
The mid-valley includes Elland, a market town once of such importance that the ground of Yorkshire’s largest football club is named for the road that leads there. Elland is now home to great businesses and even better people. I am proud to be a member of Elland round table, and our annual bonfire raises thousands of pounds for local good causes. Round tables across the country offer a lot of charity work, but they also give men an opportunity to do things alongside each other, creating an intentional community of friends that has been vital to men’s mental health over the years. I pay tribute to them.
Elland will soon be improved by a new train station, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will hear quite a lot from me in due course.
Our rural communities include Ryburn and Greetland— I will pass both spellings to Hansard later—where farmers continue to reinvent themselves. From BSE and foot and mouth to political shocks such as Brexit, the life of a small farmer is never straightforward. However, they should not be underestimated as custodians of our landscape, nature and biodiversity. By supporting small farms, we can answer many of the problems we face in other places.
The biggest population centre in the constituency is Brighouse and Rastrick, famous for its brass band that has the dubious honour of the longest-running No. 2 in British chart history. Over the years, Brighouse has produced everything from biscuits to valves, and it perhaps typifies the story of our changing industry as much as anywhere. The mills do not spin and weave, but they are now home to new industries.
On to me, I was born and raised in Calder Valley and am keen to continue the campaigning tradition of past MPs from John Fielden to Chris McCafferty, who was a tireless campaigner for women’s rights. Despite my severe dyslexia, I got a good education at Calder high school, thanks to great teachers like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). It was the first purpose-built comprehensive school in the north of England.
Although no one in my family has chosen politics as their path, it would be untrue to say that they are not political. Indeed, going back to my great-great-grandfather, my family have been Labour supporters. Said ancestor, John Hughes, was agent to Joshua Ritson, the first Labour MP for City of Durham—one of 142 Labour MPs elected in the 1922 cohort, but the only Josh. The 2024 intake saw a 2.9-fold increase in the number of Labour MPs and a sevenfold increase in the number of Joshes. I hope that both numbers continue to hold strong.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I am the fourth MP for Calder Valley, and the fourth with local government experience. In general, local government is a good grounding for working here, but nowhere more so than Halifax town hall, which was designed by Charles Barry, who designed much of this place too. Halifax town hall was his final building, so we like to say that he practised on Parliament but perfected his work in Calderdale.
My predecessor, Craig Whittaker, served twice on Calderdale council, where he had the job of cabinet member for children and young people. He was also a Whip in this place. Although he and I may not agree on many issues, we have a shared love for Calder Valley. He is a committed public servant who, between the council and Parliament, gave two decades to his community.
My council career culminated in taking the role of cabinet member for adult services and wellbeing, which included social care. It is perhaps fitting that I have been elected for a party that wants to get to grips with this issue in government. While it is easy to talk about the health service and delivery, I found the difference that good care workers make to people’s lives can be even more impactful.
When I look at the areas on which I have focused in my career, it is the less glamourous topics that draw me. I spent a lot of my career looking at the welfare system and how it can alleviate poverty. I have worked at Oxfam, the Child Poverty Action Group and Church Action on Poverty. A proud trade unionist, I also supported often low-paid workers with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the Public and Commercial Services Union. I have always believed in getting benefits right, in supporting people into work rather than punishing them for not being able to find work, and in supporting with dignity those who simply cannot work—that is one thing we can do to make our economy stronger and people happier in work and life.
At PCS, I had the honour of working with many committed public servants in often unseen but absolutely vital jobs, including public safety, which remind us of the topic of today’s debate. Many of those roles were unthinkingly closed in the bonfire of the quangos, and we must always remember that our actions in this House have a larger impact elsewhere.
My more recent career as council cabinet member for social care and my day job at the General Medical Council have taught me similar lessons, as well as giving me a glimpse of the amazing, committed people working in the caring professions. It is only a shame that the unreformed care system places a different value on the work done inside and outside the NHS. I hope that a national care service will recognise that care work is skilled work, and should be supported in the same way.
I conclude by thanking my community of Calder Valley for the faith you have shown in me over the years. Our towns sit like unique pearls in the Pennines, formed from Yorkshire grit and bound together by the history of the textiles we once produced. I will always keep in mind our diversity and uniqueness, as well as the common threads that weave together and unite us. I promise always to listen and to do my very best to be your voice in Westminster.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Zöe Franklin to make her maiden speech.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on their excellent maiden speeches, which gave a real flavour of their constituencies and their constituents.
Today’s debate highlights once again the wider issues of building safety and poverty. The safety of the buildings that house people and their families should not be subject to their economic status, and we must work together across the House to level the playing field to provide safety for all in this country. There is clearly much work to be done to achieve this, and I am grateful to the Minister for noting that we will have an opportunity to further discuss this issue at a future date.
It is with immense pride that I can say that in July, on my third attempt, I was elected to represent the residents of the Guildford constituency, the place that has been my home for the past 25 years. In my speech at the count following my election, I made a commitment to my residents that I will be an MP for everyone in my constituency, including those whose voices have gone unheard for too long. I reiterate that promise today.
I first stood for elected office in 2008, driven by a love for my community and a deep frustration that my area of Bellfields and Slyfield was being failed by the Conservatives. I dedicated myself to helping those at risk of losing their homes, working on community projects and being the voice of my community fighting for change in the council chamber. Some 16 years later, I am here in this Chamber because of my frustration following 14 years of Conservative failure that has, once again, left communities across Guildford and the whole country struggling.
I am also here because the people of Guildford felt that too. They said, “Enough is enough”, and felt that I could be their voice for change in this great Chamber. I am honoured by the trust they have placed in me. We are here as MPs to serve our residents, our constituencies and our country. I hope that will always be at the forefront of our minds as we fulfil our work as MPs, and particularly as we speak in this Chamber and as we vote.
Speaking of service, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank my predecessors, Angela Richardson, Anne Milton and Sir Paul Beresford, part of whose former constituency is now part of the constituency of Guildford. Angela and Anne served Guildford, its residents and businesses with determination for 14 years. I thank them on behalf of our constituents.
Now, on to my wonderful constituency. Guildford is an ancient town. The earliest human activity in the area was in the mesolithic era and it is mentioned in Alfred the Great’s will from 880 AD. The name Guildford means golden ford, which comes from the golden banks at the river crossing below St Catherine’s chapel, but that was not the only golden watermark in this election. In June, we saw a golden tide of Liberal Democrat MPs, with 72 elected across the country, including six of us in Surrey. This victory is a message of change for our country and I am very much looking forward to working with my fellow Lib Dem MPs, particularly on the issues of special educational needs and disabilities and Thames Water.
As an MP, I am especially committed to addressing the cost of living crisis that continues to push too many people into poverty, trapped by a crisis not of their own making. We must lift people out of hardship, ensuring that everyone has access to the services they need, without draining their pockets. I am sure that colleagues throughout the Chamber will agree that the fact that over 3 million people across the UK rely on Trussell Trust food banks alone in 2023-24 is a disgrace. It is a blight on our country and it must end.
Guildford is not only a historical town but a modern hub of innovation, often referred to as the Hollywood of the computer gaming industry, and home to many high-tech businesses at the cutting edge of envirotech, defence, space and more. Our town is a tech hub that draws on the legacy of our constituency: Ada Lovelace, the mother of computing, lived at Horsley Towers in my constituency for many years, and Alan Turing, whose genius continues to be honoured through the Alan Turing Institute at my alma mater, the University of Surrey, had his childhood home in Guildford.
My constituency is also blessed with breathtaking natural beauty, from the stunning RHS Wisley to the Surrey hills and our many National Trust properties, including the River Wey navigation, which the National Trust also manages. As MP, I am committed to balancing the continued evolution and success of my town and surrounding villages with protecting the natural beauty of my constituency for generations to come.
That is why I will be championing in the House the cause of cleaning up our rivers. The River Wey, which flows through the heart of Guildford town and through the villages to the east of my constituency, has been the lifeblood of Guildford for centuries. It is central to Guildford’s identity, its history, residents’ leisure time and its future. The levels of pollution being recorded in our river month after month are disgusting, and that is impacting the health of nature, animals and residents. It is time to clean up our rivers and bring to an end the stories I hear too often on the doorsteps, about residents becoming unwell after going in the water. As one example, I met the coach of a children’s cricket team earlier this year who shared how, in 2023, his young team went for an end of season celebratory dip in the River Wey. Every single one of those children became ill after going in the river.
I will end with two final thoughts. The first comes from my time studying music at the University of Surrey. It taught me the importance of harmony, both in art and in life. It is my sincere hope that together in this Chamber, over the coming years, we can create a symphony of voices, change the divisive rhetoric of the last few years and restore public trust in politics and politicians. If we do not, I worry about the future we leave for future generations.
Finally, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my friends and family, particularly my husband, Chris, and my sons, Reuben and Josh, who have supported me every step of the journey to this place and continue to walk it with me. Without their love, encouragement and occasional campaigning skills I would not be here today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Oliver Ryan to make his maiden speech.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Please allow me to start by congratulating the hon. Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) and for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on their quite fabulous maiden speeches. I am sorry to have to correct all of them, but my constituency is in fact the most beautiful and the most brilliant in the country.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend ever been to Burnley?
Oliver Ryan
Slanderous!
I stand here, honoured beyond belief, to represent the great towns of Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield—towns that are part of the story of our nation. This is the land of dramatic sandstone avenues, of hills and skies, of romantic scenery in the shadows of Pendle Hill. This is the land of regimented urban landscapes, of terrace tops and towers nestled among chimneys and waterways, cushioned by villages, farms, country pubs and proper pints. We are England and Lancastrian and we are proud.
Burnley, the “meadow by the Brun”, first recorded in the 12th century, has long been a hub of culture and commerce. We have a 13th-century market, the 14th-century Towneley Hall plays, and the 15th-century St Peter’s church. Indeed, coming over the moors from the wrong side of the Pennines, Charlotte Brontë visited Gawthorpe Hall in Padiham, Wordsworth wrote of the site of Pendle Hill, and Burnley’s most prolific poet, Henry Houlding, led a literary renaissance for northern towns in the 19th century.
Once the epicentre of the global cotton trade, the workers of our towns built this country. It was said at its height that Burnley’s cotton industry had clothed Britain by breakfast and the rest of the world by dinner. We are a birthplace of movements, too—suffragettes such as Margaret Aldersley, and fighters, leaders and thinkers. Non-conformists are we—radicals and reformers—and once the seat of a Labour leader no less in Arthur Henderson.
I say all this because I want to stress that our story did not start or end with the mills. Looms for a long time were our tools. In our hands was the industrial world made, but now we are so much more. We do not buy the standard story of decline. We are a place determined, with eyes focused on the future, hungry to play our part.
By the way, we have no greater example of Burnley endurance and enterprise than Burnley Football Club. Yes, sometimes in the face of emotional trauma—at times extreme—they are twice champions of England and one-time winners of the FA cup. Let me say, I believe for the first time ever in this House, “Up the Clarets!”
As towns, we are now a thriving, dynamic, multicultural symbol of renewal and creativity. To be made in east Lancashire is to be a benchmark of quality, particularly in our manufacturing, aerospace sciences and cultural industries, with world-beating, amazing, innovative companies putting us on the map. We are also unusual politically, in that the constituency has been represented by all three major parties in the past 10 years alone, although I hope to bring a very lengthy period of stability in that regard.
Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield are so often painted as towns with problems and extensive poverty, which is true, but to end our description there is to misunderstand our mindset, our mission, our sense of history and community. Our fight is not in trading narratives as to how we got here. We have problems, yes, but we do not simply retreat to the warm nostalgia of our history. We know that that way lies only stagnation. Our fight is in creating solutions for tomorrow. Less interested in rhetoric, storytelling and ideology, towns such as mine want outcomes. For us, one’s ability to deliver solutions means a lot more than the colour of a rosette. Outcomes are what matters. What is good is what works. In our public services, that means dependable quality, transparency, choice, the interests of users coming first and an approach that challenges every vested interest in the public interest.
Reflecting on this mantra and the debate today, I want to talk a little about our housing stock. First raised by my predecessor, Peter Pike, in his maiden speech of 1983, the once proud regimented sandstone avenues that I spoke of earlier—once a step up for families—are now in a poor and worsening state. Too many of my constituents live in substandard, under-insulated, cold and mouldy homes. Low land values lock out investment, but, more critically, lock out families from the decent accommodation that they deserve and write off whole communities as just not worth the investment. If we are to continue to thrive we need more housing, newer housing, more social housing and a decent retrofit programme not seen on a scale since the last Labour Government. It is only through that growth that we can achieve the sort of improvements in our public services that we need. That is the only way that we will attract the secure jobs and dynamic workforce of the future.
Too many of our young people are stuck in a generational cycle of worklessness, which holds back entire families, because of a lack of opportunities, skills, connectivity and, actually, confidence. We will only truly grow as a country when people in places like ours feel that growth touches them; when prosperity reaches the doorsteps of our terraces; when we break the cycle and say, “If you have the will, we will give you the way. No one left behind.” In my time here, I hope to represent to the best of my ability those values and ambitions.
At this juncture, as is tradition, I pay tribute to my predecessors: in Burnley and Padiham, Antony Higginbotham; and in Brierfield and Nelson East, Andrew Stephenson. Both very decent and hard-working men, they campaigned on many local issues in their years in this House, and had many friends across the House, which was testament to their character. I genuinely wish them both well for the future.
I am the great-grandson of Irish immigrants, from Dublin and across Ireland, who made their life in Manchester. I was aged two, and one of two kids to a single mum, when Labour took office in 1997. It is because of that Government that my mother was supported through illness to raise us, by an NHS with the time and resources to care. Schemes such as Building Schools for the Future, first praised by my predecessor Kitty Ussher in her maiden speech in 2005, gave me this future, and I am one of many. We stand on the shoulders of giants in this place, but I was able to climb on to those shoulders only because of a supportive family, who are watching from the Gallery, and the ladder that that Labour Government provided for kids like me and families like mine, from towns like mine. I know that this new Labour Government will strive to do the same, and I for one am enormously proud to be a part of it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Sarah Gibson to make her maiden speech.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this building safety debate. I congratulate the hon. Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) and the hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) on the love that they have shown for their constituencies.
My first contribution to this House was in the Prime Minister’s statement on Grenfell last week. We must not forget in this debate that that tragedy was also a fault of failing building safety and Government accountability. Having worked in the construction industry as an architect in Spain, and having run an architectural practice in the UK for most of my professional life, I have seen far too often the construction industry fall foul of silo-working and cost-cutting. Value engineering is what we call it in the trade, but Members should not be fooled; it adds no value and is very rarely engineered.
Many families in my constituency, and indeed across the UK, are bearing the effects of poor building safety in various ways. Homes are suffering from mould and damp, as the hon. Member for Burnley mentioned, with complaints to housing associations, letting agencies and landlords often falling on deaf ears. I urge the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in its proposed review of the building regulations to introduce stronger measures to protect the most vulnerable residents from mould and damp. Everyone deserves a safe and comfortable home to return to.
However, I do not want Members to leave today’s debate thinking that the only notable point of the beautiful constituency of Chippenham is that it is damp, although there is no doubt that the west country is beautifully green for a good reason. Chippenham sits in Wiltshire, in the south-west of England, and we have a proud industrial heritage too, with mills originally reliant on the River Avon, and later on the Great Western Railway, with its many impressive tunnels and viaducts. That railway currently stops only in Chippenham, so I will spend the next few years demanding that Corsham and Royal Wootton Bassett are also in receipt of stations.
Quality employment and prosperity came with the railway when it was built. Access to transport is equally important to the growth of the area today. It will play a vital part in my constituency’s future as an innovation hub. We are currently home to some fantastic cutting-edge businesses, from the renewable energy sector through to the health sciences. They are complemented by the provision of excellent technical education—namely that provided by the Wiltshire college and university centre, whose campuses in Lackham and Chippenham will be critical to the growth of dynamic young companies in the future. I intend to be a strong voice championing skills, employment and opportunity in that part of the world.
My father, who unfortunately died very young, instilled in me a passion for technology and innovation. But he also left me with a very special interest in vintage cars and all things mechanical, so I am incredibly lucky now to be married to David, who built the very first electric Austin Seven some 30 years ago. Slow, old cars are the perfect way to drive through a constituency that hosts some of the most beautiful towns and villages in the country—contrary to the views that some colleagues have expressed today. Many of those places will be familiar to the House. The town of Corsham is home to free-ranging peacocks and, surprisingly, can be recognised in “Poldark.” The town of Calne—rightly called “the town of discovery”—was home to Joseph Priestley, who discovered oxygen, while Laycock, with its picturesque abbey, was home to William Fox Talbot, the inventor of the photographic negative, and appears in more films than I have time to mention. Royal Wootton Basset, with its proud connection to RAF Lyneham, was granted royal status thanks to the community’s important role in the repatriation of those killed in the service of this country.
The recent boundary changes mean that I have inherited the honour of representing those communities from both Michelle Donelan and James Gray. James will be known to this House for his chairmanship of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which has done wonders to ensure that we gain an insight into the lives of those who have committed to serving in our military. Michelle Donelan has been a strong advocate for Chippenham town centre, and her work in that area will not be forgotten. Before Michelle and James, Chippenham was represented by my Liberal Democrat friend and colleague Duncan Hames, whom I thank for his advice and support in what has been a hectic start to life in the Commons.
Over the past weeks, many people have asked me if I have had a restful recess. I have found myself raising an eyebrow and explaining that it has been the busiest period of my life. Not being on these Benches over the summer has meant that I have been able to hit the ground running at home and raise specific concerns about a lack of NHS dental provision and access to GPs across the constituency. I have also been able to meet campaigners and lend my support to important issues in the constituency, such as Chippenham’s “One Plan,” Bassett’s proposed active travel network, and the campaign for a new health centre in Calne. In backing those projects, I intend to ensure that there are careers for young people in my area, and options for those hoping to change career in later life. Like many Members, my own career has taken a dramatic change of tack recently. I hope that the House will not mind if I briefly explain how I find myself here today.
I was lucky enough to be born into a family that cared deeply about my education. With their support, and a grant from Wiltshire council, I was able to study architecture at Kingston and at University College London before registering as an architect in Spain. Some years later, I returned home to Wiltshire and became a town and unitary authority councillor. It is from that perspective of positive experience in local government that I felt I could do more to promote the interests of my community here in Westminster, and I am honoured that they thought so too.
I end my maiden speech by wishing my brother, Luke, a very happy birthday, and by thanking my mother, who has been a great source of strength to me. She canvassed tirelessly on my behalf throughout the election campaign, even in the pouring rain in what we now all know to be a rather damp constituency. Finally, I give my thanks to my constituents. Whether they voted for me or not, I promise to work hard and champion them all in everything I do.
Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)
I congratulate the new hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) on a brilliant maiden speech—it was quite emotional at the end there—and all hon. Members who have made maiden speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) is still a young lad now, but he was an even younger lad when I had the displeasure of campaigning with him in Burnley—he had shorts on, but he still managed to win. It is great to see him in his place and it was a pleasure to listen to his maiden speech.
This debate is obviously about a very serious matter. My thoughts, and the thoughts of everyone in the Chamber, are with the 72 people—men, women and children—who lost their lives in the Grenfell fire over seven years ago. It was an appalling event and the survivors and the community are yet to see justice. That might mean criminal prosecutions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) rightfully highlighted—I know he is urging for that to happen at pace, as he did yesterday during Justice questions—or, in regard to the broader building safety crisis, ensuring that buildings are made safe at pace.
Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s phase 2 Grenfell report and recommendations make for difficult reading. In fact, digesting them will make us angry. We all have to channel that anger, collectively and responsibly, to ensure that the victims of Grenfell and previous fires, such as Lakanal and in Kirby, are responded to by the body politic and the new Government—my good colleagues and hon. Friends now on the Front Bench. Just think about this: each and every one of those 72 people who lost their lives should still be with us today, enjoying the life that we enjoy and having the frustrations that we have.
As the report says, the event was entirely preventable. It was entirely predictable. But the lessons from history, whether that be Lakanal or the earlier fire in Kirby, were not learned. They were not acted upon by successive Governments of all political persuasions or by industry. I will not name the companies referred to in the report for obvious reasons to do with the court case. Government, product manufacturers—you name it, Grenfell was the result of organisations and individuals, as the report says, being systematically dishonest. Dishonesty was hardwired into the construction and building industry, putting profit before people’s lives.
We cannot escape the fact that this was a political decision, driven by ideology. The coalition Government are referenced in the report: their time in office was basically a bonfire of red tape. It was deregulation—build them high, build them cheap and refurbish them cheap—and the consequences are all too clear. Indeed, residents of Grenfell alerted the council of the day, regulators and the powers that be that this was an accident waiting to happen, and it did happen, with all those consequences for all to see.
Of course, some of this has continued. We have had companies gaming tests of products that were put on high-rises—products that should never have been there. Let us be frank: those products are solidified petrol. Thousands of them were put on high-rises up and down the country—high-rises insulated by solidified petrol. This country is quite unique in the fact that it greenlighted those products through deregulation. It is no coincidence that we had fires such as Lakanal and Grenfell.
Marie Goldman
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the gaming of the system and the tests. Was he as appalled as I was to read about the way in which those tests were gamed? It is said that those products, which were designed not to burn, failed the tests, so the companies went back a second time. One of the issues with the tests was that the temperature had to not rise too much, so the companies insulated the temperature gauges rather than admit that they had a product that ultimately was not fit for the purpose they were trying to sell it for. Is he appalled as I am that that practice was allowed to happen, and does he agree that the testing houses need to shoulder some responsibility for the fact that it was allowed to happen?
Mike Amesbury
Absolutely I am appalled, and as I have said, those products are still with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) will refer to a recent incident in Dagenham where they were trying to remediate the problem.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
In September 2020, an external wall survey revealed that the cladding on the Spectrum building in my constituency was not compliant with building regulations. Works to remediate that building were not actioned until three years later, in July 2023. The building was then engulfed by flames a few short weeks ago, with only 20% of the remediation works still outstanding. Does my hon. Friend agree that urgent steps are needed to massively scale up the process of remediation?
Mike Amesbury
I agree with my hon. Friend. She has demonstrated how alive and kicking this issue is, and the need for the new Government—who have not been in power very long; less than 10 weeks now—to step up and step in on the issue of regulation and remediation. I know that they will do just that.
Because of campaigners—whether it is Grenfell United, the all-party parliamentary groups on fire safety and on leasehold, the cladding action groups, or hon. Members in this place—we now have stronger regulation in the form of the Building Safety Act. As the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), has said, there was considerable cross-party work over that period of time, and I was the shadow housing and planning Minister throughout that 13-week process. We certainly have a stronger regulation framework now to remediate those buildings, and as the Minister mentioned, a considerable amount of money has been committed—billions of pounds—but the Act undoubtedly has some holes.
Remediation is not done at pace—it is incredibly slow—and it is cladding-centric, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), which means it does not cover the broader fire safety issues that it should cover. The new Labour Government and the ministerial team have quickly discovered—they are crystal clear about this—that the remediation process is incredibly slow, and they are going to turbocharge it. Seven years on from Grenfell, only 29% of buildings have been fully remediated. I think the Minister mentioned that up to 7,000 buildings have been identified, so the task in hand is incredible. It is alarming, but following the Grenfell inquiry phase 2 report, I know that we will step up and move things on at pace.
Members have mentioned insurance premiums. I find it somewhat bizarre that in a number of remediated buildings the insurance premiums are going up. The shadow Minister referred to that. How can that be? If something is safer, surely the risk has gone down. I think there are some fundamental questions to ask there. There are certainly issues about commissions being passed on to management agents and freeholders, and a plethora of other things are causing insurance premiums to go up.
Ministers certainly need to ensure that there is intervention on things being passed on in service charges, such as insurance, so that we can bring down costs. It may be that we should have a similar model to that for flooding. With Flood Re, the Government have become an underwriter to help bring costs down. I am not going to get overly party political, but interventions by the previous Government did not work, so collectively we have to move things forward.
There is a plethora of issues. We have talked about insurance, and the previous Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is not in his place at the moment, referred to issues with mortgages. He also mentioned the lack of parity in funding between social housing providers or housing associations and the private sector. Again, that needs to be addressed by the Government. There is a lot of money out there, and a lot of people with responsibility for this mess need to pay.
Some leaseholders in buildings such as the Decks in my constituency are beyond the scope of the Building Safety Act. They do not have protections, but are what are called the excluded leaseholders. Yet if those individual flats are not remediated, it means the whole block is not remediated. It also means that many are facing bankruptcy and cannot sell on. Again, there is a bit more homework to be done at pace by the new Government to ensure that there is justice for leaseholders, who are innocent in this whole toxic mess.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater mentioned one of the key recommendations in the phase 2 report about the regulator, and I will conclude on this point. At the moment, the Building Safety Regulator is in the Health and Safety Executive and, as he said, I am not convinced it is resourced as it should be. That adds to the mix of confusion around accountability, as does the fact that there are several pots—four or five different pots—of finance. We need one single regulator, accountable to a Minister, to get a grip and provide the drive to remediate such buildings at pace.
Finally, justice is certainly about ensuring that all those buildings up and down the country are safe, but it is also about ensuring that those responsible for this—those responsible for Grenfell—are brought to account through criminal prosecutions.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am delighted to be able to speak in this debate. I compliment and congratulate the Members who have made their first speeches: the hon. Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) and for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), which is the town where I was born.
This debate, about building safety, comes on the back of the report by Sir Martin Moore-Bick on the Grenfell fire, which should be sobering reading for anybody who has any sort of public duty or is in public life. It catalogues how privatisation, underfunding, inadequate surveillance and inadequate supervision led to a vulnerable group of tenants being left in a desperate situation in which a large number died. He concludes in his report that every single one of those deaths could have been avoided, had there been proper regulation and protection. His proposals are far-reaching, and I look forward to the Government responding in detail, in the near future, on how they will ensure proper regulation and supervision and, above all, a role for local government as the local inspectorate of all buildings to ensure that they are all safe and that all the materials are correctly put together. The idea that deregulation can bring about safety is obviously nonsense, and this report has shown it to be such.
Sarah Gibson
Recent changes to building regulations require approved inspectors to be certified. That is welcome, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the original scheme, under which supervision was by local authorities, which were not financially tied to the contractor, developer or employer, was considerably safer than this deregulated system with approved inspectors? Perhaps the Government should look carefully at changing that.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Member is absolutely right. The watchword has to be independence, of both inspection and regulation. The idea that developers can mark their own homework has to be got rid of sharpish, because it is a dangerous precedent, and we can now see the results of it.
This horrible fire at Grenfell did not come from nowhere. There was the Knowsley fire and the Lakanal House fire. There were constant references to the dangers of inadequate or inappropriate cladding, the lack of fire equipment, and the fire risk that goes with that. This has to be the most massive wake-up call there has ever been. It also shows that communities, such as those in Grenfell, were treated with contempt by their local authority, regulators and others. They simply did not care. In Grenfell, there was a mixed group of working-class tenants living in a dangerous place. On the day that the report came out, one of the residents was asked about it, and he said that the cladding might as well have been made of firelighters, given the danger it presented to them all. Something quickly needs to be done about that.
We must look at how we deal with the need for remedial action. When the Grenfell fire took place, inspections were immediately made of buildings all over the country; that was the right thing to do. By and large, local authorities responded well and removed cladding. In my local authority, Islington, cladding was discovered on one local authority building, Fyfield House, and that was immediately removed by the authority. However, I find that buildings in the private sector and other buildings in which leaseholders live have not been dealt with in the same way or with the same efficiency, and tenants, residents and leaseholders are paying the price for that. To give an example, there is a nice leasehold development in my constituency called Highbury Square. It was apparently well built and has good facilities. The problem is that it has cladding that has not been certified or approved, so the insurance costs are very high. The developers do not want to pay for the remedial work, and despite numerous meetings being held with Ministers in the previous Government and so on, no action has been taken. The families living there cannot sell or move. They cannot do anything. They are absolutely stuck.
I said in my intervention on the Minister that those who have had to incur huge insurance costs just to remain in their flat should be compensated, and the stress among people who live in such places should also be recognised through compensation. If there is a huge dispute about who will pay for all this—I am quite sure that many companies will try to take legal action against the Government—surely it is the Government’s responsibility to step in, if necessary, and do the work. They can charge it to the owners of the freehold or leasehold who are the cause of the problem. In the case I mentioned, Aviva pension fund is responsible. In the case of the Drayton Park development in my constituency, which the Ministry is well aware of—I had several meetings about it with Ministers under the previous Government and many officials—it is Galliard Homes, which seems to be trying to evade its responsibility to ensure that the work is carried out.
I appeal to the Minister to look carefully at the excessive delays caused by endless arguments with developers and the owners of freeholds. Those delays have put people at risk and have led to enormous cost for them. I come across other developments all the time that seem to be in the same situation, including some of those at the former Arsenal stadium site. This debate is about all that.
In this debate, we also recognise how communities respond, and how they responded to the Grenfell fire. I went there the day after the fire, and met the firefighters who, unbelievably bravely, had been trying to deal with a fire the likes of which they had never seen before. They did not really have the wherewithal to deal with it. Their bravery was enormous and their stress was huge. Some of them received abuse from our media and others, who tried to put the blame on them. They are the last people who should be blamed. I also saw how the community came together. I have been on every one of the silent walks for Grenfell that take place every year on the anniversary, usually in the company of the former Member of Parliament for Kensington, Emma Dent Coad, who did a fantastic job, not just at the time as the MP, but since then, campaigning for safety and justice for the victims of Grenfell. It needs to be recognised that the community came together to support and to demand, and they expect answers from this Government, so that they can live in a place of safety in the future.
The last thing that I want to say—I know that others wish to speak—is that fundamentally this debate is about housing and how we treat people. We have had market domination of the principles of housing. We have gone away from the principle of housing as a human right and instead to a market solution to it all. We can see the results: several thousand people rough sleeping every night; tens of thousands of people living in grotesquely overcrowded conditions; and many people—in my constituency, a third of them—living in the private rented sector, which is largely unregulated, insecure and very expensive.
I have been leafing through the Renters’ Rights Bill just produced by the Secretary of State. I welcome much of what I have read, but unless the Bill addresses the fundamental issue of the cost of private renting, instead of leaving it to the market to set the cost, areas like mine will suffer from social cleansing for a long time to come. Working-class families will be moved out because they simply cannot afford to stay.
We want to maintain the communities in our inner-urban and city areas in all parts of the country, so we need rent regulation, as well as security of tenure and all that goes with it. That means public intervention, building more council houses and taking the market element out of how planning decisions are made on building council housing. Instead, we should say, “The priority for all our community is a sufficient supply of good-quality, well-designed council housing.”
I finish on this thought: we have the potential to build some wonderful places, but also to take over many empty properties and convert them into some form of council or social housing. We need to ensure that housing is well designed, with sufficient open space and good room sizes. When developers are creating a home for someone to live in, they should think it through—changes in life, disabilities that may occur and everything else—and ensure that we have the highest possible quality social housing design for the future. This report could be a great turning point in the way that we deal with housing in our society—or it could be shelved and forgotten in a few years’ time. The people of Grenfell, who suffered and are still grieving the loss of others, will never let us forget it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Chris Curtis to make his maiden speech.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) and the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) on their fantastic maiden speeches. It is great to start my time in this place by proving no fewer than five colleagues wrong about their constituency being the best, because obviously that is an award that belongs to the people of Milton Keynes North.
This is such an important debate on an issue that affects many of my constituents and those of other Members representing Milton Keynes. I am glad to hear that this Government will work to ensure that everyone feels safe in their home. As the brother of one of our brave local firefighters in Milton Keynes, I echo the comments of many colleagues who paid tribute to those in our emergency services who have dealt with such incidents. I hope that they have to deal with far fewer in future.
It is an immense honour to stand here today as the new MP for Milton Keynes North. I am deeply privileged to represent not just the new city of Milton Keynes but many of the beautiful villages and historic towns around which it was built. In my constituency lies the old market town of Olney, where 250 years ago the timeless hymn “Amazing Grace” was penned. There is Wolverton, which boasts the oldest operational railway works in the world; Stony Stratford, where I am told the term “cock and bull story” originated—thankfully not something we are known for in this place—and Newport Pagnell, which for over half a century hosted the headquarters of Aston Martin.
Next week marks 60 years since the release of the film “Goldfinger”, in which the most famous car in the world, the DB5, made its debut. Last week, I had the pleasure to visit Aston Martin to see the home of that historic car and where some of “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” was filmed. Can I promise that my contributions in this place will have the excitement, glamour and the adrenaline of those films? No, I cannot, but as the MP representing towns with such fascinating pasts, I promise that I will fight to give them all an even brighter future.
I start by paying tribute to my predecessor, Ben Everitt. He worked tirelessly to try to secure a much needed women’s and children’s hospital for Milton Keynes. As we now have some of the longest NHS waiting lists in the country, it is an important campaign, and I will be sure to take up its reins. He also chaired the all-party parliamentary group for housing market and housing delivery, which looked at how we fix the broken planning system—some of the issues have been discussed today. I hope that this new Government take forward many of the recommendations that emerged from that work as we strive to build the 1.5 million new homes that this country needs.
I would like to take a moment to mention my Labour predecessor and friend, the late Brian White. Brian was a true champion of Milton Keynes. He saw the potential in our city long before it was fully realised and, as an MP, local councillor and later mayor, Brian was a tireless advocate for our community. He was never one to shy away from a hard battle, as those of us who knew him can attest. One of those battles was the successful fight to keep the laws in this place written on vellum. Unfortunately, we have since moved to a compromise position where only the front covers of each Act are printed that way, but since the only remaining vellum manufacturer in the country, William Cowley, is based in my constituency, I will fight with everything I can to keep what is left of this important 175-year-old tradition.
As the first MP for Milton Keynes who was born, and grew up, there, I would like to talk about the many men and women who built the new town—now city—that I call home. One in particular is Fred Roche, the man who led the Milton Keynes development corporation with a bold and uncompromising vision. The mantra that everybody on that team lived by was, “Make no little plans”. Fred was a streetfighter, who more than anything else was willing to do what was needed to achieve something that many others have considered impossible: getting money out of the Treasury. Allegedly, he insisted on constructing the outer roads of Milton Keynes first, making it harder for the budget to be cut later—a scheme that those working on HS2 wish they had thought of. He also once marched into Whitehall on Christmas eve and refused to leave until his budgets were approved. I just mention to the Government Front Bench that those are tactics I will not rule out using in the future. [Laughter.]
For Members across the Chamber who have, shamefully, not yet visited Milton Keynes, what Fred and his team built was nothing short of a masterpiece. At times when families right across our country were living in substandard conditions—many would echo some of the comments we have heard today—and many were living without even an indoor toilet, Milton Keynes offered a beacon of hope. High-quality homes were built for tens of thousands of new residents and, at its peak, 10 families were moving in every single day.
In just a few decades, what was once a vision on a planner’s desk had transformed into one of the UK’s most dynamic economic powerhouses. Today, we are home to Santander UK, one of the biggest banks in the country, and Red Bull Racing, the fastest Formula 1 team on the planet—when I spoke to Aston Martin last week, it told me to take out that line. The city of pioneers and innovators creates more start-ups than almost anywhere else, boasts a growing tech sector worth over £3 billion and ranks as one of the most productive places in the country. For every pound that Fred did manage to squeeze out of the Treasury’s tight grasp, we have repaid it many, many times over. And while it may be known for its concrete cows, it is far from a concrete jungle. Some 40% of our city is comprised of green spaces. Alongside those are our beautiful lakes, rivers and canals. Every child, including me, grew up within a five-minute walk of a park or green space.
It is said that planting a tree is one of the greatest acts of altruism. We dig, we plant a seed and, with that small act, we shape the world for many generations to come. Fred Roche and the team planted more than a fair few trees. In fact, Milton Keynes boasts over 22 million trees, more than 80 per person. But I would argue that building a new town is an even greater act of altruism. Fred passed away a few years before I was born, but I stand here today as a member of the first generation that truly benefited from his vision. Thanks to Fred’s design, my young parents were able to scrape together enough to raise me and my brother in a spacious house with its own back garden. The dream of home ownership became a reality for them, providing us with the security and stability needed for the best start in life. The parks and green spaces they created back then may one day be enjoyed by my own children.
Now, I will not pretend that we do not have our share of challenges, ones I will work tirelessly to address in this place, but Milton Keynes was built on that new town promise of good jobs, public services that were there when you needed them, and, most importantly, affordable and high-quality new homes. It is a place that gave me the opportunities, so that I could one day be standing here, giving my maiden speech in the House of Commons. I mention that because in my short time in politics I have noticed that too often people search for excuses to oppose new developments. There is a view, or has been a view, that it is more politically convenient to be a voice that yells no, rather than a voice that searches for ways to say yes. And while the acronym “nimby” may be a modern invention, the sentiment is not. Glancing through Hansard of the ’60s and ’70s, we find countless examples of opposition to the building of my hometown. But there are consequences to that short-term political thinking. If it was not for Fred and the Milton Keynes development corporation team’s ambition, backed by the 1960s Labour Government, the two-bed end of terrace that my brother and I grew up in would never have existed.
As a proud son of Milton Keynes, I can think of no mission more important for this new Government than to build the new towns and new homes that this country needs. It will require us to embrace the spirit of Fred Roche —visionary, unyielding in the face of opposition, and making no little plans—but it will allow us to build a future where every child in Britain has the opportunity to thrive in a home and a community that nurtures their potential, as mine did for me.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to address the House on the critical issue of building safety. Before I get to the meat of my speech, may I congratulate the maiden speakers we have heard today? They have taken us on a tour of Britain—or, perhaps more particularly, a tour of England—that would send the newly reconvened all-party parliamentary group on publishing into an excitable frenzy; I hope some of those words find themselves in the publications of the future. I particularly congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on his maiden speech, and thank him and his brother for their service to his constituents and to those imperilled by the risk of fire.
The cladding and fire safety scandal that underpins this discussion is a national issue that impacts residents in almost every constituency across the country, but which does so highly unevenly, with different geographical intensities, and which, for those who are unaffected and unimpacted, can go almost entirely unobserved. For those who do feel the direct effects, the results can be devastating. My constituents have made this point to me in the most vivid terms. To find yourself resident in a building caught up in the cladding and fire safety scandal is to find yourself locked in a bewildering series of revelations and disclosures beyond your control and often beyond your understanding, each one of which undermines your confidence in the safety of the place in your life and the life of your family that should be a sanctuary: your home.
Unlike more urban areas, my constituency of Surrey Heath has not been especially hard hit by the scandal, but neither has it escaped it all together. My constituents living in the North Court development in Camberley, our main market town, have lived through the trauma of finding that their building poses serious risks to them from unsafe, flammable cladding and fire safety failures that have been present in the building from the point of construction more than 15 years ago—risks and threats that should never have been there, covered up by plasterboard and panelling, and which were only brought to the surface in the months and years following the tragic loss of 72 lives in the Grenfell Tower fire. Despite the efforts of inquiries to ensure that such a tragedy is never repeated, according to figures that I have seen, there remain in the UK today 4,630 buildings with unsafe cladding. Of those, 3,287 are awaiting remediation; and of those, 2,331 have yet to even start the process. According to the building safety register, that leaves around half a million lives still at risk.
We must also remember that the Government’s figures relate only to mid and high-rise blocks—those above 11 metres in height. We have no data to understand how the building safety crisis is affecting many tens, hundreds and thousands of blocks that do not meet that height threshold. Clear and urgent questions remain about if, when and how the Government plan to gather and publish that data. We cannot hope to resolve the issue if we have no clear or quantifiable grasp of the scale and scope of the problem. Where action is taken, it must be robust, efficient and informed by the best expertise available. Given the potentially fatal consequences of inaction, maintaining the highest standards in future building safety measures is essential.
Recent disputes, such as that between Barratt Homes and the residents of Royal Artillery Quays over combustible panels left on escape stairwells during remediation works, raise serious questions about whether current approaches to remediation are sufficiently robust. We must also question the capacity of the new Building Safety Regulator to investigate such issues. A recent report states that, as of February 2024, the regulator had only 10 regulatory leads and eight caseworkers—a situation described as “chronically under-resourced”.
Residents of buildings undergoing remediation works have urgent questions and concerns that need to be addressed. I have been contacted by many constituents sharing their distress and anxiety about a process that leaves them feeling powerless and prisoners in their own homes. As I speak here today, the residents of North Court are living amid scaffolding, plastic sheeting and constant noise while the flammable cladding that once wrapped their building is removed. The recent fire in Dagenham underscores the risks associated with such projects, and we cannot allow a repeat of that to occur. Residents across the country are not unaware of these risks, and live with the constant uncertainty that they pose.
The House should commend the extensive legal reforms enacted after Grenfell, including the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022, the Building Safety Act 2022, and the establishment of the Building Safety Regulator. However, I have yet to see the regulator actively enforce the regulations through prosecutions. We cannot allow, nor can we afford, laws passed in this place to go unenforced, whether owing to a lack of political will, insufficient funding for regulators or poorly drafted legislation. As I have already mentioned, the victims and families of Grenfell have not yet received the justice they deserve, and I cannot allow my constituents to suffer a similar injustice. I look forward to seeing those who violate regulations in the residential property sector held accountable without further delay.
While time is of the essence, I want to ask the Minister and, indeed, the Government to take a few key actions. First, I ask them to act with “more haste, less speed” to ensure that safety is not compromised in the name of expediency. The relevant data must be gathered and published, regulations must be robust, and regulators must be properly resourced. Secondly, I ask them to convene a building safety crisis taskforce to help shape the resolution of the building safety crisis, drawing together industry leaders, residents, local and national politicians, civil servants and third sector stakeholders. Thirdly, I ask them to undertake a full and holistic review of current and proposed building safety regulations in order to understand what works, how those regulations interact with one another, and the enforceability—and the willingness to enforce—the regulations currently written into law. The safety of my constituents in North Court, and that of others throughout the country, depends on such action.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I commend all the maiden speeches that we have heard today: I feel as if I have been on a tour of England following the descriptions of so many constituencies. May I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) about his predecessor, Bob Neill? I now represent part of Bob Neill’s former constituency, and I know from talking to people during the recent general election campaign that he was held in high regard by his constituents. I wish him all the best for the future.
I am sick and tired of coming here and raising the issue of Master Gunner Place in my constituency. It has been in need of remedial work for a very long time, and still nothing has been done. It was built by Countryside Properties, now Vistry Group Ltd, and we understand that it is about to be handed over to a company called Samnas, although that is yet to happen I have written many times to the managing agent, Rendall and Rittner, about issues that have been raised with me by my constituents, but to no avail.
I was approached by one of my constituents who lives in Master Gunner Place. He had tried to sell his property on four occasions; at the final attempt he had one bidder, whose bid he accepted. However, the bidder was refused a mortgage owing to the size of the service charge. The charge for 2022-23 rose by 107% in 2023-24, to £6,100, and such charges are now trapping people in homes they are unable to sell. Under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the leaseholders are entitled to demand from the freeholder or the managing agent an explanation of how those charges were arrived at. When the residents of Master Gunner Place asked for that, they were given only partial information, and on several occasions the managing agent failed to meet the requirement to respond within 30 days. In the end, the agent flatly refused to supply the missing information. When my constituent complained to the managing agent, it did not answer; it just got its solicitors to respond and threaten him with a county court judgment. As a result of that, my constituent had no option: because of the terms of the lease, he had to pay up; otherwise, he could have been in default. He ended up paying the service charge, plus nearly £1,250 in legal fees and interest for being two months late with his payment.
The residents tried to mount legal action but, ironically, they feared that if they were to take on the freeholder over the costs, they would risk the freeholder adding the cost of defending the action to their service charges, because of the terms of the lease. They are absolutely trapped in a situation whereby they need the information to be able to legally challenge the freeholder, but the freeholder and the managing agent are withholding the information that is needed to undertake the action. That cannot be a fair situation for the residents to be left in.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also about insurance? I have a constituent in a similar situation who has had to pay £2,500 in insurance costs.
Clive Efford
Yes, insurance costs are driving up service charges. I have heard of 60% increases in service charges that are attributable to insurance costs. Insurance companies are gouging prices and making money on the back of this situation. Given what has brought us to this debate, it is absolutely appalling that they are behaving in that way.
Remedial works are ultimately the responsibility of freeholders, and contributions from leaseholders should be capped. Management companies are obliged to provide the detail of what they intend to spend on such work but, unfortunately, they are withholding that information. The managing agent should not be able to charge residents anything until the information is supplied. The cap should be spread over 10 years, and no more than one tenth of the cost should be charged in any one year. In the absence of the relevant information, leaseholders cannot check whether the charges that are being imposed on them are reasonable. If they do not pay them and they challenge them, they risk being in default of their leases and receiving a letter from solicitors. The reality is that the terms of leases prevent people from being able to get justice.
The outstanding safety work in the block in Master Gunner Place is simply not being done. A survey was done at the end of 2019, and it was clear that the work needed to be done. In the intervening years, none of it has been carried out. The developer, Vistry Group, is supposedly in the process of handing over the freehold to Samnas, but because the legal documents have not been signed, the leaseholders have been left in limbo and are unable to progress any of the work. The leaseholders engaged lawyers to write to the developer in order to get a reply on the scope of the work that needed to be carried out, and they were informed that the work was due to start in August 2024. Here we are in September, and nothing has been done. They still have no idea about what work is in scope or what contribution the residents will have to make. There are three blocks involved in the development and, to date, none of them has had any of the remedial work done.
It is now time to draw a line under all this. It has gone on for too long. We know that the work needs to be done, we know who is responsible for it and we should not be allowing them to drag their feet any more. It is time for the remediation acceleration scheme to put a rocket under those developers and freeholders. We should be ensuring that they carry out this work, and that if they refuse to do so, they are fined. Only fines will make these people see reason; it is only if they are hit financially that they will change their ways. The remediation acceleration scheme must also include compensation for leaseholders for all the unreasonable charges they have been forced to pay because the management companies and the freeholders have withheld the information needed to ensure accurate fees and charges and that the cap is being properly applied. Where those companies have not done that, we should be making sure that they are fined.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Melanie Ward to make her maiden speech.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I congratulate all the hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches in today’s debate, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) who made a witty and ambitious speech giving an ambitious vision for his area, which I fully support and congratulate him on.
It is the honour of my life to have been elected to serve and represent the people of the Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy constituency in this Parliament. To each of my constituents, I say, “I will do my very best to serve you, regardless of who you voted for.” I pay tribute to my predecessor, Neale Hanvey, who represented the area with passion and a particular dedication to casework —a crucial part of an MP’s role that is too often overlooked.
I am only the second woman to represent this fine constituency, the first having been Lesley Laird. Lesley, like me, is a passionate advocate for women’s equality. I am proud to be elected to a Parliament that has more women in it than any before, and I give grateful thanks to the women who fought for our right to be here today and to be here in significant numbers—women such as Jenny Lee from Fife. We stand on the shoulders of these sisters, and I pledge today to continue to work for our equality with men. Progress of any kind is often hard fought, and that is a lesson I will keep hold of. Nevertheless, we persist.
My constituency enjoys widespread name recognition because our former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is another of my predecessors. No pressure, then! Gordon’s contribution to our communities, our country and our world is deep and lasting. More than anything, I take inspiration from his absolute moral clarity over why he was in politics and what he used power for—namely, to tackle poverty. Gordon’s first speech in this place was an excoriating exposé of unemployment under the then Conservative Government and the poverty it had created locally.
Today, in one part of Kirkcaldy, one in four children are growing up in poverty. The last Labour Government lifted almost 1.5 million children out of poverty, and we will ensure that this one does similar. Unlike some, I do not believe that the purpose of politics is simply to ensure better opportunities for those we are here to serve. It is also about bettering their outcomes, because every child in my constituency should be able to fulfil his or her potential.
As we have heard this afternoon, it is not surprising in a first speech to say how lucky we are to represent such a beautiful part of our United Kingdom, but in my case it is definitely true. My constituency takes in towns and villages including Dysart, Kirkcaldy, Kinghorn, Burntisland, Aberdour, Dalgety Bay, North Queensferry, Inverkeithing, Kingseat, Crossgates, Auchtertool, Cowdenbeath, Hill of Beath and Lumphinnans, as well as the islands of Inchcolm and Inchkeith. We have some 19 miles of glorious Fife coastline, stunning beaches and rolling fields. One end of the engineering wonder that is the Forth bridge, a UNESCO world heritage site, rests in North Queensferry. Hon. Members who may wish to take a train across it to visit us would find much to enjoy, from the Links market in the Lang Toun, Europe’s longest street fair, to Burntisland highland games, the second oldest highland games in Scotland, and many wonderful galas—I greatly enjoyed parading in the excellent Cowdenbeath gala day this year—as well as a multitude of events at Aberdour festival, and so much more besides.
However, it is a different kind of beauty which truly marks my constituency as special: the beauty of community solidarity and looking out for each other in difficult times. Today, our food banks and so many amazing community organisations such as Max’s Meals, the Cottage, the local YMCA, Greener Kirkcaldy and Nourish are doing work that they should not have to do to stop people going hungry. Just as we on the Labour Benches recognise the beauty of this community solidarity, we work for the day when nobody has to rely on it.
Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy helped to power the industrial success of this country, as mining was once a booming industry. People worked incredibly hard in often dangerous conditions, as the tragedy of the Seafield colliery disaster showed. I am proud to be a trade unionist, and indeed unions have a proud history in Fife because of our mining heritage. We have a proud industrial history too, of openness and connection to the wider world, where once we were a world leader in linoleum production.
It is well known that economist Adam Smith was born locally and wrote his hugely influential text “The Wealth of Nations” in Kirkcaldy. His book “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”, written over 250 years ago, is less well-known but made significant observations about empathy between human beings, including between those in countries far apart. A lesson in our common humanity could not be any more important in today’s deeply dangerous world.
The people of Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy are rightly proud of our industrial past, but we know too that pride in the past does not allow our children to reach their potential. What my constituents want is a future to look forward to, with work that pays fairly, and it is the job of those of us elected to this House to make that possible.
Fife has a housing emergency. I contrast our new UK Labour Government’s programme to build 1.5 million new homes in England with the unacceptable fact that we simply do not have enough homes for all of the people who need them in Scotland.
Today, the NHS, which is under so much strain, is our biggest employer locally, and I pay tribute to the staff at the Victoria hospital in particular. Mine is a family indebted to the NHS, as so many across this country are, but this Labour Government—and hopefully a Labour Scottish Government from 2026—have so much to do to repair it.
My constituency is also home to a significant Polish community, whose presence was established by brave war veterans unable to return home after fighting the Nazis in world war two. Those who seek to sow hatred and division in this country would do well to remember that many of us simply would not be here without immigration; my own great grandfather was a Polish immigrant. The Polish community in my constituency is an example of the way that immigration so often enriches our communities.
In my previous work leading international development and humanitarian aid charities, I met thousands of people forced to flee their homes for survival. Among crowded Syrian refugee camps, parched Nigerian internally displaced persons camps, and the unbearable horror being inflicted on Gaza, I have seen the impact of humanity at its worst. I have hugged other mothers, each of us with the same desires for our children, but each of us also with vastly different chances of ever achieving them simply because of an accident of birth—there, but for the grace of God, go I.
I have witnessed what happens when international law is ignored, seen how climate change ravages humans’ ability to survive, and observed the impact of mistakes made by this House. I have seen the worst of humanity, but I have also seen the best. I thank those I was lucky enough to serve alongside, especially the Nigerians, Lebanese and Palestinians, each of whom I was privileged to learn from. I particularly want to name my former colleagues from Gaza: Fikr, Mahmoud, Mohammed, Motaz, Wasim, Ahmed, Rasha, Asma, Nawraz, Amal, Moe, Mahmoud, Ali, Haitham, Tarneem, Afnan, Khaled, Heba, Saeda and Ghada. They are the best of humanity, and they desperately need a ceasefire, justice, freedom and dignity.
My life and political beliefs have been shaped by the experiences of my brother Ross, who is disabled. Like so many, my family, and my mum in particular, have had to fight incredibly hard with and for Ross to access the support to which he should be entitled from our education, health, housing and social security systems. Disabled children and their families should not have to fight so hard. There is a fundamental flaw in our state that it requires the parents of a disabled child to make it their life’s work to access the services that should be their right. This must change.
It is of enormous sadness to me that my dear dad is not here to see me become a Member of this House, having been taken from us by cancer, as too many still are. I was a schoolgirl when he first brought me to this place, and we never imagined then that I might one day sit on these green Benches. I know he would swell with pride if he were here today.
I thank my whole family and my friends for their love, and I thank everyone who has supported me along the way. Most of all, I thank my amazing boys. To my husband and children, I say that I hope I will make you proud. You are the greatest gift I could ever have asked for.
In the general election, Labour promised an end to chaos and division. I know that many of my constituents are weary of a Scotland that has been divided on the constitution for too long. Instead, people want us to focus on fixing our broken but beloved country, bringing people together and building a better future. I will do all I can towards this goal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Markus Campbell-Savours to make his maiden speech.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I congratulate everyone on their maiden speeches. It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) and for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), and the hon. Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) and for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson).
I represent the new constituency of Penrith and Solway, which takes in parts of the old Carlisle, Copeland, Workington, and Penrith and The Border constituencies. I therefore follow some truly great parliamentarians: Willie Whitelaw, a pillar of strength behind the Thatcher Government; David Maclean, Lord Blencathra, who now excels in the tradition of likeable nuisances in the other place; Baroness Sue Hayman, a champion of farming and rural affairs whose skills will be put to good use on the Labour Benches; Sir Tony Cunningham, a family friend; my father, a fine mentor; Rory Stewart, who now entertains Members, at least on the Labour Benches; Dr Neil Hudson, who has been re-elected as the Member for Epping Forest; and Mark Jenkinson, who represented Workington from 2019 to 2024—I may have profoundly disagreed with him, but I must confess that he worked hard for his constituents. I find myself slightly in awe at those Members whose predecessors have disappeared into the sunset. I will be seeing mine on a regular basis, but I promise to take any advice from them with grace.
Like the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), I have the privilege of representing a constituency in which I grew up. My grandfather brought my family to Cumbria in the 1950s, and his work as an engineer saw him on the platform for the opening of Calder Hall, the world’s first full-scale commercial nuclear power station. My family’s love of Cumbria and the Lake district has endured ever since.
I have had the pleasure of representing my home of Keswick on town and district councils and, more recently, on the new Cumberland unitary authority. I stepped down from that council knowing that my former colleagues will do their best to ensure that a challenging local government reorganisation is a success.
As I begin my time in this place, I leave behind my work in the electrical contracting industry and my career as a contracts manager—a role that saw me work with many people in leasehold block management. It therefore seems apt that I make my maiden speech in this important debate. As a former electrician, it is not lost on me that the tragic events that unfolded at Grenfell Tower were triggered by an electrical fault. It is now imperative that the sequence of events that followed set the ground for long-lasting reform that ensures these things can never happen again. I commend the decision to create the Building Safety Regulator, with its focus on high-risk buildings. While many Members rightly push for reform of the leasehold system and extending the right to manage, I hope the new regulator acts as a defence against those whose only concern is keeping building management costs down.
Winston Churchill once said:
“If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions.”
When it comes to the interpretation of British standards affecting electrical safety and fire safety, my view is that if you put two electricians in a room, you will get two opinions, but if you put the bill payer in the room with them, you will only get one. The regulator should ensure that any new rules are unambiguous and can be applied consistently.
I have heard a number of maiden speeches and do not wish to get into the unwinnable debate about whose constituency is the most beautiful. I will just take it as given that my constituency that takes in the Solway Coast national landscape, part of the North Pennines national landscape and, not least, the north Lake district, including the Borrowdale valley, for which I have a deep love, is undoubtedly in the top 10.
However, the real beauty of my constituency is not in its architecture, coastline, lakes or hills; it is in the people. When I was first elected as a councillor, I was taken aside by an experienced and recently retired parish clerk, who had a message for me: “It isn’t politicians who run things around here—it is the community.” She was right. I am in constant awe of the tireless efforts that volunteers show in my community every day: the mountain rescue teams, who keep us safe on the fells; the Maryport Rescue volunteers, who run the independent lifeboat service on the Solway coast; the flood action groups, who hold our flood authorities to account; our community-led housing trusts, who excel in delivering homes in rural communities, where larger housing associations fail; the community groups in Ireby, Hesket Newmarket and Nenthead, fundraising to save vital community facilities at the heart of their villages; our food hub volunteers; Churches Together, the Lions, the Rotarians and all the other groups that give so much. They inspire me, and this politician’s job must surely be to help them flourish.
I head back to my constituency for the conference recess knowing that I have many issues to tackle. The Old Court House in Cockermouth, already half collapsed into the River Cocker, lies empty, with little progress being made by its owner and other authorities to make it safe. Residents of Penrith have been plagued for many years by a revolting odour from a local meat rendering plant. The infamous “Penrith pong” has been particularly strong over the summer months.
Rural homes, many lacking modern home insulation, are in desperate need of Government investment to help permanently bring down energy bills. Farmers are in despair, as trade deals have failed to deliver and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs struggles to implement its new payment schemes. The local health service is struggling to recruit the vital staff my community needs to thrive. I am here in their service and to rebuild broken Britain, just as we promised we would during the election.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) and everyone else who has made their maiden speech today and welcome them to their place here.
I rise today with a heavy heart as we remember the 72 lives lost in the Grenfell Tower fire—an avoidable tragedy fuelled by systemic neglect, corporate greed and an ideology that prioritised profits over people.
I begin by sharing the call of Grenfell United for the removal of flammable cladding from buildings now, for sprinklers, for the Hillsborough law, and for speedy criminal prosecutions of those whose negligence, greed and dishonesty killed 72 people. But there is something more here, which I urge hon. Members to understand. The Grenfell Next of Kin group call this report “10 kg of words on pages” rather than justice. The anger that Grenfell survivors have expressed is an anger that many of us feel—that in Britain today, working class people are treated as expendable.
Less than a year before the fire, the Grenfell Action Group warned that their “dangerous living conditions” would cause
“a catastrophic event...an incident that results in a serious loss of life.”
They predicted their own deaths, because they knew how little anyone in power cared about keeping them alive. That is the inescapable conclusion of this report.
Building firms engaged in “systematic dishonesty”—that is what the report says—to profit without ensuring safety. Some of them knew that their insulation was a “raging inferno”, but they kept selling it anyway.
After the earlier fires at Knowsley and Lakanal and after large-scale tests warned of the dangers of cladding, neither the British Government nor Kensington and Chelsea council came to help the residents of Grenfell. Then, after the fire, a former Secretary of State responsible for housing, Lord Pickles, loudly told the inquiry to not take up too much of his time.
Nobody seriously thinks that the residents of London’s wealthier streets would be so ignored, so derided, treated with such contempt for decades and left to die. Let us tell the truth about the society in which we live: when two billionaires drowned on a submarine voyage to see the Titanic, powerful countries united in a global rescue effort, but when poor people and persecuted people drown in the English channel or burn in Grenfell Tower, we do not mobilise every single resource to save their lives and bring them to safety. That is a kind of class war—a war on exploited and persecuted people wherever in the world they are born.
Grenfell Tower was named after Sir Francis Grenfell, a general who carried out colonial violence in Ireland, Sudan and South Africa. When the British ruling class wants cheap labour from places like those, it houses workers in an unsafe building named after a man who may have killed their ancestors, and then ignores their warnings and leaves them to die. That was Grenfell Tower.
Residents have spoken up beautifully in recent days of the community in the tower, and of how people stuck together and looked after the weakest among them. They share the working-class values that we all should and they are entirely alien to the values that, unfortunately, rule in this society. The dead and the living deserve safe homes for all. They deserve corporate and state accountability and a different kind of society. Grenfell’s 72 dead are forever in our hearts. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Alex Ballinger to make his maiden speech.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow so many excellent maiden speeches today, in particular that of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), whose constituency is definitely in the top five or top 10 most beautiful constituencies.
I am pleased to deliver my maiden speech today during this debate on building safety and resilience. After the tragic events at Grenfell Tower, the safety of our buildings has never been more important. Many residents in my constituency live in tower blocks, and they will be pleased to see the Government taking practical steps to ensure that they can live in safety.
I am honoured to have been elected to represent the people of Halesowen in Parliament. I thank them for putting their faith in me. However they voted, I am here to serve them.
I would first like to thank my family, and in particular my wife, Nida. They have been incredibly supportive and patient as I have gone through this campaign and my first weeks in the House.
I am pleased to follow my predecessors, James Morris and Dame Sylvia Heal. James was the MP for Halesowen and Rowley Regis for 14 years. He was a hard-working constituency MP who championed mental health in Parliament and sought to protect the heritage of the town. He also sported a distinctive hairstyle, and was affectionately known in the constituency as Professor Snape. While we have our political differences, I think James was, like the “Harry Potter” character, one of the good guys in the end.
From 1997 until 2010, Halesowen and Rowley Regis was represented by Dame Sylvia Heal. A passionate campaigner for her constituents, Sylvia was easily recognised as she canvassed the streets of Halesowen in a bright red jacket. She also served 10 years as Deputy Speaker, and had the dubious honour of being in the Chair when, for the first time in 400 years, protesters stormed the Floor of the Commons. The last time that happened, they were led by King Charles I, but unlike in the 17th century, Sylvia restarted the debate after only 20 minutes, and even allowed the protesters to escape with their heads. She was well loved by her constituents, and they still remember her fondly.
Judging by the puzzled looks on many Members’ faces when I introduce my constituency, I think that it is fair to say that not everyone has heard of Halesowen. Well, Halesowen is a wonderful market town on the edge of the Black Country, and includes the once influential Halesowen abbey. In the 13th century, Halesowen was larger than Birmingham, and the abbey ruled over lands as far away as Wednesbury, Walsall and Warley. While the abbey’s lands are now diminished, Halesowen remains a juggernaut in the west midlands.
The whole constituency was at the very heart of the industrial revolution. Cradley Heath, Cradley and Quarry Bank were the centres of chainmaking in the 19th century, but conditions for workers were terrible, and in Cradley Heath in 1910 Mary Macarthur led women chainmakers on a 10-week strike against starvation-level wages. Her campaign led to a doubling of women’s pay and helped to establish the principle of a minimum wage in the UK. Mary would later stand for Parliament in Stourbridge, and nearly became the first woman to sit in the House of Commons. Mary Macarthur’s campaigns for women’s rights and better working conditions will be remembered this Sunday at the women chainmakers festival in Cradley Heath.
Newer to the constituency is the lovely green suburb of Wollescote, which was home to the 19th-century industrialist Ernest Stevens. Ernest made his fortune manufacturing kitchenware in Cradley Heath, and donated several parks to the people of the area: Stevens Park in Wollescote, Stevens Park in Quarry Bank, and Mary Stevens Park in Stourbridge. Ernest was well known for his philanthropy, if not his imagination. I mention him because at the start of the century my great-grandad was one of his drivers. I like to imagine him travelling across the constituency, taking his boss to work each morning.
It is not just through living in the same community that I have followed in my ancestors’ footsteps. My great-grandad, like generations after him, served his country overseas. Wilfred Ballinger fought at the Somme in 1916 before being wounded by shrapnel and being evacuated back to Stourbridge. His son, Frank Ballinger, served in the Navy, and landed to take part in the Italian campaign in 1944, and my dad, Robert Ballinger, spent 35 years in the Air Force, serving in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq. When both my brother and I followed in their footsteps and were sent to Afghanistan together in 2006, we felt like we were continuing the Ballinger family tradition.
At the start of that tour, I perhaps did not realise the reality of conflict. I was reminded of it during the election, when I met Sue Crookes, the mother of the marine Jonathan Crookes, in Halesowen. I did not know Jon, but he was a Halesowen hero, who served in Afghanistan and was tragically killed protecting his comrades. Having served alongside brave servicemen and women like Jonathan Crookes, I want to use my time in this House to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to support our armed forces, and the friends and family they leave behind.
When I left the marines, I became an aid worker, helping to deliver supplies to Syria, and helping refugees to rebuild their lives in neighbouring countries. In what felt like coming full circle, three years ago I played a part in the evacuation of Afghanistan when it fell to the Taliban. My team evacuated hundreds of vulnerable people out of the country and to safety over the border in Pakistan. Many of them had worked alongside the British 10 years earlier, and many were at risk simply for who they were. I particularly remember helping the dozens of young women from the Afghanistan youth football team, fleeing punishment at the hands of the Taliban. I am pleased to say that they are all now safely here in the UK, rebuilding their lives. I know that debates on refugees can become heated in this House, but I hope to use my time here to advocate for all victims of conflict, whoever they may be.
I know that the people of Halesowen will stand up for the vulnerable, because I have seen it myself. When I visited Lifecentral church, I was humbled to see the help that it gives to struggling young people, asylum seekers and the older generations. I am honoured to know members of the Halesowen and Dudley Yemeni Community Association, whose voluntary service was recently recognised with a Queen’s award. I have visited hard-working volunteers manning food banks at Cradley Heath Community Link, Manna House Pantry, and Holy Trinity in Old Hill.
That is just a snapshot of the charitable work happening across the constituency, which is full of passionate people dedicated to serving their community. As I begin my time in this place, I know that I want to continue that tradition of service—the service that my family has given in uniform, the service that the people of Halesowen have demonstrated to their community time and again, and the service that this Government will deliver as we rebuild the country. I thank the people of Halesowen again for electing me as their representative. I have served my country for the past 20 years, and I will serve them as their Member of Parliament with the same dedication.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
May I also pay tribute to the Grenfell families at this very difficult time, following the recently published report? My thoughts are also with the families of those affected by the fires in Slough and east London.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and others for their excellent maiden speeches today. I thank the Minister for her explanation of Government policy, and for the reassurance that she has given us. The issue of building and fire safety is important to Reading residents, so I will mention a few local matters and ask the Minister few brief questions.
In the years since Grenfell, I have been constantly reminded and aware of the awful briefing that I had from Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service immediately after the tragedy. It was sobering and will stay with me for many, many years. I was told of the scale of the problem in our county, not just in Reading but in other towns such as Slough, Wokingham and Bracknell. What I heard from the fire service about the scale of the problems that it was uncovering, and the serious threat to human life from building safety issues, was incredible.
To give the House some idea of the problems, which relate to cladding and other issues, the fire service explained that it had discovered holes in what should have been safe partition firewalls, and dangerous cladding in buildings across the county, and that it would take a very long time to carry out assessments across the whole of our county—just one English county—to fully understand the risk to residents, not just in taller buildings but, as hon. Members have mentioned, in lower-rise flats below the limit set for some of the measures. The service set out other problems, including wooden cladding, poorly designed fire doors and the need for waking watches. Incredible work followed on those issues over a number of years. It has taken a huge amount of work locally and, I am sure, across the country to tackle that awful legacy.
There have been significant delays in addressing many of the problems. Although they were uncovered some years ago, it took a long time to tackle them under the previous Government’s watch. In many cases, local residents were left waiting several years for remediation to privately owned or housing association blocks. I welcome the measures that the Minister outlined to speed up that work and continue to press forward.
Some issues were linked to local supply-chain problems. I thank the many responsible owners who took early action, including a number of housing associations, and indeed some responsible private owners, in my constituency. However, like other hon. Members, I have discovered continuing, often very serious, problems with some overseas owners and management companies. I have had some truly awful casework involving residents who have spoken in graphic terms about the pressure that they have been put under because of these issues. There were young couples who found it difficult to get to sleep at night because they knew that they were living in a block in which there was dangerous cladding. The overseas management company was not taking action to tackle it quickly enough. To make matters worse, they could not sell their property and had to live there, in some cases facing very high costs to remove the cladding. I welcome the Minister’s action on all those things, but I wish that the previous Government had sped up their measures to tackle this huge problem across the country.
I have questions for the Minister. I appreciate that other Members have yet to speak so I will be brief, but I want to hear more from her about action to tackle management companies based overseas, and how she plans to roll that out. I appreciate that might be difficult. I hope to hear more about the action that the Government will take to tackle manufacturers of dangerous cladding, though I realise that in many cases they are overseas companies.
I welcome the Minister’s action, and the vigour with which she has pursued this issue in a short period of time. I recognise her very genuine commitment, and know that this problem is serious in her constituency in inner London, too. I thank our new colleagues again for their excellent maiden speeches.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Peter Lamb to make his maiden speech.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I am grateful to be given the opportunity to speak on such an important topic. Much like everyone else, I have enjoyed the various maiden speeches given today. They have certainly given me a detailed lesson in local history and geography. I was startled to discover just how many constituencies apparently think they are the best. We will see if that survives the next few minutes.
I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Henry Smith. Henry and I had many areas of profound disagreement over the many years we sparred together, but one surprising area of overlap was that we are both vegetarians. Animal rights was clearly an incredibly important topic to him, and his parliamentary record shows that he served that cause diligently throughout his many years in Westminster, pursuing it at every possible level. In my time here, I hope to pursue my policy priorities just as diligently.
I also pay tribute to my Labour predecessor, Laura Moffatt. I have known Laura for many years. In fact, the first time I ever entered the Chamber was when I was a 15-year-old student at Holy Trinity, on work experience; I sat in that far corner, which I understand was not correct procedure. The support Laura has given me over the years has been incredibly significant; it contributed greatly to my being here today.
After many years of hard work, this year we had an amazing win for the reds in Crawley—I am of course speaking about Crawley Town’s league two play-off win. It was a fantastic result. For me, as one of the town’s foremost cheerleaders, it was great that for one day, we were absolutely everywhere. If people typed “Crawley” into Google, fireworks popped up in their browser.
Crawley is my home. It is where I was born and where I went to school. It is where I have fought on behalf of my community for the last 14 years as a councillor, council leader and now as an MP. I honestly believe that Crawley is not only the best constituency in the UK, but the best town outright. Our economy is a powerhouse, delivering one of the greatest concentrations of employment in the country. We are one of the UK’s most visited constituencies, even though, frustratingly, every time we are asked where we are from, we still have to add, “It’s where Gatwick airport is.”
Crawley was home to Mark Lemon, who during his tenure as editor of Punch magazine inspired fear on both sides of the House. We were home to pioneering electrical engineer Dame Caroline Haslett. More recently, Crawley has given Britain one of our leading journalists in Dan Walker, one of our most influential bands in The Cure, and the nation’s favourite—or at least most ubiquitous—comedian in Romesh Ranganathan. It has given us Gareth Southgate, England’s greatest football manager since Alf Ramsey, and victorious Paralympians Jodie Grinham and Katie-George Dunlevy.
Thanks to the long history of municipal socialism in the town—our early fathers and mothers include Alf Pegler, Bert Crane and Brenda Smith—we are blessed with fantastic facilities, such as K2, the Hawth and Tilgate Park, home to many of my happiest memories, including marrying the love of my life. I feel privileged to live in a town that has so much to offer. However, before Members pack in their constituencies and move down to mine, let me say that Crawley is not without its challenges.
Despite so many accomplished Crawleyites, social mobility in the town is the lowest in the south-east. I often have to get into real arguments with northern MPs to demonstrate that Crawley has some of the lowest social mobility in the country, far lower than most of the north. Over recent years, rising deprivation has meant that exceptionally high levels of employment have done little to assuage poverty in the constituency, and over a third of Crawley’s children are now growing up in poverty. Earlier this year, Crawley borough council became the first council in the country to declare a housing emergency. I love my town, and I am here to fight for it and solve those and other issues facing the constituency.
If there is one issue that I intend to prioritise above all others during my time in this House, it is housing, which is not only essential to solving Crawley’s immediate challenges but part of the history of the town. I fear that this part of my speech may echo many of the sentiments expressed earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis). Crawley is mentioned in Domesday Book and we are home to an Anglo-Saxon church, but the town as it is known today began in 1946 with the passage of the New Towns Act, an amazing achievement that I believe rivals Labour’s creation of the NHS. It had been intended that Crawley would be the first of the post-war new towns, but unfortunately, Stevenage pipped us to that title following a last-minute legal challenge to the development—some things never change.
In creating the town, planners drew inspiration from the garden city movement, designing each neighbourhood to be its own self-contained village incorporating a neighbourhood centre with its own school, GP, community centre and shopping parade, and fostering a strong sense of neighbourhood identity. At the centre of the town was a modern town centre, and to the north was one of the country’s largest industrial estates, located away from residential areas where pollution might affect people and providing skilled employment in light industry. Across the town, those planners built comprehensive infrastructure, green urban space and high-quality council housing, ensuring that residents from every walk of life could move to Crawley. If you talk to that first generation of new towners, they talk about being able to walk down the street and pick out which of the houses they wanted. Imagine if that were the case today! They could do that because the new town development corporations were granted the power to buy land cheaply at agricultural prices, and the ability to grant themselves planning permission to deliver at pace.
I believe that the model that worked almost 80 years ago remains the most effective means through which new housing can be delivered, in terms of quantity, quality and affordability. Indeed, the only period over the past century in which the growth in housing supply exceeded the growth in demand was when the UK was building the new towns. The lesson of history—certainly recent history—is clear: no matter how easy it is to get planning permission, builders will not build housing if that will result in a drop in house prices. Direct delivery can overcome that obstacle.
I was proud to campaign in the election on a Labour platform championing the development of new towns as an alternative to the high-cost, low-quality urban extensions and infilling that we have all too often seen. I am pleased that the Government have already announced their first site, and I hope that many more will now follow, using the same mechanisms developed and deployed by Nye Bevan to bring an end to the appalling housing conditions that the country faced in 1946. Is that not what today’s debate is about? In 1946, the country faced not only a shortage of housing but cities filled with slum housing in the most appalling conditions. A failure to learn the lessons of history has resulted in far too many homes today posing a danger to those living in them, from the horror of Grenfell Tower to the mould that eats away daily at people’s health.
The steps needed to address those risks to life are urgent and necessary. We must put residents’ safety back at the heart of housing, but we cannot forget that—now as in 1946—for too many, the choice remains between dangerous housing and no housing at all. With an intense programme of housing construction based on the new town model of the 1940s, we have the chance to bring an end to the housing shortages that affect so many of our constituencies, mine included. In the process, we can once again ensure that everyone has the dignity of a safe place that they can call home.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Tracy Gilbert to make her maiden speech.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this extremely important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Peter Lamb) and for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on their touching and moving speeches. I really am proud to be one of the Scottish delegates.
In the tradition of maiden speeches, I begin by paying tribute to my immediate predecessor, Deidre Brock, who represented the constituency for nine years—the first woman to do so. I wish her and her team well in their future endeavours. I would also like to pay tribute to Mark Lazarowicz, who represented the seat from 2001 until 2015, and who continues to advocate for human rights, asylum seekers and the environment.
The newly extended boundary once again includes Muirhouse, part of the constituency previously represented by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). This part of the constituency holds a special place in my heart as it neighbours West Pilton, where I lived and where my stepchildren went to school and attended Greater Pilton childcare centre during the 1990s. It is a groundbreaking facility providing families with access to affordable, flexible childcare—a model that I hope we can learn from and replicate.
When we lived in West Pilton, our flat was riddled with damp. We had to run a dehumidifier constantly, and it would produce litres of water daily. Our children’s health suffered, and painting over black mould was normal. We were lucky: we were eventually able to move. However, the flat is still there, and I would suggest that the issues remain too. Housing resilience must be a priority when building and retrofitting homes. Access to safe and secure homes is a fundamental right, and although it is a devolved issue in Scotland, we must learn lessons and work together across Governments to deliver affordable, healthy, energy-efficient homes for all, which must include the removal of unsafe cladding.
I also place on record my sincere thanks to Malcolm Chisholm, who helped us at this time. He represented Edinburgh North and Leith in this place from 1992 to 2001, when he moved to the Scottish Parliament, before standing down in 2016. He is why I joined the Labour party. His reputation and integrity, his achievements and his passion for the people of Edinburgh North and Leith are rightly still recognised, and indeed he remains an inspiration to me and many others in our community and beyond.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the record may have to be corrected as I have heard many hon. Members from across the House making an error by declaring that their constituency is the greatest in the country. They are of course mistaken. As many of those who have already visited will know, Edinburgh North and Leith can surely claim that accolade. From our amazing shops on Princes Street, George Street and the new St James Quarter, as well as our fantastic independent stores, we have the best retail across the country. We have world-class restaurants, cafés and bars—from the Johnnie Walker Whisky experience, which I was pleased to visit over the summer recess with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, to the Lind and Lime gin distillers, where my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was welcomed, and the Port of Leith distillery, the country’s first vertical distillery. I extend a welcome to all my hon. Friends to visit and join me for a dram.
Edinburgh North and Leith is steeped in history from Calton hill to the New Town, another UNESCO world heritage site, and onwards to Stockbridge, the home of Golden Wonder crisps; Newhaven, with its harbour and proud fishing history; and Western Harbour, reclaimed from the sea. We are home to the Royal Yacht Britannia and the Royal Botanic Garden in Inverleith. Leith links has claims to be the birthplace of golf. And although the stadium is just outside the boundary, the identity of our football team, Hibs, is Leith to the core. I can confirm that, as the song suggests, there is indeed much “Sunshine on Leith”, although not always on match days.
Our famous port of Leith—yes, the bar, but also the port itself—has seen the comings and goings of ships from all over the world, bringing with them stories, goods and people that have shaped our identity. The historic landmark reminds us of our rich heritage and the importance of preserving it for the future. This is evidenced through our proud industrial and political history, being where Rose’s lime juice was invented to prevent sailors from getting scurvy, and where Salvesen had a whaling business. In the present day, our port is reinventing itself for the next generation, with the green energy jobs of the future and with businesses such as Vestas and nearby Nova delivering wind and tidal energy.
Stitched into our community are so many sites of natural beauty, with the Water of Leith flowing through the heart of our constituency and being hugged by the firth of Forth. With the world’s largest arts festival on our doorstep, we house the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Leith theatre, Customs House, North Edinburgh Arts, Edinburgh playhouse and the new Dunard concert centre, which is currently under construction. Alongside our film and music studios, we are home to many authors, artists, musicians and poets. I could go on, and I possibly have for too long already, but this is by no means an exhaustive list, and it does not even begin to recognise the wealth of talent and diversity in our community.
I have yet to mention what makes Edinburgh North and Leith truly great: simply, it is our people. Being elected to this House to represent my home and my community is truly the honour of my life. I would like to thank everyone who trusted me with their vote. For those who did not, I hope that during my time in this place I can evidence that I will champion our home.
I understand that there is so much work to do to ensure that all can prosper as, sadly, for far too many people, Edinburgh is a tale of two cities. Too many have been left behind and suffered through decades of neglect. Poverty remains stubbornly high and is a reality for so many children. In our city, food banks have become the norm, where people already struggling to feed themselves, struggle to feed those who have even less than them. We have a housing emergency with more than 3,000 homeless people, many of whom are families with small children living in hotel rooms with no kitchen, resorting to cooking meals each day from a kettle. We have the scourge of addiction etched on people’s faces, clear for all to see. While our public services are underfunded and broken, our communities are resilient. I think of people such as Pauline Bowie, recently honoured for her work, and the compassion of all the unpaid volunteers and low-waged carers who work tirelessly each day for our community. Our strength lies in the people of Edinburgh North and Leith, who are known for their warmth, compassion and determination. Changing people’s lives by offering hope was why this Government were elected, and it is why we must deliver.
My journey started, like all of us, before I was born. I was born in Rottenrow maternity hospital in Glasgow. Yes, the House has not misheard me: there was a maternity hospital called Rottenrow. When I was a baby, and before I had a voice, decisions were made that would change and shape my life forever. I was lucky then, as I am now, to have people who loved and nurtured me. Although my mum, dad and gran are no longer living, they would be very proud, as well as very surprised, that I am in this place, as I left school at 15 with few qualifications and left home not long after. It took me many years to find my place in this world, and I am so grateful for the love of my stepchildren David and Zoe, for Zak and for my wife Melanie, for her love and support every day. To me, they are home. I thank all my friends, party activists, colleagues and loved ones who have supported me in my life and on my journey leading to this place.
As a child growing up in the ’80s in a council house in a mining town, with hindsight it seems inevitable that I would end up as a proud product of the Labour and trade union movement. In my working life—from a youth training scheme in the city council to being a housing officer and trade unionist, as well as through my voluntary work on the Children’s Panel, in drug and alcohol and mental health—advocacy has always been my passion. I have learned through life that when others give up on you, it is easy to give up on yourself. My promise to everyone in Edinburgh North and Leith is that I will not give up, and I will fight for everyone’s right to thrive. I will be their voice in this place, and as is Leith’s motto, I will always persevere.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Richard Quigley to make his maiden speech.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the previous remarks regarding the Grenfell disaster and send my sympathies to all those affected?
I congratulate all the other Members on their eloquent and informative maiden speeches, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), with whom I will happily share probably more than a dram of whisky as we argue over the first two places for best constituency, which is, obviously, Isle of Wight West.
First, I pay tribute to Annie Caddick, who won silver in the mixed doubles sculls at the Paralympics. We are all very proud of her. I also pay tribute to my predecessor Bob Seely for his seven years of service to the Isle of Wight as MP for the then largest constituency in the country. His interest in all things Chinese and Russian is legendary on the island.
My dad was not a toolmaker, but he is a Conservative councillor. [Hon. Members: “Ooh.”] I have got the sympathy of everyone now, apart from those on the Conservative Benches. While we do not agree on politics, he and my mum’s many years as councillors did teach me that politics is about service. It is also the reason I am stood on this side of the Chamber, although there is rather more room on the Opposition Benches on most days. My grandad Dennis, a lifelong Labour supporter, would be very proud that I am stood on this side.
From being the largest constituency, the Isle of Wight is now two of the smallest constituencies: Isle of Wight West and Isle of Wight East. I stand here as the very proud Member for Isle of Wight West and the first-ever Labour MP to represent the island. I look forward to working with my colleague, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) to improve the lives of all islanders, although it would appear he has got the early ferry home today, so he is ahead of me.
It turns out that the island is pretty good at firsts. In 1660, Freshwater resident Robert Hooke developed Hooke’s law of elasticity. In 1843, the UK’s first amusement park opened at Blackgang Chine, and is still open today, albeit, for those who know it, much smaller, as it is slipping into the sea—that is not part of the attraction, by the way. Marconi established the first wireless station on the island in 1897, and Saunders-Roe built the first ever hovercraft in East Cowes in 1958. We still have a hovercraft service to this day.
The first Isle of Wight Festival was in 1968, but in 1970 the crowds were so large that the following year an Act of Parliament was passed banning such large-scale gatherings. The first consumer electric cars—the Enfield 8000—were built in Cowes. In 2009 four-year-old Daisy Morris discovered a new species of dinosaur—not in the council but actually on Atherfield beach—known as the pterosaur. We even have our first prize-winning alpaca named Hip Hip Hooray at West Wight Alpacas. I am also the first owner of a chip shop to become an MP. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] There will be free pickled eggs for hon. Members when they come to the island.
Of course, we are also known for sailing. A special thanks to the RNLI and independent lifeboats that put their lives at risk to save ours.
The island is home to some fantastic produce that graces the menus and tables of some great eating establishments across the country—many will have tried them without even realising. There are fantastic tomatoes from Isle of Wight Tomatoes, asparagus and sweetcorn from the Arreton valley and Harvey Browns farm, beef from Cheverton farm, cherries from Godshill, and our own cheesemakers.
We also have industry. We make blades for Vestas wind turbines, we make aircraft parts, and the Thames Clipper boats that hon. Members see from the Terrace are made at Wight shipyard in East Cowes. We have a thriving arts culture. The Trinity, Quay Arts and Apollo theatres, where a young Anthony Minghella started his acting career, are still very active.
But it is the people who make the Isle of Wight. It is community that makes it a special place to live and the envy of towns and villages across the country. Whether it is the Saturday morning tea and cake in Niton, the regular events in Yarmouth, the community-run sports centre in Freshwater, the warm space in Northwood, the volunteers at Cowes food bank, the model train enthusiasts who open up to the community, the amazing work of Pan Together in Newport or the inclusivity of East Cowes, as well as the many charities—a special mention to the Ellen MacArthur Cancer Trust—community is the heart of the island.
When I made it to this place, Isle of Wight West was referred to, along with many others, as a “bonus” seat —that appears to be code for “Oh, fffair play—you won!”—but we won due to the hard work over the past five years of 120 volunteers, returning me as the only Labour councillor and now the first Labour MP for the island. I would like to thank every single one of them, but special thanks must go to my agent Phil Attfield, whose commitment was second to none. Extra special thanks must go to my wife Leah and my two children and grandchildren for their unwavering support and for putting up with me over the last few years.
As rosy a picture as I paint of our wonderful island and how much we contribute to British life, we have all the same problems as coastal and rural towns, including poor access to NHS dentistry, GPs and adult social care, SEND education in crisis and a severe lack of secure and adequate homes. Those problems are exacerbated by our being an island. Imagine being charged between £50 and £300 every time you drove to a neighbouring county—travelling from Derby to Nottingham, from Southampton to Salisbury or from Oxford to Aylesbury would become prohibitive.
Ferry travel across the Solent has become unreliable and ferociously expensive in the last few years, so much so that it is now a barrier to opportunity. Having to rely on expensive, privately run ferries means that school trips do not happen and NHS appointments on the mainland are missed, or patients are so worried that they travel the night before and pay for a hotel. My predecessor mentioned ferries 23 times in seven years, but ferries are such a huge issue to me and my constituents—I am guessing my hon. Friends have not realised this!—that I have promised to mention ferries and cross-Solent ferry travel at every opportunity, regardless of the topic. I might even get past 23 times in this speech. [Laughter.] I hope the House forgives me if I do.
I am a husband, dad, grandad, walker of our three dogs and an enthusiastic visitor to island pubs. My focus while in this place will be on finding solutions to the issues that I have outlined. My job as MP is to champion the island in this House, to ensure that I represent all my constituents and that the island is no longer a forgotten outpost and gets its fair share of support from my Government, as well as action on ferries. [Laughter.] I extend a warm invitation to everyone on the estate to visit the Isle of Wight, and I make a plea to Ministers to visit.
I spent some time in the first few weeks talking to the Doorkeepers and security and restaurant staff. I explained that I found this place to be one of the friendliest workplaces I have ever stepped foot in—bearing in mind I am self-employed. The response was that this has changed as a workplace very recently. When asked how recently, they all replied, “The 5th of July.” I am extremely proud to stand here today with my colleagues as part of a Labour Government dedicated to service, and I look forward to being part of a Government who build a future for the Isle of Wight and the country.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her speech. We have heard fantastic maiden speeches today, especially from my comrades, my hon. Friends the Members for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley). Parents always want better for their children, and he achieved it by joining the Labour party. [Laughter.] A slow burner.
I want to start by paying tribute to the victims and survivors of the Grenfell fire, as well as the wider Grenfell community. I thank the brave firefighters who go to work every day all over the country to keep our communities safe. Theirs is a genuine public service and their expertise and selflessness deserve more than just respect, starting with funding and investment to see them properly resourced at their work. The contributing factors to the Grenfell tragedy can be seen in constituencies and communities all over Britain. We see them every day when local authorities have their budgets cut and the services they provide are negatively impacted.
Of course, it is not just local authorities that feel the pain of budget cuts. Our emergency services are no strangers to savage underfunding. In Scotland, more than 1,000 Scottish fire and rescue staff have left the service in the last decade. The Scottish Government have called on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to find £36 million-worth of savings by 2027—savings being the more palatable, yet misleading, name for cuts. Credit must go to firefighters and their union in Scotland, because they are protesting against the cuts that will see hundreds of jobs lost and fire appliances taken off the run. This relentless underfunding, whether to essential public services or in building regulations, leads to immiserated and impoverished communities that face heightened danger.
The topic of this debate is highly relevant to an issue in my constituency, as 102 domestic properties in Clackmannanshire have been identified as having reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, including roughly 2% of the council’s housing stock. Last October, 30 homeowners in Tillicoultry received a knock on their door informing them that they had just two hours to gather their belongings and evacuate their property. I can only imagine the stress that those people must have felt. Understandably, the confusion they felt at such news meant that many left behind important documents such as driving licences and passports, as well as personal belongings and precious family heirlooms on which, frankly, a monetary price cannot be put.
Nearly a year on, those homeowners still have not been granted access to retrieve their possessions. Among the residents impacted by RAAC, I met a couple who had lived in their flat for 40 years. This hard-working couple had achieved the dream of home ownership; when they finally paid off the mortgage on their ex-council flat, they described it as a moment of immense pride and achievement. Those emotions have been replaced with anxiety, despair and, in no small measure, anger—anger at the insurance companies that told residents that there was no obligation to cover such things, as they said that RAAC is not a named peril or insured cost.
After evacuation, some of the homeowners found themselves placed in hotels. Some chose to stay with family or friends. Some had to present as homeless and be relocated to Clackmannanshire council’s temporary accommodation. Some were relocated to bed and breakfast accommodation in Kirkcaldy in Fife, a town 31 miles away from Tillicoultry. What a situation to be in for those homeowners who work locally, have children in school or look after elderly relatives.
Nearly a year on and those constituents live a life in limbo: some are leading a nomadic existence, going from property to property; some feel like a burden on their friends and family; some tell me their physical and mental health has suffered; and some have told me that they are staring into the abyss, that their golden years of retirement have been snatched away because of the financial impact of what has happened to them. But all of them are united by the anguish of not having somewhere to put down roots and call home.
The ever-reducing budgets provided to local authorities are likely to mean that the solution my RAAC-impacted constituents will have to be a collaborative effort. To reiterate, Clackmannanshire council, like so many local authorities, as well as the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, know about budget cuts. With housing being a devolved matter and the Scottish Government announcing half a billion pounds’ worth of cuts only last week, I fear the Scottish Government will not right this wrong either. I say that with no criticism of the Scottish Government. My constituents do not want finger-pointing; they want action. I warmly welcome the resetting of the relationship between the Scottish Government and this Labour Government. This new positive working relationship is exactly the approach my constituents from Tillicoultry will need for them to receive the equitable solution and justice they deserve. With that, I hope the Minister will meet me to discuss possible solutions to the benefit of my constituents.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I congratulate all colleagues who have made their maiden speeches today. It is a massive relief once you have done it, so congratulations to them all.
This is a really important debate not just for the constituents of colleagues who have spoken already, but for my constituents too. I want to echo many of the points that colleagues have made so far. I will speak briefly.
The Grenfell Tower inquiry published last week criticised a “poorly run”, “complacent” Government Department that had “failed to act”. There are 93 leaseholders at No. 1 London Road in Newcastle-under-Lyme who are living in constant fear that history may repeat itself. Back in 2022, leaseholders at No. 1 London Road were made aware that an external survey had highlighted significant fire safety concerns over the building’s cladding and that urgent action was needed. The site was approved for Government-funded renovations, but over two years later, the previous Government had failed to act to protect the safety of my constituents.
It gets worse. On top of living in constant fear of a fire breaking out, the leaseholders have been left to foot the bill of premium insurance costs due to the building’s safety concerns. Five years ago, the insurance premium was £20,000. Today, it has risen to £570,000. As a result, leaseholders at No. 1 London Road in Newcastle-under-Lyme are being forced to borrow money and some have declared bankruptcy.
I am sure the Minister will agree with me that this situation is completely unacceptable and cannot go on. I hope he will find time to meet me—I know other colleagues have sought such meetings, too—because we need to ensure that this Government act where the previous Government failed.
David Simmonds
With the leave of the House, I will close this debate for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
It has been a very constructive debate, with a wide range of contributions from Members. I congratulate all Members who made their maiden speeches. It was striking that they covered a huge range of different issues which have been debated and will be debated in this Parliament. I was particularly struck by the expertise shown in areas as diverse as local government, housing, electronics and support for refugees, all of which, I am sure, will play a significant part in the future. I would also like to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for his very entertaining maiden speech.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) made some observations about the Hackitt review and the liability of construction material manufacturers for the consequences of significant problems in the buildings in which their materials are used. As the Minister said, the £5.1 billion building safety fund, which was put in place in the previous Parliament, is a significant step towards addressing those concerns, but it is clear that that is just one example of the many issues that need to be addressed. I have a list of points to put to the Minister, and I hope we will be able to work constructively together as we take forward a variety of legislation.
A couple of Members touched on personal evacuation plans. A consultation took place in 2022, in which a wide variety of stakeholders were invited to express their views. A key concern raised by the Local Government Association—I declare an interest as a parliamentary vice-president of that organisation—was that current legislation implies that there is a duty on local authorities and social housing providers to anticipate, without having to be asked or informed by residents, the needs of those who may require special arrangements for evacuation in the event of an emergency. It is clear from feedback across the sector that, where there is no expectation that a tenant or an occupier will advise a particular individual or authority, that presents a significant challenge. I suggest to Ministers that as they bring forward the Government’s response, that issue is addressed with a high degree of clarity, so that everybody knows their responsibilities and where they stand.
I was struck by observations made by a number of Members about particular challenges, including issues with fire doors and latent defects in buildings, which may not be spotted at the time of a building regulations inspection. I have personal experience of working in a local authority that commissioned a school; we discovered afterwards that the fire doors, which looked robust and solid, only went up as far as the suspended ceilings that had been installed by the contractor. In such an example, the individual doing the building inspection may need to have a significant part of the building taken apart so that they can carry out their duties and see what needs to be done. We need to ask ourselves how we can ensure that that enforcement is seen as reasonable by contractors and can be resourced effectively by local authorities, so that latent defects in items such as fire doors and fire stopping do not arise and create risks that simply cannot be effectively managed for the future.
A number of Members made reference to the longer-term history of the current set of building safety challenges. I am well aware, having been in local government throughout that period, that the approach taken by the previous Labour Government was to create arm’s length management organisations for housing. Some Members, including the hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), made particularly positive references to the last Labour Government’s retrofitting programme. I simply urge Members, as they begin to think how they would wish to resource some of this work in the public sector building stock, to ensure that we do not see a return of that approach: “Let’s create arm’s length management organisations, load them with the debt so it isn’t on the Government’s books, and then expect them to carry out the work.”
The number of arm’s length management organisations has diminished. There was a time, under a previous Labour Government, when local authorities could not access that funding unless they set up an arm’s length management organisation. A small number of those organisations remain, but the vast majority of local authority areas have determined that it is more efficient to do this work directly and in-house. Having a higher degree of control, visibility and accountability for that work is a step forward, so I urge those who might be tempted by the view that arm’s length bodies are the way to leverage additional funding into the sector without it appearing directly as a cost to Government to avoid that approach. We should be absolutely clear about the route for the provision of those resources, and about the accountability for them.
In her maiden speech, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) made reference to flooding as an example of an additional issue that gives rise to building safety and resilience challenges. Although it was not touched on in today’s debate, we also need to reflect that this House has in the past had to get to grips with issues such as the impact of legionella and the significant building regulation changes needed to ensure that very vulnerable residents are not placed at risk by a failure to carry out the proper inspection of building safety systems, and has had to ensure that building regulations and installed systems are functioning as they should to keep people safe from that particular risk.
This wide-ranging debate has touched on many different elements of the building safety and resilience world, and I hope that that will inform Ministers’ thinking. However, I have a particular question on which I want to press them for an answer. At the beginning of the debate, we heard from the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), about the decision to return to, or enable, the use of the EU standards relating to construction materials. I know that mention of EU standards has a triggering effect on some Members; it does not have that impact on me, because I am a strong supporter of close co-operation with our neighbours.
I think that the Minister was probably referring to the written ministerial statement of 2 September, in which the Government announced the decision to remove the end date that had previously applied—the date by which CE-marked construction materials could be sold within the UK market—and to allow those products to continue to be supplied to that market with no end date. That strikes me as a reasonable decision, but I should like to have a specific assurance on one point. The EU regulations on the fire safety of construction products date from 2015, and those are the relevant regulations applying to products that meet the CE-marked standard. That was, of course, before the Grenfell Tower disaster occurred. UK regulations were updated in response to the disaster by the previous Government, in 2018, and took account of the specific risks relating to construction materials that were identified in the initial phases of the report.
May I ask the Minister to assure the House, from the Dispatch Box, that following the Government’s decision to set aside the end date by which only the CE mark was required and to allow UK standards to be effectively set aside, the standard of the products that are imported to the UK meet at least the 2018 UK post-Grenfell fire safety standards? Otherwise, there is a risk that products that we would not be satisfied to see installed in buildings and that have given rise to serious concerns in the past may continue to be supplied to the market because they meet those EU standards, even though they may not meet the new UK standards.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Many of my constituents are extremely concerned for their safety. They are living in constant fear because of building safety and resilience issues. I am sure the shadow Minister agrees that the pace of remediation has been too slow in the seven years since the Grenfell tragedy. Does he also agree that firm action needs to be taken by developers, freeholders, manufacturers and other organisations, and that the Government must push to ensure that the pace of remediation is quickened?
David Simmonds
I entirely agree about the need to ensure that this work happens apace. During the debate, the contributions from the likes of the hon. Members for Sheffield South East and for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury) demonstrated the complexity of some of the issues with which Governments of all parties have wrestled over the years. I have the insulation material that was identified in the Grenfell report in my own home, because in certain applications it is considered to be within building regulations. We know that this is not a straightforward process, and we need to ensure that building regulations have the absolute clarity that local authorities require. That is why I press the Minister on this point: can we, as a House, be confident that the consequence of that written ministerial statement will not be a risk of materials that do not meet the standards that we imposed in 2018 being imported and sold into the UK market?
It is clear that there will always be a debate, not just in the context of housing but in the context of any complex public service in this country, between those who think that the best approach for regulation is to specify the outcome that we want to see—we want the resident to be safe in their home, we want the child to be safe in the children’s home and we want the patient to be safe in hospital; that is very similar to the approach taken in the aviation sector, which was mentioned earlier—and those who argue that the best approach is for Parliament and other relevant authorities to specify the precise safety features that we wish to see installed.
Each of those approaches has strengths and weaknesses. The previous Government, particularly in the early years, were keen to focus on the safety outcome that was being pursued rather than to specify individual measures that had to be taken, partly out of concern that those individual measures might not be as effective in practice as they needed to be. It is clear from the contributions by Members of all parties that they understand the complexity of this debate. The Minister will have to make decisions as we consider the future of building regulations. Does Parliament specify that there has be a sprinkler system in one building, but a mister system in another? Are we going to specify that there has to be a dry riser in one type of building, and a wet riser in another type of building? Or are those simply matters that we prefer to leave to local building control services, while specifying the level of safety that we expect to achieve? All of these are important elements in this complex debate.
As I said in opening for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we are determined to carry forward the work that we did in the last Parliament, largely in partnership with Labour Members, on fire safety and building safety. Those pieces of legislation inevitably require the current Government to provide guidance to local authorities, building control services, builders, construction firms and other parts of the sector. By working together constructively to support the effective implementation of those measures and provide absolute clarity on the expectations, we will achieve our shared aim of ensuring that all our constituents know that the buildings in which they live and work, and in which they are educated and receive medical treatment, meet the relevant safety standards and are environments and places in which they can safely go about their daily business.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
This has been an important debate on the safety of our residential buildings and, more importantly, the safety of the residents who call those buildings home. The final report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry sets out the appalling failures of the industry and successive Governments. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister set out in his statement to the House, we apologise on behalf of the state to each and every one of the bereaved families and survivors, and to the immediate Grenfell community.
We will demand responsibility for building safety—responsibility from this Government and responsibility across the industry. Too many buildings still have unsafe cladding, and the pace of remediation has been too slow. Like many colleagues in the House, I was in this Chamber seven years ago. Had we said to ourselves then that we would still be in the same situation seven years later, I think we would have considered that we had failed. That is very much the case, and this Government intend to address the failure. As I say, too many buildings have unsafe cladding, and the funding is there. There is no excuse for a building owner not to enter a cladding scheme for which they are eligible. We will accelerate efforts to bring all remaining buildings into remediation schemes, and empower regulators and local authorities to act, including by considering new legislation.
For good reason, much of this debate has been about safety rather than resilience, but as the Minister with responsibility for local resilience, I want to make the point that we are looking very closely at resilience at both national and local levels in response to the Grenfell Tower inquiry and the inquiry into the covid pandemic. We are looking at ways in which we can response to crises, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is leading a review of resilience, which will include work with the devolved Governments, regional mayors, local leaders and local resilience partnerships. Again, the reports have said that we ought be doing that. We are looking at the recommendations very carefully, and making sure that local areas are empowered and have the capacity to respond in times of crisis.
Zarah Sultana
I thank the Minister for giving way on the point about resilience. Obviously, firefighters and the FBU are key stakeholders in resilience work. I want to ask a question that I asked earlier about the statutory advisory body in response to Grenfell: what is the Government’s timetable for developing that and getting it on board?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her question. I was the shadow Fire Minister before the election, and I was very proud to get into our manifesto the commitment to get the fire family in the same room and drive standards. I cannot give her the exact date today, but I can tell her that dealing with this issue is a priority for the Home Office and we are getting on with it.
This has been a slightly odd debate, because its substance is exceptionally serious and rooted in one of the nation’s greatest tragedies, but we have also had the joy of a dozen Members making their maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) said in his eloquent speech that he hoped those watching would understand why it has been this way. I will pay due respect to those colleagues by reflecting on some of the things they have said.
I start with the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill. Everything he said about his predecessor, Bob Neill, was true. Bob is so respected on both sides of the House, and the way the hon. Gentleman started was very much the way that Bob finished, which was very encouraging. He mentioned the brave pilots leaving his constituency to go to war, and their sacrifice so that we can hold debates today. That represents the spirit that we should all hold to, every day that we are here. His point was well made. He also bravely said that the only football league team that had a Conservative Member of Parliament was his team in Bromley, and that Notts County fans might remind people of that at the weekend. As a Member of Parliament for Nottingham, I will let my Pies-supporting friends know, although I think the language might be more choice than the suggestion the hon. Gentleman came up with.
My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) has shown incredible persistence in getting here. As he said, this was his fourth time standing for election, and that says a lot about him, because others might not have bothered. It is really hard to run for election, certainly in the face of disappointment and, in 2017, of an incredibly narrow loss. Others might have looked for alternative seats, but he loves his community. Calder Valley and he are one and the same, so it does not surprise me that he stayed on, and it is a source of great joy that he is here. He talked about the longest running No. 2 in the charts having originated from Calder Valley. He was No. 2 for a long time, but now he has reached No. 1.
Similarly, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) she said that this was her third attempt to get elected, and she has shown similar persistence. She said that she brought with her a message of change. She mentioned special educational needs and water quality; this Parliament —and indeed this Government—will be measured by the progress made on those two issues.
Like me, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) is proudly one of the 43 Labour and Co-op Members of this Parliament. We join 11 Mayors and more than 1,000 councillors as Labour and Co-operators. It is a great joy to see him in his place. I was struck by what he said; it made me feel similarly about my community. He talked about the proud heritage of his town, but also its ambitious future. He said that the industries might change, but the principles will be the same. As Minister for towns, I give the commitment that I will work closely with him to make that a reality, although I thought he was brave to say that a Labour leader had come from his constituency very early on; I saw the Whips making notes straight away.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I thank the Minister for his kind words. I am sure he will agree that towns are the centre of a lot of our communities. I hope he will support the continued efforts to rejuvenate town centres—efforts seen in communities such as mine in Calder Valley, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan). We need to make sure that our towns continue to thrive in the coming century, and reinvent themselves, just as the mills reinvented themselves in my community.
Alex Norris
I absolutely can give that commitment. I think the model will change—well, I know the model will change. We want to get rid of the beauty parades, and move to a more allocative model of funding based on local priorities and local leadership, in order to rejuvenate our towns and drive our economy forwards.
The hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) confessed that she was previously an architect. I hope that she will bring her insight to the Department’s work, particularly on housing. Our door will be open. Possibly not uncommonly, she says that she will fight for more train stations for her constituency. I suspect that many will join her.
There was a beautiful irony in my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) saying that his constituency is the home of the cock and bull story, because although he is always very modest about this, he has a significant public profile in an industry that is about anything but cock and bull stories. It is all about very hard polling. On many occasions, when I have had an idea that I think is brilliant, he has disappointed me by finding a way to say on Twitter why what I propose is not right or desirable in the eyes of the public. But he has always been a friend to me when I have asked him stupid questions about polling, and I appreciate that.
Alex Norris
I will in a second, but I have not finished with my hon. Friend just yet. He is a very well-known pollster, but people do not know just how much he loves Milton Keynes; he loves it to the point of perhaps going on about it a bit, but not today. There is great experience from Milton Keynes on the subject of new towns and cities, and I hope that he will help us in this Parliament.
Chris Curtis
My background in polling taught me that we need to listen and speak to people from across society, as we did in that industry, and make sure that there is nobody who does not get listened to. That is very important in this debate, because a lot of the problems addressed in it are caused by communities and housing bodies not being listened to. That has resulted in a lot of these problems not being brought to the forefront. Does the Minister agree that across politics, and on all the issues that we discuss in this House, we need to be make sure that we listen and speak to everyone in society, as pollsters do?
Alex Norris
That is right. That is a well-expressed sentiment, in the context of this debate. It is our job, of course, to express what we think, and all of us will have strongly held views, but it is so crucial that we be tribunes for our community and give voice to those who are least heard; that is such an important role.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I was pleased to hear the Minister make reference to new towns. My constituency of Central Ayrshire benefits from the new town of Irvine, where I was born. Just recently, Irvine was part of the Government’s long-term plan for towns programme, and secured a commitment to £20 million to help us bring Irvine back to its best days. I hope that the Minister agrees that new towns are essential to economic growth and development, both in Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Alex Norris
I could not agree more. New towns were a feature of our manifesto, and there is a deal of public excitement about that.
Mr Dhesi
The Minister knows that I have a great deal of time and admiration for him. I have risen to my feet on the subject of building safety because many of my Slough constituents, particularly leaseholders, are fed up of being fleeced. The Labour party manifesto committed to leasehold reform, so will the Minister say exactly what actions the Government will take to assuage the concerns of my constituents?
Alex Norris
As always, my hon. Friend gives great voice to the people of Slough. We have heard clearly the message on leasehold reform, and we are looking at it very closely. I will cover a little of what we are planning to do in the substantive part of my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) made important points about her fight, and her predecessor’s fight, for women’s equality. So much progress has been made, but we are well short of an equal Parliament, as we are every time. We should all reflect on that, as a collective and in our political parties, and on how we can change that. It will change in our lifetime, but the pace is far too slow. My hon. Friend has the enviable, but perhaps daunting, task of following not only Gordon Brown but Jennie Lee, two giants of the Labour movement, but the passion and conviction with which she spoke augurs well, as does her work for Medical Aid for Palestinians recently; she spoke very movingly about her colleagues and the work they do.
Melanie Ward
My hon. Friend will have noticed that in my first speech, I mentioned that in Fife, we have a housing emergency. I draw his attention to the fact that in March, the SNP Scottish Government cut the affordable supply programme budget by almost £200 million. The new UK Labour Government are having to clean up the mess left by the Conservative Government—their black hole of £22 billion. In Scotland, the SNP has been in power for 17 years and has no excuse. Fife council had hoped to build 1,250 new council homes over the next five years, but that is now under threat. Too many people in my area, as I said in my speech, do not have a safe, appropriate place to call home. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time the SNP took responsibility for its financial mismanagement? I note once again that SNP Members are not present in the Chamber for this important debate.
Alex Norris
This is perhaps the defining issue of this generation. All political leaders have to demonstrate that they understand the frustration and pain caused by the lack of decent housing in this country. We are talking today about some very direct and fatal consequences, but across the country, there are other ways in which housing problems limit aspiration, health and opportunity. We were elected on a manifesto promise to deliver change, but colleagues in other parts of the Union have to realise that they also have responsibility. It is time to make fewer excuses and build more houses.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I am frustrated with the SNP Government’s slow progress on facilitating the removal of dangerous, flammable cladding. The Scottish Government were allocated £97 million by this place to facilitate the programme, but only £11 million has been used, with only one project being completed to date. Does the Minister agree that the SNP Government need to address this imbalance urgently?
Alex Norris
If anything has come out of the report, and if we have learned anything over the last seven years, it is that getting these remediations done requires really strong political will. We made that commitment in the apology we gave, and we are taking action. We need to see that north of the border, too.
Emily Darlington
On strong political leadership, will the Minister join me in congratulating those councils that, as soon as the new building regulations came out, took immediate action to put in a waking watch? I am talking about the wider regulations—not just the ones about cladding, but the ones about compartmentalisation. In Milton Keynes, within a year, we had emptied two tower blocks that had compartmentalisation, rehoused more than 300 families, and then demolished the towers, whereas Milton Keynes families in private developments with similar issues are still waiting for remediation work to be done. We often hear that councils are slower than the private sector, but does the Minister agree that councils have responded more quickly and more responsibly than the private sector to these issues?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend is too humble to point to her role in Milton Keynes, but the political will exercised on that and many other housing issues has got results. The Government will display the same degree of political will, and we need to see it in local government, too. Milton Keynes sets a really good example.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
It is troubling that many owners, who, according to the Act, are responsible for fire safety in these blocks, are seeking to establish themselves in foreign jurisdictions, often in tax havens. How can the Government take action to ensure that those who are responsible—often those who were responsible for the defects in the first place—and who are now seeking to evade jurisdiction in this country, can be brought to justice? Will the Government have to appropriate these buildings to do the remediation work that is so badly needed, and not at residents’ expense?
Alex Norris
This is on two tracks. First, we have deals with 55 of the biggest developers to do those remediations. The money is there, and they need to get on with it. A significant majority, if not a vast majority, of cases will see that action. That will cover most people. As my hon. Friend says, action is not as easy where firms have gone bust, disappeared or chosen more nefarious options to evade their responsibilities. We have set aside grant funding to ensure people do not suffer as a result of that, so I hope that gives an assurance that, no matter the hoops or the attempts at evasion made by those who really ought to do better, the Government will stand by the people who are most affected.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alex Norris
An enviable choice of hon. Friends wish to intervene. I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern).
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is clearly very popular. I want to follow up on the compelling point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who said that a lot of the issues we have talked about today are exacerbated by the fact that the owners of the buildings—the freeholders, in these cases—are not always willing to fulfil their obligations to do right by their tenants. This Government are committed to enacting legislation to bring in the important reforms needed to truly bring an end to the problematic nature of leasehold relationships. Will the Minister be working closely with others in his Department to ensure building safety is at the heart of those regulations, so we have a joined-up approach to tackling the issue at its root?
Alex Norris
I will come back to what we are going to do about leasehold in more detail in a second, but the principles are exactly as he says. We will be holding those principles in our heads as we consider our response to the report, to ensure our actions, legislative or otherwise, meet the moment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alex Norris
I am about halfway through my remarks about the maiden speeches we have heard, but I assure colleagues that I have an awful lot to say on the substance of the debate. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am keen to take interventions at that point, but it would be a great joy if they could let me finish my remarks about the maiden speeches first.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway was born and bred of his community, and obviously comes from a long line of people who have made a difference to it. His experience around leasehold will be useful for us in government, as will his knowledge of electrical safety, which is at the root of the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) talked about two predecessors who were distinctive—one for their hair and one for their coat—and I wondered what his distinctive nature might be. Sadly, it will not be his name, as I join him in that already, but I wonder if the distinction will be the extraordinary service in the armed forces that he, his brother and four generations of his family have given to our country. His is a staggering story of commitment to this country. He is now entering a different phase and type of service, in which I know he will excel and that he will find rewarding in different ways, serving his country and his community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) talked about first coming here as a 15-year-old and, as a result, getting a taste and enthusiasm for the House. I wondered how many other Members came here when they were younger and were inspired. In my case, I was 11, but I suspect that will be true for many others. It speaks to the responsibility that we have as parliamentarians to use the brilliant things that Parliament has to share and promote Parliament and democracy to young people in our communities. I commend my hon. Friend for his brilliant work on his borough council. I am not surprised he has made the analysis that he now wants to come here and fight for his town, because I made a similar analysis. I know it frustrates him when people say, about his constituency, that Gatwick is distinctive of it, but it is an important part of our country, both for holidaymakers and for people arriving for the first time. That first moment is so important to their integration and their lives here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) shared her story. I am sure many right hon. and hon. Members would associate themselves with the challenges in childhood that inspired her to be here today. She spoke about housing being a devolved issue and it is right that it should be handled appropriately, but I hope she has taken some succour, as I have, from the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister’s attempts to reset relations with devolved Governments. On the issue of housing, as on many others, we can do good work. She offered us all a visit, as well as the inducement of whisky and the Edinburgh festival.
Brian Leishman
I am sure the Minister will remember from my speech the harrowing story of my constituents from Tillicoultry who have suffered, and continue to suffer, from the horrible mental and physical impact of being evacuated from their homes at such short notice. Will he agree to meet me to discuss possible solutions for my constituents, bearing in mind the resetting of relationships between this Labour Government and the Scottish Government and the fact that housing is a devolved issue?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend makes some very important points about reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, which I shall address shortly. On his request to meet me, let me say that I am always happy to accept such invitations. As I am the Minister with lead responsibility for resilience, it may be better if my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for building safety takes that meeting. She is very keen to meet colleagues to discuss what support we can offer as a Government.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) may be a proud islander, but I can detect a Nottinghamshire accent from 10 paces—watching “Sherwood” makes my ears go. I know that he is a proud islander, but, like his predecessor, he has that connection with Nottinghamshire. He also has the accolade of being the first chip shop owner to enter Parliament. That again is a very good inducement to get colleagues, and perhaps Ministers, to visit him. We do recognise that life is different on the island, and, as a result, some of the challenges are different. We in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are ready to support him in his work in that space.
I move on to the contributions of colleagues who were not making their maiden speech. That is probably well timed because, judging by the faces behind me, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) is coming to the end of his time as Select Committee Chair. He has shown such incredible leadership; he is a great parliamentarian, and has always been such a good and kind friend to me. I think it is safe to say that Ministers who have been before his Committee have found him tough and hard, but also very fair. He is also a very kind man. His service has been extraordinary.
Let me mention some of the points that my hon. Friend made. He talked about what help can be given to residents who wish to legally challenge recalcitrant owners and developers. Regulators have powers to act against such owners, and we expect them to do so. Our Department is responsible for holding to account developers who have signed the developer remediation contract, so if residents are concerned about the progress of remediation of their building, they should contact the regulator. If they are concerned about the progress of developer-led remediation, they should contact the Department. I hope that addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Clive Efford
I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard the example that I gave earlier of a management agency not giving the information to leaseholders to check whether they were being charged the right amount of money or even to seek legal redress. There seems to be no power to force those agencies to give that information.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend will be pleased with the answer that I have to that question, which, with his forbearance, I will give once I have dealt with the next few questions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East referenced the Morrell and Day report, published last year, to which the previous Government did not respond. The intention of this Government is to bring forward proposals for system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime, which will tackle issues both in that report and the Grenfell Tower inquiry report. We think that it makes sense to do that as a collective piece of work.
My hon. Friend mentioned product manufacturers and remediation costs, which the shadow Minister also talked about. We are currently working on identifying how we might strengthen the Building Safety Act 2022 to ensure that such manufacturers can make a contribution. We have been taking action already through the recovery strategy unit to hold those construction product manufacturers to account and to get money out of them for their share of the costs. Where the work has not had the results that we wanted, we have written to institutional investors and encouraged sponsors to reconsider their partnership, which has resulted in the severance of two sponsorship deals, as well as another to which a colleague referred earlier. We know that more may be needed in this space, so we will continue to do that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
It is very hard not to have an intervention from Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I outlined the case for the legislation and for building safety and resilience going forward. Does the Minister intend to share the findings with the regions of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which I represent, so that the appropriate Department in the Northern Ireland Assembly can take the legislative measures forward constructively to ensure safety for us in Northern Ireland as well?
Alex Norris
I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We will absolutely share the best of our knowledge and insight—I am sure that will be a two-way process—to ensure that we are doing right by everybody across Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Mr Betts
I thank the Minister for his kind words about my chairing of the Select Committee. I am really pleased that he is now looking at raising some money from product manufacturers; they have escaped their responsibilities for far too long. Might I suggest that he use some of the money raised to help with social housing providers, given the concerns that I raised about their being treated differently in their access to the building safety fund?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend’s suggestions often come with a smile but a degree of force. He will know that we are not very far from a spending review and a Budget, so I will not make financial commitments at this point. However, that idea is well expressed, and duly noted as a result. I am grateful for it.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I endorse what the Minister says about our hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). I, too, had the great honour of serving on his Committee many years ago, and at that time the focus was very much on housing.
In relation to building safety in Islington, where we all live on top of each other in flats, in 2021 there were 31 dangerous blocks of flats, which was terrifying for my constituents, many of whom were in fact private tenants, not social housing tenants. We did an audit in my office, and have been pushing. We now have only four blocks left, but it ought to be put on the record how terrifying it was over the years for those local residents, who had to pay for fire watches, could not sell their flats, and did not know what was going to happen. I have not been known for praising the Department over the years, but we are very grateful in Islington South for the support that we have been given by the Department until now.
Alex Norris
The right hon. Lady has put that on the record. It speaks to my earlier point about the importance of political will in this space. If we just wait for something to happen, we are not going to see it. There needs to be political grip at the national and local level, and we will certainly play our role in that. On her point about what her constituents lived with, she would have been sitting on the Opposition Front Bench seven years ago—I was behind her—when everybody said, “Never again. What action can we take? No job is too big or small.” But that is not what happened. It was a huge broken promise to the British people—her constituents and beyond.
Mike Amesbury
On the point about political will, the leasehold system is unfortunately still alive and kicking. I know that many of us look forward to seeing that feudal system kicked into the history books via oncoming legislation. It seems that service charges have become a cash cow for some interesting characters in the industry. What will the Minister and his team do to ensure that we move things forward, and that commonhold is the de facto tenancy in this country for flats?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend heard what I said about leasehold, and what we said in the manifesto that we both stood on. I will get to service charges shortly, because both he and our hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) made that point very well. I think they will be glad to hear what I have to say.
Let me deal first, though, with prosecutions, referring particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). He has the closest stake in this issue, and spoke today with incredible passion. I know that he will be an outstanding advocate for his community, and I am sure that he will bring forward a lot of his frustrations about the pace of change. I think that point was well made. He has made multiple times the point about prosecutions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his recent statement to the House, those affected have waited too long for justice, and those responsible must be held accountable. As the Met police have said, this will take time. It is one of the largest and most complex investigations that they have ever had to conduct, with 180 officers and staff dedicated to it. We fully support the Met and the Crown Prosecution Service as they carry out their investigations. They must be given space to do that.
Emily Darlington
We have been talking quite passionately in this debate, but we often lose sight of the stories of those who were actually affected. I think not least of a woman—she shall remain anonymous—who bought her flat as a way to ensure that she and her husband would be debt-free in their retirement. Unfortunately, her husband has passed away. Although they planned to be able to pay for the insurance and the service charge, those costs have gone up by 600%. She, an elderly lady in her retirement, is now accruing debt that she never wanted to pass on to her family. That is an issue not of cladding, but of wider things. For her, the mess that has been left, and the lack of clarity around remediation, means that her daily life is now a stressful situation. Does the Minister agree that the Secretary of State in the previous Government, who is responsible for this mess and misery, has no place leading any political party in this country?
Alex Norris
Everyone will have been angered by what we saw in the report. All those who played a part and made decisions will rightly reflect on their role and responsibilities in this, and will, I assume, make appropriate judgments in respect of the scale of the issue. My hon. Friend talks about service charges, so I will turn next to that point.
Alan Gemmell
Before the Minister moves on to service charges, I remind the House of something that I said last week, following the Prime Minister’s statement, about a similar fire that took place in Irvine in my constituency in 1999. A fire ripped through a 14-storey block of flats, leading to one fatality. Thanks to the work of my predecessor, Sir Brian Donohoe, building regulations were changed following that fire. I hope that the Minister will consider those building regulations and the Garnock Court fire as he examines what went wrong in the terrible tragedy at Grenfell.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that thoughtful intervention. I can assure my hon. Friend that Ministers are indeed considering that as part of this whole process. We need to learn those lessons.
Barry Gardiner
On regulation, my hon. Friend will know that Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report made very strong statements about the difficulty of reconciling the role of maintaining standards with the competitive environment. It was when building control ceased to be the responsibility solely of local authorities and became privatised building control functions that things started to go wrong. What action will my hon. Friend and the Government take to ensure that one set of standards is applied in one particular way and is not subject to trading? Saying “We will give you a shortcut if you come to us” is what went on, but it is wrong and needs to stop.
Alex Norris
Throughout the debate, colleagues have raised important and startling accounts of just that—the way in which standards have been circumvented. That speaks to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said at the beginning about how the culture has fallen into a race to the bottom. On the regulatory changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) wants to see from the Government, we are looking at the report and have made commitments to come back on it within six months. We will give the Chamber the chance to discuss the report in greater detail. I hope he can give us the space to come forward with those suggestions and changes, but his points are well made.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The UK Government have pledged to speed up the process of removing dangerous cladding from English buildings following the publication of the damning Grenfell inquiry report, which set out a series of significant failures. Does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government must start treating the issue with the urgency it deserves? The SNP has already re-profiled hundreds of thousands of pounds from this vital programme to plug the black hole it created in its own budget. This cannot happen again. Building safety cannot be sacrificed to SNP incompetence and financial mismanagement.
Alex Norris
A theme of this debate has been that we will not make the changes we need to make or keep people safe in the way they should be able to expect without really strong political will, at whatever level and whatever point politicians touch the process. It is incumbent on all of us to use all the levers and tools we have to ensure that we meet our responsibilities. Where colleagues have not done so, they really must reflect on that, frankly, and change.
Oliver Ryan
The Minister is being very generous with his time. I wonder whether he will meet me and representatives from Burnley council, which has a very good retrofit scheme that actually makes profit for the council and seems to retrofit street after street of terraced houses in Burnley. I note with interest the comments made by the shadow Minister about arm’s length companies used under the previous Labour Government to precipitate retrofit programmes. In areas such as Burnley, including Burnley Wood and Trinity, that approach worked and actually brought a great deal of investment into streets that are, quite frankly, still in need of repair and retrofit. Is the Minister interested in coming to Burnley to meet me on that front, and may I praise him for his kind words about Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield earlier?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that kind offer. Of course I will readily accept a visit to Burnley—perhaps through the lens of my role as the local growth and towns Minister. We could have a very interesting visit and I would be glad to do it.
I am conscious of the time; I am going to run out of it, unthinkably. We may have to pick up any further interventions in a different form, because I want to get to the points about buildings insurance, lending and service charges raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury), for Eltham and Chislehurst and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee).
One thing we know is that there has not been enough change in this space over the past seven years, but there has been change in the insurance bills that many leaseholders have been facing. We understand the financial and emotional impact that extreme insurance premiums have been having on leaseholders. Affected leaseholders have been burdened with paying too high premiums for too long. I assure colleagues that we are working actively to reduce premiums for leaseholders, and we are reviewing how better to protect leaseholders from costs and push for fair premiums for leaseholders in buildings with fire safety issues.
Colleagues have talked about buying, selling or remortgaging homes. We have seen improvements in that space, but we remain vigilant. We will continue to hold particularly the 10 largest lenders to account following their commitment to lend on properties even where remediation is not yet complete. They must keep that promise.
On service charges, by law, variable service charges must be reasonable. As colleagues have raised, that has been stretched significantly by some of the practices we have seen. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 contains measures to ensure that leaseholders get key financial and non-financial information so that they can scrutinise and hold to account the organisations that they are working with on service charges. Not all of that legislation has been commenced; secondary legislation is required, but we are working on that actively. We just want to get it right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) talked about the pace of remediation. Again, we accept that the pace is too slow; we have said that throughout, and what we have seen in Dagenham and Slough are horrific reminders of the risk that unsafe cladding still poses to far too many people. The Deputy Prime Minister has been very clear on her intention to drive that forward—again, there is that political will—and to get more action out of manufacturers, freeholders, developers and organisations with responsibility for making sure that buildings are safe. Too many building owners are still not acting quickly enough, so we will investigate, pursue the most egregious actors who are creating unacceptable delays, and hold them to account. The message from this Dispatch Box and from this Government is clear: “Use the routes we have created to get your buildings fixed, and get on with it.”
I now turn to the points made by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) about the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman expressed concern that the report would be shelved, and the hon. Lady was concerned that it would just be words, so again, let me make the commitment—this speaks to the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner)—that the report’s recommendations must be considered with the seriousness that this tragedy deserves. We will look at all 58 recommendations in detail; there will be a debate on the Floor of this House; we will respond in full within six months; and we will be listening to the community throughout the process. We will update Parliament annually on our progress so that we can be held to account, but we will also get on quickly with the things we can do, whether that is speeding up remediation or reforming construction products. The change has not been at the pace that it ought to have been, but it will get better. I can commit that the report will not, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, just be shelved—far from it.
The hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and for Woking (Mr Forster) mentioned buildings under 11 metres. Our approach to cladding remediation has been to prioritise the risk of loss of life. It is generally accepted that the risk to life is proportional to the height of buildings, so the risk to life is usually lower in buildings under 11 metres, and they are very unlikely to need the same costly remediation. Building safety remediation works may be required in a very small number of those buildings, but so far, our casework as a Department over the past couple of years shows that of the more than 160 cases that have been raised, only three have fallen into that category. As such, we think that is an appropriate distinction to draw.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a point about RAAC. This issue is different in Scotland than it is in England: Scotland has its own responsibilities, which the Scottish Government must work within, and as I said to my hon. Friend, we will work within the best practices too. It is the duty of building owners, including local authorities if they are the owner, to fulfil their duties to manage building safety and performance risks of all kinds—including RAAC—in a proportionate manner.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), talked about personal evacuation plans, or PEEPs. We must ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected. On 2 September, through a written ministerial statement, the Government announced that the Home Office will bring forward in the autumn proposals to improve fire safety and the evacuation of disabled or vulnerable residents in high-rise and higher-risk residential buildings in England. Those proposals will be called residential PEEPs. Through them, residents with disabilities and impairments will be entitled to a person-centred risk assessment to identify the appropriate equipment and adjustments to aid their fire safety and evacuation, as well as a residential PEEP statement that says what vulnerable residents should do in the event of a fire. The Government have committed funding next year to begin that important work by supporting social housing providers to deliver PEEPs for their renters.
The shadow Minister also mentioned product hallmarks. We stand by what was said in the written ministerial statement—I would have hoped that gave enough confidence —but for clarity, this is about stronger standards, not weaker standards. I hope the hon. Gentleman can take confidence from that.
David Simmonds
I would just like to press the Minister for the assurance I am seeking: that the Government have taken steps to ensure that all products that meet the 2015 European standards, and therefore are within the scope of what the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) said in the written ministerial statement, will also—as a minimum—meet the 2018 post-Grenfell UK standards.
Alex Norris
My colleague and hon. Friend, the Minister for building safety, has heard that intervention. As I say, everything that we have said is about higher standards, not lesser standards, but my hon. Friend will write to the hon. Gentleman about the issue he has raised. Again, I hope that I can assure him that this is about greater standards, not lesser ones.
To conclude, as the Prime Minister made clear, the Grenfell Tower tragedy was the result of unacceptable, inherent and systematic issues and decades of failure from both industry and Government. It is going to take political will to change that, and we offer it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered building safety and resilience.
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
We now come to the results of the Select Committee Chair elections. The results for the Chairs who were unopposed were announced on Monday. The elections for the contested posts were held by secret ballot today, and 577 Members voted.
The successful candidates are: Business and Trade Committee, Liam Byrne; Defence Committee, Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi; Education Committee, Helen Hayes; Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, Bill Esterson: Environmental Audit Committee, Toby Perkins; Foreign Affairs Committee, Emily Thornberry; Home Affairs Committee, Dame Karen Bradley; Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, Florence Eshalomi; International Development Committee, Sarah Champion; Justice Committee, Andy Slaughter; Procedure Committee, Cat Smith; Public Accounts Committee, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown; Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Simon Hoare; Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, Chi Onwurah; Committee on Standards, Alberto Costa; Transport Committee, Ruth Cadbury; Women and Equalities Committee, Sarah Owen; and Work and Pensions Committee, Debbie Abrahams. The result of the election for the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee will be announced tomorrow as a recount is going on.
I congratulate colleagues who have been elected and thank all candidates who have taken part. The full breakdown of voting in each of the contests is set out in a paper that will be available tomorrow when all the results have been announced. The Members elected take up their positions formally when their Committee has been nominated by the House.
Democracy in Bangladesh
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It was the sitar-loving George Harrison who sang that
“Bangladesh…sure looks like a mess”.
He made the observation in 1971, soon after the country’s formation, but it applies again since 5 August, after momentous events happened in that country. No one saw it coming, but the previous Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, who had looked so entrenched, was overthrown. Within days, her replacement was Professor Muhammad Yunus, a Nobel prize winner for his concept of microfinance. That did not happen without bloodshed. Hundreds of students were killed in the struggle for the new Bangladesh 2.0, as people have called it, and thousands injured.
Bangladesh’s founding constitution—it is only a young country—stressed democracy, secularism and socialism, but in recent years it has become synonymous with corruption, authoritarianism and repression. There were echoes of Saddam Hussein’s fall when we saw TV pictures of statues of the first ever leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, toppled, with effigies of him burned and pictures smashed, from the capital city, Dhaka, to Tower Hamlets. It was all because of his daughter, the ex-PM Sheikh Hasina, who had ruled in two bursts for a large percentage of the country’s existence. It was she who ensured the omnipresent pictures of her dad across the nation. For me, it had echoes of Tiananmen Square in 1990, although in this case the students won. There may be a fledgling interim Government, but I feel they have very good intentions, and we should congratulate them.
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend, and I congratulate her on securing this Adjournment debate about democracy in Bangladesh. After the recent upheaval, many of my constituents in Slough and people across the globe are extremely concerned about not just democracy, but the rights of minorities. There have been many attacks, in particular on the Hindu minority community. Does she agree that it is incumbent on the new Administration to safeguard the rights of all minorities within Bangladesh?
Dr Huq
My hon. Friend always makes excellent points. When we are talking about minorities such as Hindus and Buddhists—there are various minorities—it is interesting to look at who is propagating the stories. There have also been pictures of devout Muslim students from the madrasas in their topi defending Hindu homes. BBC Verify has shown that some of these attacks have been on people associated with the previous regime. Sometimes these things are a bit amplified by people with agendas, but my hon. Friend makes a great point.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She is absolutely right to highlight the issue. Does she not agree that democracy means the protection of human rights and religious freedom? I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We stand up for those with Christian faith, those with other faiths and those with no faith, the right to religious freedom and the right to practise faith or to have no faith. There can never be true democracy in Bangladesh until a Government and a system are in place that do not penalise people based on how they worship or where they worship, but that offer protection for people’s differences. That is what society should be like.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. On the UK’s role, is she aware that in May, the previous UK Government signed a deal with the now deposed Bangladeshi Government about fast-tracking the deportation of Bangladeshi asylum seekers, presumably including those seeking political asylum? Bangladesh was deemed a supposedly safe country. Does she agree that something has clearly been revealed to be wrong here, both with the deportation policy itself and with the UK’s foreign policy objectives?
Dr Huq
I have checked, and apparently some of those memorandums of understanding are being looked at by the new Government one by one to see if they are carried over. The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Let us have a reset. We have a fresh Government in this country and a fresh one in Bangladesh, so it is time to look at these things through new eyes.
Back in the summer—in fact, it was at the same time as we saw race riots in this country—there was footage of jubilant Bangladeshis marching through the streets of Tower Hamlets, the hon. Member’s borough. That confused many people, but it was in happiness; they were not angry ethnic mobs. There is a big global diaspora, with 70,000 in this country, including me. The diaspora can be seen across Europe. In some of the middle eastern emirate states, the diaspora has supplied cheap labour to build such things as World cup stadiums in Qatar. Bangladesh is a place that exports people.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about an important issue. I commend the work of the Bangladeshi community in Reading, who work incredibly hard in our town. They are visible in a whole series of professions and business activities. I thank and commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for raising these important matters about the future of Bangladesh. Across the House, we all share concerns about this wonderful country, and we wish it the best with its new leadership.
Dr Huq
My hon. Friend is so right. I did not see any demos in Reading, but I do know that in all sorts of European capitals, including Paris and Rome, as well as in Manchester and Trafalgar Square, there were solidarity protests when these things went on. The diaspora has been active.
I am a London-born Bangladeshi. I kind of knew about the country from my parents telling me that it was this paradise of coconut trees and those kind of things. I only went as a teenager. More recently, as an adult and as an MP, I have noticed the slightly more sinister side, with things like enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. Every human rights organisation—Amnesty International and so on—has condemned those.
I try to keep out of this subject—I do not have a very Bangladeshi electorate—but I was jolted when in 2018 I heard from the family of Shahidul Alam, a photographer who was taking pictures of an earlier student protest, that he had been banged up and tortured. Then I had to get involved. I was there as recently as May with the excellent all-party parliamentary group on global sexual and reproductive health rights—it has been reconstituted just today—for a United Nations Development Programme conference. Again, I realised that I was in a one-party police state—it is not quite right.
As one of the diaspora, these human rights crackdowns came into my inbox, and they reached fever pitch in July when hundreds of brave students gave their lives in a struggle. Before we broke for recess, I had a panel discussion, with the panellists including Toby Cadman, a barrister who has defended people from the Jamaat party that was banned by the previous regime—it has just been unbanned—and the head of Amnesty International UK. The discussion, which we had in the Grand Committee Room of Westminster Hall, was so oversubscribed that people had to be turned away, such was the thirst for information. I see the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) in his place. He was there, and I think that his defeat of Jonathan Ashworth may have had something to do with some comments about this subject, but let us not speculate.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree about the positive contribution that the Bangladeshi community has made to our country, which has made it as it is today? I would like to take this opportunity to pay homage to the Bangladeshi community of Leicester South, who are hard-working, entrepreneurial and philanthropic. Their commitment to using the political system to improve their community has made my city as great as it is today.
Does the hon. Member also agree that the riots we saw recently in Southport after the devastating attack and killing of three innocent people emphasise how important it is that we do not single out a community, because that can have devastating effects? Does she agree that both sides of the House should be much more responsible in the language they use to ensure that community cohesion ensues?
Dr Huq
I completely endorse what the hon. Member is saying. We do need to temper our language and be careful. Every Member in this House has a curry house in their constituency, and that will not be an Indian restaurant—it will be Bangladeshis who run it. An enormous contribution has been made to our society. With the things we saw this summer, we should stamp on the misinformation that I referred to in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi).
Again, those Bangladeshi university students showed courage, and they were not just the elitist ones from the capital city; it happened all over the country at public and private universities, with boys and girls. Their demands were initially against corruption but they grew to wider pro-democracy concerns and the overthrow of the Prime Minister. So far, so predictable, but then in the biggest plot twist since Bobby Ewing in the shower, when all those tensions were coming to a head, we heard that the previous Prime Minister had suddenly scarpered. She helicoptered out. A regime so entrenched that it looked like it would last forever suddenly collapsed like a pack of cards. In January, there was an election in Bangladesh—we hear that 40% of the globe is going to the polls this year—although there were not any other real candidates in it, so that was declared null and void. We now have this caretaker Government who are there to oversee fresh elections. We do not know exactly when those will be.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. She knows that in the city of Birmingham we have an extremely sizeable community that has Bangladeshi heritage, like the constituency of the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), and the Bangladeshi community in the curry houses contributes some £4 billion per annum to the to the taxman.
Does the hon. Member agree that the recent disorder and killing of students in Bangladesh has impacted the Bangladeshi heritage community here in the UK, especially when we had a lockdown of all telecoms? Does she agree that the next step must be a democratically elected Government and that that must be expedited, potentially with international observers, to ensure that it is free and fair, so that the loss of those hundreds of students’ lives was not in vain?
Dr Huq
I agree. Our loved ones were worried, and we did not know that was going on. We are talking about a country that can, at will, shut off the internet so that people cannot communicate with the outside world, or even with each other via phone signal—there was a Digital Security Act that was a bit sinister, and stopped all freedom of speech, thought, expression and assembly. Yes, we must rebuild. The hon. Gentleman made a great point.
The sight of Muhammad Yunus—until recently, the previous regime had tried to lock him up—was baffling but reassuring for many, because he is globally recognised. He was a character on “The Simpsons”; Lisa discovered his microfinance loans to women. Among his friends are the Obamas and the Clintons, and 197 world leaders have signed a memorandum to welcome him to power. He has the in-tray from hell, and a big job to do in repairing democracy. He was here in March, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) organised a meeting for him with the all-party parliamentary group for Bangladesh, which she then chaired. He is such a modest man; he had 200 different court cases against him, but he did not go on about them—it had to be teased out of him by Baroness Helena Kennedy, who chaired that day. He is known as the banker to the poor.
Nobody saw this coming. Bangladesh is a country of contradictions. It has 175 million people on a land mass the size of England and Wales, and is beset by natural disasters—at the moment, there are the worst floods in 30 years. Youth unemployment is sky high, which partly explains the protests.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on getting this debate. Does she agree that there is also a geopolitical issue surrounding all the changes in Bangladesh? Hitherto, it adopted a credible non-aligned position, supported the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and tried basically to be a promoter of peace in the region. I do not know any more than she does what the outcome of all this will be, but does she agree that the important thing is that Bangladesh remains independent and not aligned with any other bloc? Otherwise, we might end up with the further problem of a cold war in south-east Asia.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind Members that interventions should be short. I know that you have all just had a master class in very long interventions, but I am sure that Dr Rupa Huq is about to conclude her remarks, so that the Minister has an opportunity to speak.
Dr Huq
There is plenty more to say. We need a fresh start—a reset, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and “in neither Washington nor Moscow”, as the slogan used to be. We need less gerontocracy. Yunus is 84, though he is very sharp. The leader he overthrew is 76, and the opposition rival, Khaleda Zia, is 78.
I have some questions for the Minister. As I said, there is a big job to do. Given our unique role in all this, we should offer support. Apparently, the constitution is being amended and redrafted. Could we lend expertise there? British lawyers have good form on this; we constructed the European convention on human rights. Capacity building is needed to cleanse all sorts of institutions of party people who were in the pocket of the last regime. Hendon police training college is renowned all over the world; perhaps we can rebuild the police in Bangladesh, because apparently there has been a bit of a vacuum there recently. The Stormtrooper-like Rapid Action Battalion force should be disbanded, and the death penalty should be gone. Maybe we could do something about climate finance, because countries in the global south face the brunt of climate problems, and we are in the run-up to COP29. These measures do not even have to cost anything; we could put a polluter-pays levy on some countries.
Lastly, we need to recover some of the assets. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned foreign Governments’ interference. When I last went to Bangladesh, I saw Chinese power plants and Russian flyovers—lots of things like that; I cannot remember what they all were. Money that belongs to the Bangladeshi people was looted and plundered. We need asset tracing to recover it.
I understand that Professor Yunus is coming to the UN General Assembly. It would be great if His Majesty’s Government warmly welcomed him—I do not know if they will be represented by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), the Prime Minister or whoever.
We are talking about Bangladesh 2.0 and human rights. When Gandhi was asked what he thought of western civilisation, he famously said:
“I think it would be a good idea”.
Let us make sure that democracy and human rights in Bangladesh are not just a good idea, but a given. People are talking about this as a second revolution. Let us rebuild Bangladesh, so that human rights and democracy are a given. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
I am so grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for securing this debate and I commend the commitment she has shown to Bangladesh over many years. As we are aware in this House, Adjournment debates are usually quite a lonely affair, so it is fantastic to have had contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) has stayed here on the Government Front Bench following her earlier ministerial duties, because it is such an important debate. The hon. Members for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) are all great friends of Bangladesh, and are very active in the all-party parliamentary group for Bangladesh.
The UK and Bangladesh share an historic relationship, with long-standing economic and trading ties built from a strong development partnership. We are both valuable members of the Commonwealth family. Our long-standing relationship is strengthened by our people-to-people ties, with over 650,000 people of Bangladeshi heritage living here in the UK and, as was mentioned earlier, making a significant and highly valued contribution to our country and our relationship. The UK was among the first to recognise Bangladesh after it gained independence in 1971, and has supported the people of Bangladesh since then.
We want to see a peaceful and democratic future for the people of Bangladesh. Democracy, human rights, an independent judiciary and good governance are vital foundations for long-term growth and prosperity. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton outlined some of her ideas for how that can be built in the coming months. The UK is therefore committed to bolstering democracy and human rights in Bangladesh through our sustained support to leaders of civil society, defence of media freedom and championing youth empowerment.
We, like many in the international community, expressed concerns about the elections in Bangladesh in January this year. Democratic elections depend on credible, open and fair competition. Respect for human rights, the rule of law and due process are essential elements. Those standards, sadly, were not consistently met during the election period in Bangladesh and were followed by incidents of violent repression. During the recent protests, we were deeply saddened by the loss of life and injury caused. There are credible reports of the police using tear gas, stun grenades and live rounds. The United Nations reports that 32 children were among those killed. Children were also among those detained during the protests. The violence reportedly left more than 600 people dead, and thousands injured and detained. The former Bangladesh Government severely restricted access to the internet, mobile services and landlines. Those services were only fully restored after 10 days. We raised our concerns about the communications disruption in Bangladesh and the widescale impact it had, including on British nationals in country. We were clear that access to communications must be maintained and not used as a tool to repress freedom of speech.
In July, the Foreign Secretary and I issued statements urging an end to the violence and loss of life. We called for all sides to find ways to restore calm, including by establishing a pathway for constructive political dialogue. We are clear that peaceful protesters must never be subject to violence, and that rights to protest, to peacefully assemble and to express different political views must be protected. During the protests, I reinforced our concerns and messages about the situation in discussions with the Bangladesh high commissioner to the UK. The UK called for a full and independent UN-led investigation into the events, and is supporting its independent fact-finding mission to identify human rights violations.
We welcomed the appointment of the interim Government in Bangladesh, led by Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus, in August. The Foreign Secretary made it clear in his statement last month that the people of Bangladesh deserve a peaceful, inclusive and democratic future. The interim Government in Bangladesh have committed to restoring peace and order, ensuring accountability, and promoting national reconciliation, and they have the UK’s full support on those objectives. The British high commissioner to Bangladesh, Sarah Cooke, to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude, met Chief Adviser Professor Yunus and other key members of the interim Government, including the Adviser for Foreign Affairs, in August. She and members of the British high commission in Dhaka continue to engage with the interim Government on key priorities, and she will have heard the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton. The high commissioner and members of the British high commission are actively supporting this democratic process, including through the B-CAPP— Bangladesh-collaborative, accountable and peaceful politics—programme. We work with civil society, youth organisations, political parties and other international partners to encourage democratic participation, civil space and accountable governance.
The UK’s support to Bangladesh reflects other challenges that the country faces, including the impacts of climate change and humanitarian issues. My deepest sympathy is with the people of Bangladesh, in all its regions, as the nation faces the effects of the recent devastating floods; my thoughts are with all those affected. We have responded to the recent flooding with £483,000 of humanitarian assistance. That is, of course, on top of our long-standing support under the overseas development aid projects. The UK Government are also committed to providing humanitarian support for the Rohingya refugees, and we are very aware that, at this moment of stress for Bangladesh, this is a particularly precious duty that it is carrying out on behalf of the international community. As a leading donor to the Rohingya refugee response, we are providing humanitarian aid, including food, clean water, healthcare and protection services. Over £391 million has been provided by the UK since 2017. Because the current conditions in Myanmar are not conducive to the safe return of the Rohingya refugees, we are working with the interim Government in Bangladesh on continued support to those refugees.
As a long-standing champion of democracy, and as a friend and partner of Bangladesh, the UK will support the country’s interim Government in their work to restore peace and order, ensure accountability and promote national reconciliation. We will work with Chief Adviser Professor Yunus and his interim Government as they chart a peaceful transition to an inclusive, prosperous and democratic future for Bangladesh. As part of this regular dialogue, the UK will continue to raise concerns over the protection of human rights and freedom of expression. We will urge the Government of Bangladesh to ensure safety and security inside Rohingya refugee camps, and will reiterate that peaceful protesters must never be subject to violence. As many of our diaspora communities watch this important debate, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton for her relentless support for Bangladesh and its people, and for bringing this debate to the House today.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Portishead railway branch line
Westminster Hall
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Planning Policy: Traveller Sites
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the adequacy of planning policy for Traveller sites.
It is a pleasure to hold this debate with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. My constituents are reasonable people; they totally understand and appreciate people’s wanting to live alternative ways of life, including nomadic lifestyles. I have lived all my life in my constituency, and the Travelling community has been part of the constituency for that whole period of time. We respect the contribution the community makes to our society, as long as communities are law-abiding and let other people peacefully enjoy their property, settlements and communities.
The real concern in my constituency is about a number of planning applications, and whether planning policies apply equally to local people and to other communities, including Travelling communities. The basic principle is that there is one law for all, rather than one law for one person and another for another person: the law applies equally to everyone in our communities and society. With some of the applications, there is a real feeling that that is not the case, and that contributes to a feeling that we are moving to a form of two-tier society, which would be a dangerous state of affairs.
Where some applications are being made, our local communities do not understand why planning policy is not being overseen equally, and there is a deal of anger about that. That is the case with a number of applications, including one at Sheriff Hutton, one near Rillington and a number of potential others. The applications are being considered, and in some cases recommended for approval, on the basis not of planning law but of other laws, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010 and the UN convention on the rights of the child, as well as the European convention on human rights, which obviously has other consequences in different parts of our system.
Normal, law-abiding citizens go about a planning application in the appropriate way: they first find a site that suits their needs, before looking at planning policy and probably instructing an agent to act on their behalf, and they then submit an application before doing any work to that site. The application must conform to planning policy, or they will not get consent. They go through the various iterations of the planning process. It may take years to get planning consent for the property development, but hopefully at some point they get it. Most of my constituents respect the planning process and its outcomes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I apologise to you, Dame Siobhain, and to the hon. Gentleman, because I have other engagements and cannot stay. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the delicate balance to be struck between allowing travellers to carry on their way of life and ensuring that the community around them is not adversely affected relates not just to planning policy but to all policies? We want to foster Traveller communities that feel engaged in and a part of our communities; that can be achieved by building relationships and through a little bit of understanding.
Kevin Hollinrake
As always, the hon. Gentleman is very reasonable. That is exactly the position that my constituents and I take: this is about fairness and applying the law equally. The Human Rights Act contains a requirement to consider the rights not just of the individual but of other people in such situations, but it seems that some applicants’ rights are given greater consideration than those of others. That is my biggest concern. This issue has been dealt with to some extent through planning policy, but that has not been sufficient to deal with some of the problems.
I have set out how someone who respects the law and the planning process might set about applying for planning permission. In some applications it has not been done that way. Some applicants purchase a site first, probably a roadside site, with or without access—they might create access. Sites in Sheriff Hutton and Rillington are in open countryside and not in a location where someone would normally get planning consent for such developments. The site is prepared with the access and hard standing, for example, which is not a major contravention of planning policy and not something the planning department might have too big a problem with at the time. There might be an agricultural building on the site, for example, and water and power put into the site. Preparation occurs.
Then one evening—overnight or on a bank holiday weekend when the people who look after these matters might not be in their offices—the site is occupied unlawfully without planning consent. Caravans might move on to the site, along with other equipment, and maybe toilet blocks are built overnight, which happened at one of the sites, and the site is occupied with a view to being occupied permanently. It is not a temporary position; the people occupying the site intend to occupy it permanently.
Then the planning authority has to go through an enforcement process following complaints from local people about the application. The planning authority’s wheels turn pretty slowly, which I think the people occupying the site are aware of, and enforcement measures take place. That might take months, during which time the community might experience some disturbance and real concerns are expressed.
When enforcement measures are taken, the owner of the land will submit a planning application retrospectively. Despite the flagrant breach of the proper planning process, the application is then considered as if it were made using the proper process. That is where it fundamentally goes wrong: the fact that the retrospective application is considered on the same grounds as though it were a normal lawful process is what is wrong. The application is made, of course, on the basis of the rights of the people occupying the site. The Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, the UN convention on the rights of the child and the European convention on human rights are all cited in relation to the rights of the occupants—generally the families on that site who need healthcare and education. No one would doubt the need of the children and the people in need of healthcare to access such facilities. That is the basis of why the application should be considered, despite the fact that it is retrospective.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for graciously allowing a second intervention. Is he aware of the latest Irish Traveller accommodation strategy 2020-2025? If he or the Minister are not, may I suggest that they access it? It sets out guidelines to provide, in this case, Irish Travellers
“with access to good quality, culturally appropriate housing accommodation which fosters a sustainable, vibrant Traveller community”.
That allows the Travellers to enjoy their own lifestyle but at the same time consider the possibility of integration. Does he agree that perhaps those guidelines, which are from a different jurisdiction, might be helpful?
Kevin Hollinrake
Perhaps understandably, this is not my policy area. I am holding this debate because it is a constituency issue. I am not particularly aware of the Irish rules that the hon. Gentleman mentions. But it is right to say that local planning authorities have a requirement to facilitate the peaceful enjoyment of people who live nomadic lifestyles. I support that totally. North Yorkshire should provide such facilities, and it does. That site is occupied despite the fact that there are available places on a designated Traveller site nearby. That is one of the concerns: there are other facilities available, but the person who made this application does not want to be on them. I believe they are misusing the planning policy. I have no objection to people’s right to live alternative lifestyles and to live in different ways in their own communities; what I object to is the misuse of the planning process.
The issue was dealt with, to some extent, by my very fine colleague—sadly, my late colleague—James Brokenshire when he was Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary. In February 2019, he published some new recommendations for planning authorities, stating that the intentional unauthorised development of a site should be considered a material point within a planning application. That is absolutely critical. He was saying, therefore, that the local planning authority had grounds to refuse the application on the basis that there was an intentional unauthorised development. Despite the North Yorkshire planning authority’s awareness of that requirement, it still recommended approval on this site, which I find astounding.
I find the whole situation astounding, and so do many of my constituents. It is important that we look at the facts. Members engaging in this debate and people watching it on Parliament TV may look at the application on the North Yorkshire portal—the planning reference is 22/00102/FUL. The things I am saying are based not on local rumours and concerns, but on the actual documented situation with the planning application.
The site in question is on Cornborough Road, about half a mile out of the village of Sheriff Hutton. It is in open countryside, and is outside the development plan. The application is for eight units of accommodation—four permanent breezeblock-built units, and permanent static caravans—and 12 car spaces. It has been occupied for three years without planning consent by a family with six children. Obviously, we respect their right to go about their lives in a way they feel appropriate, and we have every hope that those children will be properly educated and receive proper public services.
The planning officers, in their wisdom, decided to recommend the site for approval, with one significant condition: occupancy of the site was to be restricted to the family and their dependants—the adults on the site, the owners of the site and their children. Of course, those children will be adults one day, which means that the site could be occupied for many decades. The application also says that there could be a variation in the application for an extended family, for example, which could mean that the site is occupied for a very long time. Remarkably, the agent for the applicant objected to that condition, again on human rights grounds. It is clear that the site will be occupied in the very long term, and that there will be the ability to sell it on to someone else.
I think it is absolutely wrong that people can effectively drive a coach and horses through the planning system. My law-abiding constituents would not go about it in that way. Unless we deal with this situation properly, it will breed a sense of unfairness—the idea that there is one law for one and another for others. Unless we deal with the problem by clarifying the planning guidance, to ensure that anybody who is guilty of a flagrant abuse of the planning system cannot ever get planning consent on a site in that way, we will see more and more such applications, not in just my constituency but in constituencies around the country.
I know the Minister is freshly in the job. I welcome him to his place. He is a good man, and we have dealt with many things in the past, when our roles were reversed, so I know that he will look at this seriously. We have engaged on this particular matter already. Furthermore, my colleague the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), is also experienced in these matters.
I urge the Minister to tighten the rules to ensure that our constituents, law-abiding citizens of this country, feel that we are on their side. Law-abiding people go about the planning process properly, and should not feel that we favour people because of abstract laws, laws potentially imposed on us by the UN convention on the rights of the child or the European convention on human rights—now embedded in our own Human Rights Act—which mean that some people are treated more fairly than others during the process. It is important that we act and that we clarify the planning process, so that people who act in that way can never get planning consent. That is the only way we will stop such rogue applications being submitted.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing this debate on a subject with which I am sure many hon. Members are familiar, although sadly that familiarity does not always come from a good place. Often it is driven by casework.
My understanding of the issues has been enriched by listening to the Traveller community in my constituency and hearing about the problems that they have experienced. I have heard the concerns about a two-tier system in planning, but it was interesting to hear, in a discussion on a long-standing site run by the council in my area, that they are not eligible for the right to buy, even though some of those families have lived there for 40-plus years. The idea that there is a two-tier system in planning ignores the fact that there is also a two-tier system for this very prejudiced-against group of people.
Too often our familiarity comes from lurid headlines that generate a lot of heat rather than shedding light on the problems experienced by a community facing discrimination and disadvantage across the board. It is important that we bear that in mind when we talk about the issue in the context of the planning system, and it is important that we are honest about the context of those problems. It is difficult to have a sensible discussion about how we best serve Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities when words like “incursion” are used and when groups of Travellers are repeatedly characterised as ruining picturesque landscapes, towns or villages, creating nuisance and disturbance, or somehow being above the rules.
Given that context, we need to be explicit in saying that, far from the invalidation and demonisation of such communities that we often see in the media, the planning system should support this group to live in the way that they choose. There has been an absolute failure to provide adequate sites for those who do travel. Stopping places simply have not been available, so it is no wonder that families are looking for alternatives. Unfortunately, that means a huge shortage of sites and pitches across the UK, particularly in England. As a result, in 2019 some 13% of caravans were on unauthorised land, as the organisation Friends, Families and Travellers reports. What we are seeing is not an incursion, but rather a forced displacement due to the lack of available sites for those who choose to travel.
Kevin Hollinrake
I absolutely agree that sites should be made available, but may I reiterate the point that I raised? For the family I mentioned, sites were available. In fact, the family occupied a site at Tara Park in Malton until they moved on to that particular site, so it is not the case that no sites are available. There are also nearby sites in Osbaldwick in York. It is not as if there are no alternatives to occupying the site unlawfully. It is important to understand that.
Olivia Blake
That is why I think it is important that local authorities work with the community to understand their needs. There are many reasons why individual families may not feel able to be on a site. They may also want to create their own space and home, which I completely understand.
Rather than creating more sites, the previous Government moved to criminalise GRT communities through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Those laws should be repealed, in my view. We should be tackling the root cause of the issue: the failure of the system to support a diverse group of people who already suffer prejudice and discrimination. There is a lack of understanding about the realities for this group.
It is not just that we need new sites and more pitches; the ones that we have are not up to scratch. That is certainly true of the sites in my constituency: they are often segregated from settled communities and suffer problems with access to services, transport and schools. There is no path to reach the community that I represent, so children have to walk down a 60 mph road to get the bus to school. When the street lights were updated, for some reason the contractor did not realise that the council owned the properties, so the community has been living with poor-quality street lighting rather than LEDs. I hope that that will soon be resolved on the site.
That is the kind of suffering that we see in those communities. They are often seen as other, as different or as difficult to deal with. That is not true, in my experience. If we listen to the concerns of the community, we will see progress and clarity of responsibility, not only from the community itself but from the services that are meant to serve it. Decisions are often made to place sites in unsafe areas next to main roads, refuse destructors, traffic-laden areas, intersections of motorways, busy highways or railway tracks. There are many reasons that people would not want their children to be near those things. That has contributed significantly to the health, education and other social inequalities that we see in the community.
We have to acknowledge that the isolation and segregation are partly due to political pressure. We know that local authorities have not achieved what they should in terms of sites, options and working with the community as best they can. That is why this is not just a technical debate on planning laws; we have to talk about tackling attitudes as well. When the Caravan Sites Act 1968 gave councils a statutory duty to create sites, many people opposed having them in their area. To put it bluntly, the location of many sites today is a consequence of anti-Traveller racism. The site in my area is right on the edge of town, away from many services.
We need more sites and pitches, and we need to end the criminalisation of people living in a legitimate way, but we also need to work with the community and listen to their needs, understanding that they are individuals and have individual rights, as we all do. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton probably disagrees; he alluded to European human rights putting one group ahead of another. I disagree. I think that those rights protect us all and allow us all to have the individual rights and freedoms that we so richly deserve.
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree with the principle. My point is that that is how the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act are framed, but it is not how things operate in practice. My constituents cannot occupy a field and build a house on it if it is in open countryside and not within the development limits of a village. They operate on that basis. Why should somebody else from a different community be able to occupy that site and develop it in a way that my other constituents, who work on a lawful basis, cannot? Why should that be the case?
Olivia Blake
The hon. Member highlights an important issue for his constituency that points to the failure in this space. I am not disagreeing, but I think we have to recognise that these rights come to the fore because of that failure, not the other way around. We really need to focus on that in our planning policies. We need to communicate with the community, work with them to understand their needs and make sure that those needs are being adequately met. We should not hold it against communities that have bought their own land; we should work with them to ensure they can go through the planning process adequately for their community needs and family needs.
We also need better integration within communities of amenities and services, and we need to end the criminalisation. To do that, we need to challenge anti-GRT attitudes and the lurid headlines that drive them. That would be a good start to ensuring that the planning system works for the community. I do not disagree with the idea that the planning system is broken, but I think there is certainly a better way into the conversation that starts with an understanding of all our communities, not just one or the other.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. Sadly, this is an issue that creates perennial problems up and down the country; we never seem able to fix it. In my previous career as a journalist, I very often had to travel to areas where there was tension between local residents and Traveller groups, because the groups were established in a site that was inappropriate, was not legally designated and did not have planning permission. The local residents felt that it was not appropriate, that their lives were being disturbed, and that the behaviour was not what they were used to and they did not like it.
It still happens. Only this summer, we had an issue in my constituency with a Travelling community who parked close to a local community centre. That caused a great deal of concern in the local community, and it caused tension. It was unfair to both: it was unfair to the Travellers, because there was no designated site nearby—there is an insufficiency of such sites up and down the country—and the local residents had to put up with behaviour that made them extremely unhappy and caused them distress. It was the Travellers’ way of life, which they did not understand. That is not good enough. Neither community is right; neither community is wrong. I feel that they often blame politicians for failing to grasp the problem. Frankly, I think they have a point: we do fail to grasp the problem.
As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has recognised Gypsy and Irish Traveller communities as a distinct ethnic group, protected under the Equality Act 2010. But here we are in 2024 and nothing seems to have changed, so is it enough?
A part of me does not blame communities for being distressed or Travellers for being frustrated, because it seems like a hot potato that is just that fraction too hot to grasp; we would much rather just push it to one side. What that means is that nothing gets done until, as in my constituency this summer, there are problems and tensions. There were complaints about how animals were being treated, about human waste, about fly-tipping and about illegal parking, and then action was taken, but nothing was done beforehand. That should not be the case.
There is a problem with the alternative designated sites. The only option seems to be to wait, which is not good enough. In Scotland there is no specific legislation that protects people’s ability and right to live a travelling lifestyle. Yes, local authorities have powers to move communities on, but only when they have parked somewhere without the consent of the owner, under the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865, the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, the Road Traffic Act 1988 or the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, there is no specific legislative framework and no specific planning permission framework that enables communities in particular areas to feel that their rights and way of life will be protected, or that enables Travellers to feel that their way of life is protected, as it is supposed to be under the Equality Act.
What is the solution? I have heard about the problems in England; they are slightly different in Scotland. In England, as I understand it, councils have to identify sites, but there are no consequences for them if they do not. I believe we need concerted action by the Governments in Holyrood, where appropriate, and in Westminster to ensure that local authorities have the resources, the backing and the legislative framework to provide a network of suitable legally designated sites across the UK with facilities in appropriate places, for the Travelling community to live the lifestyle that is protected under legislation, and for local residents to feel that they are protected from Travellers arriving and parking in an inappropriate place because there is no alternative.
It is time we stopped beating about the bush. We need to stop saying, “We won’t deal with it just now; we’ll deal with it next summer.” The first time I covered this story as a journalist was more than 30 years ago now, but very little has changed. Neither community feel in any way that the situation has been improved for them. It is time our Governments acted to do something about it.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this important debate. He spoke about a two-tier society. He spoke about one law for all of us. He spoke about being “on their side”—the side of the law-abiding community. I seek a one-tier society, frankly. I represent all citizens, as we all do in this House.
I declare my interest: I serve on Rugby borough council. All citizens, including the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community, have an equal right to their housing needs being met; I have had that confirmed by officers, and I think we are all aware of that fact. Their right is equal to that of every other group within society—every other citizen. We should reflect on that.
I want to reflect briefly on a case that I was involved in, and it talks to some of the issues that have been raised by other hon. Members in this debate. Six applications relating to a site in my constituency came before the planning committee, which I served on. They were rejected, but the context is critical. Rugby borough council had not met its obligation to provide sufficient pitches for the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. They have a statutory obligation to do the surveys and ultimately to provide those pitches. They have failed to do that over many, many years.
They have tried calls for sites, as I am sure colleagues will be aware of, and those resulted in no sites being offered by local landowners. As I said, applications then come in. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton referred to the case in his constituency. I appreciate that he said that proper sites are available and I accept that point, but in this case there were not.
Inevitably, the local community was very exercised and angry about these applications. The then Conservative-run local council, which had a majority on the planning committee, rejected those applications. I would argue that the rights of those citizens were not respected by that decision. Their rights to housing were not respected, and their additional rights, which have been referred to by other Members, were also not met. In a sense, they became second-class citizens.
Local authorities, such as the one I still serve on, need to be strongly encouraged—required, even—finally to provide the proper sites that the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community need. I would be very interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Minister on this. Those sites need to be near amenities and services for education, transport and so on. Those need to be provided because if they are not, the situations that I experienced as a member of that planning committee, and that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton experienced, will reoccur, and the two communities will be in a continual state of conflict, which is bad for everybody.
Finally, let us listen to the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community and do things in accordance with their needs. Let us not just do things to them—almost as if they were people who can just be dumped in particular sites because of the inconvenience of providing them with proper facilities and places to live—but treat them with dignity. Let us also listen to the settled community, whose needs and views are important as well, and do everything we can to bring communities together. But that simply will not be possible until local authorities, backed—I hope—by the Government, provide pitches and places where the GRT community can live with dignity and as equals within the communities that we, as Members, represent.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing this important debate. We need a planning system that respects the rights of the Traveller community but also provides local authorities with the power to support good development, while being able to enforce their planning policy. When I served as a district councillor for 10 years and leader of a district council for five years, I saw the difficulties in securing adequate sites and integrating Traveller communities in areas where they were looking to settle.
I welcome the steps the previous Government took to strengthen the planning system, including passing the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which extended the period during which enforcement action can be taken against unauthorised development to 10 years in all cases. I also commend the last Government for bringing in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which strengthens powers available to the police to tackle unauthorised encampments that cause damage, destruction or distress.
As my hon. Friend outlined, there are many examples across the country where the careful balance between Travellers, local communities and the environment appears to be incorrect. As a Member of Parliament, I do not intend to comment on routine planning applications as they are a matter for Bromsgrove district council. However, there is an ongoing case in my constituency that perfectly highlights many of the challenges associated with planning applications for Traveller sites. Travellers bought land and moved on to a rural greenfield site that had long been designated as amenity land, then retrospectively applied for planning permission. The local community are against the proposal and nearby parish councils have raised serious concerns about the suitability of the site, including poor and dangerous road access, loss of biodiversity, and a significant impact on a long-standing public right of way that runs through the land, where local residents are being harassed with antisocial behaviour and are unable to follow their usual route.
More importantly, and to the considerable worry of my constituents, in recent months there has been a large upswing in rural crime. That started in a minor fashion with the theft of chickens from a farm and we have seen theft of items from gardens, a massive surge in general antisocial behaviour and abuse of local residents, as well as the emergence of some much more significant elements of crime. As a result, I have engaged with local police and residents to try to tackle that specific issue, but of course the nub of the issue comes back to the fact that a piece of land was bought and a change of use application submitted, and residents are concerned that the system and public agencies often pass the buck.
This case has been stuck in the planning process for many months now, and the delay in any decision is causing significant further uncertainty and the emergence of community tension. It is clear to me that the system as it currently stands is not working for any of the parties involved, but that is in this specific case. I want to put on the record that I know there are thousands of Traveller communities across the country who are law abiding; they want to identify plots of land that they can occupy with their families and wider communities and where they want to integrate into the areas they are looking to settle.
I was elected on a mandate to protect the green belt across Bromsgrove, and my constituency was formerly 89% green belt. I am deeply concerned about the prospect of losing that green belt, which gives Bromsgrove its rural identity, including in greenfield sites of the kind I have already described. I fail to see how permitting unplanned Traveller sites on the green belt will do anything to protect the identity and cohesion of the rural communities that exist there. It has already been noted by hon. Members that the sites are often far away from local services, become car-dependent settlements, and suffer from a lack of footways and nearby schools. One important topic, which I saw during my tenure as leader of Wychavon district council, is that many of the Traveller families have children that need to go to school and they want their children to be able to go to school, but there is often a lack of local provision already, which puts an unsustainable strain on services and local amenities across our communities.
Those problems isolate communities, which are already remote from the services they access and may have a different social or economic identity relative to the areas they are looking to settle. That is all exacerbated by the broken planning system, which needs to work better with local police and other services to allow for a coherent public response, rather than having, as it seems to residents and as I have already mentioned, different public agencies passing the buck between each other, with no one able to get clear answers on where the responsibility lies for tackling the pressures that arise from the emergence of Traveller sites. Those sites are often outside of the conventional planning process where sites are identified, and problems emerge when new sites are bought and a retrospective planning application is put in.
The current regulations around the sites do not seem to support a culture in which permission is sought. Instead, quite often the culture appears to be one in which an action is taken and the sentiment is more of forgiveness being sought, rather than going through the usual process that the vast majority of law-abiding citizens follow—one in which we do our due diligence, put in a planning application, allow for communities and those affected to submit their comments in the usual way and go through the proper planning process. That is what frustrates my constituents the most. They go about their lives in a law-abiding fashion: if they want to put an extension on their property, they will apply for planning permission in the usual way, if it is not subject to permitted development already. There is a general feeling that a small number of Traveller communities—I stress “small number”—appear to ride roughshod over the system. That is not just to the detriment of affected communities: it really undermines the integrity of the planning system as a whole.
The planning system needs to work better across the board and with public agencies. We need to have a much more joined-up response to how we tackle this issue, particularly the impact of antisocial behaviour and rural crime. Residents and developers must work carefully within green-belt policy in the same way that Traveller communities must. We must get away from this perception that, whether it is because of a retrospective application, just a general disregard for planning policy or even, more broadly, a disregard for the law, people are able to queue jump while providing some of the worst forms of development. I sincerely hope that as the Government review planning policy over the coming months, they will look closely at all these issues and ensure we have a system that promotes good development in the interests of not just existing communities, but those Traveller communities looking to integrate and settle into our existing and quite often rural communities.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for bringing forward this important debate. I have also listened carefully to the other hon. Members who have spoken today, and I appreciate that in some cases there is a misuse of planning. It is clear that we need the system to work better to tackle those attitudes.
I appreciate what the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) said, in that this is often seen as a difficult matter to deal with. But that should not be the case, and we need to ensure that sites are put in the right place to avoid segregation and isolation. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) spoke passionately about how we have simply not progressed. Neither community feels represented, and we must seek to change that. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) spoke about the risk of the GRT community becoming second-class citizens and the need to find appropriate sites to stop the reoccurrence of conflicts. Let us engage with and listen to the GRT community and treat them with respect and dignity. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) raised his concerns, which I think we all share, about agencies passing the buck and the emergence of tensions.
In the space of a month, I have received correspondence about illegal Traveller sites from concerned constituents in Wincanton and Glastonbury, towns that are at the opposite ends of my constituency. The complaints are a symptom of the fact that Somerset, like most counties in the country, is facing huge challenges in properly supporting our GRT community. Friends, Families and Travellers, a national charity, received a response to its engagement campaign this summer which called for an increase in
“site provision for nomadic people, transient and permanent.”
I do not know if that respondent lives in Somerset but I would not be surprised if they did. Somerset has no transit provisions—none at all.
Members of the Gypsy and Traveller community, like all of us, have to travel across the country to attend funerals and weddings and to see family, but because we have no transit sites, and therefore nowhere for them to legally stay for short periods, the only way they can stop when passing through our sizeable county of Somerset is in the form of an unauthorised encampment. We only need to look at my casework to see that such encampments inflame tensions between my constituents and Travellers—some of whom are, of course, my constituents—and reinforce dangerous stereotypes.
With 91% of English local authorities having some form of GRT presence, we are unfortunately not alone in that, so it is alarming to see the trend growing nationally, either because local authorities are selling off sites or because they simply cannot afford to maintain them. I worry that we could soon find ourselves with huge distances between transit sites, which would make it impossible for Travellers to legally travel. That also harms our relationship with the GRT community, because then the only response that local authorities are left with is enforcement.
Not only do we need more transit sites; we need permanent pitches where members of the GRT community can stay longer than just three months. There are well-known, documented and dangerous knock-on effects of not providing the community with stability. While the community is naturally transient, it needs access to a permanent base. Without a permanent pitch or a brick and mortar address, it can be a struggle to access mental health support and GP appointments, which forces more people to use our overburdened accident and emergency services to access healthcare. It is tragic, but not surprising, that life expectancy for members of the GRT community is 10 to 25 years lower than for the general population and that the suicide rate for Traveller men is seven times higher than for settled men. We also know about the reduced attainment rates for those in education, with only 18% in GRT communities meeting the expected standard in their SATs last year.
Councils could avoid huge additional costs if they did not have to waste officer time dealing with complaints and cleaning up encampments. The case for providing permanent pitches is clear, and local authorities have a quota for delivering Traveller provision, but there is nowhere for them to obtain funding. Funding has recently taken the form of ad hoc grants that are too small and oversubscribed. If we expect local authorities to be able to maintain a constant and consistent number of sites, we must provide them with consistent and adequate funding. The Liberal Democrat manifesto pledged to ensure that all development has appropriate infrastructure, services and amenities in place, by integrating infrastructure and public service delivery into the planning process. This should also include the development of permanent pitches.
I was recently elected vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, which wrote to the then Government in the last Parliament to urge them to increase site provision. That Government failed to deliver sites, but the new Government could. The Liberal Democrats have a strong record of supporting the GRT community, but we want to work with colleagues to bring about an end to these systemic problems.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady is making a very valid and interesting point, but she seems to think that it was central Government’s responsibility to provide Traveller sites—I think that is what she said.
Kevin Hollinrake
Okay, I have misunderstood. Perhaps she will clarify that she accepts that it is the local planning authority’s responsibility to provide these sites.
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he misunderstands. I am fully aware that it is local authorities that provide Traveller sites, but the funding is not there for them to provide it. That is my case. As we know, over and over again, many local authorities find themselves on the brink. They are under such pressure at the moment. The crucial point is that they are unable to provide the resources within their remit. That is what was lacking in the last Parliament, and that is what we need to see from this new Government, to ensure that local authorities have the resources and the capabilities they need to provide sites for our Traveller community.
It was confirmed in the King’s Speech that this Government intend to reform our planning system. When they do so, they must not treat Gypsy and Traveller provision as an afterthought to bricks and mortar housing. Looking after this community is a housing requirement, not an add-on that can be addressed when there is more time and money. I would like the Government to introduce a statutory duty to provide sites, along with proper funding measures. With a reasonable approach to location and funding, this could be the single most transformative measure for Gypsies and Travellers in England. Our planning regulations and guidance are not fit to serve the community. The guidance dictates what local authorities need to deliver on a site, but it is not properly delivering that provision, which leads to the GRT community being viewed negatively and the community feeling less safe. The Government should make updating those documents a priority.
Finally, not all these problems can be solved with reforms or increased funding. The narrative from the previous Government was not constructive and made it challenging for local authorities to build meaningful dialogue. Over the last decade, Somerset and much of the rest of the country has seen a reduction in publicly owned sites, fewer community liaison officer roles in local authorities, a lack of new private sites, an increase in unauthorised encampments, a reduction in funding for site development, and political inertia slowing down pitch development. We need this new Government to provide real leadership and ensure that the needs of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community are met. We should engage with and treat our Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community with respect and dignity, and provide them with the sites they need to live their lives.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing the debate. The contributions of all hon. Members have helped to illustrate both the complexity of this issue and its importance at community level.
Every local authority has a quasi-judicial role as a planning authority, in that it has to follow planning law and the relevant statutes, and my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have called for everyone to be treated equally before the law for the purposes of the planning process. That is clearly a complex challenge for our local authorities, which also have various statutory duties as housing providers. When considering an application, the local authority has to ensure that planning law is fully upheld, but it also has a role in designating sites on which Traveller pitches and other development may take place. Most of us will have experience of that matter—the situation at Jackets Lane in my constituency is almost identical to that described by my hon. Friend. Like many Members, I am fortunate to have two local authorities with full housing revenue account, local authority-maintained Traveller pitches, as well as privately designated sites.
However, it is understandable that, for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas)—I have experienced this in my own home—the sites can cause a great deal of community concern, given some aspects of the behaviour of individuals associated them. We cannot simply say that the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community is one community. In my constituency, there are settled Travellers, who have chosen to occupy a bricks and mortar home and may require family members who are travelling to be able to stay close to them at certain times of year. There are people with much more ancient lifestyles, particularly among some of the Roma and traditional Gypsy community, whose requirements are very different. All our local authorities need to be flexible, and communities need to be aware of those distinctions, so that the responses that we put in place are appropriate.
We all accept that provision will be inadequate for some individuals, and that there may not be a spot on a local authority-provided site when they arrive. Indeed, the behaviour of some, who may not even be UK residents but who can arrive in large numbers and undertake unlawful and illegal incursions, can significantly affect the reputation of other members of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton asked an important question in the context of parliamentary proceedings: how can something that is either unlawful or, in some cases, specifically illegal in planning law be rendered lawful by other considerations? If a property developer were to purchase the field and seek to build a mansion, there would be rigorous enforcement against them. If a developer sought to build family homes, or a care home, there would be rigorous enforcement against them. Why is it, therefore, that other elements of our law allow one individual to bypass the statutory planning process and rules, especially when the site may subsequently be sold to another occupier? How can we ensure that those elements do not create a back door to flouting the planning rules? I have personal experience of a developer who cited diplomatic immunity as a reason why the local authority could not carry out enforcement action against structures built on agricultural land.
Given the enormous remediation costs associated with abuses of the planning process, it is not surprising that many local authorities are extremely concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, with his experience as a local authority leader, described. We can all think of examples. A site may be used for housing development after illegal occupation, or it may, for example, be used for waste disposal. Buckinghamshire council, on the border of my constituency, was faced with having to clean up a site that a group of Travellers had purchased from a farmer and then used to dispose of asbestos and hazardous waste, which was removed at enormous cost—a multimillion-pound cost—to the taxpayer.
In all such cases, there is a common issue: the local authority’s inability to use swift and robust enforcement powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said, once a site is occupied and the use becomes established, it is very difficult to change that in the way the community would expect. During the recent general election campaign, I delivered leaflets to properties that formed part of an illegal encampment— because those individuals had been there for so long, they were on the electoral roll. Other residents in the community asked, “How is it that all these processes that are designed to make sure everyone follows the law can come together in a way that enables those rules to be flouted?”
On behalf of the official Opposition, I extend an offer to the Minister, who has taken an incredibly constructive approach to all the issues in his portfolio. Members on both sides of this debate have made constructive contributions and have set out ideas about how we can more effectively address the broad sweep of concerns that arise from this issue. My constituents are affected by an unauthorised encampment in the Hog’s Back, and have expressed great frustration that the local authority planning notice that applies to the site has effectively been bypassed as the individuals have moved to another part of the site. Those kinds of things understandably create a public backlash, as people feel that the law is not working effectively and is not on their side.
It is one thing for local authorities to have to resort to section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to deal with illegal and unauthorised encampments that are causing a nuisance, but activity that can become established through the passage of time needs to be dealt with differently. I suggest to the Minister that, as we work together on that, we should also consider the operation of things such as the planning conditions that apply in national parks. My hon. Friend has the North Yorkshire Moors and the Yorkshire Dales national parks near his constituency. It is common to apply to national parks specific planning conditions that do not operate in other areas, such as conditions around the occupation of new homes by agricultural workers. Again, that provides scope for abuse of the planning system. For example, a developer could build a property purportedly for agricultural worker use and then say they wish to convert it to a holiday let or an extended family home.
There is also the wider issue of ancillary uses, which my hon. Friend referred to. When a piece of land is in the green belt, perhaps with agricultural designation, there are always opportunities for a prospective applicant to say that they need a barn for their farming business or a sports pavilion because they hope to use the land for sporting activity. That potentially enables a property footprint to be established. In planning terms, conversion of that—legalisation of the occupation—follows later, to the dismay of local residents, who then question the effectiveness of the planning system. The scope for the use to become established and the property to be sold on for profit in a way that is not available to developers who seek to work within the system remains a significant cause for concern.
I thank all Members who have contributed to this balanced debate, which has highlighted many angles to the way in which this policy interacts with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller and settled communities. I urge the Minister to make the best use possible of the expertise of Members across the House and ensure that, as we move to update planning law, we have effective enforcement powers in place so that all our residents—all our constituents—have confidence that they will be treated equally before the law in the way that Parliament expects.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I formally congratulate you on your honour—I have not had the chance to do so yet.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this important debate and thank him for the characteristic clarity with which he made his case. I also thank the hon. Members for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Rugby (John Slinger) for their contributions. Lastly, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for his thoughtful remarks, and warmly welcome him to his place. I will certainly take away the specific points that he raised. More widely, I look forward to working with him, as he said, on a constructive basis wherever possible.
I must make it clear at the outset that, while I noted the specific case that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton raised—and indeed other cases that have been raised today—I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to comment on individual plans or applications due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process and the potential decision-making role of the Deputy Prime Minister. I therefore propose to make some general comments about national planning policy as it relates to Traveller sites and specifically the role of local planning authorities, including in respect of enforcement, within that national framework, thereby addressing many of the points that have been raised today, while recognising that this is an incredibly complex area of policy and law, particularly as it relates to individual cases.
Turning first to national planning policy, the Government’s approach to Traveller site provision is set out in the planning policy for Traveller sites policy paper, which should be read in conjunction with the national planning policy framework and has the same policy status as it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam, and others, raised a number of wider issues outside the subject of this debate, but I reassure her that the Government’s overarching aim is to meet the housing and accommodation needs of all communities in our society, and that we are committed to ensuring fair and equal treatment for Travellers in a way that facilitates their traditional and nomadic way of life, while respecting the interests of the settled community.
The policy paper in question makes clear that local planning authorities should set pitch targets for Gypsies and Travellers to address the accommodation needs of Traveller communities within their area. Specifically on the points made around human rights law, that is often engaged when a proposed development is closely linked to a particular person’s interests. In the case of Gypsy and Traveller developments, the right to respect for private and family life under the European convention on human rights, and in relation to the rights of the child, under the Children Act 1989 and the UN convention on the rights of the child, are often engaged. However, such considerations can be addressed by planning adequately for Traveller pitches to meet needs, and that is ultimately through the local plan process.
I think that that touches on a wider issue. In respect of the community that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton represents, for example, the North Yorkshire emerging local plan is in its very early stages. We need to see local plans across the country come forward in short order. We want to achieve universal coverage, but we need to see those plans progress because they are the best way that local communities can shape developments in their areas.
I noted the points made by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton on funding, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby regarding the concern, which I do recognise, that local planning authorities do not face sufficient consequences for failing to adequately plan for those pitches. That is a concern raised in other areas, and, typically, as I am sure my hon. Friend will know, the penalty for not having a local plan in place—for not adequately providing for sites—is that a local authority will leave itself open to speculative development or retrospective applications. However, I appreciate that that does not address the specific challenges covered in this debate in the way that it does with more conventional planning applications.
The policy paper also states that local planning authorities should consider the existing level of and local need for sites, and the availability of alternative accommodation, among other relevant matters, when considering planning applications for Traveller sites.
I appreciate that the specific case that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton raised did not concern a green-belt site—as far as I understand it—but hon. Members may find it useful if I provide some detail on the proposals that we have set out in relation to Traveller sites as part of our proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework and other changes to the planning system.
As hon. Members are aware, we are consulting on a range of policy changes to ensure that our planning system is fit for purpose, supports the right development in the right places, and is able to deliver on the Government’s growth agenda. They include changes to green-belt policy to enable the targeted release of low-quality grey-belt land to meet unmet housing and other development needs. Those policy proposals will not compromise our environmental objectives or undermine the overall function and purpose of the green belt, but will support opportunities for development in areas of highest need and deliver tangible benefits to local communities and nature through our golden rules.
We intend that the proposals will address unmet need for Traveller sites and we are seeking views, through the consultation, on how the policy will operate. To be clear, that is a departure from the current policy position on the green belt set out in both the NPPF and the planning policy for Traveller sites policy paper, but we believe that it better supports the development needs of our communities and contributes to sustainable growth.
However, we will consider all these matters carefully and will finalise our position after considering the consultation responses and following targeted engagement with the key stakeholders, including specialist planning consultants, charities representing the interests of the Traveller community and professionals working in this space.
As part of wider changes to national planning policy, we will also consider how planning policy for Traveller sites should be set out in the future, including which aspects need to form part of the suite of proposals for national development management policies introduced in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.
I now turn to the role of local planning authorities. Although the Government are responsible for setting the legislative and policy framework within which the planning system operates, including the national planning policy framework and the planning policy document for Traveller sites, it is for local planning authorities, who know their communities best, to prepare local development plans and make decisions in accordance with such adopted plans unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
I hope hon. Members appreciate that when it comes to police enforcement of unauthorised encampments, that is a matter for the Home Office and not for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. However, I can certainly pass back some of the concerns and the comments made to my colleagues in the Home Office.
When it comes to enforcement more generally, local planning authorities have a wide range of powers, with strong penalties for non-compliance. As the hon. Member for Bromsgrove mentioned, these powers were strengthened by reforms introduced in the 2023 Act, which were implemented earlier this year. Those reforms included longer time limits for enforcement action, and action to address a loophole with retrospective development, so that there is only one opportunity to appeal.
On the basis of the available powers, it is for local authorities to decide what action, if any, to take, depending on the particular circumstances of each case. That would include intentional unauthorised development, which would be weighed by decision makers in the determination of planning applications and appeals, as I recall the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioning. Ultimately, however, it is for individual local planning authorities to determine what weight they should afford to a relevant consideration based on the circumstances of a particular case, rather than Government mandating them to follow a particular course of action.
Kevin Hollinrake
I support potential revisions to enforcement powers to give perfect clarity about how enforcement can happen in these circumstances. However, I want to touch on the Minister’s last point about intentional unauthorised development. Currently, that is dealt with as part of planning law, through a ministerial statement, rather than being formally in the NPPF—nevertheless, that does apply. Is he happy to maintain that situation, or will he look at that again? It is very important that that does form part of planning policy. Otherwise, planning authorities would have even fewer levers at their disposal to make sure that this kind of development does not happen. The problem is not planning policy; it is people who subvert the policy through other devices.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for that point. To answer him directly, on national development management policies, which I mentioned, we stated in the NPPF consultation—which is still open and closes on 24 September—that we were committed to creating NDMPs to provide more certainty and consistency about decision making in a range of areas. As part of that, we will look at all existing national policies, including the policy in relation to unintentional authorised development, as set out in the 2015 written ministerial statement.
I hope that gives the hon. Member some reassurance that as part of bringing in those NDMPs, we are looking at that particular issue, which I do understand. Those NDMPs will have to consulted on, so hon. Members from all parties will have an opportunity to feed in their thoughts about whether we have got the policy right in any particular area.
I thank the hon. Member again for giving the House an opportunity to discuss these matters, and I thank other hon. Members for taking part in the debate. I genuinely welcome and look forward to further engagement on this issue with Members across the House. In the interim, I encourage all hon. Members with an interest in how national planning policy relates to Travellers to respond to the consultation on a revised NPPF before the deadline of 24 September.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the Front Benchers for their excellent contributions. The tone of the debate was generally very constructive. I think we are all on the same page in terms of local planning authorities having to fulfil their requirement to make sure that suitable provision is made for people who live different and nomadic lifestyles. I thank the hon. Members for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Rugby (John Slinger) and for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for their points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) touched on the key point: we cannot have a planning system where it is easier to apologise than to ask permission. If that is the case, it creates chaos in the system. Everybody can play by those rules, and there will be chaos in terms of planning applications and wider society. It undermines faith in the system. That is the point I want to make. Whatever the protected characteristics of certain communities, it cannot be the case that in our society there is one law for one and another for another. That feeds the perception that we operate a two-tier society, and that cannot be right. It undermines the entire system.
I hope that the Minister will look at two things. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) rightly said, we should continue to look at bolstering enforcement powers. I also make it crystal clear that the recommendation for the planning application I mentioned was for approval despite the fact that the written ministerial statement from February 2019 said that intentional unauthorised development should be a material consideration in a planning application. Nevertheless, the planning officers recommended approval, which I think was totally wrong. I congratulate the planning committee who still rejected the application, but that might well go to appeal. I welcome the fact that the Minister is going to look at the full context of this. I hope he will make it even clearer in planning policy that somebody who is guilty of intentional unauthorised development will never be given consent for their application when there is such a clear abuse of process, and that that will not be tolerated.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the adequacy of planning policy for Traveller sites.
Rural Bus Services
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I will call Sarah Dyke to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered bus services in rural areas.
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain.
Bus services in rural areas provide a crucial lifeline to many of my constituents. They link communities to hospitals, shops, high street services, and leisure and social activities. They take students to school and college, and they take adults to work. But there has been a worrying trend of decline over the past decade. Research from Channel 4 found that bus provision has decreased by 28% across England since 2011. There has been action from the previous Government, such as investing £3.5 billion into services since the pandemic and introducing the £2 fare cap, but that has been insufficient to arrest the decline.
The loss of services is especially prevalent in rural areas, and it detrimentally impacts those who live there. Rural bus service users travel an average of 47% further compared with their urban counterparts. They travel for longer, and their routes are funded less per head than those in urban areas.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward; the turnout here in Westminster Hall is an indication of its importance for rural areas. I commend her on her diligence in this matter. Strangford has issues similar to those in the hon. Lady’s constituency: we have students who must travel up to 45 minutes on the bus to get to their local secondary schools. For those doing GCSEs and A-levels, staying in school later to study can become increasingly popular around exam times. Does the hon. Lady agree that more needs to be done to support schoolchildren who live in rural areas who perhaps are required to be in school earlier and leave later due to exams?
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is an issue that I will come to later.
Budgeted local authority expenditure per resident in rural areas is on average £11.68, compared with £20.22 in urban areas. A report from the County Councils Network partly blamed how the previous Government’s national bus strategy apportioned funding. It found that two thirds of the funding went to urban areas, despite these areas having seen lower declines in passenger numbers than rural areas. It also found that councils in rural and county areas were experiencing a £420 million shortfall in their transport budgets, impacting their ability to subsidise operating routes regarded by the operator as commercially unviable.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the hon. Member for that point and for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. Where rural areas in Northern Ireland do not have a central bus connection or even a bus route at all, organisations and individuals rely on community transport organisations, such as South Antrim Community Transport in my own constituency, to pick up the slack. That organisation takes people to hospital appointments and makes sure they can get their shopping where there is not a central bus service supporting those rural areas at all.
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Once again, I will come to that a little later.
I have spoken previously in this place about the rural premium that residents are forced to pay because they live in the countryside. The severe lack of decent bus services just increases people’s reliance on private cars, which they of course need to fill with fuel and maintain, thus increasing that premium. The Countryside Alliance research from 2022 found that rural households were spending almost £800 a year more on fuel than people in urban areas, and up to 6p more per litre of fuel.
Before I move on, I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Somerset councillor. Somerset council receives around £25.15 per head from central Government to invest in bus services, while Campaign for Better Transport research reveals that 12 local authorities get around double that. One local authority receives more than £300 per head to spend on bus services.
Rural areas have a multitude of factors resulting in poor public transport connections. The lack of funding, sparsity of routes and smaller population centres have resulted in one in four bus routes ceasing to exist in county and rural areas over the 11 years between 2010-11 and 2021-22. A 2021 survey of rural residents revealed that only 18% felt they had access to frequent and reliable bus routes; 44% felt that bus routes had decreased over the previous three years; and 38% said that they did not use buses at all, due to the lack of frequent services.
That illustrates one of the issues that providers in rural areas consistently grapple with when trying to increase provision or save existing bus routes. Rural bus routes are less profitable, due to the smaller patronage. That means that routes are likely to be removed from service or be infrequent, so local people simply do not have the faith they need to use the local bus network. They do not trust that a bus will arrive, or know when it will arrive, so patronage drops, resulting in the route closing.
Key to improving the journey experience is providing easy access to information about bus timetables, clean buses, improved bus stops and bus stations, integration with other modes of transport, and giving priority to buses, especially in and around urban areas.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. Could I ask the Member to stand?
Dr Opher
Sorry. We have experienced a lot of problems with cross-border rural buses in our area. The hon. Lady mentioned local authorities. If there are two local authorities, it creates enormous problems. In Wotton-under-Edge, we have just lost the 84/85 bus service because we cannot get agreement from all the different local authorities to fund it. That is putting a severe strain on rural populations. I would ask for that to be considered.
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I absolutely agree that collaboration with contiguous authorities is crucial. We must also provide confidence in bus services to increase footfall and make them more sustainable. I would like to thank the Somerset Bus Partnership for all the work it does to promote bus travel in my county.
In Glastonbury and Somerton, and across Somerset, we are facing a near-constant annual cycle where bus routes are threatened with closure and changes. Every year, the council and bus companies negotiate to come to an agreement to keep the route open for another year. If an agreement is reached, the bus route is saved for a whole cycle of events, until that cycle of events starts again, as a contract comes up for renewal a year later.
Earlier this year, I campaigned to save the 54, 58, 58A, 25 and 28 bus routes, which run through my constituency. Thankfully, Somerset council and First Bus South were able to reach an agreement to keep the routes, but some have had timetable changes imposed on them. Inevitably, some of those routes will be under threat yet again when the agreement needs renewal later this year. That is simply unsustainable.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The reintroduction of funding for the Trowbridge to Bath bus service by Bath and North East Somerset council was vital for villages such as Freshford in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that cash-strapped local councils are going to need confirmed, long-term funding commitments to help support those vital services?
Sarah Dyke
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I could not agree more; it is crucial that local authorities are given the funding they need to provide these essential services. Local authorities are once again currently waiting for further information regarding the future of various sources of funding they receive from central Government. I submitted a written question to the new Government in July regarding the future of the bus service improvement plan and BSIP Phase 2 funds. While the response affirmed a commitment to improving bus services as part of their growth mission, it failed to provide specific details of plans.
Rural areas desperately need to see plans and to have those assurances of how vital services can continue to run. Earlier this week, the Government laid forward a statutory instrument that opened up bus franchising for all local authorities in England. I welcome the Government’s ambition to fix the country’s broken buses, but they must understand that bus services outside urban areas face different problems.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Of the 68 settlements in Huntingdon, eight currently do not receive a bus service at all, including Brington, Bythorn, Covington, Holywell, Keyston, Molesworth and Southoe. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government’s proposed introduction of bus franchising must make provision to ensure that those rural communities are included as the new routes are devised?
Sarah Dyke
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Rural bus services need to be given proper funding. They are so crucial to our residents and must be aligned with those urban resources, because there are different problems, as I mentioned.
Rural areas often see low passenger numbers, but those who use the bus services are absolutely reliant on them. The previous Government, in their bus back better plans made a commitment to providing
“guidance on the meaning and role of ‘socially necessary’ services, expanding the category to include ‘economically necessary’ services”.
That did not happen, leaving more uncertainty about the future of the services and failing to provide the protection they need. Will the Minister provide specific guidance on the protection of bus routes for social and environmental reasons?
In my constituency and in other rural areas across the country, there are people for whom bus services are an absolute lifeline. One family from Templecombe told me that their daughter—a single mother who cannot drive due to a medical condition—relies on the 58 bus to take her children to school and college. They rely on the same bus to see their GP in Milborne Port and to get to Wincanton. Thankfully, that route is saved for now, but that one example demonstrates how crucial buses are for those who are reliant on them. That is why, in the last Parliament, I tabled the Public Transport (Rural Areas) Bill, which would have set a minimum service level for the provision of public transport in rural areas, ensuring that people have access to major sites of employment, education and leisure.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member on her efforts this morning. In Upper Bann this year, it is evident that rural children have been disadvantaged, with some children left standing on the side of the road without transport to school because of capacity issues and a lack a planning. Does she agree that that is unacceptable, whether in Upper Bann in Northern Ireland or in her constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton, and that rural people should not be disadvantaged in that way?
Sarah Dyke
That was the exact point of the Public Transport (Rural Areas) Bill: to make sure there is a service level agreement so people can travel where they need to go, particularly for education and work. The economic benefits public transport brings can be huge. Research from the Confederation of Passenger Transport measured the economic benefits buses bring, finding that every £1 that Government spend on better services and bus priority schemes can secure economic benefits of up to £4.55.
We must recognise that in rural areas alternative forms of bus routes can play a major role in ensuring that type of access remains. The Liberal Democrats made a commitment in our manifesto to supporting and encouraging alternative services such as on-demand buses. Those types of buses have already been rolled out across certain areas of my constituency to great success.
For instance, the Slinky service is a door-to-door demand-responsive transport service funded by the council. It operates in the Langport and Somerton area and the council is currently trialling a digital offering, aiming to make the service easier to access. The Liberal Democrats have also committed to keeping bus routes affordable by retaining the £2 fare cap while fares are reviewed. I invite the Minister to comment on whether an announcement will be made on the future of the bus fare cap post-31 December.
The Liberal Democrats recognise the need to support local authorities and bus companies to switch their offering to zero emission buses. Buses have a key role to play in tackling climate change and meeting our decarbonisation targets. Research commissioned by the Confederation of Passenger Transport found that if we all took the bus instead of the car just twice a month, we would create a reduction of 15.8 million tonnes of CO2 by 2050.
Britain is at the forefront of the green bus transition in Europe, and bus services are outpacing other road vehicles such as cars, vans and trucks in decarbonising. However, take-up varies between regions and is more challenging for smaller and rural bus operators, which may struggle with the cost of financing new vehicles and the necessary infrastructure. The UK’s 2050 carbon reduction commitment relies on a transition to zero emission vehicles but also a modal shift to public transport, and we must ensure that rural areas are included in that. With assistance from the Government, we welcomed a new fleet of 25 electric buses to our roads in Somerset earlier this year. They are much needed, and we must ensure that the transition continues and rural areas are not forgotten.
I turn to the need to include buses in integrated travel plans across rural areas, especially those that are poorly connected to the rail network. The new Government have thrown doubt on rail projects around the country by cancelling the restoring your railway fund, and residents in my constituency who worked hard to bid into the fund are devastated that the proposed station in the Langport and Somerton area could be scrapped as a result. That area has the longest stretch of rail between London and Cornwall without a connection to the rail network, and delivering a station there would provide 50,000 residents with access to trains and drive economic growth. We must provide a train station in the area, but the journey to delivering a station must include integrating local bus services into existing train stations in Castle Cary, Bruton, Taunton and Yeovil, just outside my constituency. We know that there is demand for a train station, and we want the opportunity to prove it.
There is currently no direct bus between Langport and Somerton and Castle Cary, so people wishing to access rail at Castle Cary need to change, which makes the shortest journey time around one hour and 17 minutes. By private car, that journey would take no more than 30 minutes. There are also no public transport links between Street and Glastonbury and Castle Cary station. Taunton station can be reached by changing at Somerton. Many residents have reached out to tell me that they need a dedicated bus service from Glastonbury to Castle Cary station. Again, that route would take less than 30 minutes by private car, but the available bus options require using up to three different buses, taking two hours.
That type of offering makes it impossible for people to consider taking buses to access the rail network for work or education, making people more reliant on their private cars and making decarbonisation targets harder to achieve. We can take some quick steps, such as reviewing timetables to ensure that rail services are better integrated with local bus services, and we must work with local bus companies to put on services and create bus stops that are branded as rail links.
It has been proven that integration of bus and rail can grow patronage for operators of both while opening up new opportunities to connect communities across Somerset. There are good examples in Devon and Cornwall demonstrating that this works, and evidence shows that communities feel better connected to the rail network as a result. The new Government have promised to develop a long-term strategy that will create unified and integrated transport systems. Bus and rail links must be a central part of that strategy in rural areas, and local authorities must be given the support to work with key stakeholders to make this a reality.
For too long, buses have been in decline. They have been unsustainable, inaccessible and unreliable, and have failed to meet the needs of those who use them, but there is a way forward that can deliver opportunities for people in rural areas. I believe that the integration of public transport must form a major part of new plans, and I am eager to hear from the Minister how the new Government will provide rural communities with the services that we need in both the short and the long term. We must protect crucial existing routes, make bus travel fairer for rural residents and explore new avenues to make rural bus travel more sustainable, accessible and flexible.
In addition, any powers passed to local authorities must come with funding or any changes will, frankly, flop badly. It is not clear how areas that are not local transport authorities will be able to get involved. We must also recognise the crucial role that bus travel has to play in meeting decarbonisation targets, encourage modal shift from private cars to buses, and improve bus and rail integration. People should be able to get by bus where they want to go, when they want to go, and their journey should be reliable, comfortable and affordable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I want to start by thanking the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing this debate on the important issue of bus services in rural areas. She has been a committed champion for her constituents when it comes to local bus provision. She has worked hard to try to prevent cuts to essential bus services in her constituency, as reflected in her speech.
Access to reliable and affordable public transport is a lifeline for communities across England, whether for getting to work or education, accessing essential services, or seeing family and friends. I want to make sure that no matter where someone lives—whether it is in one of our cities or in a rural area in England such as Glastonbury and Somerton—they have access to buses that they can depend on. Britain needs a modern transport network that reaches every corner of the country to help kick-start economic growth. Many people feel let down by bus services and that is often exacerbated in rural areas.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that rural voices are heard in their plans to empower local communities to influence and shape bus services, because of the specific issues that rural communities face in terms of the bus services they need?
Simon Lightwood
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Our announcement on Monday that all local transport authorities—not just those in mayoral combined authorities—will be able to explore franchising will enable just that. It will enable local leaders to take back control of their buses and set fares and routes, taking careful consideration of their local communities, including the rural aspects of some of them.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Will the Minister and his Department commit to working with me to bring back the 503 National Express service, which served my town of Launceston in North Cornwall and ran through to Exeter and London? The community in Launceston and other towns in North Cornwall have been left without any connection to Exeter and London.
Simon Lightwood
I will certainly explore that with the hon. Member. Obviously it is a decision for the commercial operator whether to continue that service, but I am happy to explore that with him outside today’s debate. I will crack on now, because I have limited time.
For too long bus users have been subjected to a postcode lottery when it comes to the quality of their services. That is not just an inconvenience but a barrier to opportunity and growth. Our plan aims to end that disparity and ensure that everyone, regardless of where they live, has access to dependable public transport.
Ellie Chowns
The inequality in funding between rural and urban bus services that the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) highlighted is of enormous concern to my constituents in North Herefordshire. Rural bus services need more support per head than urban ones; they are less commercially viable. Will the Minister commit to reversing that inequality?
Simon Lightwood
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. We are committed to simplifying the plethora of different funding pots that are available for buses. We hope to deliver more long-term funding for local authorities and devolve to them the power to decide where the money is spent.
The Government have set out an ambitious action plan to deliver better buses, grow passenger numbers and drive opportunity to underserved regions. A core part of that plan was announced in the King’s Speech: the passing of a buses Bill. We are introducing the Bill in this Session because we want to see change as quickly as possible. On Monday, we announced a package of franchising measures to support local leaders to deliver better services for passengers in advance of the buses Bill. The first measure is the publication of a consultation document, which will gather views on proposed updates to the bus franchising guidance. The second measure was the laying of a statutory instrument that will open up bus franchising to all local transport authorities and reduce barriers. Later in the Session, we will introduce the Bill, which will be designed to put power back in the hands of local leaders right across England and ensure that networks meet the needs of people who rely on them, including in rural communities.
Simon Lightwood
I need to make progress.
The Bill alone will not remove all the challenges facing the bus sector, so the Government will take further steps to deliver more reliable and accessible bus services. Those will include giving local authorities more flexibility and control over bus funding, so they can plan for the long term and deliver on local priorities. We also want to provide safeguards over local networks, to raise the standard of the services that passengers should expect to receive.
The Government know that what each community needs from its public transport network is unique, and we want to empower local leaders to work with operators to design networks that meet their needs. It is great to see that that work is already under way in Somerset, with the trial of the Slinky digital demand-responsive transport service. Somerset county council has also introduced some great local schemes that aim to encourage people on to buses.
Through our plans, we will support and empower local transport authorities to take back control by working in collaboration with bus operators and passengers to deliver bus services for passengers.
Helen Grant
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. In my Maidstone and Malling constituency, local bus companies Arriva and Nu-Venture tell me that a significant reason for the lack of services is the lack of drivers, and that speeding up the process for granting provisional licences could make a real difference. Will the Minister look at that?
Simon Lightwood
I pushed for that when I was in opposition, and we did some consultation just before the general election. We are busy looking at the feedback and will report on it in due course.
Under the Government’s action plan for buses, we will step in and ensure that local bus networks provide more accountability over bus operators, so that standards are raised wherever people live across the country. Making fares as affordable as possible is one of the Government’s top priorities. As the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton said, the £2 fare cap is due to run out on 31 December. We are looking carefully and at speed at what to do in the future to support bus networks.
Local authorities, bus operators and passengers are eager to hear more details of our plans, and I assure them that we are working at pace to consider how we might best support buses in all areas, including rural communities, in our upcoming spending review. We will work closely with local authorities and bus operators to understand what is needed to improve and grow bus networks.
Simon Lightwood
I am just about to finish, but go on—I have given way to everyone else.
Caroline Voaden
Will the Minister consider the health impact of rural bus networks? Rural settings are very different from urban ones, and given the serious health implications of isolation and loneliness, particularly among older people, good bus connections can have an impact. My hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) talked about balancing the rural-urban funding divide. It is so much more important that bus services are subsidised in rural areas.
Simon Lightwood
As I said, it is important that local leaders get to decide—that they take back control of bus services, use the funding that is devolved to them and make informed decisions in their local areas.
We want to learn from the experiences and build on the successes, and I look forward to announcing more information on the buses Bill and the Government’s plans for bus funding in due course.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Member needs to sit down. This issue is clearly of much concern in many constituencies across the country. It could be appropriate for a group of Members to get together and submit an application for a 60 or 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall, which would give Members the opportunity to make their cases and the Minister enough time to respond to their concerns. I am not formally requiring that of anybody, but I suggest that it might be a useful mechanism.
Question put and agreed to.
Rural Depopulation
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered depopulation in rural areas.
Tapadh leibh, Ms Vaz; thank you. It is an honour to have you in the Chair. I thank all colleagues for their attendance and support in what I am sure will be an illuminating 90-minute debate. Staging your first Westminster Hall debate is a bit like throwing a birthday party and wondering whether anyone will turn up—at least we know there is not a depopulation crisis in Westminster. I also thank the Minister for taking this debate. It may not seem obvious at first what the demographics of the Western Isles have to do with the Home Office, but if she bears with me, I will explain and expand on why this issue, which now affects the periphery of the UK, influences the entire economy and should inform the decisions that we make at national level on immigration.
First, let me give some context. In Na h-Eileanan an Iar, the Western Isles, we are in the middle of a depopulation crisis, and I am here to sound that alarm. We are painfully aware of what is a rapidly changing population. An older, strongly Gaelic-speaking demographic is passing on, and we see the rapid out-migration of younger, economically active families. They sometimes face insurmountable challenges: being priced out of housing and facing failing transport connections, stuttering health provision and childcare and a host of other issues, which weigh heavily in the scales of deciding whether to stay or go. And while we sound the warnings at home, the lights should be flashing on the dashboard in this place, too, and in offices across Whitehall. That is why I am staging this debate—to highlight the fact that we are simply running out of people to take up key public sector and private sector posts to keep our islands going. That affects the viability of vital services and it ill serves the local economy and the national one, too.
Just to give some further context, the estimated population of the Western Isles is 26,200. That represents a 5.5% decrease since the 2011 census and the highest percentage decrease in Scotland. According to estimates from the Western Isles health board, which has an obvious interest in this issue from a staffing and care point of view, the working-age population of the islands is set to decrease by 6% by 2028, while the over-75 population with the highest levels of comorbidity—people who have more than one illness—is set to rise by 25%. The situation is frightening. According to the board, these population changes will result in a year-on-year reduction in the available workforce—nurses and care staff—to attend the most important, most vulnerable people, and ultimately undermine the ability to sustain services.
I say we have to address this with local responses, Scottish responses and action at UK level to prevent the situation from entering that downward spiral. We know that an ageing-population pattern is part of a Europe-wide trend, and somehow we kid ourselves that this is an over-the-horizon event that we will deal with later, but for us in the islands, it is an urgent reality, and our breakfast will become everyone else’s lunch; if we do not address these issues on the edge of Europe, they will become structural problems for the rest of the country and the rest of the continent.
More than worrying about an ageing population, I worry about the exodus of a working population, particularly the female population. Since 2007, the number of women aged between 25 and 44 on the islands has dropped by 15%, from 3,289 down to 2,787. There are many reasons for that rapid decline but, for most parents, they can be encapsulated in one word—childcare. Of course that is a challenge for parents everywhere, but the lack of a working-age population, as well as the burdensome regulation, has strangled childcare in the islands. I am sure that is the experience of colleagues across the board. Working parents and primarily working mothers, of course, find it hard to return to work—to balance childcare and careers—and despite the many strong family connections and networks they have on the islands, ultimately they give up in frustration, and ultimately they speak to me, as they spoke to me during the election campaign, about giving up and moving to the mainland. And when we lose families, we lose the working-age population.
During the successful election campaign, I was joined by the then shadow Business Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, on a visit around some of the key ports in Stornoway. We went to a shellfish export company that was successful, with a £4 million turnover and rising, which was a great investment by the port and the parent company in the local fishing fleet. But the actual processing of the product in the chill of the packing room could not operate were it not for the Ukraine war. Most of the staff that packed the products were refugees from that conflict. They are a welcome and valuable addition to the workforce and the islands, but we cannot have our economic growth dependent on a conflict on the other side of Europe.
At a seafood processor on another island, a £3 million business at the end of a single-track road, there were sustainable stocks and work for perhaps 30 employees, but only 15 workers were available because there are simply no workers to be found locally. This was an operation that, pre-Brexit, had a large and well-integrated European workforce. Now it cannot find a local workforce, and the regulatory and bureaucratic challenge of sourcing staff is almost overwhelming.
In the fishing industry offshore, the present immigration requirements as I understand them require staff employed under the sponsored visa scheme to pass stage 4 English language tests. That is quite a high academic bar for an industry that seeks crewmen who are primarily experienced in working in noisy and challenging conditions where hand signals are often as useful as linguistic ones.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Member will be aware that this is a matter on which a number of us have campaigned over the years. Essentially, the problem is that the definition of what constitutes a skilled migrant worker is narrow and brings in skills, as with the English language test, that are not central to the jobs that those people are going to do. We have safely had migrant workers in the catching sector for years without that level of English language. Will the hon. Member and others join me in encouraging the new Home Office team to have yet another look, and this time take the issues seriously?
Torcuil Crichton
I agree entirely with the right hon. Member. The language requirement is just one aspect of the present visa system that is unsuitable for our fishing industry, the islands, and rural economies, and which we have until now been unable to navigate around. Hopefully it will undergo a fresh review under a new Home Office team.
The new Home Office team and immigration policy are rightly the reserve of the UK Government. I do not seek to break up control of the system. I stood on a platform of a properly managed, points-based immigration system that links up the needs of the workforce, the economy and the country. But I counter the narrative, which this summer was in danger of becoming the prevailing one, that the country is somehow “full up”. There are parts of the UK and Scotland where we are crying out for skilled workers to come and be part of our workforce, and to then stay and become part of our communities.
Scotland has specific needs for our skills base, and the islands and rural areas of Scotland and the UK have some very specific asks of their own. The lesson of policy in almost every area—not just immigration—be it administered from here or Holyrood, is that one size does not fit all. What works at a UK level may need more flexibility at a Scottish level, and again at a rural and island level.
In the past, the UK Government in other guises have worked with the Scottish Government to show flexibility. The former First Minister Jack McConnell, now Baron McConnell of Glenscorrodale, promoted the fresh talent initiative for post-study work visas for overseas students at Scottish universities, enabling them to stay on for a period. There is, and should be, interest in reviving that plan, and the idea of rural visa projects, which was advanced by the Scottish Government with the Migration Advisory Committee before the previous UK Government stamped on the idea.
There are many levers of Government that are not at the hand of the Minister, but that bear mentioning because they are part of local and Scottish solutions to rural depopulation. In the islands, we are lucky to have a system of crofting tenure, a uniquely Scottish system which has kept generations in their home community, but crofting has been hollowed out by political forces that neither understand nor value its work. Crofting tenure, properly regulated, should be a defence against the property market, but instead it has become an enabler. The sale of croft tenancies at inflated rates has become a critical factor in the housing shortage.
Crofting needs urgent reform. I commend the Shucksmith report, “The Future of Crofting”, now more than a decade old but an excellent piece of work, which sought to rebalance—or restore the balance—between crofters’ right to security of tenure and their responsibilities to keep the market at bay. It should be dusted down and re-enacted, but that is probably a subject for another debate and another place.
The lack of affordable housing, however, is an issue that many other Members here and elsewhere will recognise. I hope that it will be taken up by other speakers in the debate. In many of our areas, it is impossible for anyone with modest means to secure a house, which is a pretty basic precondition for retaining a working-age population and keeping the economy spinning.
We therefore need action on housing and on crofting regulation; we need access to land; and we need access and action on depopulation. As I said, the dashboard lights are flashing. More than anything we need focus. We need economic focus on the peripheries of the north and west of Scotland, those areas of continued depopulation. We need economic incentives, state aid, perhaps a reduction in VAT on construction, and enhanced capital allowances. I do not want the Minister to worry too much about those issues, because they are for the Treasury and other Departments, and I will take them up with them.
My time is running out, and I do not want to end on a note of despondency. There is hope. There is hope in community ownership of the many crofting estates in the Western Isles, a quiet revolution that has injected not just a new wave of development, but a growing sense of confidence and assurance that, given the tools, we can tackle the issues for ourselves. There is the vast opportunity of community ownership of, and a community share in, the wealth of wind in onshore and offshore developments, which are due offers. That change is so tantalisingly close and could be so transformative in terms of finance and confidence that it cannot be ignored as part of the UK Government’s GB Energy strategy.
There is also hope in individuals, families and communities and their resilience, which make the islands not just a great place to visit, but a precious place to stay. There are examples of local initiatives like the Uist repopulation zone, which has provided training opportunities and much-hallowed childcare provision to parents. It is led by Comhairle nan Eilean Siar and has received £60,000 from the Scottish Government. I commend the work of that project and of many other individuals and communities who focus themselves on the issue of depopulation at a local level.
As I said, we have a sense of urgency about this in the islands: we are experiencing a depopulation crisis. I hope now that that can find an echo not just in the contributions to this debate, but in the UK Government’s awareness and response to the issue.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I expect to call the Lib Dem opposition spokesperson at 3.28 pm.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on securing this debate. The issue is as important to me and my communities as it is to him and his.
The yardstick by which I have for many years now measured any proposal for anything to happen in the Northern Isles is to ask a simple question: will this make it more or less likely for people to want to live here? Without a healthy and growing population, we risk losing the critical mass and, within that critical mass, we do not have the mix. Every population—every community—needs to have a mix of the professional, the technical, the skilled and semi-skilled, and the unskilled. In a city, where there is mobility within the different districts, we can take that sort of thing for granted; when we live in an island community it is a different story.
In some ways, I am the living, breathing example of how depopulation happens. I was born and brought up on Islay; I left as a 17-year-old to go to university and I eventually qualified as a solicitor. Islay has a population of between 3,000 and 3,500 people. It would not have been possible for me to return to Islay to go into legal practice with a population of that sort. I have lived most of my adult life in Orkney, where we have a population of about 22,000, which is big enough to sustain that professional community. The legal and accountancy firms, the wide range of doctors and the bigger hospital are things that allow us to maintain that mix so that we can keep our community functioning properly.
The history of Orkney and Shetland is slightly different from that of the Western Isles. Our population in Shetland was down to about 16,000 in the mid-1970s, at which point the oil industry came. Since then, the population grew quite rapidly, and it rests at around 22,000 or 23,000. That tells us that the critical thing to grow a population is the availability of a good mix of well-paid and varied jobs in the local economy.
Fifty years later, as we enter a period of decline in oil and gas as part of our economy, the just transition matters to us more than anywhere else. We see opportunities for our community in the development of, for example, marine renewables, tidal power and tidal stream generation, but if we push oil and gas off a cliff before the technologies are mature enough to come on stream, people will not hang around in places such as Orkney or Shetland, waiting for something else to happen. They have a history and a legitimate expectation of working in good, well-paid jobs, and they will take their skills elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of housing, which is probably the single biggest constraint on economic growth in the Northern Isles. I had an interesting conversation recently with the chief executive of Hjaltland housing association in Shetland. He was talking about a proposal he had put to a significant contractor, which was going to employ a significant number of people for a good number of years. He said, essentially, “If they pay the rent for us in advance”—this was a big corporate so it was rich enough to do it—“we will build the houses. Then, at the end of the time, the housing stock will revert to us and be available for other use in our community.” That was a brilliant idea—absolutely fantastic, not least in its simplicity. I think that the corporate would be up for that, but it was not seen with favour by the Government in Edinburgh and has subsequently been discouraged. That sort of creativity—coming up with solutions to problems that are appropriate to the community—is critical if we are to halt the reverse in numbers.
The infrastructure available for people in island communities is also essential, including digital infrastructure such as modern broadband and the availability of mobile phone coverage, given the problems that could be faced by communities such as mine when the copper wire switch-off happens for landline technologies. Other infrastructure is essential as well, such as the physical infrastructure of a ferry service. The hon. Gentleman does not need me to tell him about the problems that come from the lack of a reliable ferry service, because his constituents have endured that. But even within Shetland, and increasingly in Orkney as well, the internal ferry services have been problematic, as fleets get older and need to be replaced. Again, we need to listen to the communities. Those in Unst, Yell, Whalsay and Bressay are all keen to say, “Actually, for the next generation, we don’t want to rely on ferries. We want the construction of fixed links and tunnels, which would offer us opportunities to build and grow businesses.”
I spoke to one woman in Yell recently who told me that she would love to go back and have her home in Yell—she was born and brought up in Unst originally—but she has two children with medical conditions, which means that she does not want to take the risk of having to rely on a ferry journey, possibly in the middle of the night, should her children need medical attention at the hospital. Therefore, somebody who would like to live in Yell or Unst is forced to live on the Shetland mainland.
The problems of population decline for Shetland as a whole—if we look at the headline figures—may not be as acute, but the smaller island communities in Shetland continue to see that decline. This is about giving every community the empowerment to come up with solutions that are appropriate to them in their communities. I know that others want to speak, but I could say a lot more about this, and I hope that we will return to it at some point in the future.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on securing this debate and on the eloquent way in which he introduced it. He said that it was like coming to a birthday party; the only problem is that he did not think to bring any cake for all of us attending.
Depopulation in rural areas is, of course, a live and pressing issue. The hon. Member captured most of the real issues that we constantly live with in rural areas across Scotland. We took this issue very seriously on the Scottish Affairs Committee in the last Parliament, and we produced two reports on the subject. One was about Scotland’s population and demography, and the range of issues that the hon. Gentleman presented came up regularly in our proceedings. And, just before the Dissolution of the last Parliament, we concluded a report on the cost of living crisis in rural areas, which was very gratefully received by a number of people who were looking at this as a means to address some of the issues that he raised.
We have known our problem for a while: Scotland is facing population decline. We are the only part of the United Kingdom that is projected to have a population decline. By 2033, our population will start to go down again. That is after making a bit of progress in the last 20 years, which I think everybody welcomed. Most of that was down to people coming to Scotland from eastern Europe, which boosted so many of our communities. The hon. Gentleman was right to reference the contribution that so many people made to our communities, right across Scotland, under freedom of movement. It is an absolute disaster—a tragedy—that we have lost the ability to get that type of immigration going because of the refusal to review the disastrous consequences of leaving the European Union. Particularly, the opportunities of freedom of movement have left us.
In Scotland, we have a falling birth rate and an increasingly ageing population, and the issues following Brexit have created particularly difficult issues. We have acute labour shortages in all sectors, whether that is in our NHS, our care sector, hospitality, tourism or agriculture, and that is even more pronounced in Scotland’s rural areas. The declining population makes it harder to fill the available vacancies that are available. Even if every school leaver opted to work in Scotland’s social care sector, there would still be vacancies left for people to fill, such is the scale of the difficulties that we have.
I am not sure what Labour’s new policy is on immigration. I have listened very carefully to the Home Secretary when she has spoken about this in debates, and I have followed what the Prime Minister has been saying, but I am still not sure what Labour is trying to achieve. I think that they understand, respect and get the problem, but it is just that they are not prepared to do anything about it. We still hear the same old language that immigration is a burden and asylum seekers are to be demonised. No clear and concise routes to UK citizenship are being offered and opened up to people who hope to come to our shores.
Labour really has to do better on this issue. It has to acknowledge the value of immigration. For goodness’ sake, look what it has done to our communities; look how it has driven economic growth. I was here when Tony Blair opened up the route to the UK to the accession nations. It was a massive success, and, if anything, it contributed to the economic growth that we got in the late 2000s before the economic crash, such was the vision of the previous Labour Government. Please show us some of that same vision, too.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to reference the Fresh Talent scheme. A Labour Government delivered that fantastic innovation, in partnership with a Labour-Liberal Executive in Scotland. Fresh Talent gave us some advantages over the rest of the United Kingdom. It allowed us to retain Scottish-educated foreign national students so that they could stay and consider Scotland to be a home. If only we could see that type of imagination being deployed once again, but even introducing something like Fresh Talent would barely touch the sides of the difficulties that we have just now.
There is general consensus among all the political parties of Scotland and across Holyrood that something needs to be done and that we need to address this issue as a priority. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar referred to some of the welcome things that the Scottish Government have done, but the one thing that we need—I cannot for the life of me understand why this has not been seriously looked at—is a Scottish visa. We need to look at the option of a sub-national immigration system that caters for the nations and regions throughout the whole United Kingdom and allows the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and other constituencies around Scotland to get the immigrants they require. Such systems work perfectly and effectively in other nations. The Scottish Affairs Committee visited Quebec last year and saw its system working perfectly. Quebec has an arrangement with France and is able to recruit people in shortage areas. Montreal is now one of the fastest-growing cities and economies in the whole of North America—imagine having just a bit of that in Scotland.
I was immensely encouraged during the general election campaign to hear Labour talk about a Scottish visa; I listened carefully to Labour’s deputy leader, Jackie Baillie, talk about the idea glowingly. I spoke to representatives of businesses and sectors in my constituency, who really appreciated that and thought, “Maybe at last we will be able to make some sort of progress,” but that has all gone. What has happened to it? What happened to this idea? Now all that Labour talks about is tinkering with the shortage occupation list. That will help, but it will not do anything to address our real needs, so we need some serious solutions.
People tell us that we need to get more people from the United Kingdom to come to Scotland. I remember being lectured by previous Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament, who said that people will not come to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom—apparently, they are put off by our lower council tax, free prescriptions, free childcare and lack of tuition fees. Apparently, that was also a disincentive to immigrants from eastern Europe and further afield. Those MPs said that people refused to come to Scotland because they would pay a few pounds more in tax. That was absolute and utter rubbish, and we now know that because the latest figures from the National Records of Scotland show that there is net migration to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. We need to do more, but let us get away from that nonsense. I hope we do not hear anything like that from the Labour Government.
Yes, there are problems; yes, there are real difficulties. Rural Scotland is suffering, but it is now in the hands of a Labour Government. It is not the Conservatives any more, with their cultural resistance to things like immigration. Labour has the opportunity to respond with its values. Please, for goodness’ sake—for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and for all of us who represent rural constituencies—do something about it. Get it fixed. Help us. Bring forward the solutions.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) for securing this important debate. I associate myself with his comments about the challenges his constituents face.
I want to address an issue that deeply affects rural communities across the United Kingdom, one specific aspect of which particularly affects my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale. This is a matter that strikes at the heart of our villages and rural areas, where we are seeing an alarming trend: young people, the lifeblood of our communities, are being forced to move away. One of the key reasons for that is a lack of affordable housing. Today I will speak about building homes, and tomorrow I hope to speak in this Chamber about the impact of short-term lets on my constituency.
In Morecambe and Lunesdale, rising house prices and a chronic shortage of affordable homes are pushing young people to relocate to urban areas in search of housing they can afford. They want to stay and contribute to the communities they grew up in, but many simply cannot, and the result is a steady drain of talent and energy from our villages. That has serious consequences. We see it most clearly in our local economy, particularly in key sectors such as agriculture and hospitality—industries that have been the backbone of our rural life for generations. Farms, restaurants, hotels and pubs across Morecambe and Lunesdale are struggling to find the workers they need. Without young people staying in these areas or moving in, the workforce shrinks and businesses are unable to expand or even survive.
Let us be clear: rural depopulation is not just a social issue, but an economic one. The lack of workers drives economic stagnation and, as businesses falter, fewer opportunities remain, fuelling further depopulation. It is a vicious cycle that we must break. The solution lies in providing more affordable, energy-efficient housing. By building homes that young people and families can actually afford, we can keep our communities vibrant and growing. Affordable housing does not just keep people in our rural areas; it attracts new investment, brings vitality back to our villages and strengthens the local economy.
We must ensure that these homes are energy efficient. In the face of both the climate crisis and soaring energy costs, it is imperative that any new housing meets high environmental standards. By doing that, we are not only addressing housing affordability, but preparing our rural areas for a sustainable future.
I must mention the Lune Valley Community Land Trust, which, in collaboration with South Lakes Housing, has built beautiful, affordable, energy-efficient homes in the village of Halton in my constituency. I believe they are looking to build more in the area. I welcome this approach and urge the Government to support it.
If we are serious about tackling rural depopulation, we must take decisive action. That means working closely with local authorities, developers and communities to ensure that we have the right mix of affordable and social housing built to the highest standards. It means creating jobs, fostering economic growth and ensuring that young people want, and can afford, to live and work in rural areas such as Morecambe and Lunesdale.
I urge the Government to prioritise affordable and energy-efficient rural housing as part of their broader strategy to tackle rural depopulation and enable economic growth. Our villages and rural areas deserve nothing less.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, for what I believe is the first time during this Session. I am sure it will be the first of many, and I look forward to working alongside you.
It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge). She is here in Westminster Hall almost as much as I am! I look forward to many more contributions from her.
I say to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton)—that is my Northern Ireland pronunciation of the name of his constituency; I hope it was somewhere near to what it really should be—that it is a real pleasure to see him in this debate, and I am here to make a contribution to support him.
As one who is thankful to live in a rural community and to feel part of it, I speak with some personal knowledge. I come over here on a Monday, and I leave on a Thursday. London will never be my home, because there is too much concrete. I need green fields, grass and fresh air. That is just a personal opinion; I have nothing against the people of London. I am sure they are very happy here, but I know I certainly could not be here any longer than I have to be. But that is by the way.
The Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—I always give a Northern Ireland perspective to these things—publishes an annual “Key Rural Issues” publication. According to the 2023 edition, 36% of Northern Ireland’s population lived in a rural area in 2020. The population of rural areas grew by 20% between 2001 and 2020, while the population of urban areas grew by 7%. Perhaps what we are seeing in Northern Ireland is a reverse of what the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar referred to; more people seem to be moving to rural areas for whatever reason.
I can see this happening. Although I still see the people I went to school with and their children in Kircubbin and Greyabbey, the two nearest villages to my home, I also see many, many new faces on my constituency door knocks throughout the year. I do not just knock doors at the election; I will be doing it next week in recess, and I did it the whole month of August. I do it because it is a good way to hear what constituents are saying. In August, when everybody goes out, it was also a good way for people to know I was back again after the 4 July election. It shows an interest. It is how we know what people want, so that is why I do it.
I also see that the footprint has expanded. That is due not simply to children having children and moving to their own places, but to historical family connections no longer being in place. In my opinion, that adds to the character and abilities in the community.
I will quickly refer to the community and what it means to me and the people I live alongside. I have lived in the Ards peninsula since I was four, over 65 years ago—now hon. Members know my age—and yet there are those who still consider me, and label me, a blow-in. How many times have we rural people heard that? There is a joke that if someone’s great-grandparents are not buried in Ballywalter graveyard, they are a blow-in. That would take them back before their birth, but that is by the way. That has not stopped me from being an integral part of the local community and from being proud to be known as the wee boy from Ballywalter.
This is a message that people need to understand: although someone may not be born in a rural community, they will be made a part of that community if they understand and embrace all that that entails. That means farmers ploughing or spraying fields at 1.30 am, because that is the best time—perhaps the only time—they can do so. It means being delayed behind a tractor or by a farmer moving cattle across the road. It means being woken up by the sound of a bird scarer, which is how the farmer protects his field. Those are the things of the countryside, but we embrace them. They are parts of daily life for people who move to a home in the country.
By the same token, living in a rural community means a farmer may drop off a bag of groceries when someone is snowed in. It means that when someone has a new baby, they will receive at least 10 ready-made meals from the local community, and possibly many more. That is the community that I live in. It is probably the community we all live in—I know that it is certainly the community that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) lives in. Living in a rural community means that if someone is delayed in getting to the school, people will wait with their child. It means that people are part of that community. For me, community means all those things. If someone new comes in, welcome them; if someone needs help, reach out.
We need to do better at some things if we are to encourage more people to take up rural living and to bring their skills and qualities to rural life. We need to ensure that there is adequate broadband for home working and small businesses. We have to move with the times: when people want to work from home, and have businesses in their homes, we need to encourage them and make that happen. We need to ensure that there are places in small rural schools. We need to enhance public transport connectivity.
We also need to encourage, by any means, our banks to realise that their face-to-face obligations to rural customers come first. I do not think that there are any hon. Members who have not spoken about bank closures. It sickens me that when banks make more money than they did the year before, they close branches in rural areas. I am not a socialist, but I cannot comprehend how banks can close branches in rural areas and then produce more dividends for the chief executives. That is seriously morally wrong. If any banks are listening, please note my words, because they are not just my words—they are the words of many others.
We need to ensure that rural medical practices have adequate facilities for physios, nutritionists, sexual health clinicians and dentists, so there is adequate provision for rural communities. Those are all things that people who come to live in the countryside wish to have.
A lot of people want to speak, so I will finish with this. Living in a rural community offers so much and, with sensible planning and forethought, there is space for more. There is nothing quite like country life. I say that not just because I am a shooting man, but because I just love the country. We need to protect our country life while encouraging people to reap the health benefits of living in the country, such as fresher, cleaner air. My goodness, who could say there is anything wrong with that?
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) for securing a debate on this very important subject. We were previously on opposite sides of the great newspaper divide. I was on the true blue Tory side supporting the Daily Mail, and he was on a red rag called the Daily Record, but we will not dwell on that.
Depopulation is the curse of rural areas—a blight that creeps up and strangles the lifeblood. It can precipitate a crisis, after which shops and schools close, and so communities wither and die. It is a multiheaded hydra of a problem, and we are hearing that today. There is no one cause; therefore, there is no one solution. There is no magic wand here. Bright lights and big cities will always have their charms. As a proud country boy myself, I think all that is overrated, but we need to make moving away from a rural area a choice, not a necessity.
Some of the issues are common to rural areas across the UK and the whole globe. First among them is jobs. If someone cannot find work, their choices are stark: move, if they can, or linger where they are. That can be a miserable existence, for rural deprivation is real. Issues with connectivity, especially public transport, can add genuine isolation to the burden. Scenery in rural areas such as my Dumfries and Galloway constituency is lovely. It is a delight for locals and tourists alike, but you cannot eat the scenery.
Another layer of difficulty, peculiar to Scotland, lies in the fact that we have two Governments: one here in Westminster and one at Holyrood. The arrival of the devolved Parliament was designed to shorten the distance between the people and the Government and deliver a light-on-its-feet legislature able to deliver Scottish solutions to Scottish problems, such as depopulation. The theory was marvellous, but the reality perhaps less successful. Much great work has been done by MSP colleagues, but problems persist, not least when one side of the equation is not the willing partner it ought to be.
From previous experience as a special adviser in the Scotland Office, I found that the SNP Scottish Government were capable of foot-dragging, with little interest in making joint projects with the UK Government a success. Take the A75 road—critical to connectivity between Northern Ireland, Scotland and the rest of the UK. Carrying perhaps as much as 60% of Northern Ireland’s trade, it is a sorry cattle track of a road, very often dubbed “the road to hell”. The UK Government earmarked money for improvements, but the Scottish Government cried foul because transport is devolved. The result? No action on the road that is the very spine of my rural constituency.
How can we attract young families to rural Scotland when the quality of schools is such a lottery? Why, with one so-called “Curriculum for Excellence” in Scotland, are 32 local authority heads of education delivering that in 32 different ways? Why is there a postcode lottery, where one school may offer nine exams while one 25 miles down the road may offer 10? Regardless of pupils’ ability, some are at an instant disadvantage.
Housing is a problem. Someone may find a job, but can they find a rural home within affordable commuting distance? Probably not. Housing sits with the Scottish Government. We are told that there will be a reset in relations between the new Administration here and the one in Edinburgh.
Pete Wishart
I will take the chance to add to his list. He knows that immigration is a matter exclusively reserved to the UK Government. When he was special adviser, what did he recommend to one of his Secretaries of State about how immigration routes to Scotland could be improved?
John Cooper
Our advice was that things like Scottish visa projects have a fundamental problem, in that if someone arrives in Scotland with a bit of paper that says they can be there, there is nothing to keep them there. We have found difficulties with the black economy. People disappear rapidly, and again, it’s bright lights and big cities, so there is a fundamental problem. We on our side think that the UK should have one immigration policy and not break it up piecemeal. As we say in Scotland, the proof is in the preein. We will see what this new relationship brings and whether it is fruitful. Perhaps we could all be friends between Westminster and Edinburgh. I certainly hope so but, again, as we say in Scotland, I hae ma doots.
Housing is worthy of debate entirely on its own; it is a sprawling subject and we simply do not have the time to dwell on it today. Having touched on many of the difficulties, I will turn briefly to some of the solutions. If depopulation is one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse for rural Britain, then indifference is coming up on the rail, and that is something that we as politicians can tackle. We can, as we are doing today, raise these issues. We need to lift the profile of rural Britain. We can rail against the urban-centric policies of those who do not understand what rural life, with all its challenges and all its benefits, is truly about. Most importantly, we can fight for the three j’s—jobs, jobs, jobs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. We will start the wind-up speeches at 3.28 pm and we have three more speakers, so hon. Members can do the maths.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz; I will be brief.
I applied to contribute to this debate because I wanted to speak not just about my experiences, but about the experiences of people I grew up around, people I was at school with and people who, in many cases, were forced to leave my constituency of Hexham, which colleagues will be surprised to learn is the largest in England. As the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke about the beauty of his constituency, I feel compelled to remind people of the beauty of my constituency, which is in the county of Hadrian’s Wall, and to note that we will be marking the anniversary of the loss of the Sycamore Gap tree during the conference recess later in September.
When I go through so many towns and villages in my constituency, I see that they are marked by exactly what Members have spoken about today: a lack of younger people, who have been forced—they have not chosen—to move away. They have been forced, by a lack of jobs and opportunities, to seek to make their lives elsewhere, often leaving behind families and caring responsibilities, which means large amounts of travel back home to meet those obligations. The last Government failed to grapple with this issue, which we know is a huge, inherited, generational and demographic challenge, and one that I urge our Government to take on fully.
I spoke to some of the businesses in my constituency on the campaign trail. They want to take on more people, but they simply cannot find the skills they need or people who want to work and can afford to live in such an overheated and over-inflated housing market. That leads to a decline for those businesses and, for some of them, a slow death. One of the larger employers told me during the election that if they take on someone and train them up, but then they cannot afford to live in my constituency and move somewhere else, they bear all the training costs, only to see that individual go and work in a far more urban part of the country. We have spoken a lot about the rural premium and the rural cost of living, but there is a rural cost of doing business as well, which we should note very carefully.
As the representative for the Hexham constituency—the first Labour representative for the constituency—and as someone who was privileged to be out knocking on doors with my school friends and my schoolteachers, I know that we are not just letting our young people down, but letting our older generations down. I am privileged to be able to go back to visit my grandma every week when I am back in the constituency, but I have friends who now live three or four hours away and are unable to do the same. This is having a genuinely devastating impact on a lot of families, particularly given the acute social care crisis that this Government have inherited.
Ultimately, only by addressing this issue and the really biting crisis of rural depopulation can we turn our communities around and ensure that they can become the thriving engines of growth that the economy needs them to be.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) very much indeed for securing a debate on such an important subject. He consistently hits the nail on the head by bringing forward subjects that really matter to us.
We have talked about accommodation, and the Highland council, on which I was a councillor, has £1.2 billion of borrowing, yet 40% of our housing budget is spent on interest payments. That is a catastrophe. Basically, we cannot borrow any more money to build more housing. The utility companies that are building renewable energy projects across the whole of the highlands need to build properties that will remain there for generations rather than modular housing for the extent of the jobs or projects, and the same should go for the owners of fish farms. It would make a big difference if the private and public sectors worked together, because I fear that public sector housing will not be able to fill the gap.
Scotland has a £3.4 billion transport budget, but it is not coming to the highlands. The A82 up Loch Lomond must be one of the worst roads in the world; trucks cannot get past there. Mowi, the fish farm company, and BSW Timber just cannot operate safely, and it is extremely bad for the area. The railway from Glasgow to Mallaig has an average speed of just over 40 mph. This HS2 thing is a joke, and the ferries make Scotland a laughing stock.
The Scottish Government have done no favours to the highlands and Scotland on connectivity over the last 17 years, and the same can be said for schools in the highlands. Schools such as Mallaig high school and Gairloch high school are less than 50% full—there is a complete collapse. As the numbers drop, we are losing the breadth of subjects taught by the teachers, so we are desperate for computing, mathematics and engineering teachers—they are the jobs of the future. The attainment gap in Scotland is a great shame for our country. Again, the Scottish Government’s management of our educational system has been catastrophic.
Broadband coverage in Scotland is 96.8%, but in the highlands it is 86.6%. That is a disparity of almost 15%. Of course, we cannot have the jobs of the future if we do not have the connectivity. Places lose their population if the public sector pulls out, and that is what we are seeing. Eight care homes closed in the highlands in the two years that I was a highland councillor. People are getting shipped from the west coast of Skye up to Thurso or Inverness. There is a collapse in the care home sector. Care workers are being paid £12 an hour, which is less than they would get in the hospitality sector, and that is an increase on what it was before April. No wonder we have an absolute catastrophe in our care sector. Of course, we all know that the availability of dentists in the highlands is also a disaster.
We have heard about the importance of allowing immigrants to come to Scotland. We are losing more than 50% of our young. They choose not to work in the highlands; they want to leave home. We need to keep these guys. We need to offer them well-paid jobs and good accommodation, and cherish them, otherwise they will leave. At the moment, they cannot get accommodation and they are not being taught for the jobs of the future. We are not helped by the Scottish Government, and we all have a big job to do together.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
Thank you, Ms Vaz, for the unexpected pleasure of contributing to this important debate; I congratulate the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on bringing it to this Chamber. I thought I would offer a Welsh perspective, to ensure that all the nations of these islands are spoken about in this debate, although I fear that much of what we have heard rings true in Wales, too.
I represent Ceredigion Preseli. At the last census, Ceredigion—the majority of my constituency—recorded a 5.9% decrease in its overall population, and the communities in Preseli or Pembrokeshire that I now represent saw their population flatline. This is a problem that we are very much living with today. What does it mean? In practice, it means that we are having very difficult discussions about, for example, the provision of public services and whether the school estate is sustainable for the future. We are talking about the lack of GPs and the fact that we do not have an NHS dentist any more in much of the constituency. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned bank closures. I shall not name them now, but there are three well-known banks in the UK that no longer have a single branch in the two counties that I represent. This is the real consequence of depopulation.
I very much align myself with the comments made by all colleagues on what needs to happen to try to reverse this trend. However, I will add that a Labour predecessor of mine in what was then the constituency of Cardiganshire, the great—and sadly late—Baron Elystan-Morgan, talked in his maiden speech about how the outmigration of young people sapped the vitality of rural communities. He was speaking in the 1960s, but I fear that that is as true today as it was then. As well as sapping the vitality from private enterprise and having a detrimental impact on the provision of staff for key public services, this outmigration is also sapping and undermining the viability of our rural communities.
This is something that the UK Government can help with, and it should be on their radar. When the Cabinet Office looks at the range of risks it must monitor as part of its remit—something that the Public Accounts Committee discussed in the previous Parliament—it should look at how the discrepancies in demographic trends across these islands might have an impact on key public services, because in certain areas of rural Wales we will, I am afraid, see a collapse of public services. That will have a knock-on impact on more urban areas, which are themselves struggling with different demographic pressures.
This is an important debate, and I would ask the Home Office Minister to consider, as part of her important work in this new Parliament, the lessons to be drawn from experiences across the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) mentioned the experience of Quebec. As west Walians, we often turn on the radio to hear adverts from the Government of Western Australia trying to attract many of our young doctors and nurses to migrate to that part of the world. Are there incentives we could use to persuade more of our young people to stay or to attract those from other parts of the world? There are many benefits to rural living, as all hon. Members have outlined today. Perhaps we could be more creative in grasping this problem by the scruff of the neck, because I fear we do not have much time left to deal with it.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my neighbour from across the Minch, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), on bringing this important subject to the attention of this place.
I am old enough to remember a time, when I was at school in Tain, when my father said to me, “Your future will lie in the south. Go south, young boy, because that’s where the jobs are.” Then, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) so wisely said, the oil came—and come it did. In my case, that meant working in the Nigg yard, as so many others did—at its height, there were 5,000 people employed there.
I married and brought up my children in my home town of Tain. I was one of the lucky ones. Indeed, it could be said that, in Caithness, the advent of Dounreay was equally important in not just halting but reversing depopulation. Even today, Dounreay keeps the lights on in Strath Halladale and Bettyhill, because many people have a croft, but they also have an income from Dounreay. To be plain with colleagues, I come to this from the issue of high-quality employment above all else. As my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) just said, that is crucial, because without jobs, depopulation will continue.
I congratulate all speakers; all the important points have been touched on. My neighbour across the Minch made an important point. He said that there is a perception that the highlands and islands, and indeed many other parts of the UK, are full up. That is absolutely not the case. One only needs to travel on what we call the Causeymire—or the Causewaymire—across Caithness from Latheron to Thurso to see the myriad empty ruined croft houses either side of the road. Those once upon a time supported families but that is not the case now. It will be exactly the same across the Minch.
My neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire mentioned schools. Just north of his constituency, we have a problem with recruiting and retaining staff for some of our primary and secondary schools. That is becoming a big issue. Such problems are a disincentive for people to come or employers to move to the highlands and offer employment.
I am very taken by what my Welsh friend, the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake), said about Western Australia. If incentives can be put together that will encourage qualified staff—dentists, doctors, teachers —to come to these areas, that would help so much. As my hon. Friend from across the Minch mentioned, there is a carers’ crisis. We see that in west Sutherland. We have an ever dropping number of carers, so who will look after the old people? People are giving up. The Government could tweak the rules governing the taxation of mileage that carers are burdened with. It is a very big disincentive indeed.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) talked about the loss of the migrant workers, as did the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). The fact that we do not have those people—they have gone—makes a huge difference. I can remember Polish people in Easter Ross asking me, “Do they hate us? Why do they want us to leave?” That was very sad. Also, when I travel in Wester Ross and west Sutherland I see the old European signs with the stars on them saying, “This stretch of road was paid for with the help of EC money.” That was a huge loss to us all. Whatever we might think of the EC, the structural funding or something like objective 1, which was designed to reach the most disadvantaged areas including those that face depopulation, was a great loss to us all. I hope that His Majesty’s Government will look at the issues.
Time is short. There is a massive problem that matters hugely to my constituents. I could talk about health, which has been mentioned already in this debate. The fact that Caithness mothers have to travel more than a 200-mile return trip to give birth in Inverness is a piece of nonsense. That is one of the reasons that people are leaving Caithness and heading south. It is as simple as that.
Good Government treats the different parts of the UK fairly, whether they are remote, depopulated, or what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has left us now, referred to as the concrete of London. The point is that a good and fair Government will give people an equal chance in life to prosper and do well. It is not all doom and gloom, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) said. There are hopes for the future. We could look at other models of recruitment, imaginative ways of providing housing and incentives to get employers to come to remote areas. I very much hope that this will be the start of a constructive dialogue with the Government, and between the Scottish and UK Governments, on how we can, as has been said, grip the issue, shake it out and sort it once and for all.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on securing this important debate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition. The hon. Member told us about his deeply rural and very special part of the world and the unique challenges that it faces in terms of childcare and labour shortages.
I echo right hon. and hon. Members’ comments highlighting just how important our countryside is to the United Kingdom. We heard about the challenges of ensuring that young people are not forced out but can afford to live locally with access to jobs and housing, and about the challenges of access to schools, doctors, banks and other public services when there is no longer a critical mass.
Not only does the countryside make up 90% of the UK’s land, as well as being home to millions of people, it contributes over £270 billion to our economy in England alone. As many speakers have observed, our labour market in rural areas has for a long time been constrained by a lack of supply, particularly with regard to certain skills. The supply of financial capital has also been limited by the structure and regulation of financial services. Historically, poor connectivity—both physical transport links and digital infrastructure—have added to the challenges in rural areas. That is why the last Government made it their core mission to level up parts of our country that had been traditionally overlooked, and I was proud to support the previous Administration’s investment in rural communities.
In government, we introduced local skills improvement plans and a new local skills improvement fund to counter rural depopulation. We delivered the £3.6 billion towns fund, boosting investment to create jobs and opportunities across the country and grow the economy. We committed £110 million in extra investment to rural areas as part of the rural England prosperity fund to create jobs across the country. We invested in rural economies by helping farmers with an investment of £2.4 billion a year while EU land-based subsidies were phased out and new schemes were introduced that aimed to work for farmers, food producers and the environment. The farming investment fund will help to improve productivity and efficiency within farming businesses and animal health and welfare in the years to come, and bring forward more environmental benefits.
As well as supporting farmers, ensuring they have access to training to meet the needs of local communities and backing Britain’s farmers, the last Government also made progress in tackling challenges to living in rural areas. I represent some of the most beautiful rural communities in the country—although not as deeply rural as others—so I know the challenges of poor broadband connections, limited public transport and rural crime only too well. Poor broadband connections create huge challenges for youngsters in education, impede rural businesses and put blocks on remote working. There is a long way to go on broadband roll-out but we are making huge progress. The last Government invested £5 billion to roll out and it is expected that by 2025 85% of homes will have high-speed gigabit broadband.
Another huge concern for those I represent in rural communities is public services, particularly public transport and bus services. Limited services prevent youngsters from getting to school, adults from getting to work and elderly people from accessing health services and social activities. The obstacle to commercially sustainable services in some of those communities is obvious, but we cannot leave rural communities cut off and isolated. There is much more to do. The last Government put forward an additional £150 million to local authorities to help them to introduce new routes to unconnected areas or introduce demand-responsive transport services, such as my local Tees Flex service. We also established a new national rural crime unit, delivering our plan to crack down on crime and make our rural communities safe.
Yes, the previous Government invested and made progress in tackling the concerns and challenges facing many rural communities, but there is a lot more to do. I hope the new Administration will continue to look at how we support those communities, maintain investment, mitigate challenges and spread opportunities. The signs so far are not promising. Under the previous Labour Government, rural unemployment doubled in the last year of their Administration; at the general election, Labour’s manifesto barely mentioned rural communities; and barely two months into the new Administration, we hear that Labour is looking to claw back £100 million from the farming budget.
Given today is Back British Farming Day, will the Minister provide some clarity on the Government’s intention for the farming budget? The Government can make a substantial difference to our rural communities through protecting their distinct way of life. In the light of recent proposals to change house-building targets, will the Minister clarify how the Government will listen to rural communities with the new planning framework so those communities have a say in their future? There is much more still to do to support our rural communities. It is vital the new Government continue to work quickly to build on the work of the previous one and develop a vision for the countryside, to spread opportunities to all areas of the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on his successful securing of this debate. I am extremely grateful to him and to right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in the debate. I will mention those who have made substantial contributions: my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Hexham (Joe Morris), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Members for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). I acknowledge the contributions from the Opposition leads as well, including the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers).
I want to address many of the issues raised in today’s debate, which has focused on a range of key points and has brought together the challenges and consequences of depopulation in an important and effective way. I am heartened by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar also saying that he recognises this is an issue that goes way beyond the Home Office and that he plans to raise a number of the challenges with other Departments. I encourage him to do so.
The Government recognise the importance of this debate, and the challenges faced by rural and island communities in Scotland, as well as in Northern Ireland and more widely across the United Kingdom in Wales and England. Those challenges are now coming to workforces, and are about supporting local and national economies, as well as encouraging young people to feel that they have opportunity in the areas where they grew up. A range of issues was raised and important points were extremely well made, including on some of the generational shifts that are having impacts on families, as well as community cohesion, wider integration and the continued success of local services, the challenges in recruitment across primary local sectors and public services, and the running of our local communities.
One of the points raised was in relation to the fishing and fish-processing industries, which is of concern to many colleagues in Scotland. We recognise the contribution of those industries to the lifeblood of our nation, including to coastal and rural communities. Those industries generate almost £2 billion in exports. We recognise the challenges of recruiting domestically. Those and other valuable jobs are often done in difficult circumstances. As has been discussed, there has been a reliance on migration over recent years.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Under the last Conservative Government, too often we saw rampant exploitation of migrant workers in the seasonal workers scheme. Does the Minister share my concerns about such labour exploitation, and will she work with me on novel ideas to tackle it?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for making that serious point, one that I will draw on in my remarks. I will continue to work with him and others on how we tackle that serious issue.
Migration has been an important part of the history of our nation, as was raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. He will know, as I do, that for generations people have travelled here from all over the world, contributing to our economy, studying in our universities, working in our public services and being part of our communities and the way we have built our nation together. All of us here are alive to the demographic challenges that remote communities particularly are facing. We are also committed to ensuring that the immigration system works in the interests of the whole of the UK.
We have seen net migration treble in five years, driven largely by a big increase in overseas recruitment. We are clear that net migration must come down, and that the immigration system needs to be properly controlled and managed. I make that point because it is for that reason we are setting out a new approach, which is integral to tackling some of the challenges outlined today. We will link migration policy and visa controls to skills and labour market policy so that immigration is not used as an alternative to training or tackling workforce problems in the UK.
Seema Malhotra
I have to make my remarks, and the right hon. Member has spoken. I will come back if I have time.
On the vision of developing more sustainable alternatives to labour market issues, I am sure that we are all keen to work together. There is no other way. That is why I have asked my officials to work closely with Seafish, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and across Government to address the issues facing the sector and our rural communities, and to make sure we are building together a more sustainable workforce and community.
Jim Shannon
I welcome the Minister to her position. I apologise for not doing so earlier; I wish her well in her job. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and I have pursued the issue of visas for fishermen across the sea—in Northern Ireland, my villages of Portavogie, Kilkeel and Ardglass are examples —as has the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). Along the line, we have always had verbal commitments, but we have never seen action to make visas more acceptable for skilled workers so that small fishing villages such as Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel can survive. The Minister might wish to continue pursuing that, if it is agreeable.
Seema Malhotra
I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, who is a long-standing campaigner on these issues. I make the point that it is important that we work closely across Westminster and with our devolved Administrations. This is part of an important reset, and it is important that we look at how we tackle these challenges together. Many of the issues that have been raised are matters for the Scottish Government and for local authorities in Scotland, but it is important that we look at how we work together across Westminster and with the Scottish Government to ensure that we have shared projects that are a success.
Mr Carmichael
I have said often enough that the medium to long-term structural problems in the catching sector for deckhands have to be solved by a better training programme, to make sure that we recruit from our own fishing and coastal communities. In the meantime, working together with the Scottish Government, where the responsibility lies, to bridge the gap with the availability of visas for incoming crew seems to me the perfect way in which the Governments here and in Edinburgh can work together to provide the industry with what it needs.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I shall be coming on to some of these issues in my remarks, but let me first talk briefly about the regional visa schemes that have been alluded to. I am aware that the devolved Government in Scotland retain a key interest in this, and in 2022 the Migration Advisory Committee suggested that the Government could explore the issue further. It is important to say that the MAC must hear the voices of our devolved Administrations across the country.
Proposals have included measures to restrict migrants to certain areas, but there is currently no legal basis to do so, even if we wanted to. Fundamentally, overseas recruits are likely to be affected by the same factors as anyone else when making decisions about whether to move into or remain in remote parts of the country. That means that jobs must be available that offer sustainable salaries and attractive working conditions, but we must also ensure affordable housing, transport links, suitable local infrastructure such as broadband, and childcare. So many of those issues affect where people choose to settle and to make communities their home.
Addressing such concerns, and thereby making challenging careers more attractive, has to be the focus of the work to tackle depopulation. Otherwise, even migrants drawn to the UK to perform these roles can leave their jobs and the area as soon as a more favourable opportunity becomes available. In some of the analysis of the Fresh Talent experience, that has been part of the story. It is important to learn lessons—
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Gentleman can come back to me later, but I need to continue my remarks, because I want to make the point that it is important for us to learn what has and has not worked in the UK, as well as learning from abroad.
The arguments in favour of legislating to enable rural communities to recruit and retain international recruits more easily are well intentioned, but could risk placing international recruits in a particularly vulnerable position, especially at a time when, as has been mentioned, we are looking to protect workers against exploitive practices in the care and fishing sectors and elsewhere in the economy. Previously suggested schemes for devolved migration controls would restrict their movement and rights. However, immigration is a national system, not a local one, and although we have routes and flexibilities in our immigration system, a range of issues have contributed to depopulation—a point that has been raised in this very effective debate—so we need a much more integrated strategy across Government and with the devolved Administrations. That is why it is important that it is taken further.
On housing, the Government have set out an overhaul of the planning system, and we have introduced new mandatory housing targets. We are looking at prioritising brownfield sites, and it is a key mission of ours to build 1.5 million affordable homes across the country. That is essential for the reasons that we have talked about, including stability for families and for our local economies.
I mentioned the need for a coherent link between our labour market and migration. Since the new Government came in, we have been working to establish a framework in which the Migration Advisory Committee, Skills England, the Industrial Strategy Council and the Department for Work and Pensions will work together to address the issues facing the UK labour market, including skills gaps—
Seema Malhotra
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman, but I may answer his question with my next point.
Those bodies will also look at pay and conditions, economic activity and the role that migration can play in supporting that. In order to deliver on the Government’s missions, we need to tackle these challenges in all parts of the United Kingdom. The bodies must work closely with our devolved Governments, our combined authorities and local government to address these matters.
Ben Lake
The Minister has gone halfway to addressing the point that I wanted to raise. Australia, which has a federal system, operates a single immigration system, but the territories and states can nominate key critical shortage occupations to encourage and boost them. In her discussions with the devolved Administrations, will she bear in mind the experience of Australia and see whether its approach can be brought into the UK system?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I was pleased to visit Australia very briefly in May to talk about the work that is being done on skills there. I think it would help him to know that we have announced a new council of the nations and regions, and we are starting the process of establishing local growth plans and encouraging local authorities to take on more devolved power. He may want to contribute to some of those discussions.
I do not wish to test your patience, Ms Vaz, so I will conclude.
Seema Malhotra
I need to conclude in a couple of minutes.
A point was raised about the English language. The English language requirement is fundamental to successful integration into British society, as it helps visa holders to access services, participate in community life and work. Workers who do not have a good command of English are likely to be more vulnerable to exploitation and less able to understand their rights. The level that we have set is B1 on the common European framework of reference for languages: lower intermediate English, which is more of a functional understanding. But there are gaps and we have more to do, beyond what we inherited.
On the broader point about depopulation, there are many ways in which the previous Government’s levelling-up agenda did not integrate and did not have a strategy for tackling all these issues together. That is why the work that we are doing across the country on devolution is an important part of how we move forward.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar again for securing this debate. I have heard and am grateful for the points that he and other Members have made. As I have made clear, the Government will work to continue to understand the issues that Members face in greater detail and will consider how best to work collectively to address them. We must and will remain open to international skills and talent, but I suggest that immigration is not the solution to depopulation, nor must it be used as an alternative to the important job of tackling skills and labour market failures here in the UK, around which we have set out a new approach.
Torcuil Crichton
I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to this debate. It was not bad for a birthday party—it turned out quite well.
I particularly welcome the Minister’s suggestion of a reset of the thinking on immigration and the hint she gave of a more integrated strategy across Government, involving DEFRA, Seafish and the Home Office working together on the fishing visa issues that we raised. I also welcome her suggestions about the council of the nations and regions and about more devolved and sophisticated approaches to immigration. What she says is true: the problem of depopulation is a multiheaded hydra, as the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) put it, and responsibility for it does not lie at the Minister’s door, but some of the solutions can come from this place and other Governments and local authorities working together.
I thank all Members for their contributions, which were lyrically encapsulated by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He spoke very movingly about sense of place, belonging and community, which I think is what we all want to retain when we talk about depopulation.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) talked about the drift from villages into towns. I warn them from my own experience in Na h-Eileanan an Iar that it is then only one more step on to the ferry, on to the mainland and out of the constituency.
Housing and jobs were highlighted by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who is my Westminster Hall tag-team buddy—we seem to be in every debate together! These are the solutions. No jobs means no people. No people, in the case of my constituency, means no language, culture or sense of belonging.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke about the necessity of a multi-agency solution. There was understandable tension between him and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), who brought a great deal of expertise and knowledge gleaned from his chairmanship of the Scottish Affairs Committee. We thank him for that, as the chairmanship passes on.
There is understandable tension over the idea of a separate Scottish visa. I think the solution lies in an integrated visa and perhaps in more sophisticated, more regional and more local visa requirements. After all, my phone knows exactly where I am, my bank knows exactly where I am and most of the time my online shopping cart knows where I am, so why cannot the Government know where skilled migrants work, onshore and offshore, most of the time as well? It will require local, national and regional solutions. It also requires a great deal of care and sensitivity because of how host communities feel about migrant communities and the importance of retaining the traditional communities, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and many others spoke about.
In conclusion, Ms Vaz, I thank you for your chairmanship, I thank the Minister and shadow Minister for their responses and I thank all hon. Members who took part. I hope that we can move this debate on. We face a depopulation crisis on the edge of Europe, but here at the centre of power, the lights on the dashboard should be on as well. We should start addressing these issues now, before they become structural problems that affect the entire economy.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered depopulation in rural areas.
Oswestry to Gobowen Railway Line
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I will call Helen Morgan to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Oswestry to Gobowen railway line.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. This is an important subject for my constituents in the lovely town of Oswestry and the nearby village of Gobowen. Oswestry has a population of approximately 17,000 people. It is the second largest town in Shropshire and is of huge importance to the border region, but economic potential there is being stunted by poor public transport, which plagues the whole of Shropshire.
People who live in Oswestry are forced to rely on a bus or car to get to Gobowen railway station just up the road to access connections to larger economic centres, such as Shrewsbury, Liverpool or Manchester. What about someone who does not have a car and works in Chester? They will need to leave home by 7 am to get to the office for 9 o’clock—a journey that takes about 45 minutes in a car. Someone travelling further afield and returning late would need to get a taxi back from the station because the buses do not run outside regular hours, and that is if they can track down a taxi, which is another problem for another debate.
Oswestry was once a proud railway town. The railway station was on the main line of the Cambrian railway and, at one stage, it housed the headquarters of the Cambrian Railways Company. Unfortunately, it was a victim of the Beeching cuts, and there has been no connection to the main line from Oswestry since 1966. That is why the news that the restoring your railway fund would be used to reopen the line between Gobowen and Oswestry was so well received locally; and why the news that the Government wanted to scrap the funding, without even examining the new business case, has been such a huge disappointment. From healthcare and high streets to the environment and the economy, I cannot overstate what a transformational impact reopening the line would have on our area.
Poor public transport removes opportunity. It hinders young people, limiting their options for further and higher education and restricting their access to culture and leisure. In short, barriers to mobility are barriers to social mobility. During a recent visit to the jobcentre in Oswestry, the brilliant staff there told me that the No. 1 barrier to people accessing work is poor public transport. Meanwhile, I have spoken to businesses in Oswestry that have reported real difficulties in recruiting. They need to be able to attract people to work from a much wider area than Oswestry and not just those who have access to a private car. That means we are in the ridiculous situation where employers cannot recruit and jobseekers cannot find jobs to match their skills because of the same problem of poor public transport.
Let us take the outstanding Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital near Gobowen: it has such a fine reputation that it has no trouble attracting high-quality staff, but the problem is that it cannot get people to and from their shifts early and late because there is no public transport, so if they do not have a car, the job will not work for them. Reopening the line would include a halt at the hospital. That would help to swell staff numbers and ease access for patients, many of whom are elderly, do not have access to a car and have to rely on the good will of friends to get to appointments on time. The hospital is a national resource: people come from across the country to access the excellent care there, including from the veterans’ centre, and railway access for them would be a huge bonus.
It is not just me who thinks that this is a great project. Feedback from the Department for Transport on the strategic outline business case acknowledged the importance of all of this:
“Oswestry is the second largest employment area in Shropshire, and unemployment in Oswestry is higher than the average in Shropshire. Productivity—the ability to match jobs with labour across North Shropshire—is a particularly pertinent issue. The growth in vacancies has been significant in Oswestry and Gobowen in recent years, which is exacerbated by the low population density and ageing populations of these areas.”
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that many railway reopenings in the last 20 years have seen significantly higher use than expected? They include the Ebbw Vale line, which achieved year four ridership by the end of year one, Larkhall in Scotland, where demand was 26% higher than forecast, and the Borders railway, which saw a doubling of demand in the first month, compared with plan, and extra coaches and car parking needed.
Helen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his really good intervention. It is true that we tend to underestimate the passenger numbers on the newly reopened lines, and the benefits are probably in excess of the business cases that have supported them. I will come to further developments on this line later, so I am grateful to him for making that point.
Public transport is critical to the issue of productivity, growth and matching jobs with people who want to do them, so this line will be really important for job creation, education opportunities and economic growth in a rural area that has huge potential but is currently not meeting that potential. It will also be a huge boost to the regeneration of Oswestry’s beautiful and historic town centre. Oswestry already boasts a large number of independent shops and a relatively low number of vacant units. On the border between England and Wales, the town has a rich cultural history, a large number of native Welsh speakers and the potential to really thrive in the future.
The area surrounding the station is planned to become a transport hub for the town, and the listed station building is undergoing works to ensure that it is structurally sound and fit for the future, but it will need tenants inside it. A fully operating station has the potential to unlock private investment in the area, to regenerate this important transport gateway to Oswestry, only a few minutes’ walk from the centre of town, and to provide crucial facilities, such as public toilets and a café, that would make connecting bus services into the rural area beyond much more viable. One of the big issues that local bus providers have with providing services in the area is that there is not a public toilet for their drivers to use when they stop over. That really hinders the ability for them to provide a decent bus service.
People who live in Oswestry are largely dependent on their car. Linking local bus and rail services will reduce congestion and emissions and open a world of opportunity for those who, for whatever reason, are unable to access a car or drive one. As I said, it is not just me who thinks the reopening is a good idea. The DFT’s feedback on the strategic outline business case was extremely positive, saying that it was a “strong strategic case”, that the
“proposal aligns to various local plans over the past decade”,
and that the
“appraisal outputs presented in the economic case show that all options yield ‘Very High and Financially Positive’ value for money”.
Crucially, the project is expected to bring in more cash than it would cost to set up. That clear value for money is in stark contrast to the three other restoring your railway schemes approved by the previous Government last October, which were judged to offer poor value for money at best. It was the strong business case that persuaded the DFT to commit to funding the project through to delivery. To come to my hon. Friend’s point, when the business case was put together, it did not factor in the likelihood of the new Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway Company to provide a direct service on the line from Gobowen to London. If that service goes ahead—I very much hope that it will—the benefits for Oswestry will be even greater.
There has been some local opposition. Some people have argued that we could just run a shuttle bus, seemingly unaware that there already is one. But the shuttle bus has not worked: it does not run in the evening or early morning; it is frequently delayed by congestion on the A5, which has to be crossed to get to the station; and sometimes it just does not turn up at all. It certainly will not unlock the economic regeneration of the transport hub in the centre of Oswestry that the rail reopening promises. It is also really expensive to travel by bus and train, because people need two different tickets. Perhaps most importantly, whether it is for an urgent appointment at the orthopaedic hospital or an overnight shift at nearby Derwen college, people cannot trust a bus that will not get them there on time.
I welcome this week’s announcement that local authorities will be given the powers to franchise their own bus services. If that happens in Shropshire, we will see huge benefits across the whole of my constituency—for the many villages that have no service at all, and towns such as Market Drayton and Ellesmere, for which reconnection to the railway is desirable but not realistically possible. But we cannot pin our hopes on that. Given that the funding for all this brilliant new public transport remains unclear and uncommitted, it seems highly unlikely that Shropshire’s Conservative-run council will take on the revenue strain of start-up bus services. The council forecasts that it will balance its books this year by using up all its reserves, unless it can find a further £38 million of cuts, which would be on top of £58 million last year and £30 million already delivered this year.
The ambition should also be to link rail and bus services, so that people can genuinely consider leaving their car at home because the alternative is reliable, convenient and affordable. The Oswestry to Gobowen line uses a railway line that is already there. It obviously needs to be upgraded if it is to be usable once more, but because it has not been built over, there is space for a footpath or cycle path to go alongside. The benefits of active travel are well documented, and they could be exploited here if the scheme goes ahead.
The project has a capital cost of between £5 million and £15 million, and ongoing operating costs of £196,000 per annum. Critically, it is forecast to be cash-positive over the appraisal period. Local critics have highlighted the potential disruption caused by it crossing the A5, but it is important to emphasise that nobody is proposing to run a slow, steam heritage train over a major level crossing. The proposal involves very little disruption and many benefits. Indeed, it is difficult to see any justification for axing the project.
The Government have said that they want to grow the economy, improve education, clear NHS backlogs and clean up the environment, but they are potentially blocking a scheme that would help to achieve all those objectives. Shropshire is one of the worst-served counties in England for public transport, with only one bus route running on a Sunday in the whole county, and the loss of more bus miles since 2015 than any other county in England. There are huge barriers in place to realising Shropshire’s potential, and the project would help to remove one of them. It would enable local businesses to find quality candidates for the vacancies that they cannot fill, it would remove a huge barrier for those without a car who are seeking work beyond the boundaries of their immediate area,and it would enable young people and those wanting to develop new skills to access a far greater range of educational provision.
It would also unlock investment and regeneration in an important regional town centre. We cannot regenerate growth, jobs, skills and investment if a town is isolated from the rest of its region. That is why the previous Government promised to fund the project, and why the new Government should, too. I urge the Minister to come to Oswestry to see the wonderful potential of this historic market town and the additional value that the railway would bring to it. She should urgently reconsider the decision to remove funding from this fantastic project.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing today’s debate on the Oswestry to Gobowen project, and I thank her for the thoughtful and important points that she made both today and in her previous campaigning work on the issue. I have read her correspondence with my noble Friend the Minister for Rail and with previous Ministers in the Department.
I understand the hon. Lady’s argument about the problems with connectivity between Oswestry and Gobowen, particularly for those who have no access to private vehicles or do not wish to drive. I appreciate the importance of good public transport connections in the area, including for patients, staff and visitors travelling to the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital, whether from the local area or from further afield. We want to ensure that people can access the public services they need, and they should not need private transport to do so.
My Department is committed to putting transport at the heart of mission-driven government. We aim to support economic growth by transforming infrastructure so that it works for the whole country, and we aim to improve connectivity to promote social mobility, as the hon. Lady said, and tackle regional inequality, particularly in terms of access to healthcare, jobs and homes. She described the difficulties that her constituents face in reaching the places where they can obtain opportunities for work, wider opportunities for study and education, and, indeed, enjoy leisure and culture activities. That is why transport is so important—because of the opportunities that it opens up for people, including to improve their wellbeing.
However, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in her speech to the House on 29 July, the Government have been forced to address the economic inheritance that we have been left by the last Government, which includes that £22 billion black hole in the country’s finances this year alone. That includes £2.9 billion of transport projects that were committed to despite the last Government knowing, full well, that they were unaffordable. I completely understand that the announcement of the difficult decision to close the restoring your railway programme has caused disappointment. I assure the hon. Member that that decision was not taken lightly.
As the Chancellor set out, individual restoring your railway projects will be considered as part of preparations for the spending review and wider spending decisions for the Department. But as the hon. Member will know from her correspondence with my noble Friend the Minister for Rail, it will not be possible for all transport projects, particularly those not yet in delivery, to continue. I am afraid that that is the difficult reality of the position that we find ourselves in, and I wish that it was not so.
The restoring your railway programme attracted considerable interest when it was launched by the last Government in January 2020, and the Department for Transport received more than 140 individual applications for funding to help to support the development of early-stage business cases. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) that new services can be very popular and successful; there is a real appetite in communities up and down the country for new public transport services, in order to better connect people to the places that they want and need to go to. At the close of the final funding round in September 2021, the programme was heavily oversubscribed.
In the case of the Oswestry to Gobowen project, the previous Government announced, under their Network North initiative, that the project would proceed to delivery, subject to successful business cases. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has previously set out, there was a clear gap between promised projects and the money available to deliver them. The previous Government should have been up-front and frank about this, and they absolutely were not.
I want, of course, to thank all hon. Members who sponsored and campaigned for individual former restoring your railway projects for their patience and efforts over the years. I completely appreciate the frustration expressed about the lack of news on next steps—and that is reflected in the hon. Member for North Shropshire’s previous correspondence with the Department under the previous Government—because, undoubtedly, it felt incredibly slow at times. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ordered a review of the Department’s capital spend portfolio. That will move quickly to produce recommendations about current and future schemes and end the uncertainty that the previous Government created.
We also need to be clear that this Government’s approach to how transport projects can be funded is based on local leaders and local transport authorities knowing best what projects to pursue in order to further the needs of their constituents. It is absolutely crucial that local stakeholders work together to provide affordable and reliable services for the communities they serve, and that should include better integration between different modes of transport. The hon. Member highlighted the potential of an integrated transport hub and the desire for better walking and cycling provision, which of course would provide not only transport benefits but health and wellbeing benefits. I hope that her local authority can explore those options further.
The hon. Member made strong points about the quality—or rather, the lack of quality—of bus service provision in her area. As we both know, under the last Government thousands of bus services saw reduced frequency or were cut altogether, leaving many towns and villages without adequate, reliable and affordable public transport. We recognise that situation and are determined to do something about it.
I was really pleased to hear the hon. Member’s welcome for the Government’s pledge to deliver better bus services for passengers, which includes making franchising easier and quicker, removing the ideological ban on new municipal bus companies, and reforming funding for bus services to give more control and flexibility to local leaders to deliver their local priorities. I understand what she said about the Conservative-led county council and its appetite for such change, but I am sure that she and her constituents will make their point very clearly to those who seek to represent them at that level.
Helen Morgan
Bearing in mind that local councils are a hair’s breadth away from issuing section 114 notices and are only likely to deliver statutory services in their area, what kind of additional funding will be available from the Government for them to be able to franchise their own bus services? I ask that because it seems to me that it is all very well councils having the power to deliver such services, but unless they have the funding to do so, it will not bring about the results that we would like to see.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Member for her question and of course she is absolutely right to highlight the very difficult position that many local authorities find themselves in after 14 years of Conservative Governments. That is precisely why growing the economy and the ability to improve our public services is one of this Government’s key missions. To achieve that, we need to make sure that the foundations are strong, and setting our economy on the right track is the first part of that process.
However, we will of course say more about support for transport as part of the spending review and we will work with local authorities to understand what is needed to improve and grow their bus networks, learning from their experiences and building on their successes to ensure that local networks can meet the needs of the communities who rely on them.
As we undertake vital reforms to the sector, including through the introduction of the Buses Bill, we will ensure that stakeholders are properly engaged with the proposals, and I look forward to the hon. Member participating in the debates about how we can do that as we go forward.
I thank the hon. Member again for securing this debate and offer her my support and that of my ministerial colleagues to work with her to improve the transport network in her constituency, and right across the country. As she recognised, transport is a vital enabler of jobs, opportunities and growth, and I am sure that we share the desire to see that for North Shropshire and indeed the whole country.
Question put and agreed to.
Financial Fraud and Economic Crime
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of financial fraud and economic crime.
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank the House for allowing me to secure this debate. I also welcome the Minister to their place, and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan), for attending.
I must start by declaring an interest. In my previous role before entering this place, I was head of fraud and compliance for a fintech firm, responsible for screening billions of dollars of transactions a year. When it comes to dealing with financial criminals, unfortunately I have seen it all. From the use of artificial intelligence—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. Apparently, there is an acoustic problem for everybody sitting in the front row. Could the hon. Gentleman move to the back as the mics are not working?
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I am really sorry, but Hansard may not have picked up the earlier part of your speech, so could I ask you to start again, please? Thank you very much. You are doing a grand job for your first attempt.
Mr Charters
With apologies to right hon. and hon. Members who will be hearing the same thing, I will start again.
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank the House for allowing me to secure this debate. I also welcome the Minister, and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley, for attending.
I start by declaring an interest. In my previous role before entering this place, I was head of fraud and compliance for a fintech firm, responsible for screening billions of dollars of transactions a year. When it comes to dealing with financial criminals, unfortunately I have seen it all. From the use of artificial intelligence avatars to bypass biometric screening, to sophisticated shell companies and complex layering, to spearfishing and parasitically targeting legitimate companies to advanced cloning techniques, I cannot overemphasise the danger that fraud and financial crime now pose or the complex layers that exist behind it.
Fraud places an emotional burden on victims. It ruins lives. We all know that as MPs from our surgeries. I will touch on a case that I heard about recently. The criminal aspect of fraud is not just about hobbyists in basements; we are increasingly talking about nation states who in some cases are working alongside advanced organised crime groups that are taking the mantle. They are often experienced professionals who work to circumvent the systems we use. Criminals are smart and frequently shift their modus operandi to get around our systems.
Although the responsibility to be smarter and take that proverbial step ahead falls to Government and firms, the situation is more complex than that. The risks are real, and if scams continue to increase exponentially we will have a dangerous environment for businesses. We will have more constituents telling more stories about how they have fallen victim to fraud, and the national cost could become so undesirable that we may well become the worst developed country globally per capita when it comes to fraud rates. If we do not act, there is a risk that fraud and economic crime could suffocate growth.
We currently suffer from relatively weak national co-ordination in tackling fraud and economic crime, which is made more complex by the fact that the perpetrator is often not in the same geographical location as the victim. This can cause local police forces to deprioritise fraud reports, but if we can fix that, we may be able to fix the foundations. Although the online fraud charter introduced by the last Government was a positive step, it is non-statutory and voluntary. Nothing in the charter addresses the issue of compensating consumers who have been defrauded by content originating online. There are no penalties for non-compliance, and that must be thought through, but we can turn the page.
While this Government are in their early stages, I believe it is time to smell the coffee and grasp the nettle —whichever analogy hon. Members prefer—so that we can become a world leader in anti-fraud and protecting consumers and businesses, and become a country where companies want to do business and will not be ripped off. The prize is that our fintech, regtech and financial services sector will want to become ever more internationally competitive if we truly get to the heart of fraud and economic crime.
Before I go any further on how we can make some fixes, I will quantify the challenges that we face. Fraud accounts for more than 40% of crime in the UK but receives only 1% of police resources. That statistic is chilling, but wait until we hear the cost of payments fraud to the UK economy: it is roughly £1.2 billion. There is also a cost to individuals. I have a constituent who attended an advice surgery just this weekend and told me that they had lost life savings, to the tune of a five-figure sum. Fraud often hurts the most vulnerable, either those on low incomes or those with lower tech proficiency, who are also more likely to fall victim.
However, more than three quarters of authorised push payment fraud originates online. Research from Innovate Finance on fintech illustrates the challenge posed by online purchase scams. It found that Facebook Marketplace represented a staggering 51% of all fraud cases for the firm in question. After I secured this debate, a main UK bank got in touch with me outlining similar statistics in which a huge part of the fraud that it encountered originated from Facebook Marketplace, so we must get better at stopping fraud at the source. There are some positives to consider: tackling payment fraud could contribute £6 billion to the UK’s GDP over five years, which would really strengthen our economy.
A smorgasbord of issues are causing our downfall, so I will outline seven positive steps to begin to tackle fraud and economic crime. They come from meetings that I have had with trade bodies, consumer groups, banks and payment providers and from many industry reports. We can become a world leader in anti-fraud and economic crime. Little investment is needed from the Government, but a new regulatory apparatus and new levels of co-ordination are needed. I stand as a firm friend to the Minister and the Government in making that change happen, so I will outline some positive suggestions for tackling fraud.
Recommendation 1 is that the new Government should set an anti-fraud target. In June 2023, the previous Government published their fraud strategy, saying that they would cut fraud by 10% on 2019 levels by December 2024. They achieved that, but the target was not ambitious enough and, importantly, excluded businesses, so the Government should commit to a fraud target that is genuinely ambitious and do so in collaboration with business. I do not want to pick an arbitrary number, because it is about focusing on action rather than aims, so one option is to set a target that we should have a lower fraud rate per capita than international peers—for example, an ambitious target that the per capita rate of fraud should be lower in the UK in five years’ time than that in France, Germany and other countries.
Recommendation 2 is for the creation of a new national anti-fraud centre. We need a strong new anti-fraud centre to face the complex interdisciplinary challenges that fraud poses. Action Fraud has skilled individuals, but regrettably it is no longer fit for purpose. That is my view, and often the view of industry. We need to reform it, and that means a review of its shortfalls, as well as the ways in which we can build on some of its successes in receiving reports. During my career, I came across a case in which a UK business was scammed out of more than £200,000. It submitted dozens of pages of detail to Action Fraud, and did not even get a call back from the police.
We should look to Australia and create a national anti-fraud centre to drive forward the Government’s fraud strategy with a clear vision and clear accountability. It could be part of the Serious Fraud Office or the National Crime Agency, or it could be its own entity, but it should be able to bring charges. The Australian Labour Government launched a cutting-edge national anti-scam centre in 2023. They rightly recognised the scale of the challenge, and took it on directly. The first action was to tackle investment scams, before disrupting criminal gangs who were advertising non-existent jobs. It is time to refresh the ecosystem that will fight fraud for decades to come, with a strong new national anti-fraud centre at the heart of Government. That would join up the SFO, the Financial Conduct Authority, Action Fraud, the NCA, the Met police, the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau and local police forces, and it would do that with a central leadership, because our institutions are currently too fragmented to properly deal with fraud.
Recommendation 3 is that this Government should replicate the previous Government’s appointment of an anti-fraud champion in Parliament. The appointment of an anti-fraud champion would ensure better co-ordination across Departments and could be a precursor to a new national anti-fraud centre.
Recommendation 4 is that we should support data sharing between sectors. We have to create a framework to enable data sharing between social media companies and payment participants. If information can be shared between the two, there is an opportunity to stop transactions at the source. Because of GDPR, there is no clear mechanism for data collaboration, but if we can find a way to create a precedent, that would provide regulatory certainty.
Recommendation 5 is to create a new framework that requires banks to share payment data. If we are to make progress, we need to find a way for banks to work collaboratively on payment data sharing. I regularly meet banks and industry leaders who are receptive to that recommendation.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
I declare an interest: prior to entering Parliament, I worked at Pay.UK, the payment system operator for the UK. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He raises an important point, not just about the cost of fraud to people and businesses, but about data sharing across banks. Does he agree that a modernised payment system might allow us to collect more data, which could be used across the industry to identify, tackle and prevent fraud at the source, saving businesses and customers lots of money in the future?
Mr Charters
It is brilliant to have Members such as my hon. Friend, with his experience at Pay.UK, in this place, and I completely agree about the renewal of the payments architecture. If it had risk analysis and artificial intelligence monitoring at its heart, we could detect payments fraud at the very centre, which could save banks billions of pounds in compensation and be a better result for consumers.
Industry innovations such as “money mule insights” prove that the latest data analytics allow for much more sophisticated ways of targeting of criminals via data sharing between payment providers. Lloyds Bank got in touch with me this week to highlight that its mule-hunting team had identified a 44% increase in money mules over the past year. Data sharing between banks is critical in targeting money mules. At present, banks file suspicious activity reports, but they are often unable to share suspicious payment transaction data with each other. If they did, there would be an opportunity to harness suspicious payment data to detect and block fraudulent and criminal transactions in real time. I now believe that we have an unmatched opportunity to rebuild fraud and economic crime analysis with the renewal of faster payments and a new payments architecture. In conclusion on this recommendation, much greater payments data sharing is crucial if we want to stop fraudulent transactions from being processed.
Let me turn to recommendation 6, on the obligations on social media companies. The Government could introduce a shared responsibility and liability for social media and telecommunications firms to tackle fraud origination and incentivise them to invest to prevent fraud. A new anti-fraud centre could govern regulatory powers over social media companies and impose penalties or issue guidance to reduce fraud. That would tackle the things we heard about earlier, such as fraud originating from Facebook Marketplace.
I turn to my final recommendation: to expand the Financial Conduct Authority’s powers over the Post Office, which is the biggest cash provider in the country, through its everyday banking service, and has always played an integral role in providing access to cash for the nation. That should continue. As banks close their branches, the importance of the Post Office is growing. However, following the Horizon scandal, its reputation has been damaged. The Horizon system is still fundamentally being used today for the everyday banking service, which processes billions in cash deposits and withdrawals each and every month. To give banks and consumers confidence in the Post Office, the FCA should gain direct regulatory oversight of the everyday banking service. That is critical for resilience and managing financial crime risks. I can confirm that I am in the process of writing to the FCA’s CEO to encourage them to provide an update on their work on money laundering via the Post Office.
In conclusion, those are seven recommendations that I would like to implement. I think they would have a huge impact on our ability to better target fraud and economic crime. I will write to the Government outlining the recommendations, which are the culmination of meetings across industry, and I stand willing to work closely with them on implementing them, should they be interested in doing so. I look forward to hearing from colleagues across the House in the debate and to working constructively with Government and other hon. Members to tackle fraud. It is crucial we do that for financial credibility, for our constituents and for our country.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Member for his assistance. I expect to take the first of the Opposition spokespersons at 5.08 pm. They will have five minutes each and the Minister will have 10 minutes. If hon. Members wish to speak, they should bob.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on securing this massively important debate. This is a subject that I have been more than aware of throughout my entire professional career. In the light of that, I also declare an interest: I have been working in the financial services industry for many years.
According to the UK fraud costs measurement committee, the level of fraud in the UK directly affecting consumers in 2023 was estimated to be a staggering £8 billion. The former Conservative Government did not prioritise economic crime sufficiently, according to the Treasury Committee. Now, it is up to the new Government to take action to improve the supervisory system and combat economic crime, which is growing. Improvements need to be made to assess the extent of economic crime and fraud in the UK—it is telling that there are no clear measures of the true impact of fraud on individuals, businesses and the economy. Some of my hon. Friend’s suggestions will help us to get a real understanding of the impact.
A wide range of crimes fall under the category of fraud and economic crime, and the sums of money involved range from small to huge. To give a personal example, only last month in my constituency in Southend, some of my constituents were left feeling tricked, over—believe it or not—an inflatable fun day. They bought tickets in good faith, but it was a fictitious event. Some parents were left out of pocket after buying a number of the £15 tickets online, and clearly children were left very upset. Those sorts of things should not happen, but it is one small example of how fraud can impact families on a day-to-day basis.
The police force in my county of Essex has a serious economic crime unit, which seized £2 million-worth of assets and made 15 arrests in February alone after an intensive, month-long investigation. The squad investigates offences including romance scams, online marketplace scams, rogue traders, investment fraud, bribery and corruption.
As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer mentioned, fraud can have a devastating impact on individuals and their families, affecting not only their finances but their wellbeing, leaving them feeling manipulated and deceived. Of course, there is the long-term impact on their finances, which has a knock-on impact on the economy, as people no longer have their hard-earned savings to spend on much-needed goods and services, or just on enjoying themselves.
As I have mentioned, my background before coming to this place was in financial services, most recently in mortgages. With your indulgence, Ms Vaz, I will share a different type of fraud, where the consumer often unwittingly targets the lender. It is not usually out of malice, but done with the desire of achieving their housing dream, which for many can be seen as out of reach due to loan-to-income restrictions and high deposit requirements. Mortgage fraud can include overvaluing properties, overstating a salary or income, concealing a second mortgage from the primary lender or mis-stating the use of a property to either benefit from a more preferential rate of interest or to borrow more than the lender assesses that a client can afford.
The UK’s leading fraud prevention service, Cifas, revealed in January 2024 that one in six of UK adults—16%—admitted that they or somebody they knew had misled mortgage companies about their annual salary in order to buy their home. I agree with Cifas that more needs to be done to raise awareness of how serious a crime mortgage fraud can be. Not being honest about one’s income, debt history, employment or the value of the property is a serious matter. Being caught will have long-term effects on one’s ability to gain a mortgage, and could have other financial consequences.
I call on the Minister and the new Government to work with the relevant partners and stakeholders to strengthen and expand the fraud strategy that was announced in May 2023 to combat the ever-growing and more sophisticated fraudulent schemes that target individual consumers. Equally, awareness needs to be raised among consumers about the consequences of them falling unexpectedly into the world of fraud when applying for finance, especially mortgages. I would like to see collaboration between banks and other lenders, the regulator and the Government, to drive awareness of mortgage fraud through misrepresentation. That, of course, would be complemented by the Government’s plans to make the dream of home ownership more accessible for all.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time today, Ms Vaz.
I thank the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for setting the scene so well. One of the great things about debates with new Members is that they bring their expertise, knowledge and interests in various subject matters to our debates, which enriches the House greatly. I very much look forward to contributions from other hon. Members when the time comes.
I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. He and I have been friends a long time while on the Opposition side of the Chamber, as it was. I am pleased to see him in a place that is a well-deserved honour for him. I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), in his place.
I am pleased to speak in this debate in the short time that we have. I have heard of countless economic crime cases, including scams and frauds. Constituents must be aware of the dangers, so it is vital to give some background in discussion of such matters. When I speak, I always bring in a Northern Ireland perspective, and I wish that I could tell the hon. Member for York Outer that things in Northern Ireland are better, but they are not. When he hears the figures, he will probably be shocked at just how bad they are.
Last year, according to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, £23.1 million was lost to fraud over 13 months in Northern Ireland. Between December 2022 and January 2024, there were some 5,412 reports of fraud, with lost sums ranging from £5,000 up to almost—unfortunately—£250,000. I just cannot comprehend how that can happen, but it happened. Those sums were taken by criminals from people’s bank accounts. The figures give an idea of where the scams are and where we need to focus. In 2023 alone, there were 3,400 cases of economic fraud. In many such cases, frauds and scams are committed at a distance through social media, online websites, phone calls and text messages.
I will probably age myself by saying this, but I remember getting a message from a general in Nigeria. My goodness! Right away, my hackles were up, because I do not know any generals in Nigeria. When I was told that I had won $100,000 or whatever it was, I knew I could not have done, because I did not enter any competition, and I had no friends or relatives out there. It was clearly a scam, but they claimed that if I sent them my bank details, they would forward an astronomically large amount of money to me. The point I am making is that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t true. Someone turns up and says, “You have won this amount of money, just send me your bank details and we will transfer the money to you.” I am not smarter than anyone else—I do not profess to be and am not—but whenever someone comes along with something that is just that good, it cannot be good, so beware.
I want to give the example of an elderly lady who came to see me—I speak for the elderly and the vulnerable as my focus for the short time I have. Just last week, in my office I dealt with an issue where a lady clicked a link on Facebook to lodge money in an online pot to gain interest over a period of time. Her details were given and the £276 immediately taken from her account. The dangers of social media are broad enough, and online fraud and scamming seem to be at a peak. Unfortunately, I see that regularly in my office. We advised her immediately to put a block on her card and to contact the local PSNI to make a report. But she is only one example, unfortunately, of what so many people face on a daily basis, every week in my constituency.
I am just looking up something from Danske Bank, which I belong to. It sends such things regularly, as a wee warning perhaps, and a caution:
“We want to remind you that we are all at risk of fraud, even if you are scam savvy. Bank impersonation scams are on the rise”
—which the hon. Member for York Outer referred to—
“but remember, we will never call you to ask for log-on details, PIN numbers or passcodes, including those we send by text.”
My bank sends that to me every month or every six weeks. If banks did that as a reminder to people to keep it fresh in their minds, it would be very helpful.
The UK economic crime team is responsible for leading the industry’s fight against economic crime, but more needs to be done to support those who are not perhaps tech-savvy, which I profess that I am not: I sometimes do not understand the dangers that are out there. The online fraud steering group has numerous aims in tackling economic crime, including making the UK look like the least attractive place to commit such crimes, but they still happen with a regularity that tells us that that is not the case. Whether internally in the UK, or internationally where foreign actors interfere, we need to ensure that our constituents are protected and, most importantly, aware.
The PSNI back home in Northern Ireland has a crime prevention officer who specifically visits elderly and vulnerable people, including groups who meet every week. They go and talk to them and give them information. I would suggest that that could be done with greater regularity to remind people, because people do need to be reminded on a regular basis.
I will finish now because I am conscious that others want to speak. In terms of money laundering, we have seen terrible examples in Northern Ireland where, to be fair, the PSNI in conjunction with other police forces across the United Kingdom and further afield have been able to get on top of it, but it still happens. There are scams and fraud, so there is more work to be done. I look to the Minister with great respect. I know he will come back with the answers that will perhaps encourage us and give us some hope. I look to him for guidance on his updated plans to make our economic system run smoothly—it has to—and ensure that across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland we have a good structure for dealing with the issues and also the means to do so.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for securing this important debate and for shining a light on an issue that has been neglected for far too long.
A growing concern facing my constituents in Wolverhampton North East is the rise of fraud, particularly scams perpetrated from overseas. We often hear calls for more arrests and prosecutions of the criminals, and I fully support that. However, we also need to acknowledge that a significant and increasing number of these fraudsters are not operating from within the UK. Instead they are part of international fraud rings based in hotspots such as India, the Philippines, South Africa, Brazil and parts of eastern Europe.
With advanced technology we have machines capable of making thousands of calls or sending thousands of texts per minute. The criminals can easily target people here in Britain. Our country unfortunately is a prime target for such activity. We do much of our shopping and banking online, and the widespread use of the English language makes it easier for fraudsters abroad to deceive and manipulate their victims here.
The real question is what we do about this. I suggest that when we negotiate trade deals with countries where such criminal activity is prominent, we push for stronger co-operation in fighting fraud. Let us make fraud prevention part of the agreements, giving the countries a real incentive to work with us to tackle the issue. Without such action, fraud will continue to grow, impacting more and more families in places like Wolverhampton North East. It is time we took strong, global, co-ordinated action to protect our residents from the scourge of international fraud.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I call the spokesperson for the Lib Dems, Chris Coghlan.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, in this brilliant and necessary debate. I commend the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for securing this debate on financial fraud and economic crime and for his professional expertise in this area. I should declare an interest: I spent 11 years working in financial services and also worked in the Foreign Office on counter-terrorism, so I know how vital this debate is.
The hon. Member for York Outer made really interesting points in his seven proposals, particularly on the link between tackling fraud and economic growth and his call for a national anti-fraud centre based on the Australian model. The Liberal Democrats called for an online crime agency in our manifesto, so it is something we would be interested in supporting.
We need a dedicated body to tackle online crimes such as personal fraud; our police forces are overwhelmed. Local forces lack the specialist skills required to combat the complexity of modern online crime. Although the National Crime Agency focuses on the most serious offences, we need an agency specifically equipped to deal with online fraud.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Gentleman for making that reference to the NCA. I understand that just last week the NCA issued its first unexplained wealth order in Northern Ireland against a man suspected of involvement in serious organised crime. If anyone is living above their means, there should be questions about where the money is coming from. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there perhaps needs to be more emphasis on that as well?
Chris Coghlan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree that there should be more emphasis on that area. I also thought that the hon. Member for York Outer made a really interesting point about the lack of FCA regulation of the Post Office, and I agree that that appears to be a gap in our existing regulatory framework.
We heard some really moving personal accounts about the cost of these online scams in the speech made by the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson). We are also calling for the naming and shaming of the banks that have the worst records on preventing fraud and reimbursing victims. They should be held accountable. Financial institutions have a duty to protect their customers and we need to call them out when they do not.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the power of social media scams, and we are also calling for a public awareness campaign. We need to empower everyone to spot, avoid and report fraud and scams. But let me be clear: the onus should not be on individuals to prevent fraud. Victims should never be blamed for falling prey to sophisticated scams. This issue is about building a society that protects citizens and not one that burdens them with responsibilities that should lie with institutions.
As we have heard, the numbers involved are staggering, both in terms of the billions of pounds that have been lost to fraud and the sheer volume of crime that is now online. Despite those facts, however, the previous Government’s response was lacklustre. I was moved by the hon. Member for York Outer’s point that 40% of crime is fraud, including online fraud, yet only 1% of police resources is dedicated to tackling fraud. The previous Government treated fraud with such little seriousness that they did not include it in crime statistics. Will the Minister commit to including fraud in crime statistics to demonstrate the new Government’s seriousness about this issue?
The Government must also recognise that economic crime poses a significant threat to our democracy. For too long, the previous Government allowed oligarchs to treat the UK as their personal playground, so that they could funnel dirty money into our economy and undermine our values. The Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to begin seizing frozen Russian assets and to use the proceeds to support Ukraine; to close loopholes in economic crime legislation, which allow associates of authoritarian regimes, such as Putin’s cronies, to funnel corrupt funds into our country; and to properly resource the NCA to ensure that it has the tools to tackle complex financial crimes. We are also calling for an audit of UK-based assets owned by officials from countries with troubling human rights records, such as China and Iran, to ensure that we are not enabling regimes that abuse their own citizens.
As a former counter-terrorism officer, I know how important cross-border co-operation is. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) really brought out the importance of such co-operation when she made the point that the people conducting these scams are not necessarily all in the same geographical location.
I also know the damage that Brexit caused to our cross-border co-operation on serious and online crime. Will the Minister commit to improving co-operation with our European allies and with other countries more widely on financial fraud and economic crime?
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate. It was a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair for this debate, Ms Vaz, and I again thank the hon. Member for York Outer for securing it.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I call the shadow Minister, who was appointed this morning, to speak.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to be able to respond to this debate on behalf of the Opposition as a newly appointed shadow Home Office Minister, as of this morning.
I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on securing this debate and thank him for giving us the chance to discuss the serious issues that he outlined. Also, may I put on the record my commiserations to the constituent he mentioned, whom he saw at his surgery last week, for the serious issues that she has faced? I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for as usual showing his knowledge of yet another subject.
Many of us will have been, or know someone who has been, a victim of financial fraud. The hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) outlined the various possible targets, from the pensioner who is tricked into giving away their savings by a rogue cold call, to an unsuspecting parent receiving a scam text purportedly from their child asking for money. All ages and sections of society are at risk.
As these criminal schemes become more sophisticated, nobody is immune. We have seen that bank accounts can be emptied in minutes and life savings lost. In 2021, victims reported losing £2.35 billion to fraudsters and scammers. We also know from statistics that it is elderly and vulnerable people who are most susceptible to scams and fraud. To the vile criminals who target them, they are seen as a means to enrichment and to profit from their misery. It is our duty to protect them.
In an astonishing statistic, Home Office figures indicate that the social and economic cost to the UK from economic crime is £8.4 billion a year. Those costs directly impact the lives and livelihoods of millions of citizens, and further exacerbate social and economic pressures. I look forward to hearing reassurances from the Minister, whom I welcome to his role, on how he will continue to make the progress delivered by the previous Government.
We also know, as the hon. Member for York Outer mentioned, that it is not just individuals who are targeted. In a time of increasing global instability, adversaries are constantly probing for weaknesses in our digital financial infrastructure, from cyber-attacks aimed at crippling software, to ransomware attempts to extort money. Our systems are constantly having to update and evolve to keep ahead in a technological arms race. I was interested to hear recommendation 1 in the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I would press the Minister to look seriously at that proposal, which would get support from the Opposition, as he outlines his proposals.
The previous Government showed leadership in this area. They introduced a reporting mechanism that was bolstered by replacing Action Fraud with a state-of-the-art system for victims to report fraud, while a new national fraud squad, with more than 400 new specialist investigators, made fraud a priority for the police. Will the Minister look seriously at the proposal outlined by the hon. Member for York Outer for a new national fraud centre? That is an interesting proposal and I would like to know whether the Government would look at that, as well as at an anti-fraud tsar who would be a champion in this place, to whom hon. Members can go. I know the Minister is a champion and has many responsibilities. We could never go without another champion in this Parliament.
If we take a new approach, we can make a great deal of progress on the 13% reduction in fraud that we saw under the previous Government; indeed we can go further. The need to tackle this growing threat is clear. The economic crime plan, brought forward by the previous Government, for the first time introduced a more effective and joint way of working across various organisations, including law enforcement, supervisory agencies and the private sector, through the landmark Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Stronger tools were put in place to help us fight economic crime. We are all alive to the threats affecting our national security, with our economy being a prime target for rogue forces. The strengthening of our defences by widening our ability to freeze assets and to prevent abuses of our open economy proved to be key after Russia invaded Ukraine, and we must continue to strengthen our economic defence in the wake of rogue foreign entities.
Finally, we have seen the new Government make lofty statements about their desire to get tough on fraud, with a new expanded fraud strategy, which I welcome. Given recent policy decisions by the Government, going against promises and commitments in other areas made during the general election, I hope that this is not an area where we will let vulnerable people down. I hope that the Government deliver on those promises. We all agree on the need to tackle this issue. It is to be hoped that this Government are as committed and passionate as the previous one about dealing with this issue, so that we can make progress together. The Minister will have the Opposition’s support in tackling this issue.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on securing this debate on what is—there has been a clear consensus about this—a very important matter. I often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—perhaps too regularly—but I completely agreed with what he said about the expertise that we have seen among new Members. I think we have seen that very clearly today, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer because it came through loud and clear from his speech that he has a strong knowledge and comprehensive understanding of these issues. I think that, collectively, we owe him a debt of gratitude for bringing them to our attention this afternoon. I am also grateful to all those other hon. Members who have contributed to what has genuinely been a very sensible and constructive debate.
I am genuinely grateful to both the Opposition Front Benchers for their sensible contributions. I welcome the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan). He comes to this place with a lot of hugely relevant and credible experience, and I look forward to working closely with him. He made a specific point—an entirely reasonable challenge—about the importance of seeking to work closely with allies in Europe. I can absolutely give him that assurance. We understand the importance of doing so, and we are on the case with that.
I also welcome the shadow Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), to his post. On behalf of the Department, I can genuinely say that we wish him well, and that we look forward to working closely with him. I have had quite a busy day, but I am sure that he has had quite a busy one as well in preparing for this debate. As he always does, he made a number of sensible and reasonable points, and I am happy to confirm to him the commitment and the priority that we attach to these important matters. I hope very much that we can work closely together as we move forward.
Based on the contributions that we have had in today’s debate, there is a clear consensus that economic crime and fraud are pernicious threats that ruin lives and damage our prosperity. They must be dealt with as a priority. I want to take the opportunity today to say something about the Government’s approach, as I seek to respond to the many excellent points that hon. Members have raised.
Economic crime threatens our national security and the prosperity of the UK. It covers a broad range of illicit activity, including fraud, money laundering, kleptocracy and corruption. It drives serious organised crime, which has a hugely damaging and corrosive impact, and causes immense harm to the public—to all our constituents. It affects the financial and emotional wellbeing of victims and the interests of legitimate businesses, and undermines our international reputation.
According to the crime survey for England and Wales for the year ending March 2024, fraud against individuals accounts for 36% of crime, so it is by far the most common offence. That is a startling statistic, which underlines the scale of the threat and the challenge, but it does not capture the full horror of the misery and devastation that lies behind the numbers—the stories of life savings snatched, of confidence shattered, of emotional distress.
We know that nobody is safe from fraud; it can affect anyone, with one in 18 people becoming a victim of fraud in the year ending March 2024. Businesses are also under threat: the economic crime survey for 2020 estimated that one in five in the sectors surveyed had been victims of fraud in the previous three years. These figures are another striking illustration of the scale of the threat, and underline why it is so crucial that we eliminate any safe spaces for criminals to operate in.
I should note that the crime survey shows that fraud is down 10% on the previous year, which is encouraging, and I want to thank all those across Government, industry and law enforcement who work to turn the screw on fraudsters and criminals. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their important work. A lot of effort has gone into addressing these issues, and that is to be welcomed, but, to address the entirely reasonable point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), we must now go further.
We know from experience that fraudsters are well organised. They are also opportunists and will try to perpetrate their crimes on anyone they can, including the most vulnerable in our society, which is especially callous. Given we are up against devious and resourceful criminals, we need to ensure that our approach is fit for purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer clearly has a very strong command of the subject matter, which he has translated into a number of insightful recommendations. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, rightly pressed me to ensure that we will take those seriously.
I hope my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer will understand if I stop short of making policy commitments at this stage and in this forum. That being said, his seven recommendations—the internal mail is clearly working in overdrive because the letter dropped just as he mentioned the seven recommendations—have clearly been very well thought through and are backed up by his considerable expertise. I give him the assurance that I will take them away and come back to him with a response as we continue to shape this Government’s approach. Incidentally, I was particularly intrigued by suggestion No. 3 on the establishment of an anti-fraud champion. I wonder whether he had anyone in mind, but let’s leave that hanging there for now.
Underlying any steps that the Government take, we will be steadfast in our determination to combat economic crime wherever and however it manifests itself. We are committed to working with key partners across the public sector, the private sector and law enforcement to reduce fraud and better protect the public and businesses.
Estimates suggest that around 80% of fraud has an online element, much of which originates from overseas, which was a point very well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge). Online platforms, as well as telecommunications services, are being exploited by fraudsters to commit their crimes. It is vital that we pull together with industry, regulators and consumer groups to consider what else can be done to close the gaps that criminals exploit.
The sector charter programme works to complement legislation and move in a more agile and targeted manner, and has improved collaboration with industry. It has enabled effective changes within sectors such as telecommunications, retail banking, tech and accountancy. We have seen telecommunications companies install spam shields, which have blocked over 1 billion text messages. The tech sector—I know my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer knows a lot about this—has introduced verification measures for marketplace sellers and advertisers to make sure people are who they say they are. Although we have seen strong action from companies, including via the sector charters, it is important to ensure that counter-fraud activity is prioritised. Recent legislation, such as the Online Safety Act 2023, will help to raise standards and best practice, but we remain open to the use of further legislation and regulation in the future, and that is a continuing conversation that we will want to have with my hon. Friend and with Members throughout the House.
There is still plenty more for Government and industry to do together, and I look forward to collaborating with our key partners in the coming months. We must also increase the disruption and prosecution of fraudsters. A national fraud squad of 400 new posts, led by the NCA’s national economic crime centre and the City of London police, will target the most harmful fraudsters. This will transform the law enforcement response by taking a much more proactive and intelligence-led approach to disrupting the most serious fraudsters, both domestically and overseas.
Another important element is public awareness. We need to ensure that people are alert to these crimes, and it is essential that we have the tools to protect people so that they have the confidence and trust to come forward and report cases where they have fallen victim to fraud. That is why we are working with the City of London police to create a new police “fraud protect network”, which will engage with local forces to provide consistent messaging and safeguarding advice to local communities. That is why there is a wealth of advice on how to spot and avoid fraud on our “Stop! Think Fraud” campaign website, although I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer about that.
As well as protecting individuals, the Government are committed to protecting businesses from fraud and other related crime such as ransomware. The Home Office supports a network of regional cyber-resilience centres to provide cyber-security advice and guidance to businesses across England and Wales.
We are also committed to improving economic crime legislation. The economic crime measures in last Session’s Criminal Justice Bill did not make the statute book before the general election was called. Since the election, the Government have been examining how best to progress action in a number of areas, including the reform of the criminal confiscation regime, the banning of SIM farms that can be used in fraudulent activity, accessing money in suspended accounts to further tackle economic crime, and improving corporate liability laws. We understand that those are important reforms to cut crime, but also that there will be others. We will set out our position in due course and, where necessary, introduce further legislation.
In closing, I thank all hon. Members attending for their contributions and once again thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer on securing the debate. We have covered a good deal of ground, all of it constructive and helpful. For all the statistics, policies and measures, it is the victims who we must always keep at the forefront of our minds. We must prevent more people and businesses suffering as a result of economic crime and fraud, and we must protect our society and economy from those threats. As I have set out, this Government are committed to doing just that, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House on this critical endeavour.
Mr Charters
Thank you for chairing the debate, Ms Vaz. I am delighted that the House has been able to consider today’s motion. It is a matter of real importance and one that it is clear the Government will take seriously. I am grateful to the Minister for attending the debate, and to the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem Front Bencher for engaging, too. I am grateful to the Minister for considering my seven recommendations. The Members who have contributed are powerful advocates for their constituents. Many have experienced constituents coming to their surgeries and sharing harrowing stories of being scammed. I hope to work with some of the Members present on these issues over the months and years ahead.
I outlined in my maiden speech that under this Government there should be
“no safe harbour for fraudsters, no compromise in our pursuit of their schemes and”
—importantly—
“no escape from justice.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 124.]
More than that, I am encouraged by the Minister’s words and know that this Government take fraud seriously. By the end of this Parliament, I hope we can look back and see that we have made huge steps forward. We can become a world leader in tackling fraud once and for all.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I thank the audio technician for sorting the problem out earlier.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of financial fraud and economic crime.
Written Statements
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tata Steel and UK Steel Strategy
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
The Government have secured an improved deal for the workers impacted by the transformation plans of Tata Steel and are setting out their ambition for a new UK-wide steel strategy, one which equips our steel-making industry with the right support to adapt and thrive in the new green economy.
I can announce today that we have agreed a process with Tata to assess investment opportunities for new capabilities that will deliver more, secure, long-term jobs than the deal that we inherited. I will report back to the House on progress.
Tata Steel has agreed to offer a comprehensive training programme for up to 500 employees as an alternative for those at risk of compulsory redundancy. This would be on full pay for one month, then £27,000 per annum per employee for 11 months. Tata will fund those costs. Employees will be able to choose from recognised qualifications to develop sought-after skills which will be in high demand in the local economy now and long into the future.
Tata also expects that at least 500 new jobs could be created during the construction of the electric arc furnace, which will tap into the local labour market wherever possible.
The Government have helped to secure improved terms for those at risk of redundancy by working closely with unions.
Tata Steel’s employees are now able set out their expression of interest in the most generous voluntary redundancy package the company has ever offered for a restructuring of this size. Employees will now be paid 2.8 weeks of earnings for each year of service up to a maximum of 25 years.
There is also a minimum redundancy payment of £15,000 pro-rata and a “retention” payment of £5,000 for employees leaving the business because of these closures. Over 2,000 employees have expressed interest in voluntary redundancy on these terms.
As part of the deal, the company will also be releasing 385 acres of their site for sale or transfer. This is valuable real estate which will help bring in more companies and more employers not just from the steel sector but from a whole host of other industries too.
Taxpayers should know the improved terms for workforce are not dependent on additional money.
Strong conditions are included within the grant funding agreement to claw back investment if Tata Steel reneges on its promises or fails to keep its end of the bargain. For example, there is now an improved grant repayment of £40,000 for every job Tata Steel does not retain post transformation. It was £30,000 per job under the previous deal. In the event of this condition being enacted, this money will be repaid directly to the Government—a powerful incentive to ensure Tata Steel meet its 5,000 UK jobs target.
The Government know this is the start of a journey towards a greener future for the steelworks in Port Talbot—reducing the site’s carbon emissions by as much as 85% a year. However, decarbonisation should not mean deindustrialisation. As part of the agreement the Government will be working with Tata Steel over the coming weeks and months to consider business cases for further investment and job creation opportunities.
However, the Government’s ambition for steel is so much bigger and broader than one single company. It is about the whole sector. The UK has always been a proud steelmaking nation, with a rich heritage stretching back to the industrial revolution. From cars to cranes, ships and scaffolding, British steel has been and is still used the world over, embodying our industrial might and innovation. For years, steel has been a neglected industry in this country. Crude steel production has declined by more than 50% in the last 10 years. Some proclaimed the industry’s decline to be inevitable in the 21st century, but this Government do not believe that decline is inevitable. While the industry faces challenges today, we want to do everything we can to ensure that it can adapt and grow tomorrow.
That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government will introduce a new steel strategy, which will be published in spring 2025.
Our manifesto announced £2.5 billion for steel, on top of the £500 million for this transformation at Port Talbot. Our intention is to use the money we are investing to increase our UK capabilities so that we can create a more vibrant, competitive steel sector in the UK.
As part of our steel strategy, this Government will look seriously at the options to improve steel capabilities across the whole supply chain, including for primary steelmaking in the UK. We are also clear that we will not be able to prioritise short-term subsidies over long-term jobs. That is why with the help of independent experts, we will also be reviewing the viability of direct reduced iron in the UK.
Steel is essential to delivering on our net zero goals and building the next generation of green infrastructure, which Members know this Government are passionate about. It is why, as part of our steel strategy, we intend to use the new procurement Act to drive economic growth and account for social value in the things Government buy and the projects we commission. This work is already under way to increase the role of steel as we build our manufacturing base.
This Government also recognise that for far too long British energy-intensive industries, including the steel sector, have been held back by high electricity costs. More often than not, this has made the UK less attractive to international investors. The Government’s clean energy mission will ensure we are no longer exposed to the kinds of gas price shocks we have seen in recent years, helping British businesses to compete and win in the global market. To support that ambition, we are also working with like-minded nations to tackle global trade distortions, including through our chairing of the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity this year.
The steel strategy will be developed and delivered in partnership with the steel sector and trade unions, and it will work in lockstep with the Government’s industrial strategy. The Government’s ambition is to ramp up investment, strengthen our supply chains and create more well-paid jobs in the places where they are most needed.
To drive our partnership on the steel strategy forward, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade will shortly meet with industry experts and interested parties to discuss the future of the industry.
This Government care about steel, the communities it supports and recognise its fundamental importance to the economy.
And supporting steel in this country is about being involved in the detail, shepherding individual plants into the future while protecting the people in them. But it is also about providing a direction of travel. An inspiration for investment and a cause for confidence, so that the sector can play its part in the next 10 years and beyond.
[HCWS87]
Education and Skills Funding Agency
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Today I am announcing the closure of the Education and Skills Funding Agency on 31 March 2025. The functions of the ESFA will be integrated into the core Department for Education. The ESFA is currently an executive agency of the Department.
This will happen in two stages. Schools’ financial support and oversight functions will transfer from 1 October 2024 and be brought together with the regions group, part of the Department. This will provide a single seamless voice to schools and ensure that financial improvement is central to school improvement.
We will then centralise our funding and assurance functions into the Department for Education alongside the closure on 31 March 2025, putting certainty, support and assurance in the core of the Department.
Moving the agency functions back into the Department will bring benefits to the individuals and organisations we support as well as to the taxpayer. It will enable a single, joined-up approach to funding and regulation to improve accountability.
We will be working closely with our staff, unions, and stakeholders across the education sector to finalise and deliver our plans for closing the agency.
[HCWS83]
Water Framework Directive Regulations and River Basin Management Planning
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Today the Government are laying before the House our full response to the Office for Environmental Protection’s review of the implementation of the water framework directive regulations and river basin management planning.
The Government welcome the OEP’s recommendations and accept its key conclusions that not enough progress has been made by previous Governments to improve the water environment and meet the WFD objective to restore 75% of water bodies to good ecological status or good ecological potential. We face a major challenge in achieving these objectives due to years of underinvestment and insufficient action.
This Government are committed to taking action to accelerate progress on improving the water environment. There are systemic issues that require urgent reform of our water system. The Government will set out over the coming months their plans to fundamentally transform how our water system works and clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. This will include a review of the framework that underpins our water sector, to ensure it delivers long-term stability, and reflects the needs of customers and the environment. We expect that the OEP’s review of the WFD will be an important contribution to inform the review.
The Government response will be available on gov.uk.
[HCWS86]
Independent Review of Forensic Pathology
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Today I am publishing the report of an independent review of the forensic pathology response to the Hillsborough disaster, conducted by forensic science expert Mr Glenn Taylor. Sadly, Mr Taylor passed away on 6 August 2024 and his report is being published posthumously. I would therefore first like to offer sincere condolences to Mr Taylor’s widow, and to express my profound gratitude for all the work that Mr Taylor put in to conducting this review.
Mr Taylor’s review was established in 2022, in response to a recommendation in Bishop James Jones’s 2017 report on the experiences of families bereaved by the Hillsborough stadium disaster on 15 April 1989. In 2012, the Hillsborough independent panel revealed that pathology evidence presented at the first Hillsborough inquests was flawed; this finding led to fresh inquests, and in turn a verdict in 2016 that the 97 men, women and children who tragically lost their lives as a result of the disaster were unlawfully killed. Mr Taylor’s review examined what went wrong with the original pathology reports from the Hillsborough disaster, to ensure that similar mistakes will not be made in future.
In addition to seeking evidence from professionals, Mr Taylor engaged extensively with families who lost loved ones as a result of the Hillsborough disaster, as well as of the devastating Manchester Arena attack on 22 May 2017. I am most grateful to all those family members who took the time to speak to Mr Taylor about their experiences—their powerful words throughout this report are a stark reminder of the extent to which the state failed them.
Mr Taylor found that “significant progress” has been made in the quality and depth of forensic pathology reports since the Hillsborough disaster. It is clear from this report, however, that there is more to be done and more lessons that still need to be learnt. First, family members are entirely right to expect that the pathology taken in respect of their loved ones will be explained to them and their questions answered. More needs to be done on engagement and support for families. Second, we must build resilience in our pathology services and ensure that we are adequately prepared for any future disaster. And third, we must look again at the structure of pathology in England and Wales, to ensure it best meets our needs as a public service. The Government welcome Mr Taylor’s findings and accept all six of his recommendations, which it will work at pace to deliver.
To that end, I have today written to the chair of the pathology delivery board. I have requested that the board take forward those actions that Mr Taylor identified for it immediately, and that it submits a proposed plan of action to me within 12 months. I have also tasked officials in my Department to begin work on actions directed at the Home Office immediately.
I would once again like to extend my sincere thanks to Mr Taylor’s wife for his work, and also to his team for their dedicated and sensitive approach to this matter.
The report has been laid before the House and will also be available on gov.uk.
[HCWS85]
Law Commission Digital Assets Report: Government Response
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Heidi Alexander)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) has today made the following statement:
I am pleased to inform the House that we are taking forward the Property (Digital Assets etc.) Bill via the Law Commission’s special procedure. This recommendation was made in the “Digital Assets: Final Report” published by the Law Commission in June 2023. The Bill will confirm in statute the common law position that certain digital assets can constitute property.
Providing certainty over legal issues around digital assets will encourage the use of English and Welsh law in internationally mobile transactions. The Ministry of Justice commissioned the digital assets report in 2020 to identify any barriers to the recognition of digital assets as property under English and Welsh private law and to recommend reforms in this area of law. This work is vital to our ambition to maintain English and Welsh law as a global law of choice.
I also accept the second recommendation by the Law Commission to set up an expert group on control of digital assets. The Ministry of Justice has asked the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce, an expert group chaired by the Master of the Rolls that produces non-binding guidance on areas of legal uncertainty, to take forward this work as a body that already has an internationally credible voice in the intersection of the law and technology. I believe the UKJT is uniquely placed to convene the expertise needed to consider the issues around control of digital assets.
Finally, the report made recommendations to make statutory amendments to the Financial Collateral Arrangements Regulations and to set up a multidisciplinary project to formulate a statutory framework for the entering into, operation and enforcement of certain crypto-token and crypto-asset collateral arrangements. I understand that my colleagues in HM Treasury are reviewing these recommendations and will provide an update in due course.
[HCWS84]
Grand Committee
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting then the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Environment and Climate Change Committee Report: An Extraordinary Challenge: Restoring 30 per cent of our Land and Sea by 2030
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Parminter
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Environment and Climate Change Committee An extraordinary challenge: Restoring 30 per cent of our land and sea by 2030 (2nd Report, Session 2022–23, HL Paper 234).
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open this debate as the past chairman of the Select Committee on Environment and Climate Change, as we debate the issue of how we in the UK meet our target to achieve 30% of our land and sea to be restored to nature by 2030. When we launched our report last year, we called it an extraordinary challenge, and that title is as apposite today as it was then.
When I look at noble Lords in this Room, I can see that I do not need to tell any of them that this global target for biodiversity for 30 by 30 was agreed at the nature COP, COP 15, back in 2022. But I put on record my thanks to the past Government, who showed considerable leadership in securing that global agreement and, in particular, to the noble Lord sitting behind me, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who was instrumental in achieving that. I thank him and welcome that the new Labour Government have already committed to meeting their international biodiversity obligations.
We put our report together over a year ago—God knows why it takes over a year in the House of Lords to report a Select Committee, but it does—and the recommendations that we made on securing the land in England are as relevant today as they were then. That has made it even better for us to debate it today, given that we face the opportunity next month of COP 16 in Colombia, which I hope is focusing the minds of our own Government, as well as Governments right around the world, on their shared biodiversity targets.
Frankly, we should not need an international gathering on biodiversity to redouble our efforts to protect nature. This month alone we have seen five more UK seabirds added to the red list for extinction: Arctic terns, Leach’s storm petrels, common gulls and the great black-backed gull, and the great skua have all been added to that list. We know that protected species survive and thrive best in protected areas such as SSSIs and SACs, as well as the SPAs—the sites of special scientific interest, special areas of conservation and special protection areas. But there is a great swathe of other protected sites around our country, whether they are areas owned by environmental NGOs, managed for nature conservation, or national parks or national landscapes, which we have come to term AOBs, or wildlife reserves, national nature reserves or national forests—to name but a few. They are all important, but the question for us as a committee when we looked at our report was what counted towards that 30 by 30 target.
We were very clear that we accepted the international definition that was put together by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which was agreed at COP 15, that to qualify for 30 by 30 the area should be:
“a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”.
We took “long term” to mean more than 30 years. Taking that definition, we listened to the advice from the Government’s own nature advisory body, the JNCC, and the other environmental groups, as well as from other stakeholders. We concluded that, at that time, the amount of land in England that could count towards 30 by 30 was 6.5%. That means that, by 2030, there remains 23.5% of land required to meet the target, which is a massive amount of land. To give it some context, that is more than 3 million hectares of land, or an area of land more than 1.5 times the size of Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, might want to challenge me on that—I do not know. Those were the figures that we identified.
In December, the Government—as was—argued that, in their delivering 30 by 30 on land and at sea, that figure was not 6.5% but 8.5%. However, they included in their definition land that is not compliant with what we take to be suitable for inclusion in 30 by 30 as compliant with the international guidance. Irrespective of arguing over those amounts, what is absolutely clear is the scale of the challenge. But we all know that it is not just size that matters; it is also about the quality and condition of the land, as is articulated in the COP 15 statement that it should be effectively conserved and managed.
When we asked Natural England for an update on the quality of those SSSIs, it indicated that only 37% were in favourable condition and that there had been no improvement in the past 13 years in improving the remaining SSSIs. When it came to monitoring, it said that less than a quarter of our SSSIs had been assessed in the past six years. Although I acknowledge that Natural England has made some extremely welcome changes since December in how it assesses and monitors SSSIs, this does not get away from the fact that we are not looking at and assessing our protected sites anywhere near enough for land managers and others to make appropriate management decisions—let alone the fact that, in February 2026, we as a country will have to report internationally on how we are doing against the 30 by 30 target. We as a committee were clear that, despite the financial implications, a proper management assessment needs to be done for every piece of land that constitutes 30 by 30, and that it should be assessed every six years.
That is the state of our best-protected land in England. What about at sea? When we asked the JNCC, we found the deeply worrying situation that only two out of our 76 MPAs—most protected areas—receive any form of monitoring, despite the threats that they face from overfishing, bottom trawling near the seabed and energy infrastructure. We think that this is insufficient. We argued very strongly for there to be more monitoring of our MPAs, both inshore and offshore. We also argued for better regulation of bottom trawling—that is, I think, an issue that several Members may wish to return to later. Like the EFRA Committee, we argued that there needs to be speedy resolution in designating more HPMAs—highly protected marine areas—because the pace of change has been glacial, to say the least.
Let me explain what I mean by “glacial”. One of the things we asked the Government to do was produce a map of how they saw themselves bringing together all the land needed for the 30 by 30 target, along with an action plan. We said—I remember it clearly—that one thing that would be invaluable in helping the Government draw up that map would be the “forthcoming” land use framework. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, may wish to say something more about the forthcoming nature of the land use framework, which we still need to see in its entirety. It is good to see that the new Government have committed to produce one of those.
However, what the Government did do in December was produce a map, along with some indications of how they saw themselves delivering the 30 by 30 target on land, but with no indication of how they saw themselves doing it at sea. In no sense could this be called an action plan because, as the Government themselves said, the map was only indicative as they had not yet agreed the criteria for what would constitute 30 by 30. There was glacial progress too by the last Government on getting any OECMs—other effective area-based conservation measures—up and running, which would have been a really important way of helping farmers, woodland managers and others voluntarily contribute towards the 30 by 30 target.
I am pleased that the Government have now committed to produce a plan for nature protection and recovery, which is to be informed by this rapid review of the environmental improvement plan. That is to be welcomed. It should be a starting point for driving nature recovery right across government departments. I suspect that if I ask the Minister now, she might say that it is probably too early for her to say how the Government see themselves securing this huge extra amount of land that we are going to need if we are going to meet 30 by 30. But it is not unfair for us to ask her today whether the Government will commit to abide by the internationally agreed guidance in drawing up the criteria for determining what will be part of those areas contributing towards 30 by 30.
I have one further question. Will the Government’s laudable plans for new homes for people be accompanied by new streams of funding to provide more homes for nature to thrive and survive?
I am sure that other colleagues will have many more questions; I do not want to go on for too long. I just want to say a particular thanks to those Members here today with whom I shared the privilege of being on the committee—it was a real honour to serve alongside them. I also thank the ever-diligent staff, who deal with us with professionalism, kindness and decency.
In conclusion, our report made it very clear that there is a long way to go if we are going to make a reality of 30 by 30. We need to do it. If our recommendations fall on stony ground, it is quite clear that 30 by 30 will be no more than a catchy slogan for international political summits, and meanwhile our precious nature will be lost.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, the worst thing in the world is to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for two reasons. One is that she was a magnificent chair of this committee, on which I was very privileged to serve, and the other is that she has now said everything that needs to be said, and said it eloquently and with no notes—goodness, there are days I hate her. I could just say that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and sit down, but that would be a bit of a cop out. I would like to make a few additions, mostly focusing on the land-based elements of our report.
The noble Baroness used the word “slogan”, and that is what 30 by 30 is—it is a great slogan, and there are some in this Room who helped invent it, but we now need a plan, and it needs deliverables, and timescales for those deliverables, and a way of monitoring them, or we certainly will not hit the 30 by 30 target.
I will start with sites of special scientific interest. They are the jewel in the crown of nature conservation and biodiversity in this country, and they are the best protected sites that we have, but particularly the subset of those that are special areas of conservation and special protection areas. However, there have been no real increases in the number of these sites for the last 20 years.
I was probably chairing English Nature at the time when the last major additions to the suite of SSSIs went through. A small number have been declared since then—I can see that some noble Lords are going to contradict me on that one—but generally speaking we need more. It is true to say that it has not been the fashion to declare SSSIs over the last few years, but there is a real gap: there are ecological networks that need to be filled and species that need to be protected where an SSSI would be the appropriate way of doing that. We have to get over the unwillingness to declare SSSIs and see them as the pinnacle of protection. There is not a huge number of them, and we need more to fill in those gaps.
Perhaps more worrying is the whole condition argument. To hark back again—I am so old that I can remember the 1990s, for goodness sake—we at English Nature used to agonise that only about 60% of SSSIs were in favourable condition in those days. That was a key English Nature performance indicator; it had to report on that every year in its annual report, and it was a big issue for us. We are now at the point where we have less than 35% in favourable condition, and that is down from last year’s number of 37%. There is a pressing need for management plans to improve these SSSIs, for those management plans to be resourced and for there to be a system of monitoring conditions that is better than the one at the moment. In reality, if the two issues of the extent and condition of our SSSIs were tackled effectively, those two simple remedies would take us half way to 30 by 30.
One of the two other big contributions to the 30 by 30 issue is our national parks and our protected national landscapes. The Climate Change Committee was keen on giving an additional statutory duty to protect nature to what were in those days AONBs and national parks, but that was rejected, rather fulsomely if I may say so, by the Government during the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—I break out into hives when I utter the words “Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill”. There was a compromise amendment on protected landscape plans and the contribution to environmental improvement targets, but the regulations to make that happen in practice were delayed by the fall of the Government. We now need to revisit that. To be honest, I do not think the compromise amendment should be pursued any further; we should just go straight to an action that declares a new nature purpose for protected landscapes and national parks.
There has been some progress on delineating the draft criteria for what should count towards 30 by 30. In the early days of 30 by 30 it was felt that, if we lumped in the national parks and the AONBs, we would hit it in one go, but most of the land in the national parks and AONBs is not managed for nature conservation as its primary purpose, or indeed its secondary purpose, so we have to be pretty clear about what should count and what should not. In common with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, I think we should simply fall in line with the IUCN guidance and the international definitions, and then include other effective area-based conservation measures if they can be demonstrated to be well managed.
The last chunk of land that we need to focus on—a very big chunk—is agricultural land, which makes up a huge proportion of the land under management in this country. Nature-friendly farming is going to be crucial in this. We need to ensure that more farmers are encouraged, advised and supported to move into the higher tiers of nature-friendly farming schemes, and particularly that the guidance for that is made more specific and simpler, and is clarified. It is only at those higher tiers that we will get the right sort of outcomes that will produce genuinely high-quality land that is in favourable condition for nature conservation.
The current Government, of whom I greatly approve, have made some commitments already. They have said they will halt the decline of species by 2030, which is quite a big ask, and have honoured their international commitment to 30 by 30. Most importantly, there will be a new statutory plan to protect and restore our natural environment, with delivery plans for each of the targets therein, and a rapid review of the environmental improvement programme. That is crucial, and all our work on 30 by 30 needs to clearly link to that.
We also need to make sure that all of this work on the 30 by 30 agenda relates to other strands of work that are under way. We have local authorities beavering away on local nature recovery strategies, so we have to ensure that we understand the relationship between those and site protection. We now need to see what the land use framework—the broader framework that the Government say they support—will actually comprise; it will put nature conservation, food production and trees and all sorts of other non-environmental issues into one framework that allows us to make the best of our land, a scarce resource in this country.
The land use framework will, I hope, provide an overarching way to look at the need for land in this country. It will allow actors at national, regional and local authority level, and individual land owners, to have a basis of sound and well-analysed data, and a set of principles under which they can begin to think about how land that they have any influence on can do the best it can not only for private landowners but for the nation as a whole. It need not be something we are scared of. It is not going to be obligatory. It will, I hope, be a help. I hope that it will also be a help in some of the rather nasty local disputes we might see coming up around the use of land for development, infrastructure and housing.
I want to make one last point that your Lordships will not be surprised by from a former chairman of the Woodland Trust—about ancient woodland, my favourite topic. The time has come for proper protection for ancient woodlands. Ancient woodlands would be a key part of 30 by 30, but they have absolutely no statutory protection beyond some very finely crafted words in the National Planning Policy Framework. We had to work pretty hard to get those words in, and we are working pretty hard to make sure they do not fall out in the review of the NPPF.
In this country, we still have over 1,000 sites containing ancient woodland that are being threatened by development or inappropriate land use. That is unacceptable. They are irreplaceable habitats, they are hugely environmentally and biodiversity rich, and they have historic heritage, as well a very modern purpose of combating climate change and giving the public a lot of pleasure. Let us grasp the nettle and have a new designation of equivalent protection for ancient woodland as currently exists for SSSIs. We are due to report to COP 16. Unless we do some of these things, we are going to look a bit cheesy.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who was very generous in what she said. I agreed with everything she said—particularly that part.
I congratulate the committee on putting together a really valuable report and will focus, at least initially, on the international role of the UK in agitation and in leading by example, where the UK has a particular role to play.
It is an obvious thing to say but, logically, there is nothing more important than mending our relationship with the natural world. Absolutely everything we have, everything we need, everything we do and our entire economic system is based on nature, which is why the damage we are doing to it, all around the world—to our rivers, mangroves, corals and forests—is just so mad.
If I more or less keep to my time now, by the time I have finished and sit down we will have lost the equivalent of nearly 400 football pitches-worth of forest. That almost defies belief and imagination. These are forests that are home to four-fifths of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity, around 1 billion people depend on them for their survival, and, as we know, the forests regulate so much, not least our climate and rainfall. The Congo Basin alone is believed to generate more than half of the rainfall for the entire continent of Africa. This is not just an issue of biodiversity, and it is certainly not just an academic discussion we are having.
The reality is that there is no technological substitute for these systems: the only solution, and the ultimate challenge, is finding a way to protect what remains and restore what we have carelessly lost, and then to do everything we can, through all of our decision-making, to reconcile ourselves, our cultures our civilisations and our economies with the natural world, on which we depend. It is an obvious thing to say—and I am certain that, for this Room, it did not need to be said —but it is an argument that needs to be made repeatedly.
The reason for that is that, far too often, when we hear debates about the environment, or when the environment is discussed as a political issue, we are not actually talking about the environment; we have reduced the whole thing to a very narrow focus on carbon and climate change. It is an extraordinarily one-dimensional discussion that we are having most of the time. The reality is that we could put all the solar panels in the world on all the rooftops around the planet, and invest 10 times more in energy efficiency, but if we do not massively ramp up our efforts to protect and restore nature then it is all pointless. There is no pathway to net zero and there is no solution to climate change without forests, and I think it is really important that we keep our conversation as broad as possible. Climate change is an overwhelming threat, but it is a symptom—just one symptom—of the underlying and abusive relationship we have with the natural world.
I do not want in any way to sound like I am discouraging efforts to accelerate the much-needed clean energy transition. It is crucial, I think, that we ramp up our focus on preventing nature loss. By the way, we know that we can do it; there are examples all around the world. I had the privilege of being a Minister for the international environment, and I saw with my own eyes initiatives on a tiny scale and a huge scale—and sometimes on a national scale, where countries have managed to break the link between productivity, prosperity and environmental destruction.
I have just come back from Indonesia a couple of days ago. I hate flying—I have to be drunk to get on an aeroplane, so I am probably not making as much sense now as I would like to be. I can tell you that Indonesia, a country that has taken a lot of flak over many years for high rates, historically, of deforestation, has got its deforestation under control. It does not get the credit for it but it has—the data does not lie. It has broken the link between palm oil production and deforestation. There is still some deforestation, of course, but it is nothing compared to what it was. If all the great forest countries behaved in the way that Indonesia has, we would be having a very different discussion. We know that it can be done.
Noble Lords will remember that, a few years ago, we had the privilege of hosting COP 26 in Glasgow, which we made an effort to turn into a nature COP. We wanted a broader focus, and we delivered the Glasgow leaders’ declaration on forests. We got 145 countries, representing 90% of the world’s forests, to commit to end deforestation this decade, and secured $20 billion to support those countries to do it. We persuaded the multilateral development agencies to align their policies and portfolios with that aim. It represented—in theory, at least—an unprecedented package of support for forests. I put on record my thanks to the extraordinarily talented people in the invisible part of government—the people who do not normally take part in these debates but who do the real work. Without any doubt, that was a consequence of an extraordinarily effective diplomatic effort.
Since then, we attempted to take that same energy, approach and momentum to Montreal, which was about a year later. In order to have an impact and to be able to influence the debate, we protected those diplomatic networks that we had created. We remained co-leaders of the High Ambition Coalition and the Global Ocean Alliance—organisations designed to extract maximum ambition from countries with which we get on well. We spearheaded, with Ecuador, the Maldives and Gabon, a programme that suggested how countries might club together in order to fund what is needed for nature restoration. It was a programme that was, more or less, adopted at Montreal, in the Kunming-Montreal protocol.
There is no doubt that the UK played a very important role. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said earlier, but the truth is that I had the honour of being the front of much of this work; the real work was done by hundreds and hundreds of people in government who were up all night, four or five days in a row. I thought some of them might be knocking on the door of madness by the end of it, relying only on coffee, but they did an extraordinary job and went way beyond what I, certainly, was expecting at the time. I am very grateful to them.
What was agreed at Montreal was seismic. It was an action plan that will put the world on a path to recovery. We are here to talk about the 30 by 30 target, and obviously that was the headline achievement that was secured at Montreal. But it was also agreed—and this is hugely important—that the wealthier countries will provide at least $20 billion a year by 2025 to help countries rich in nature but economically poorer to deliver their part of the bargain.
A lot has undoubtedly been achieved since Montreal. We have targets, agreements and treaties. In basic terms, we have the tools that we need, if we are serious about it, to turn the tide on nature destruction, but if we do not use those tools and properly do our part then the targets are academic. They would just be targets on paper.
The truth is that, globally—I include the UK in this—we are not living up to the commitments we made. We are less than one year from that $20 billion a year target. By the end of next year, the rich countries are supposed to be contributing $20 billion between them. A report produced by the ODI and commissioned by the brilliant Campaign for Nature, based entirely on OECD figures, shows that just two countries are contributing what they regard as their fair share of that finance. The UK is not one of them. I am certainly not blaming the new Government, who have only just taken their seats, but the UK is not one of them. The UK has a hugely important role to play in turning those grandiose commitments into something approaching reality.
We have been at the heart of this debate for some years now. It was a colossal error of judgment on the part of the most recent iteration of the Conservative Government just to walk off the stage. We were not there at the big events; we were fiddling the figures to make it look like we were spending more money than we were, and we were letting down allies. I think we did the UK’s reputation an enormous amount of damage. This Government have the awesome responsibility of turning things around, rebuilding our reputation and showing that, when we make a promise on these issues, we stick to it and keep our word.
That matters financially, for the reasons I have just explained, but it goes far beyond finance. It is also about politics. We have a history of being able to agitate in negative ways, but also in very positive ways internationally, persuading the world to do what we think it ought to be doing. When it comes to nature, our voice has counted for something. There have been many events and times in the last few years when regional groupings have gathered to talk—for example, about the Amazon. You would have all the Amazon countries there and the UK. We have had similar events in Asia, when leaders from Asian countries have gathered to talk about their biodiversity, and the UK has been the only non-regional member there. We have a voice, and it is essential that we use it.
We have to get our rich-country friends to step up and pay their fair share. We have to mobilise the private finance that we need, because there is nothing like enough public finance to do the job. We have to make sure that the forums that we are part of, such as the G7, honour the commitments that they made. If your Lordships remember, at the last G7 there was a commitment that all international aid—not just climate or nature, but all international aid—would be aligned with the global biodiversity framework. That has not happened—it has not happened in the UK or elsewhere.
I am running out of time, so will make one final point. The biggest challenge that people talk about when it comes to restoring our relationship with nature is finance. We are told that there is a $500 billion black hole annually; that is needed every year to turn things around. By coincidence, that is also how much the top 50 food-producing countries spend each year in subsidising often highly destructive land use. The UK is one of the few countries, possibly the only country, that has really got to grips with this challenge of reforming our subsidies, such that we are paying public money in return for public goods like the environment. I know others will be talking about this in due course, but it is really important that the new Government seize that agenda, recognise the opportunity and do not in any way yield to the vested interests that undoubtedly will be trying to pressure them to water down our commitments on land use subsidy reform. It is too important internationally and for the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I gently remind your Lordships that, although it says an “advisory” Back-Bench speaking time of nine minutes, it is slightly more than advisory. We have a lot of speakers here today, so I hope that noble Lords will keep an eye on the clock and keep to the time limit, as far as possible.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate hugely the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, on many things, including his speech; whether it overran seems irrelevant to me because it was a real barnstormer and a fantastic challenge to this Government to step up to the plate. I think that everyone who has made the effort to get here this afternoon probably agreed with every word of it.
I was thrilled to be a part of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. She was a fantastic chair and hers was a wonderful speech; along with the speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, it set out the big picture domestically to do with the land, our agenda and our voice. I am going to change the mood here completely and talk about something specific that I think the Government could do right now and do easily: bottom trawling. This was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, but I am going to deep dive into it a little more—in quite short time, I hope.
Bottom trawling is a widespread industrial practice that involves dragging heavy nets, large metal doors and chains across the sea-floor in order to catch fish. It is that simple. It is very efficient for the fishing industry, because it scoops up simply everything in its path. The fishermen then haul it up, decide what they want and chuck the rest back into the ocean. Needless to say, an incredible amount is rejected, but let us try to look at it from another point of view. The ocean floor is not a barren zone. It is home to myriad species of animals, fish, plants, corals, sponges and other living things. If only we, as human beings, were able to imagine that beings other than ourselves have agency, thoughts, lives and rights, on a completely different physical scale from ours, but are also worthy of respect; if only we understood their place within our human planetary existence. Bottom trawling destroys homes. It destroys these beings’ environment. For them, it is like being in London, in the Blitz, every single night.
Leaving aside what might be dismissed as a sentimental point of view about whether the creatures down there have any rights, let us think about this from an environmental point of view. In much the same way as soil, the bottom of the ocean secures our right to be on this planet. When you bottom trawl, sediment is flung into the water in a huge, swirling cloud. Scientists call this rototilling; it is similar to deep ploughing, which tears through the mycorrhizal structures in soil and damages everything as it goes. We all know what that has done to the quality of our soil—it has been well debated and well agreed—and Governments everywhere now recognise that we have to stop this kind of farming; indeed, as was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, we have to look for nature-friendly farming that protects this hugely vital asset. Quite honestly, the sea-floor is absolutely nothing different.
Tearing it up has consequences that are equally serious to those of tearing up the soil and allowing it to be flushed away. Resuspended sediment—in other words, the stuff that is chucked into the sea and has lain there for many thousands of years—can change the entire chemistry of the water. It changes the nutrient levels and lowers the light levels; inevitably, it therefore reduces the photosynthesis that ocean-dwelling plants can carry out. Such plants form the basis of the entire food system in the ocean, not just for us but for all the fish up the chain. The sediment is then carried away by currents, often far away, which destroys any fish’s food system. All species are inevitably affected. Can you imagine your small town suddenly being annihilated by the equivalent of a 200-foot tank?
What to do? Nationally, we could look to curb this industry, but here, where we are attempting to preserve 30% of the ocean, we must ban bottom trawling in MPAs. I think that we should ban it everywhere, but we could start by saying, “No more”, to this one. I simply do not understand how licences have been given to fishermen to fish in these areas. The only answer that makes any sense is greed and industry pressure on local MPs and government officials to allow these huge fishing companies to twist the rules—and they are not in our favour.
If we stop it, we will get some quick benefits. Marine life acts as a natural defence. It stores blue carbon, and it forms the basic infrastructure of how low-impact fisheries can thrive. In addition, the carbon emissions are offset and restored through natural carbon stores in increased oxygen production. The most astonishing fact is that the total weight of fish found in a fully protected area is on average a staggering 670% greater.
Banning bottom trawling would deliver benefits worth between £2.57 billion and £3.5 billion to the UK economy—according to Oceana, which is about the only figure we have—within 20 years. However, despite how sensible that sounds, 33,000 hours of suspected bottom trawling took place in 2023 in MPAs, where seabed features have hundreds of years of lifespan but were trashed in minutes. It is clear that the by-laws are inadequate. Of 13 sites designated as MPAs, only four are fully protected because many bylaws protect only specific bits, which allows bottom trawling elsewhere. As I said, that kicks up the sediment, which affects everything. Because of the inefficiency of the design and laws, fishermen are encouraged to cut straight through the MPAs because they have to spend more on petrol to get around them.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, the currently higher protected marine areas cover only 0.42% of English waters. Quite frankly, that is pathetic. They should cover at least 10%, and even that would be pathetic. When will the Government publish strict criteria setting out clearly what counts towards 30 by 30 at sea, including how that is going to be managed? We might not be able to see under the sea but that does not mean it does not count towards the health and well-being of every single one of us. Like our soil, our planetary health depends on it.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I believe that restoring land and sea for nature is a crucial part of our response to the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. It is a great privilege to follow four outstanding speakers, real heroes of the environment, particularly for the environment in this nation. It is indeed an extraordinary challenge that we face, but one that I hope we can rise to.
The report contains many excellent recommendations. I commend the noble Lords on the Select Committee who have taken evidence, distilled it and brought us a report containing so much clarity and wisdom. It is imperative that the regulation of habitat protection is retained and strengthened to make sure that protected land is truly being managed for nature. Alongside that, and ultimately far more effective, is for those who own and manage land or use the sea to have a great pride for the natural world in their stewardship and for society at large to value nature. I see the beginnings of a positive change in that regard, as more and more landowners, tenants and people who work the land and the sea recognise our negative impact on the environment and notice the silenced song of creation in so many places.
The importance of nature protection and restoration is also something that the Church of England recognises, as we increasingly strive to manage our land—churchyards, glebe land and the historic farming estates—effectively for nature. In 2023, the Church Commissioners—and I declare an interest as a Church Commissioner—partnered with Natural England to expand the wide Wybunbury Moss National Nature Reserve in Cheshire, leasing land to protect that delicate ecosystem of the moss, restoring its fields to a more natural state and improving access to nature for local residents.
In Hereford, the 100 acres of the Bartonsham Meadows have been leased to the Herefordshire Wildlife Trust, which plans to enhance the flora and restore the ancient hedgerows of that those meadows. We are working closely with our tenant farmers to provide regenerative agriculture to enhance soil health, plant hedgerows and woodlands and to make ponds. In the diocese of Norwich that I serve, the careful management of churchyards, with some areas left unmown until the autumn, has allowed much more nature to thrive at Hemblington, where oxeye daisies proliferate, and at Blakeney, where wild claries are now seen for the first time in abundance.
However, I wonder whether two areas of this report could have been stronger. First, there is the international dimension. Areas of the UK’s land and sea are important for migratory birds and marine mammals. These species do not recognise international borders, but different national commitments can have a profound impact on their populations and their conservation. We also have globally rare habitats, such as heather moorland and sphagnum blanket bog, and there are other outstanding examples of unique species and habitats in the UK’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies, although this report does not cover those places in detail. These internationally important species and habitats are protected by commitments, conventions and directives which UK Governments were instrumental in creating. We have led the way in nature conservation. Ramsar sites, the Berne convention and the EU birds and habitats directive—all of them have our fingerprints on them. So can the Minister say whether His Majesty’s Government will undertake to be absolutely committed to our international obligations for nature?
Secondly, there is only a passing mention in the report to the benefit of nature on human health, development and well-being. I am sure we have all experienced the benefits of spending time in nature, and I am struck that when I read the Gospels, I note how often Jesus withdraws to the natural environment of the Galilee to recharge and reconnect. Studies have shown that we thrive when out in nature, and there are many positive health benefits in terms of reducing stress and enhancing our mental well-being, as well as the enjoyment of physical exercise. In nature, children develop inquiring minds, learn to assess risk, and experience awe and wonder through taking a closer look at the flora and fauna. Yet all the evidence points to children being out in nature far less. However, when I visit schools in the diocese of Norwich, I am always struck by the passion of children for the environment. I would love it if every child could plant a tree in their formative years. There is nothing like getting your hands in the soil—“humus” and “humanity” sharing the same root.
When we pay attention to something, we are far more likely to treasure it. When we treasure something, we want to protect it. When we protect something, we want to see it thrive. Protecting land and sea for nature benefits everything and everyone. Will His Majesty’s Government undertake an assessment of the benefit of forest schools and similar nature-focused learning for child development, so that we can have a generation of children even more passionate about protecting our natural environment?
As I said, this is an extraordinary challenge, but one I believe we must meet, for our sake, for our children’s sake, and for the sake of the planet. When things are good for nature, they are generally good for humans, and generally good for business as well. The Book of Revelation speaks of the leaves of the trees being
“for the healing of the nations”.
To plant is to hope, to restore is to heal, to protect is to love, ultimately. We must do all that we can to protect species, habitats and landscapes, and I hope that His Majesty’s Government will not only take note of this report but act on it.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, this is the first opportunity I have to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Harlech, on her ministerial role; I wish her well in that. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and her committee for their work, and particularly the noble Baroness for so skilfully arranging this debate on Back British Farming Day.
I support the ambition behind the 30 by 30 policy in its aim to increase the spatial scale and connectivity of habitats, as these are key components of the nature recovery that this country needs. The criteria for contributing to 30 by 30 in England is based on three pillars: purpose, protection and management. As the report points out, while these are laudable, greater clarity is urgently needed in what these mean in practice.
Some people are calling for more land to be designated. I am not a great fan of designations. Protection should not be conflated with designation. This concern was reflected in the report, at paragraph 56:
“As the Committee heard in oral evidence: ‘just because [the area is] an SSSI, that does not automatically stop the decline in rare and threatened species we have on the site’”.
Indeed, the very designation of some land as an SSSI has caused its deterioration, because academic theory supplanted the practical land management that helped to create it. Experience shows that bottom-up, farmer-led and land manager-led projects are more successful than top-down directives in protecting and recovering nature.
So 30 by 30 is a huge opportunity for Defra to engage with environmental farmers groups. This would involve engagement with land managers and farmers across different management systems both in the lowlands and uplands. Good management practices would also extend the focus of nature recovery across a wider scale of catchment and landscapes than currently provided by the focus on designated areas alone. Every bit of the country can and should play its part—yes, even urban areas. It is good news that the Victoria Tower, part of this Palace, hosts a nest of peregrine falcons.
However, farmers face great difficulties at present. In paragraph 114, the committee states that:
“We heard that farmers in protected areas could struggle to find the time and resources to develop an understanding of what natural capital options are available on their land and that this may lead many to disengage with the process.”
How sad that would be. Does the Minister agree that using organisations such as the Peakland Environmental Farmers, co-ordinated by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, is an example of where such a collaboration could help farmers achieve these outcomes? Will the Government follow recently produced guidelines by the IUCN on human-wildlife conflict and co-existence, to help formulate strategies where different valid views are held?
I turn to what I consider an important omission from the report. How does 30 by 30 sit alongside the importance of food security, which is one of Defra’s five strategic priorities? This could be enhanced, and a lot of land could be made available for benefitting nature, if the Government would give their full support to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. The Minister of State for Food Security and Rural Affairs, in a recent letter wrote:
“We are now considering how to take forward the regulatory framework outlined in the Act and will share our plans with key interested parties soon”.
Can the Minister give us a more definitive timescale, as this has so much potential to help food security and biodiversity?
On the marine side, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, in asking why the Government do not stop fishing vessels from damaging our marine environment and wildlife. Free of the EU common fisheries policy, we have the power to prevent damaging fishing activity taking place in offshore marine protected areas. This power has already been deployed in a number of MPAs around England, but harmful practices, such as bottom trawling, are still allowed to take place in most of them.
Last year, fishing vessels equipped with bottom-towed gear were active in the UK’s offshore marine protected areas for over 33,000 hours, adding up to nearly four years. Oceana tells us that just 10 vessels, none of which were UK vessels, were responsible for over one-quarter of this damaging activity. EU legal challenges over the existing bottom trawling restrictions and the closure of the sand eel fisheries should be faced down. There is a genuine risk that the Government, as they seek a closer relationship with the EU, will use the sand eel win as a concession. Furthermore, the ban on mostly EU-registered bottom trawlers operating in all protected waters should be completed, and vessels of all sizes restricted from fishing forage species that local wildlife depend on.
This will also have significant benefits for climate action, with evidence showing that, globally, bottom trawling contributes roughly the same amount of emissions as the aviation sector. My view of the marine designations is similar to my critique of the terrestrial ones: protection is offered to a specific species or characteristic, rather than management of the whole water column. This can lead to a situation in which, for example, an animal is protected but its habitat is not, so the latter is able to be bottom-trawled, ruining the habitat for the animal being protected. Our current approach might explain why we are not getting the recovery outcomes that we want or expect to see in the marine environment.
At this morning’s National Farmers’ Union breakfast for “Back British Farming Day”, the Secretary of State had warm and encouraging words for farming and the environment. We will soon find out whether he can transform these into action. It is unsurprising, given the transition to a new farming scheme, with initially poor communication around its rollout and apprehension among farmers, that there is an underspend of over £350 million in Defra’s budget. Can the Minister confirm that HMT is trying to claw back at least £100 million of this? Research by the RSPB has estimated that this would mean 239,000 fewer hectares of nature-friendly farmland funded in England.
The ELMS budget has already experienced real-term cuts because it was not tied to inflation. The NFU and environmental NGOs have been calling for it to be almost doubled. Can the Minister confirm that Defra is also being asked to plan for cuts of up to 25% to meet the new Chancellor’s spending cuts? The opposition to the Secretary of State’s promises will not be from farmers but from his own Chancellor. Without sufficient resources at this critical time, there will be no chance of meeting the ambitions not only of 30 by 30 but of the legally binding targets set up by the Climate Change and Environment Acts. That is a much more serious problem for farming, the environment and food security.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for securing the debate and getting so many people together to speak on the environment. It was a very clever thing to do. The report is also good, and I thank the committee.
It is an extraordinary experience for me to agree with virtually everything that everybody has said in this debate. That is highly unusual for a Green—even among Greens in the Green Party. I thank your Lordships for the wonderful things that have been said. It is also interesting to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, with whom I mostly agreed—mostly.
If I get irritable during my speech, it is because the Green Party has been saying this sort of thing for 50 years. I have personally been saying it for only 36 years, but it still gets a little repetitive sometimes. In essence, when we look at the basics of human life, without nature, we cease to exist. Without life in our oceans, the whole planet goes awry, and we cease to exist. Nature is not just something to enjoy—although that is a good aspect of it—it is our life support. Nature is resilient but, with humanity’s decimation of our species and habitats, life has become more fragile and precious.
We have conservation programmes across the UK and the globe, but climate change puts them all under threat. There are fewer birds in our skies, fish in our seas and bees on our crops. One in six UK wildlife species is now at risk of extinction. As Britain heats up, plants, insects, birds, animals and people will all need to shift north. That is happening right now and, unless we hit this 2030 target, it is possible that green corridors, the right soils and suitable spaces will not be there for many species.
A report by Wildlife and Countryside Link estimated that just 3% of land and up to 8% of sea are effectively protected for nature in England. I hope that the new Government have not been fooled by the rubbish we had from the last Government about our being on track to meet the 2030 target. It is absolutely clear that we are not on track and have a real problem.
Obviously, the Green Party offers big solutions to these big challenges. First, we need an independent commission for nature, which would protect nature and ensure the restoration of wildlife habitats. This new watchdog should be created as part of a new rights of nature Act that would enshrine the intrinsic value of nature in law. I am so sorry if I am stumbling; I can write with only my left hand at the moment, which I am not very good at, and I am having trouble reading my writing.
This independent commission for nature would set up targets for nature protection and restoration, and would enforce them through the courts; that is a very important issue. This would give individuals, communities and conservation groups the opportunity to take legal action on behalf of nature. We need legislation that sets standards for soil quality and phases out the most harmful pesticides immediately as we move towards regenerative farming methods. Only pesticides that pass this test and demonstrably do not harm bees, butterflies and other wildlife should be approved for use in the UK.
Of course, one quick win would be to stop the use of peat for horticulture. Let us ban imports of peat. Let us stop using it and understand that the damage we do to peat bogs—including peat bogs in other countries where imported peat comes from—is unrecoverable.
I hope that the Minister will do everything that she can to prevent any rollback of the existing protections for the green belt, national landscapes and sites of special scientific interest; I am sure that she will because I know that she cares. Those protections should be strengthened, not weakened. Having clean water in national parks should be obvious but it is not there. Will the Government change the rules to make it compulsory and tell the water company bosses that they will be given community service orders if they dump sewage in Windermere and every other precious waterway? I would love to see some water company bosses on their hands and knees restoring the rivers that they have absolutely trashed, and I know that my friend Feargal Sharkey would love some help with the chalk streams that run through England.
While the Government consult on that, can the Minister urgently publish the regulation and guidance needed to enforce the recent legislation that Peers helped to pass on water companies having duties to further national park purposes? Further, can the Minister promise legislation to make it absolutely clear that national parks are nature designations as well as landscape designations? There is something cold and disconnected about knowing that a beautiful landscape is a poisonous, no-go area for wildlife.
Now we come on to money. The Government will have got off to a bad start if they cut £100 million from their annual budget for nature-friendly farming in England. This cut will mean at least 239,000 fewer hectares of nature-friendly farmland, according to research from the RSPB. The Green Party argues not only that we can afford to promote nature-friendly farming but that—here, we agree with the National Farmers’ Union—a big increase in the budget is an essential step towards promoting havens for wildlife, as well as cleaning up our water supply. The Government want to protect our coastlines and oceans but there is no money to monitor progress or even establish a baseline to work from.
Of course, a ban on bottom trawling is another essential; I really do not understand the delay in making that happen, but the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, covered this issue absolutely fantastically. Could the Minister perhaps make a statement on the appointment of a Minister with a portfolio of responsibility for the international marine environment?
Finally, can we please ratify the Global Ocean Treaty agreement, which seeks to conserve marine biology? I realise that this would be a huge task for a new Government but, if the Government do not come up with the right policies, it will be to all our disbenefit.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I declare my interests, as set out in the register, as a trustee of the Royal Countryside Fund and a director of a tenanted farming business. I was chair of the Rock review, commissioned by the Government, which made recommendations to deliver a more resilient agricultural tenanted sector in three main areas: first, to deliver sustainable food production; secondly, to meet the challenges of climate change; and thirdly, to deliver the improvement and enhancement of biodiversity.
I am also a non-executive director at Defra. However, I am deeply disappointed and, frankly, bewildered that the Secretary of State has decided to terminate my role at the end of this month, despite my only having been appointed four months ago and despite my willingness to continue to serve. In opposition, Labour was a vocal advocate of the tenant farmers and of the Rock review. It sends a worrying message to our vital tenant-farming community that my sector expertise is not recognised by Steve Reed and his ministerial team as being a useful asset. However, I remain resolute in my absolute commitment to our tenant farmers, and I promise to continue to champion them and ensure that they have a fair deal from this Government.
I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and her esteemed committee members on this excellent inquiry into the very ambitious target to protect 30% of land and sea, halt nature decline and protect and improve biodiversity by 2030. I am pleased that the new Government support the commitment that they inherited from their predecessor.
Today, as my noble friend Lord Caithness has mentioned, is Back British Farming Day. In recognition of this important day, I shall focus my remarks on what the report means for our agricultural sector and how our farmers can contribute to the 30 by 30 ambition while ensuring that our nation’s food security, as recognised by this Government, remains a priority.
So what role is there for farming? The government response to the report has rightly recognised the need to work in partnership with farmers as custodians of the countryside, in order to ensure that we balance farming and food production with nature recovery. The response also welcomed the committee’s recognition of the role of the environmental land management schemes to contribute towards 30 by 30, where that works effectively for farmers and farm businesses. However, only parts of some of those schemes will count towards the target, and exactly which schemes has yet to be determined. Furthermore, the committee reported that it had received considerable evidence regarding the challenges of accessing environmental land management schemes in protected areas.
The committee mentions the Farming in Protected Landscapes programme, which delivers improvements for nature in line with local priorities. However, that funding comes to an end in March 2025. Are this Government planning on extending the programme?
We must make sure that tenanted farms are included in achieving long-term nature conservation. That means we need longer tenancy agreements, as recommended in the Rock review. That is important, because length of tenure will allow a tenant farmer to make a more meaningful and effective environmental contribution. It was therefore extremely disappointing to note that tenant farmers are not mentioned at all in the report. That is a glaring omission, given their importance in managing, wholly or partly, 64% of total farmable land in England, including protected sites. Many of their landlords are institutions such as the National Trust, the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Cornwall and, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned, the Church Commissioners. I am extremely grateful to him for bringing up the importance of the Church Commissioners’ tenant farmers, many of whom I have met.
Most landowners have clear environmental goals, but those will not be delivered without those vital tenant farmers who actually manage the land. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm the Prime Minister’s commitment to quickly implement a fair deal for tenant farmers, building on the work of the Rock review.
This Government have announced a new deal for farmers that will include optimising environmental land management schemes to produce the right outcome for all farmers, particularly small, grassland, upland and tenanted farms, while delivering food security and nature recovery in a just and equitable way. They have also announced a rapid review of the environmental improvement plan to be completed by the end of this year. That is to be commended, but I want to inject a note of caution. The National Audit Office expresses concern that the removal of the basic payment and the introduction of the sustainable farming incentive, which is part of ELMS, could see 40% of farms close unless they are able to implement productivity improvements—40% of farmers who could lose their livelihoods. There is concern that 30 by 30 could become yet another danger to farming, alongside all the other targets for housebuilding, tree planting, energy production, accessible nature areas and other infrastructure.
I confine my final remarks to solar energy. The Tenant Farmers Association has told me that it is seeing an increasing number of proposals coming forward for solar farms, many of which are impacting tenanted farmland. Some of these are small-scale and others will be considered as nationally significant infrastructure projects and will end up on the desk of the Secretary of State for final decision. As part of the planning process on land which is subject to an agricultural tenancy, consideration must be given to the impact of the development on the personal circumstances of the tenant farmer where they are not party to the development. Where it is considered that the negative impact will be significant and the tenant farmer’s livelihood is at risk, there would be sufficient evidence to turn down an application for development.
However, a recent decision of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has been a cause of concern. His decision to give consent to a 2,500-acre solar farm being developed on the Cambridgeshire-Suffolk border has sent shock waves through the local community and further afield. The fact that he made his decision against the advice of the Planning Inspectorate is doubly concerning. Contrast that with a more recent decision, albeit on a smaller scale, by Broadland District Council in South Norfolk, which rejected an application for a solar farm on 90 acres of land in part because of the impact on the tenant farmer, who would have lost a significant area of their farming land.
In defence of his decision, the Secretary of State said that he had to make
“tough decisions with ambition and urgency”
as part of a plan to make
“the UK a clean energy superpower”.
However, surely the concerns of local communities and the impact on the viability of a tenant farmer’s business are also relevant when looking at what projects should be considered for approval. What safeguards do tenant farmers have if the Secretary of State simply decides to override those considerations? Yes, a tenant farmer could bring a judicial review against the Secretary of State, but I confess that I have not met a single tenant farmer with deep enough pockets to do that.
Here, it is critical that we go back to the commitment made by the Prime Minister, when he was leader of the Opposition, when he addressed the NFU conference in February 2023:
“Tenant farmers need a fair deal. They need to know their futures are secure ... I want to see more solar farms across the countryside … But we can’t do it by taking advantage of tenant farmers, farmers producing good British food on carefully maintained, fertile land. They can’t plan properly if the soil beneath their feet isn’t secure. It’s a huge barrier to planning sustainable food production, so we’ve got to give them a fair deal, and we’ve got to use our land well”.
The drive towards net zero cannot be the only consideration when deliberating over solar farms. Food security, local community impact, landscape impact, heritage impact and the impact on tenant farmers, who of course do not own the land they farm, all have to be taken into consideration.
Let me put it as simply as I possibly can. Tenant farmers are being evicted right now from their best and most versatile farming land by landlords in favour of solar panels. While I am certainly in favour of solar energy as we seek to rapidly decarbonise energy generation, it cannot and must not come at the cost of the livelihoods of tenant farmers.
I conclude by offering a simple solution to the Minister. We could start with ensuring that the case law, which provides the vital protections to tenant farmers, is fully referenced in the redrafted National Planning Policy Framework, which is currently under consultation. I ask that the Minister brings this to the urgent attention of the Secretaries of State for both Defra and DESNZ.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I just remind noble Lords of the advisory time limit in the debate today.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow my noble friend Lady Rock. I declare my farming and land management interests in Wales. I also declare that I am a member of the Conservative Environment Network.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on securing this debate and the committee on the report that it produced. Although I was not a member of that committee, I was a member of the Land Use in England Committee, whose report recommended the creation of a land use framework, and I have found that many of these reports’ key themes and recommendations complement each other.
The Environment Committee report’s recommendations clearly state that effective collaboration, partnership working and stakeholder co-ordination are crucial for achieving domestic and international biodiversity targets. According to monitoring done by Wildlife and Countryside Link, the condition of SSSIs declined between 2023 and 2024. Link categorised 34.67% of them in good condition and protected for nature in 2024, down from 36.82% a year previously. I therefore strongly urge the Government to focus on restoring nature and biodiversity in these already designated landscapes rather than getting caught up in designating new ones.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Green List regards good governance, sound design and planning and effective management as the baseline components supporting successful conservation outcomes, including interventions such as predation management. As the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust’s research has shown, there are many exemplars where private investment—not tied by prescriptive approaches—has achieved demonstrable success in reversing wildlife declines through evidence-led management, such as in the provision of habitat and interventions such as supplementary feeding and reducing predation pressure during the breeding season. Examples can be seen at the Allerton Project, Holkham, and the Peppering Biodiversity Project.
I am fortunate to have grown up, lived, and worked in Eryri. The national park’s landscape is breathtaking, and I know how hard the offices and volunteers work to preserve it. However, I was shocked to read in the committee’s report that protecting nature is not a statutory duty of protected landscapes, and that in many cases nature is not in a better condition within these areas than outside it.
As my noble friend Lord Caithness has said, we cannot rely solely on top-down directives to support nature recovery. As discussed, guidance exists, but nature has not recovered without proper management and support. The Government must therefore also nurture ground-up, farmer and land-manager-led projects on how they can contribute to the 30 by 30 target. Within that, there is enormous scope here for regenerative agriculture projects.
An example that I want to highlight is the work being done by farmer Teleri Fielden, otherwise known as the Snowdonia shepherdess, who is implementing a conservation grazing plan for her cattle. To enhance species diversity, she has a higher stocking rate in winter followed by a lower stocking rate in the spring and summer in order to allow grasses to grow longer and set seed, and other species to flower. This provides seeds and pollen to insects and birds and cover for small mammals and birds. The grazing land is a mosaic of scrub, trees and semi-natural pasture, and deadwood is not removed due to its habitat value.
The cattle need minimal supplementary feeding apart from hay, thus reducing any nutrient inputs to the land, as excessive nutrient inputs can lead to nutrient leaching and cause certain species to dominate. She undertakes routine faecal egg counting of the cattle and sheep to minimise the use of anthelmintics, and the Ivermectin class of anthelmintics is not used at all—which I hope will please the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This ensures that the livestock manure will only enhance and not reduce insect life on that specific land area. That is particularly prevalent during the winter grazing period for dung beetles and other insects that need food during the winter.
That is an example of what only one farmer can do on their land and shows that engagement and co-operation at scale, via environmental farmers’ groups and farmer clusters, must be built into the core of local nature recovery strategies so that there is understanding and involvement at all levels between the land user and the planning or government scheme with which they are interacting.
I conclude with my questions for the Minister. First, how will the Government commit to building on the creation of ELMS and the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023, which they promised to do in their manifesto, when they are reportedly cutting their nature-friendly farming budget by some £100 million? Secondly, how will the Government balance their stated housebuilding aims with the need to protect and restore natural habitat? It is my opinion that carbon credits and offsetting are just a myth; once a habitat is gone and concreted over, it is gone for ever. Finally, I know that the Minister supported calls to create and introduce a land use framework in England; I am hopeful of and look forward to the positive changes that this will bring. When can we expect this work to start? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on her excellent chairmanship of the Environment and Climate Change Committee and thanking her for her excellent introduction to the committee’s report. I declare my interests as a member of the committee and, as on the register of interests, a farmer with experience of food supply chains.
Needless to say, this report was assembled under the previous Conservative Government. I welcome my noble friend the Minister to her place at the Dispatch Box and look forward to possible new approaches to tackling the long-term decline of biodiversity in the UK. I fully endorse the committee’s report. With the UK being one of the most nature-depleted countries, it is to be welcomed that, in 2022, at COP 15 on biodiversity in Montreal, the Government joined the international commitment to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030 through halting species decline and restoring nature in a sustainable environment—and here, alongside others, I pay tribute to the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the previous Administration in securing this agreement.
The UK has a plethora of conservation designations across a wide range of habitats that have arisen since the introduction of national parks and various site-specific measures since, resulting especially from being a member of the EU. As the report underlines, it is not merely the extent of land and sea; it is the quality of effective conservation and management across the various designations. It must be recognised that national parks were initially set up in legislation to protect the natural beauty of an area rather than its biodiversity. Boundaries were defined in this context where, often, a multitude of activities were being conducted to differing criteria and objectives, reflected in the governance arrangements.
I will pick up two key features contained in the report. With the quantity of designations of protected areas, coupled with the quality of monitoring and the variety of management across these designations, it will be important for the Government and Natural England to identify key partners. This will be extensive and will include the devolved Administrations, councils and utility companies regarding infrastructure and water, as well as associations and their memberships involved in ownership and land management. Arguably, one of the key stakeholders will be farmers, who are involved in managing 70% of the UK’s total land area.
It is opportune that the alternative support system is still under construction following Brexit and is being reflected in environmental public goods. Programmes within the scope of ELMS must be utilised to help the development of the 30% by 2030 policy. It is puzzling that Defra continues to price environmental activity in terms of income forgone instead of paying the appropriate price for the work cost and benefits of public goods; the Government have not recognised food as a public good. I would further argue that this payment formula perpetuates the thinking that food production and conservation are competing priorities.
It is now more important than ever that nature, its conservation and benefits, must work alongside thriving agricultural production and management, to mutual benefit. It was hardly encouraging that previous Conservative Administrations reduced BPS payments progressively and in a short timeframe, before developing credible and effective ELM programmes to lead the transition. These programmes need to be extensive, as well as focused on desired features, to underline the importance of biodiversity and conservation. In addition, it is important that all land management must comply with basic standards and not be made voluntary with regard to opting out to avoid undertaking environmental responsibilities.
I also underline the importance of the 30% by 2030 policy across all departments of government of both the UK and devolved Administrations. We should not categorise the policy as merely the responsibility of Defra. In this regard, biodiversity and nature conservation are recognised across government, to some extent—as reflected, for example, in the stipulation of biodiversity net gain within planning and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The challenge is to take the culture and outlook across the silos of government and not simply put differing concepts into differing departments without joining them up. I welcome that Natural England is now undertaking a multifaceted approach known as “whole-feature assessment” as it monitors management across the various protection designations.
My second key feature of the report concerns the land use framework. I declare here the added interest of being a member of the Land Use in England Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. My noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, among others speaking in today’s debate, was a member of that committee.
The report strongly recommended setting up a land use commission, underlining the importance of the multifunctional aspects of land. This will necessarily recognise all the competing challenges in land use across government. It is vital that the thinking of the previous Conservative Government to constrain land use to Defra jurisdiction only must not persist into the new Administration. If the 30% by 2030 policy is to be fully embraced and implemented, competing claims for land can be recognised and, I hope, integrated from this multifunctional approach to land use. This has been recognised to a certain extent—for example, in nature recovery strategies within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The pressure on land must be integrated across competing uses and seen to work together, so that land can achieve the best outcome between uses including housing, infrastructure, transport, energy distribution and leisure. Not the least of this is to fulfil the pledge of achieving 30% of land being effectively managed for nature over time.
I conclude by drawing attention to the Crown Estate legislation currently going through your Lordships’ House and to the benefits that the Crown Estate could bring, being the third-largest landowner in the UK, with responsibility for ownership of coastal marine areas. The Crown Estate could provide valued leadership in furthering biodiversity and nature conservation.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Parminter and her committee on producing this report. It is both an impressive route map for government and a salutary report, as it shows the scale of the work needed. As the report states, one of the keys to achieving the target, besides firm and unwavering government support, is public buy-in. This is what I want to talk about today.
The recommendation in paragraph 80 is that
“the Government expand the role of robust citizen science”.
The report underlines the importance of citizen science in helping assess the achievement of targets. It is undoubtedly also a way of capturing the hearts and minds of participants.
I still remember well, aged 18, doing my A-levels, recording everything I could find in my square metre above Pickering—I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is here today. As a southern, lowlands girl, I really had not seen sundews before, and it was thrilling.
There are many citizen science projects, whether by genus or by ecosystem, and I should just run through a few that are happening at the moment. I am sure that noble Lords have taken part in some of these. There is the Big Garden Bird Watch from the RSPB. As its CEO, Beccy Speight, says,
“With birds now facing so many challenges due to the nature and climate emergencies, every count matters. By taking part, individuals are not only practicing their own mindfulness, but they are also part of something much bigger”.
I think that captures what I want to say here very well. Then there is the Big Butterfly Count, which usually takes place during July and August. For amphibians and reptiles, there is advice on frog spawn, for example; or, in Scotland, on helping to restore the natterjack toad’s habitats. The UK Tree Health Citizen Science Network has been formed from a group of individuals and organisations working across a range of projects and activities that engage people with trees.
Particularly topical is River Watch, which the Canals and Rivers Trust is running in order to involve the public in checking rivers for sewage and other pollution. I am sure the noble Lords do not need me to remind them that, when the UK was in the EU, we were subject to the water framework directive, which meant that the Government had the responsibility to carry out detailed pollution analysis of waterways and report every year. There has not been a survey done along the lines of the water framework directive since 2019, so I ask the Minister what the Government will use as a replacement for the water framework directive survey.
Then there is Buglife, a very energetic campaigning organisation that involves people in monitoring both the good, such as grasshoppers, and the bad, such as the invasive flatworm, which usually comes in with imported pot plants. Buglife’s website headlines a quotation that I think is worth repeating here, from Sir David Attenborough:
“If we and the rest of the back-boned animals were to disappear overnight, the rest of the world would get on pretty well. But if the invertebrates were to disappear, the world’s ecosystems would collapse.”
I congratulate Buglife on outlining why insects are so important, and it has been doing it for a long time—for example, on bees, which have just been in the headlines.
Then there are the wildlife trusts. They are particularly important, with over 900,000 members and 39,000 volunteers, who work together to make their local area wilder and make nature a bigger part of everyday life. Local nature reserves are very accessible to people, and something that people can feel is theirs. We need to encourage this feeling that nature is both our responsibility and ours to enjoy. That will be critical to achieving 30 by 30 and reversing biodiversity decline more widely.
Although digital tools are terrific—I must admit to being a huge fan of the Merlin app, because I do not see all that well, and being able to recognise a bird by its song or cry is incredibly helpful—they just do not replace the actual experience of walking through that damp, mossy wood, finding the first wood anemone announcing spring or seeing the flash of greeny-yellow and hearing the yaffle of the woodpecker; or, even better, of lying on the warm summer grass, watching the blue butterflies and trying to identify one blue from another, which I seldom succeed in: is it a holly blue or an adonis blue?
I am sorry that the Government are not going to extend the right to roam. Too much of our countryside is still inaccessible to the public. In the year 2000, the Labour Government made such a good start with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is here because, as the Minister responsible, he really spent day and night, including many nights in Committee, achieving the outcomes of that Act.
The Labour manifesto mentioned nine new national riverside walks and three new national forests. Can the Minister give any idea of timescale for these? Importantly also, when Steve Reed was shadow Minister, he mentioned that there would be a White Paper on access to nature. That would be really important and should be an integral part of helping us to achieve what is suggested in this excellent report.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I declare that I am a member of the Conservative Environment Network and Peers for the Planet. I pay tribute to the committee for its thorough report and for holding the feet of government to the fire in delivering this vital mission, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the chair, for a frank and moving rallying cry, kick-starting what has been a fantastic debate so far.
This country has long played a leading role around the world in tackling biodiversity loss and improving the environment. A lot comes down to the many fantastic organisations and campaigners in our arsenal, but working hand in glove you need a Government to lead. I pay tribute to my former colleagues and friends who worked tirelessly to achieve successful COPs in both Glasgow and Montreal; this goes especially to my very good and noble friends Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Lord Sharma, who is newly ennobled, both of whom I worked with especially closely on this whole agenda while I was privileged to be in the Foreign Office and Downing Street.
Will the Minister set out what the Government will push at the upcoming biodiversity COP? More broadly, is there any indication of what the Government’s review of the environmental improvement plan means in practice? I hope that it means that we can expect not just more deliverables but more funding.
There are three specific areas that I would like to address. The first relates to access to nature. The report notes the importance of nature corridors and connectivity between sites. The previous Government set out the nature recovery network. To what extent will this Government commit to that as part of their review, and perhaps even commit to go much further by strengthening this network?
A study from Wildlife and Countryside Link has shown that the most deprived communities in England are more than twice as likely to live in areas with a low amount of natural space per person. I know that the Government have scrapped the levelling up department, but the concept of levelling up should still be delivered. This dovetails with the whole debate on the green belt—and I know that not all the green belt is the Chilterns, but there is now an open tension between building on the green belt and the need to protect and enhance it and create habitats that are publicly accessible.
We have to build more homes, but we can also improve green spaces. Many cities and urban centres have potential locations nearby, where disused and ugly sites can become accessible woodlands, wetland and other green spaces. That all takes me back to when Labour was last in power and I was a little bit younger, when from memory I think there was a similar push. I remember Lord Prescott saying, “The green belt is Labour’s achievement, and we intend to build on it”.
To what extent is Defra working with MHCLG on the revised NPPF? What specific action is Defra taking to improve nature and biodiversity provision on the green belt? Do the Government believe in the target of living within 15 minutes’ walk to a green space or water, as set by the previous Government?
On the second area which I wish to discuss, the report and then Government talked about data and citizen science, ensuring that the public have better understanding of sites. I think that we can go much further and really focus on what more we can do for young people, in echoing what I thought was a beautiful speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich.
I shall give a personal reflection. I am lucky to be the father of two very young daughters. Sophia is three and Helena is seven months. Out on walks with the dog or in the garden, my eldest often fills my pockets with snail shells, feathers, leaves and acorns; to her, these are the most precious things at that time. She does not think twice about putting her bare hands in the soil or jumping around in muddy puddles. We are lucky enough to have a reasonably sized back garden where Sophia and I have planted plants since the day she could walk, made ponds from old washing-up tubs and sown flower seeds and grass in areas and let them go wild—and we probably now have more bird feeders than there are in London Zoo. She and I often sit to watch the birds in the garden, sniff flowers, see dragonflies zoom around, enjoy the bats at night and watch the cameras to see the foxes and hedgehogs—and we both have, just in the last few days, seen not just frogs but our first toad.
Yes, of course I would like to take credit for that— I love it; my dad did the same for me, and it did stick eventually—but why is it that, when we grow a little bit, we lose interest in the outdoors? A few years ago, a study showed that there is a sharp dip in people’s connection with nature from the age of 11 onwards, with a slow recovery around the age of 30; the average age for nature-connectedness was 61. What can we do to maintain that fascination and longing throughout young people’s lives?
When I was in government, I often sat in debates on education with my noble friend Lady Barran; she would frequently talk about the incredible work that some schools were doing to inspire children and bring nature into the curriculum. One fantastic initiative caught my eye. Last year, the National Education Nature Park was launched to inspire young people not just to learn about biodiversity but to take action locally, to improve their school and to bring nature closer. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that scheme; I hope that the department will work with the DfE to continue to encourage more schools, nurseries and colleges to take it on so that we not only engage young people but inspire them, educate them and give them an understanding of our own environment, of nature, of what food is and of where food comes from.
That brings me to my third point, which concerns farming. Noble Lords—especially those on the two Front Benches, particularly on this side—will, I am sure, have come across James Rebanks and one of his incredible books, English Pastoral. The opening chapter is one of the most beautiful things I have ever read. He talks about his journey with farming and nature, starting as a young kid, as something that is passed down through generations yet represents the bond between man, nature and the countryside. It reminded me of my own youth with my dad up in Lancashire, rocking up to farms to see his pals, being dragged through fields and hills and wading through mud. In truth, at the time, as he drove round the country lanes and roads in a mudded-up Land Rover, I never really understood nor appreciated the beauty of the land around me. I also never appreciated how there is a world beyond the towns and cities; how the bond, perhaps better called a contract, between man and the land and seas around us works; or why all this matters.
Other noble Lords have mentioned farming. It goes without saying that we need farmers for their knowledge and understanding—not to mention what they produce. The previous Government introduced the environmental land management schemes. As the report acknowledges, they will make a contribution to nature recovery; some sites could be included in the 30 by 30 target. However, as has already been noted, just as the uptake is rising after yet another stressful year, the Government have taken £100 million out of the budget. Yes, this scheme is new, and all new things can be improved and take time to embed, but what does that say about this Government’s faith in farming, never mind nature? Can the Government assure farmers that they remain committed to farming and agriculture, and that ELMS and their funds will remain in place? Is there any broader reassurance against any future cuts to Defra as a whole? Surely, if it is the right thing, the Government should support the scheme wholeheartedly—not just because it is right to give support to farmers but because it is right for nature. After a period of change and challenges, certainty for farmers matters.
We need to go much further, as we have all said. We need not just to build on the green belt but to improve it. We need not to take money away from farmers but to help them produce food and increase biodiversity. We need not to treat nature and wildlife as a “nice to have” but to put natural capital at the heart of policy across government.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests on the register. I declare that, up until I took my seat in this House in March, I was the interim chair—and, prior to that, deputy chair—of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, although I am no longer on its board and do not speak for it today. I am also a practising King’s Counsel in environmental and planning law; I have a number of clients affected in various ways by environmental designations. I am a member of Peers for the Planet. I am also a donor and pro bono adviser to the Save Me Trust, an animal welfare and environmental charity.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the Environment and Climate Change Committee on their excellent and comprehensive report. The need to stem the decline in our nature, both terrestrial and marine, is truly urgent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, nature is our life support system. It provides the air we breathe, the climate we need, the water we drink, the food we eat and the materials we use. However, it is now on life support in far too many places. The ambitious words of the 30 by 30 pledge will address this only if they are matched by ambitious actions. The committee’s report has laid down the gauntlet for the incoming Government; I encourage them to pick it up without hesitation or qualification.
I highlight the following points in particular. First, as the committee's report recognises, there is a pressing need for the Government to publish an action plan detailing how the 30 by 30 target will be delivered. The alternative is directionless drift. Secondly, proper resourcing is critical. The committee’s report notes how budget cuts have hampered effective monitoring and evaluation of ecological habitats, in particular of SSSIs. I have seen myself how resource constraints have posed perennial difficulties for the JNCC, whose critical UK-wide role in nature conservation and recovery is recognised by the report. If we are to do the job of nature recovery properly, proper investment is needed. Public finances may be finite, but do not the Government agree that nature is surely at least as deserving of a pay rise as train drivers?
Thirdly, much is said in the report about the importance of working with the farming and fishing communities to transition them towards more sustainable practices. That is of course right, and appropriate incentives and collaboration to that end are to be welcomed. However, the carrot needs to be accompanied by the stick. Both industries have, to be frank, a lot to answer for in terms of their contribution to the nature crisis our country finds itself in. Greater incentives need to come with greater regulation. Environmental principles require that the polluter pays, yet all too often the polluter gets paid. Nutrient neutrality rules mean that farmers get paid millions of pounds by developers to take agricultural land out of use, despite the fact that the nutrient pollution which necessitates this is a direct result of the very same farmers’ use of chemical fertilisers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, described— I agree with everything she said in this respect—fishing boats are still able to profit from bottom trawling, to the detriment of fragile marine ecosystems, even in marine protected areas. The role of the state should not be simply to bribe polluters to change their ways but to ensure that the law makes them pay a heavy price if they do not do so.
Fourthly, strengthening the protection of AONBs, or national landscapes, as they are now known, and enlarging them where that is supported by evidence, is, as the report suggests, an important part of achieving 30 by 30. It is equally important, however, to remember that the task is conservation of nature, not preservation of the status quo. The two are different concepts. Change does not always mean harm. For too long, the relationship between nature conservation and new development has, in many people’s minds, been mutually exclusive. That is a misconception. Done properly, proportionately and in the right places, sensitive developments to meet local needs can add to the biodiversity of protected sites and, in fact, contribute towards delivering the aims of 30 by 30—at no cost to the public purse.
Finally, restoring 30% of our land and sea by 2030 must not mean that the remaining 70% is ignored. We must strive to conserve and enhance not just designated habitats and species, but all our precious nature. I conclude by saying that, in the last decade, almost a quarter of a million badgers have been slaughtered in culls which the Labour Party manifesto conceded were “ineffective” —a concession which Sir Brian May’s recent documentary on the subject clearly demonstrates is correct. The Government’s recent announcement that the culls will not cease until the end of this Parliament has come as a huge disappointment to those who took the manifesto pledge to “end the culls” at face value. It also begs the fundamental question: if the Government accept that the culls are ineffective, why are they not taking more immediate action? Can the Minister confirm how many more badgers will be killed before the ineffective culls finally come to an end, and how are those ongoing deaths consistent with the policy commitment urgently to reverse the decline in our nature?
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate that speech. I have to echo a lot of what has already been said by many noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, recalled that many years ago, when we were opposite numbers on the right to roam Bill, we were addressing the problems of squaring access with beautifying the countryside, but also starting to talk about reversing the decline in biodiversity—which, regrettably, has got significantly worse since then.
I then spent four years at Defra, largely dealing with the common agricultural policy and various livestock pandemics. I do not remember much attention being paid to the greening of the countryside, nor do I remember addressing the designation of protected areas until very late in my role, when I received a question from a noble Lord about SSSIs. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the favourable status of SSSIs declining dramatically; it was already declining when I received this question, and it has not been reversed.
Monitoring the areas we have already designated has been ineffective. The main purpose of the other protected areas is not greening, increasing biodiversity or whatever; it is the beauty of and access to the landscape, and ensuring that fairly large areas have a degree of protection from industrialisation or residential development.
This is a complex problem, because people assume that the label of protection, which includes AONBs and national parks, actually means something to do with nature. In reality, it means relatively little. The whole thing has to be reversed. The public do not fully understand them, normal maps used for walking or visiting the countryside do not mark them, there is little effective status to these designations and there are too many of them.
I hope that part of the future programme will look at the current designations and see if we can go further, using them as a tool in the context of the broader land use strategy we are supposed to be developing. We can then begin to meet the targets that were—I think the word is “boldly”—designated by the Government and adopted internationally. I praise the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and others who committed to and are pushing that, but the fact is that the whole structure of designation, of regulation and of the resources available to regulators such as the Environment Agency, Natural England and local government has reduced in this area in recent years. I hope that we are about to turn a corner and that new Ministers recognise the need for that.
This is broader than that, because the biggest environmental and land use policy, the principles of which we all approved in the last Parliament, in the Environment Act and the Agriculture Act, envisages improvement in what is usually referred to as carbon reduction and greening but is agricultural practice more broadly. That needs driving in a new direction. Unfortunately, most of the schemes that have come out, particularly in the Agriculture Bill, make the mistake of emphasising hiving off from farming bits of land that are to be regarded as green and as contributing to biodiversity targets.
Some of that has to happen, but we will not achieve our targets if we do not also address the problem of making sure that food production, which should continue at a high level, also becomes greener, less carbon intensive and less biodiversity destroying. If we hive off bits of agricultural land, grazing land and upland land in particular, from the requirement to help meet biodiversity targets, we will be making a serious mistake. There is no need for there to be such diverse problems.
One of the issues for the ELMS strategy is that we deliver an outcome that is consistent and points in the same direction, instead of dividing up land into different parcels with substantially different biodiversity approval rates. That strategy has to be abandoned.
We have not tackled the problem of marine areas. We have designated some as higher marine areas, but we have not taken steps to reduce fishing and dredging in our inshore and beach areas. Unless we do that, we will not fulfil the target on the marine side. There is a great possibility of managing to do so on the land, but there is a lot more to do on the marine side, starting, as someone suggested earlier, with banning bottom dredging.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I add my voice in welcoming this excellent report and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and her committee on it and on securing the debate today. I declare my interests: I sit on the rural interest group of the Church of England Synod, and I am a patron of Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services. In upper Teesdale, almost 50% of the farms are tenanted, as they are in North Yorkshire, where I was an MP. As with every area of policy—this is no exception—we need to balance the interest of preserving nature and the natural world with that of those engaged in making a living and running a business in that environment. There is always a danger, which may flow from mapping and monitoring, of setting arbitrary targets that are too prescriptive and threaten that balance, as set out in the report.
I shall take a perhaps more parochial and domestic view than that of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, whom I congratulate on what he achieved at COP 15. I will look at SSSIs and national parks, where setting planning policies too strictly prevents farmers and businesses, such as tourism and hospitality, from operating freely. The report has an omission, in that it does not reflect on the role of farmers and businesses in this regard, and indeed that of fishermen in protecting and restoring our seas. We must allow them to ply their trade, earn a living and provide food for the country.
Marine life faces a threat from the development and operation of offshore wind farms. We took evidence on this in the previous EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I firmly believe that more research needs to be done in this area.
Farmers play a crucial role as custodians of the countryside and are integral to rural communities. Farmers manage 70% of the UK’s land area and must be regarded as key partners in nature conservation. They have faced a plethora of changes in the new schemes in a very short timeframe and, frankly, an IT system that is not fit for purpose. Recognising their contribution to the natural world will encourage and incentivise landowners and tenants alike to increase their engagement in policy. In developing the 30 by 30 policy, we must recognise the role of farmers on the land and ensure that nature conservation, if it is to be successful, is underpinned by a prosperous, economically viable farming sector.
Farmers have faced a major reset of policy since we left the European Union, and the more that environmental programmes such as ELMS and SFI have regard to the public good and allowing farmers to do that work, the better. Farmers need clarity and certainty in that regard going forward. After seven years of specific support under the CAP, farmers need to be able to create a long-term viable business plan.
Will the Minister, who I welcome to her place today, commit to Defra spending the identified underspend of £358 million over three years? Will she ensure that that money is spent not just on nature conservation but in working with farmers to ensure that they are allowed to grow crops and produce food to boost food security, self-sufficiency and increased exports abroad?
The position of tenant farmers has been ably expressed by a number of speakers, notably my noble friend Lady Rock and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. This issue is particularly key in upland areas and on family farms in SSSI areas; the role of national parks here must be made clearer. In many instances, tenants are simply not able to claim for environmental schemes as they do not own the land on which they farm. I understand from UTASS that some 70 farming families are stuck in agreements at this time; that the agreements are almost 20 years old; that there has been no review of payments; and that those in the schemes have no ability to enter or transfer into SFI or country stewardship schemes. That is unacceptable. I understand that Natural England has a role in this regard, but we have to query whether it has the resources and the time to commit to this matter at this crucial stage.
ELMS has not emerged as the simpler, less complex, easy-to-administer scheme that farmers and the public were promised. That has to change. We must also end this piecemeal approach to reform and have a comprehensive and holistic approach that recognises what works and when. For example, an area that is good for wading birds is simply not suitable for rewilding or tree planting. I endorse entirely what my noble friend Lady Rock has said. It is unacceptable to propose booting a tenant farmer off the land that they have farmed for a generation in north Yorkshire in order to make way for yet another solar farm. That is not the way forward.
In summing up today, will the Minister undertake to consult closely with farmers and farming organisations going forward as the Government create new policy, starting with forthcoming Bills such as the Water (Special Measures) Bill but including—even more importantly—the Budget on 30 October? We must recognise the specific challenges that farmers have faced over the past five years: the fallout from Covid; imperfect supply chains; the higher input costs of energy and fertilisers, with poorer returns and a shortage of labour; and extreme weather, together with major flooding.
I disagree with my noble friend Lord Banner, whom I welcome to his place. I chaired the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee when we did a degree of work looking at how, if we were to dispense with the badger cull, we would have to accept badgers continuing, across the country, to introduce TB into herds that are currently not infected. I urge my noble friend to reconsider his views in this regard; in saying that, I hope not to be attacked by badger lovers, as I have been previously.
I would like to say a word on sites of special scientific interest. As I mentioned previously, I understand that changes to those schemes must be endorsed by Natural England. Does it have the resources? Will the Minister look at this and perhaps write to me afterwards?
Following today’s report, I ask the Minister to set out what is going to change. Will Defra be clearer about how its 30 by 30 ambition links with other policies, including the Environment Act, the protected landscape targets, the land use framework, the local nature recovery strategies, Natural England’s designation programme and national planning policies? Will she ensure that there is an SFI option for upland and moorland to ensure a sustainable future for upland and family farms? Will Defra ensure that farmers and other businesses working in the countryside are able to do their jobs, while enhancing the environment as conservationists at the same time?
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I was a member of the committee that produced this report, under the superb chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, which made it a most enjoyable experience. I welcome the Government’s commitment to 30 by 30. I suggest that the best way of getting there, because it will not be easy, is to involve the public on a large scale. Conservation should be everywhere, not over there. It should not be something which is done in reserves that you never visit and in places managed by other people; it should be in green spaces in towns and cities. We want people to develop a close connection with nature, at scale. It is good both for nature and for people. Access to nature is a key policy, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said, and it should be a very strong government objective to move in that direction.
The concept of OECMs—other effective area-based conservation measures—provides a route for doing that. They are defined as:
“A geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in-situ conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem functions and services and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio-economic, and other locally relevant values”.
As my noble friend Lord Gascoigne said, an obvious place to start is the National Education Nature Park, so I urge Defra to reach across to the Department for Education and find ways of being supportive of that initiative, which has a very strong Civil Service team associated with it and has made a good start. It is hugely important that we build back an understanding and appreciation of nature. Children are the right place to start, not just for their own sake but because they involve their parents. It is much the easiest and quickest way to do it.
Beyond that, the Department for Education is—or at least was—building on the idea of a natural history GCSE. It seems, from what has been said to date, that nature might form a greater part of the 11 to 16 curriculum. We have a very strong base for the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award in schools, a substantial part of which is about getting children out into nature—not just trekking around the countryside but, in truly urban schools, doing things in urban environments. Please can Defra make links with these organisations? They would really benefit from the skills, experience and contacts Defra can bring.
A corner of a school’s grounds is a perfect example of a potential OECM. We can move from there to bits of park, riverbanks, patches of green, graveyards and belfries—for the bats, if nothing else. Indeed, my wood in Kent, which the public have access to, would be an excellent OECM—as, indeed, would my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s garden, I expect. We ought also to focus on the commitments made by developers under biodiversity net gain. There is a huge potential for them to be promised on the day and neglected for years afterwards and never really looked at.
We need to make sure that 30 by 30 becomes part of everyone’s lives. We need to set up a structure, in a way that is easy to use and understand, to register an OECM, so that it is easy to volunteer and there are structures for insurance, training and getting the authority to operate. We need to provide public data on what the OECMs are so that everybody knows what is where and what is going on.
Please can we make much better use of the amateur workforce to monitor and judge what is going on? There is a huge resource out there. I was part of it in my teens, and I am again now—and if the Government’s plans go ahead, I will have a lot more time for it. It is a huge and expert community; it produces dictionaries of what is going on, with what kind of species, across the UK. We ought to be involved in monitoring SSSIs. The equipment is there. Everything is electronic these days: you record what you have seen, it all goes into a common database, and what you have seen is verified and accompanied by pictures. Why do you have to wait six years to monitor an SSSI? Just ask the local botanical recording society or whoever is relevant to look at it every year. Get yourself a real flow of data. We would love to do it; we just do not get asked. We must make sure that data collection is happening in a way that produces a flow of data into a common data source, as many of these things do. It needs a bit of organising, and public effort, and then the Government can devote their resources to auditing to make sure that that public effort is achieving what it should. There is real potential there to do much better, using people who would just like to be asked.
To change subjects, I think there is also a very big opportunity for raising biodiversity in lowland broadleaved woodland. We have got a pattern of declining biodiversity, which has been documented by, for instance, the Rothamsted Insect Survey and the British Trust for Ornithology. A pattern of declining use is probably responsible for that. Look at what is happening worldwide. I visited the forestry authorities in Japan, where there is very much the same pattern. It is due to people not spending as much time as they did earning their living in the woods. However, there are ways of bringing woods back into use that will create a much more biodiverse woodland structure, resulting from woodlands being a source of concentrated carbon. If we are going to replace fossil fuels in the chemical industry, we are going to need to use every potential source of concentrated carbon, and in woodlands we have such a source.
What we do not have at the moment is a really strong organisation to collect that resource. There are bits of it there; there are organisations such as the Environmental Farmers Group and effective collective organisations of farmers, which could deliver enough product in enough volume consistently. There are potential technologies that could make use of that wood: woodchip is beginning to be used to create jet fuel, for instance, but it is at an early stage. We would need to create a system of contractors to collect the woodland material and deliver it to those who would use it. We have promised to do this by 2050. That is not a long time, and we need to be thinking about how that structure would work.
Something that did that would also offer a solution to what we do with the contents of farm slurry pits and other farm waste, because anything with concentrated carbon in it is going to have a value and a place in our economy. There are ways that we can get to 30 by 30. Defra is at the centre of this, and I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has a very enjoyable five years helping us get there.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is an honour to bat clean-up in such an esteemed debate as this. It is difficult to say something new, but I have a different angle to offer—perhaps that of a critical friend.
What an extraordinary challenge it is to restore 30% of our land and sea by 2030. Some might suggest other adjectives for it: a grandiose challenge, possibly a hubristic challenge, a distracting challenge, maybe an unnecessary challenge, and quite possibly an insurmountable challenge. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the Environment and Climate Change Committee for throwing such a forensic and unforgiving light upon it. I hope the Government reflect upon this excellent report and the important contributions to this debate, and ask themselves why exactly we are doing this, can we do this and do we necessarily even want to do this.
Environmental protection and the restoration of our nature-depleted nation is vitally important, but signing up to arbitrary targets that are unsuited to the character of our densely populated island, and which our fragile rural economy simply cannot deliver, will distract from the more important tasks of sustainably feeding the nation while protecting our wider landscape from the degradations of climate change and an expanding population, and the pressures of the Government’s ambitious economic agenda.
We are nearly half way through the 10-year 30 by 30 programme and yet we cannot even agree what we are seeking to achieve and what success looks like. The committee says that we have achieved 6.5% protection as of July 2023, “at a maximum”. Defra countered in December that 8.5% counted towards 30 by 30, and it produced a map identifying an additional 26.8% as potential 30 by 30. Meanwhile, Wildlife and Countryside Link suggests we had merely 3.11% coverage in October 2023, but that number, according to a recent briefing, has since fallen to just 2.93%.
The disparity in numbers proves only one thing: we have no idea what we are doing. We have an alphabet soup of landscape “protections”—SSSIs, SACs, LNRSs, Ramsars, OECMs, HLS, CS, SFIs, NRPs—overseen by a squadron of statutory bodies, each with different targets and ambitions, but no one can agree what qualifies even as “protected” status, let alone the “restored” status required for 30 by 30. SSSIs are considered the baseline, which cover 8% of our landscape, but so few SSSIs are in favourable condition, and the monitoring is so sparse and intermittent that we cannot evaluate progress. Either we agree to a readily identifiable and measurable metric and stick to it, or we should abandon 30 by 30 altogether.
Today is Back British Farming Day—I note my interests as a Devon farmer and land manager. The next five years will be a crucial for our farming industry as we bed in the Government’s two key farming objectives: food security—which we all know is national security—and environmental land management, the transition to which should be completed by 2027 or 2028. Given that land enrolled in agri-environment schemes does not count towards 30 by 30, we simply cannot achieve these two key objectives while also “protecting” an additional 25% of our land. The maths simply do not work. We cannot create more land, and yet the Government also want to build 1.5 million homes, improve infrastructure, increase access to nature and expand onshore renewables. We cannot do it all.
Of course, had we a developed and functioning land use framework, we might have the ability to assess this and to weigh the competing demands upon our limited and vulnerable land supply—but we do not, and without it such grandiose and complex ambitions as 30 by 30 are not achievable. They should be shelved. We cannot run before we can walk, and currently we can barely crawl. Could the Minister please confirm when the Government plan to launch their land use strategy, and honour the tireless work of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone?
Who or what is going to pay for this challenge, other than the farmers deprived of their economic opportunity? The Government are yet to confirm even the agri-environment budget for this Parliament, and, given the fiscal black hole and the strains on the public purse, I cannot see any more money becoming available. Private finance is much heralded but it is struggling to work out the relatively simple carbon and nutrient neutrality markets, let alone the complexities of biodiversity and nature restoration. Farmers’ incomes are decreasing and, to recall a hackneyed truth, they cannot go green while in the red. Can the Minister please clarify whether the Government have conducted any assessment of the cost of 30 by 30?
The most compelling evidence of the state of our protected landscapes is the Independent Review of Protected Site Management on Dartmoor, commissioned by Defra and chaired by the truly extraordinary David Fursdon, which reported in December 2023. It is current and is based on detailed evidence gathered from a broad array of stakeholders. It is well researched and clearly articulates a complex and very sorry account of the state of one of our country’s most iconic protected landscapes. I highly recommend it to all noble Lords and specifically request that the Minister read it in detail.
Much of Dartmoor has been protected via SSSI and other designations for nearly 50 years—as long as the Green Party has been in place—yet the review concludes that Dartmoor is
“not in a good state”
and that its protection needs
“to change radically and urgently”.
There is no record of the condition of the land when it was designated, so there are no means to determine whether it is now better or worse. Worse still, there are no staff available to monitor and manage the protected land today. Dartmoor was once served by 12 Natural England staff but now has only one and a half. Relations between farmers, commoners and Natural England are poor, communications are fraught and trust has all but disappeared. No one can even agree what land management prescriptions are required to restore this vital and yet fragile landscape; stocking densities are allegedly too high and yet also far too low.
The solution is long-term data collection, sensitive and skilful management and the building of genuine partnerships and trust, underpinned by committed funding over multiple years. This is not something that can be fixed by 2030 with grandstanding, ill-informed designations backed up by inadequate financial and regulatory support.
In the interests of time, I have largely confined my comments to the terrestrial elements of 30 by 30 and have not ventured out to sea. That is not because I see the marine environment as any less important; it is not. Given the ambitious programme of offshore wind revealed in our recent debate on the Crown Estate Bill, the marine environment is in as much need of protection as the land, if not more. To that end, can the Minister please confirm where Defra has got to on marine net gain? I know that a consultation concluded last year but I have heard nothing further. Just as BNG has been rolled out for all land-based development, MNG is essential as we seek to harness the renewable power of our seas and oceans.
In conclusion, this Government have quite rightly made some bold decisions on a number of fronts in their first few months in office, jettisoning policies at an impressive rate, driven by budgetary constraints and an eye to the practical and the possible. Can we hope that they might make a sensible and brave decision and shelve this undoubtedly worthy but impractical and unobtainable goal of 30 by 30?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in standing in for my noble friend Lord Roborough, who could not be present at the start of this debate, I must tell the Committee that the last time I clutched a Dispatch Box desperately seeking inspiration was Thursday 20 March 1997. I was the last Conservative Minister to answer a departmental Question at 3.15 pm, immediately followed by John Major answering his last PMQs, and then we prorogued for the general election. Some 28 years later I am an example of His Majesty’s policy of patching up and mending old things, and putting them to work again.
I need to declare my interests as on the register but to go further too. I remain for the next three months the deputy chair of Natural England. I have checked with the clerks and, while I can talk factually about nature, Natural England, this report and the last Government’s response, under the Addison rule I cannot speak officially for Natural England, nor answer questions about its activities or advocate its policies—only the Minister can do that. Because of my position in Natural England, I am automatically on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, so I leave it to the Minister to say what a brilliant job we are doing in Natural England.
I welcome the Minister to her post. There is no one better on the Labour Benches in the Lords to do it, and she is an excellent addition to the Defra ministerial team.
I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and all the noble Lords who conducted the 30 by 30 inquiry, on their recommendations. I also commend the 16 noble Lords who have spoken today. They made excellent points, including in the superb speech by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, who is welcome to take this seat back any time he likes.
A lot has happened since the report was published in July 2023, and not just the change of Government. Noble Lords have read the last Government’s response, and in the changed circumstances I see no point in rehashing it all today. The report called for national parks to be given a new statutory duty to protect nature, and Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act imposed a new duty to do just that; I hope that my noble friend Lord Harlech will be reassured by that. As I recall, that was the Lord Randall amendment in the Lords.
The report called for local nature recovery strategies to be given statutory underpinning in local development plans. Schedule 7 to the levelling-up Act did that; I believe that was the Baroness Parminter amendment. On SSSIs, I say to my noble friend Lord Harlech that Natural England has now moved fully to assessing the condition of SSSI features at the site scale, and the focus is on bringing SSSI condition assessments up to date and in line with the EIP target to complete this by the end of January 2028—although that is highly dependent on not cutting Natural England’s grant in aid.
Natural England is also progressing the EIP target to have action under way and on track by January 2028, which will bring 50% of SSSI features into favourable condition. Natural England is continuing to look for improvements in the approach to monitoring —to make more use of modern technology, such as earth observation, to increase the contribution of participatory science, and to utilise condition assessments gathered by third parties, such as ENGOs, which my noble friend Lord Lucas called for—and we aim to grow that.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, that I have been involved in about six new SSSI designations or extensions. They may not be many in number but two were absolutely massive, including a large one down in west Cornwall—which was slightly controversial—and another large one near RAF Fairford and the waterworks around there.
The report underplays the role played by national nature reserves, which I argue are a legitimate component of other effective conservation measures. I submit that the country’s NNRs meet the OECM criteria defined in CBD 15 and in the Government’s nature recovery Green Paper. There are currently 221 national nature reserve sites, which comprise 110,000 hectares or 427 square miles. That is 0.85% of England’s area. Natural England manages 134, the Wildlife Trusts 50, the National Trust 20, local authorities 29 and the RSPB, National Parks, other NGOs and other government agencies 34.
Let me cite a superb example: the new, supersized Purbeck Heaths NNR announced in 2020. Seven organisations manage it: Natural England, the National Trust, the RSPB, the Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust, the Dorset Wildlife Trust, Forestry England and the Rempstone Estate. The new NNR is larger than the original NNR, which was 996 hectares—it is now 3,331 hectares, a 234% increase. It is better, as it is increasing biodiversity and creating a more dynamic and resilient landscape, and it is more joined up, as it has a huge continuous grazing area and landscape-scale objectives.
Another excellent example is the Somerset Wetlands “super” NNR which links up six pre-existing national nature reserves on the Somerset Levels and Moors. It is managed in partnership by Natural England, the Environment Agency and five other NGOs. The crucial point is that some say NNRs should not be included in the OECM category nor count towards 30 by 30, since they are not statutorily protected—but that is a feeble point. These organisations are all approved by Natural England to manage reserves properly and bring about species recovery and conservation. Thus, I say to the Minister that they should be included as part of our 30 by 30 targets, since they may be managed by other effective means, as my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out.
Finally on national nature reserves, paragraph 83 of the report said:
“We recommend that the Government enable and resource Natural England to develop and publicise accessible digital and offline tools and communications to enable members of the public to learn about and engage with their local protected areas”.
I agree entirely but, before doing so, we need to sort out proper online publicity for the 134 national nature reserves run by Natural England. I invite everyone, including the Minister, to search “visit a national nature reserve” on Google. Up will pop some very sexy sites with superb photos, but they are all from the National Trust, the RSPB, the Wildlife Trusts and NNRs run by similar organisations. Down that list somewhere will be a GOV.UK site called “National Nature Reserves in England”. Click on that and it will reveal 11 regional categories. Click on “North West NNRs” and it will reveal seven more categories. If the Minister clicks on “Cumbria”, that will list 37 NNRs—without a single map to help you. If she clicks on “Bassenthwaite Lake”, she will get this:
“The reserve is a shallow, balanced nutrient lake in the north-west of the Lake District. Main habitats: open water”.
To paraphrase Bob Geldof, is that it? It is the most beautiful landscape—after Ullswater and Blencathra, of course—and there is not a single photo of it, nor of any other national nature reserve, featured on GOV.UK. No wonder the NNRs managed by the other organisations have five times the visitor numbers. We all want people to access nature for the benefits it brings to health. I hope the Minister will have far more success than I have had over the last six years trying to get a dedicated site for national nature reserves, rather than buried in the bowels of GOV.UK.
The report, in paragraphs 73 to 75, urges the Government to prioritise working with the overseas territories. As the Minister will know, 94% of the United Kingdom’s biodiversity is not in Great Britain and Northern Ireland but in our 14 overseas territories, their unique islands and their 6.4 million square kilometres of ocean. The Darwin Plus scheme applies to our OTs.
I was the Minister way back at the first Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio, which launched the Darwin Initiative. I must admit, as a new, five week-old Environment Minister, I had not a clue what I was launching. I read the brief and had no idea how successful the scheme would turn out to be. Now, the Government have funded over 1,275 projects at a cost of £230 million, achieving both biodiversity conservation and multi- dimensional poverty reduction. Twelve years ago, I worked with our overseas territories for a few years and saw at first hand the splendid work the Joint Nature Conservation Committee did in our OTs and how the OTs desperately wanted more JNCC input, if only it could afford it.
Minister, it is an easy and impressive win for us in here in the United Kingdom to support the Blue Belt programme and the overseas territories biodiversity strategy being worked up at this precise moment by the JNCC and Defra. The JNCC has also done work on creating blue finance criteria, so that companies can invest in nature recovery projects in our United Kingdom’s oceans and our overseas territories’ seas and know that it is not genuine and not bluewashing.
The report made some very important recommendations on marine monitoring, and discussing all the implications could be a full day’s debate in itself. The last Government’s response pointed to the targets in the EIP and said that monitoring is very complex. Indeed it is. Natural England identified our marine protected areas in just 10 years. That was a splendid achievement, but identifying and designating them is one thing; managing them is another. All of us here can stand on a piece of land and have a fair idea of what it is, its condition and what we think we would like to do to improve it, but we can stand at the edge of the ocean and we have not got a clue what is happening under the surface. If we cannot measure it, we cannot manage it.
All I can say today is that I encourage the Government to step up all marine monitoring efforts, which are essential for biodiversity and carbon capture and form part of our 30 by 30 target. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Caithness, the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Banner, on bottom trawling. I have been deeply involved in all this for the last six years and, as your Lordships know, I can bore for England—or Natural England—on it, but let me give some general observations and advice to the Minister, if I may be so impertinent.
Much of the Government’s growth talk has been about building houses, and more houses are urgently needed. I accept that not all so-called green-belt land is sacrosanct and there are poorer bits which can be built on, but genuine high-quality green belt must be protected. Growth and nature are not exclusive; they are complementary. If the Government build houses on grey belt land, they must ensure that there is green space right around them for gardens, space for nature and rewilding, tree-lined streets and not just a token little green park 15 minutes away. I agree with my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, who made that exact same point. Nature recovery is essential in our towns and cities, not just the countryside.
On the countryside, I appeal to the Minister to maintain the £2.4 billion expenditure on ELMS and innovation grants. Farmers are key to nature recovery, as well as producing the food we need.
My main disagreement with my noble friend Lord Banner is that, in my experience farmers excel with carrots rather than sticks. I hope the Government will take on board the points made about tenant farmers by my noble friends Lady Rock and Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Also, Minister, please get the message across to all those doing big infrastructure projects to consult Defra’s arm’s-length bodies, including Natural England, at a very early stage to look at what protected species might be affected. Workarounds can then be done in the early stages, but if they wait until the bulldozers are about to demolish the bat roosts, the ancient woodlands or the Ramsar sites, then delays will occur—delays caused not by the intransigence of Defra’s arm’s-length bodies but by the law.
Over the last few years, the Forestry Commission, the Environment Agency and Natural England have liaised to increase co-operative working on the ground. That makes sense. If we are to deliver 30 by 30, then we have to work together. If, for example, we look at a river catchment area, the Environment Agency will have a view on river flows and dredging, the Forestry Commission will have a view on what trees should be planted on the banks or nearby and Natural England will have a view on what other flora and fauna, such as beavers or voles, could be present. By co-operating, we get the best possible solutions to reduce flooding, increase woodland and recover nature and wildlife, and that will help deliver 30 by 30. Working together would assist in removing the uncertainty that concerned the noble Earl, Lord Devon. My plea to the Minister is that all the Ministers, in the Commons and here, and the directorates in Defra collaborate in the way that the three ALBs I mentioned are collaborating on the ground at operational level.
As the Government look to create three new national forests and nine new river footpaths, deliver the best possible nature recovery programmes in ELMs and revise their EIP targets, can we ensure, for example, that the forests link in with existing SSSIs, national nature reserves or landscape recovery projects to create wildlife corridors which are more joined up and protected, as my noble friend Lord Gascoigne suggested? Our national forests could also be part of our 30 by 30 targets, as well as the ELM and landscape recovery schemes, provided they meet the criteria. The take-up of schemes for landscape recovery has been incredibly excellent and is beginning to make a real difference for nature recovery: that is farmers volunteering to farm for food and nature. A time may soon come when these could also be included in our 30 by 30 target, provided that they meet the quality thresholds.
Let me conclude on this note: the one area where the Government cannot blame the Tories—
Lord Blencathra (Con)
There is more than one, but one area is our Environment Act, which has given us the tools for nature recovery for the first time in our history. I invite all colleagues to look at Sections 98 to 116, which include “Biodiversity gain”, the “duty to conserve and enhance” nature, “Local nature recovery strategies”, “Species conservation strategies”, “Protected site strategies”, controlling tree felling and “Habitats Regulations”. Add in “Conservation Covenants” in Part 7 and the ELM schemes from the Agriculture Act and we have the greatest raft of measures for nature recovery that this country has ever seen. As nature recovers in those areas, then they can become protected and could qualify for 30 by 30. I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that these powers are better than the new commission she suggested, but I do wish her a speedy recovery for her trusty right boot, provided it is not used on me.
Indeed, the Labour manifesto, on page 58, calls it “our Environment Ac.t” I did not expect it to say, “Michael Gove’s brilliant Environment Act”, but what I take from that wording is that they will tweak the EIP targets and tweak some other things, but they will not undermine the excellent new levers in our Environment Act. Let us use every lever in that Act, not just to bend the curve on nature loss, but to achieve real, sustained and progressive recovery of nature in this country.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for securing today’s debate and for her excellent chairmanship of the committee, which came out with this excellent report. I thank all members of the Environment and Climate Change Committee for their work. This has been an excellent and important debate. This is an area in which is challenging to move forward, and it is something that we need to get a grip on.
I thank noble Lords who have kindly welcomed me today and over the past few weeks. People have been generous and supportive, and I appreciate it very much. It is genuinely an honour to hold this position, following the example of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, sitting opposite. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to his role. As I am going to have to follow him in every single debate, it could be quite fun.
The report represents a wealth of expertise and insights into the state of nature in this country and offers many valuable recommendations on how we can make the changes that we need to rise to what the report calls “an extraordinary challenge”. I assure noble Lords that this Government are committed to charting a new course and ensuring that nature is truly on the road to recovery.
The Secretary of State has confirmed the Government’s intention to launch a rapid review of the Environmental Improvement Plan, to make sure it is fit for purpose so that it will deliver on our ambitious targets, including 30 by 30. We therefore think that this debate and consideration of the recommendations in the committee’s report are very timely. We want to make sure that those recommendations are properly considered as we carry out the work of the review of the EIP. While this work is clearly newly under way—we are a very new Government—I will do my best to address and respond to the points raised during the discussion as best I can.
As we have heard clearly today, our biodiversity is in crisis. Without nature we have no economy, no food, no health and no society. However, we now stand at a moment in time when nature needs us to defend it. Critical to those efforts is what we have been debating today: the 30 by 30 target to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030. As we have heard, it was the UK’s international leadership that helped to secure a global 30 by 30 target at the UN biodiversity summit in December 2022. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for keeping going on this issue until he achieved it. What is the word I am looking for? Persistence, that is the word. Of course, he was supported in that by the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, and others. Their leadership made an ambitious commitment here in the UK, which we have to deliver on land and at sea.
Targets are meaningless if you do not actually deliver them, so I am pleased that the new Labour Government have renewed that commitment, and we are now focusing on how we can deliver it for the long term. That will be critical to supporting our wider priorities, including cleaner rivers, lakes and seas—the first of two water Bills will be coming shortly—and boosting food security; we have heard about farming. Those priorities also include protecting communities from the dangers of flooding and delivering our legally binding environmental targets.
With just over five years remaining until 2030, we are rapidly approaching the halfway point of this decade, yet unfortunately we are still one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. That is why I am grateful for the contributions today; they are valuable in helping to inform how we move forward.
What is clear is the sheer scale of the extraordinary challenge we are facing. We have not yet seen the urgent step change that the report rightly calls for. Achieving 30 by 30 will require a clear vision and a delivery strategy to drive the urgent progress we need, but one that draws on the work already taking place across government and beyond. The 30 by 30 programme is about bringing these efforts together to ensure that more nature recovery actions have a lasting long-term legacy.
Importantly, it is also about collaboration between and right across sectors. The Government intend to take immediate action to realise the urgent step change needed, and are currently in the process of reviewing our approach. Later this year we hope to confirm the criteria for land that counts towards 30 by 30 in England in order to set a clear and ambitious standard to ensure that only areas that are effectively conserved and managed can contribute towards the commitment. In addition to confirming the criteria, later this year we will begin piloting the process for recognising land that already meets those criteria.
Building on the committee’s recommendations, that will help us to develop a process to identify land beyond protected areas that meets the 30 by 30 criteria and can be formally recognised as other effective area-based conservation measures, as was mentioned in the debate. These areas represent a unique opportunity to take a more inclusive approach and recognise where nature is being effectively protected outside of those designated sites. We desperately need a clear strategy to chart our course to meeting that target, and it is important that we continue to drive that work forward. This includes ensuring that our protected areas are delivering as they should be for nature.
Our national parks and national landscapes and the Broads—collectively, our protected landscapes—are extremely special places. We know that they cover nearly one-quarter of England and contain around half of England’s priority habitats, but we also know that they continue to suffer the effects of climate change and biodiversity loss. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned Windermere and pollution. This is clearly an area that we have to tackle quickly, which is why we are prioritising our water Bill. We are committed to ensuring that these iconic landscapes become wilder and greener and deliver a significant contribution towards the 30 by 30 target in England.
At sea, the Government have taken significant steps to protect our marine environment. We have 181 marine protected areas, including three highly protected marine areas, and as a priority we need to work out how we are going to properly provide protection for them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others talked about bottom trawling. I assure noble Lords that we think it is extremely concerning and we understand its negative impacts. Our marine regulators have assessed all fishing activities on the protected species and habitats in our MPAs and identified bottom-towed fishing as a major pressure, so it is very much on our agenda. To support our 30 by 30 target, the Marine Management Organisation has introduced by-laws, which we heard about from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, to restrict the use of bottom-towed gear over sensitive habitats. More recently, in March the MMO introduced a new by-law restricting the use of bottom-towed gear over rock and reef habitats in 13 MPAs. That means that around 60% of our marine protected areas are now protected by by-laws that limit the use of damaging fishing gear used for bottom trawling. We are pushing that further and continuing to work on strengthening protections. Evidence was gathered last year on the impacts of fishing on seabed sediments, and further by-laws are being produced for consultation. So I assure noble Lords that we are taking the issue seriously and moving forward on it.
We are aiming for 48% of marine protected species and habitats to reach a healthy state by 2028, with the remainder in recovering condition. Natural England and the JNCC are developing an MPA monitoring strategy.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I will try to remember where I was and what I was talking about. Oh yes—I was making lots of promises, was I not?
I talked about the fact that we are developing an MPA monitoring strategy in order to address progress on marine areas. We want to deliver this in March 2028, basically to make sure that we are making continuous progress in this area.
I turn to the specific points made in the debate; if I miss any questions, I will of course write to noble Lords afterwards. I just want to confirm that, later this year, we will confirm the criteria for land counting towards 30 by 30 in England; that was raised by a few people.
The requirement for long-term protection is one issue that was raised; clearly, it is really important. We know that committing land to long-term management can be an extremely challenging prospect for landowners, even those who want to deliver and work for nature conservation; we know that this has been hampered by short-term funding cycles and management agreements. What we are actively doing at the moment is considering the committee’s recommendation, as we review our approach to achieving 30 by 30, to ensure that we establish the most appropriate timescales for the long term and support people who want to work to that.
A number of noble Lords asked about SSSIs. In particular, my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone talked about the importance of how they are counted, while the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, talked about the quality of SSSIs being of critical interest and importance. We recognise the committee’s recommendation that, in order to count towards 30 by 30, they have to be in good condition. We are looking at how we can reflect the condition of SSSIs in our approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked specific questions regarding Natural England’s resources. Some of them were quite complex, so we will write to her with the detail.
The monitoring of protected sites also came up. The noble Lord, Lord Banner, asked about monitoring, as did my noble friend Lord Whitty, who is no longer in his place. The environmental improvement plan was mentioned; I mentioned it previously.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked specifically about the six-year cycle for looking at SSSIs. I want to let him know that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee has moved from a six-yearly assessment cycle, so that is not how it is going to continue. Instead, we are moving to a risk-based process for SSSIs, so that we can be much more targeted and efficient in how we assess them. As part of this, Natural England is developing a long-term prioritised monitoring programme and is working to make better use of new technologies such as remote sensing.
Citizen science and partnership working were mentioned. I assure noble Lords that citizen science is already being used to support assessments; for example, we are working with organisations such as the British Trust for Ornithology and the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland in this area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about protected landscapes. Again, protecting these important landscapes is obviously incredibly important. The new Government are committed to working on how we can improve our protected landscapes so that they offer more to 30 by 30—basically, achieving their full potential going forward, because we know that, at the moment, they are not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rock, asked about continuing the Farming in Protected Landscapes programme. I am not fobbing her off in any way at all and will come back to this when we talk about the budget but, at the moment, we are simply still looking at the spending review. I assure noble Lords that we have not made any final decisions about this issue, but clearly will be doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, raised the review of the environmental improvement plan, which I mentioned earlier. I assure him that the review I mentioned will be completed by the end of the year. The idea is to provide a clear vision on how we are going to use it to achieve our environmental goals.
Marine monitoring, including HPMA monitoring, was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. The committee made a recommendation on expanding the current marine monitoring programme, both inshore and offshore. I am sure noble Lords are aware that this is an extremely complex process that requires long-term vision and, of course, investment. We want to work in close collaboration with Natural England, the JNCC and Cefas on what the future of that marine management should look like and the best practice to deliver against the statutory targets that have been set. It is also important that any data they collect complies with accessibility standards and is publicly available.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, who has kindly given me apologies for having to get his train, asked about marine net gain. For the record, we are currently working to develop options, including timescales for the operation of that policy. It has not disappeared; we will provide more information in due course.
Further on marine, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about the Blue Belt. I can give him a firm yes; we support the Blue Belt, which is very important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked who the Minister responsible for international development is. I can confirm that it is Mary Creagh MP.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about overseas territories, including Darwin Plus. The committee rightly recognised that the overseas territories will be integral to the UK’s contribution to the global biodiversity framework goals and targets, and calls for effective partnership working. Clearly it is for the individual territories to decide how they want to work within this and how they want to work with us, but we are working closely with the Governments and Administrations of the overseas territories to develop a new overseas territory biodiversity strategy. I assure noble Lords that we are working hand in hand and looking to move forward in this area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about the Global Ocean Treaty. I confirm that we fully agree with her on the importance of the Agreement on Biodiversity beyond Natural Jurisdictions for protecting our marine environment, especially for achieving 30 by 30 for the ocean under the global biodiversity framework. It is important that we show progress on that; we want to make progress and to work with the international community to deliver on these agreements. My understanding is that at the moment the FCDO and Defra teams are working together to come up with a realistic timeline to introduce the necessary legislation for UK ratification.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about citizen science and partnership working. These are critical. That is something that we are building through the work we are doing in looking at how to achieve results. The role of partners is going to be incredibly important. This is a huge collaborative effort and we have to work in partnership. The public sector, the conservation sector, farmers, developers and business: we all have to come together if we are genuinely going to achieve these targets.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked about partnership details for specific organisations. I will just say that we are looking right across the piece to see how we can deliver with partners.
My noble friend Lord Grantchester mentioned the devolved Administrations. This is an important opportunity to work collaboratively with the devolved Administrations as we review and develop our approach here.
The noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Harlech, asked about building and the environment. The green belt in particular was mentioned. We are consulting on what we are referring to as the grey belt, which are the areas that are designated as green belt but are not of good standard. Part of the reason for consulting on and talking about the grey belt is to make sure that we protect the green belt that is of value—pulling out the areas that are not, but protecting the areas that are important.
There was a lot of discussion around ELMS. I shall try to cover a few bits but clearly time is ticking on. Just to confirm, we are absolutely committed to ELMS. My honourable friend Daniel Zeichner, the Farming Minister, is working really hard, talking to stakeholders and looking at how we develop ELMS to make it more fit for the future, particularly around such things as nature-friendly farming. Our manifesto said that
“food security is national security”:
we want to work with farmers and other stakeholders, including tenants. We take the needs of tenants and their rights very seriously. There is a lot of good work going on there.
That brings me to the Budget. As I say, we are still in discussions and nothing has been agreed or decided yet on whether there will be any cuts to the farming budget.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned the OECMs. Again, we will be looking at the committee’s recommendations around this to develop a process to identify land outside the designations. In that same vein, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, talked about national nature reserves. I just say that many of these are already in SSSIs, so already contributing.
Finally, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich talked about forest schools. My granddaughter has just finished three years at a forest school. She has thrived and grown and it has been the most wonderful experience for her, so I have huge admiration for the work that they do.
Once again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for securing today’s debate and her committee for all its work. It is a huge piece of work and can greatly inform the Government as we actively consider the recommendations it sets out. I look forward to working constructively with everybody in this Room as we go forward and will write if I have missed anyone’s question.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
All that remains at the end of this long, thoughtful and valuable debate is, on behalf of us all, to wish the new Minister and her colleagues well in delivering on this important target. The interest this afternoon and early evening shows that there are people around the House who will keep her feet to the fire. I beg to move.
House of Lords
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Beamish
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Grayling
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oaths and Affirmations
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Message from the King
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Chamberlain (Lord Parker of Minsmere)
My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from His Majesty the King, signed by his own hand. The message is as follows:
“I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament”.
Bread and Flour Regulations 1998
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to update the Bread and Flour Regulations 1998.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, although work on reviewing the Bread and Flour Regulations was paused due to the general election, I can assure my noble friend that I have picked this up as a personal priority. We have spoken to the devolved Governments about laying legislation later this year and I will update noble Lords on progress in the very near future.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. On 16 May, the previous Government said that the regulations for England would come forward in July, on the basis of an agreement with the four nations and the four Chief Medical Officers. There really should be no delay; this could be picked up, like other Bills are being picked up, and be done quite quickly. Is my noble friend aware of the Written Answer I received on 23 July, when I asked about the reform of the Bread and Flour Regulations? It said that it “could include” folic fortification. I want my noble friend to be more specific now than in that Written Answer and give a specific commitment that this Government will do the folic fortification of flour, as agreed by all the consultations and the previous Governments.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend has been a tremendous campaigner. Indeed, he reminded me that this is, I believe, his 22nd Question on this matter, so I do not wish to test his patience. I absolutely assure him that, as he said, the policy is being taken forward as a UK-wide measure and all the necessary preliminary legislative steps have been taken, including the public consultations he mentioned, which were reported on earlier this year. Subject to renewed collective agreement in England, Defra will lay legislation later in 2024.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am hearing that, unfortunately, the Government are not being very ambitious in the level of fortification that they will propose. They are considering a level that will reduce neural defects by only about 20%, whereas 1 milligram of folic acid in 100 grams of flour could reduce neural tube defects by 80%, which is a massive amount. Can the Minister at least reassure me that the appropriate committees will look at the level of fortification being proposed, so that it is appropriate and safe?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that that has already happened. As I am sure your Lordships’ House is aware, the proposal is to add 250 micrograms of folic acid per 100 grams of non-wholemeal wheat flour. I emphasise that this fortification would be in addition to the foods that are already voluntarily fortified, such as a wide variety of breakfast cereals, so we are not talking about just bread. The feeling among the experts, to whom we listen, and the committees to which the noble Baroness referred is that this is the right level at which we can provide reassurance, and so this is where we are focusing our efforts.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the Minister has confirmed that folate fortification of bread flour will proceed. However, I want to ask her about members of our population who do not eat white bread flour because, for example, they are coeliacs or gluten intolerant, or because they come from ethnic groups who get their main carbohydrate intake from other sources such as rice. In the United States, rice, maize and flour are all fortified with folate and have been since 1998.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an extremely good point. Before we speak about the groups to which the noble Lord referred, I want to point out that fortification will not be enough in any case. We need to continue our encouragement for women to take daily folic acid supplements before conception and in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, because doing so can prevent up to seven out of 10 cases of neural tube defects—I want to emphasise that. I will take on board the noble Lord’s very important point and ensure that it is part of our considerations.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his persistence in this matter. When I was a Minister, I found it rather frustrating to be told that the consultation process could not be speeded up, so I pay tribute to the Minister for the progress she has made. However, I want to ask about a possible unintended consequence. The NHS website says that folic acid is not suitable for some people: those who are allergic to folic acid, obviously; those who have low vitamin B12 levels; those who have cancer, unless they have folate deficiency anaemia; and to those who are having a course of haemodialysis or who have a stent in their heart. Given these warnings on the NHS website, can the Minister assure the House that she is confident that those who suffer from those conditions will not be harmed unintentionally by increasing the volume of folic acid in our bread and flour?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his support in this area; I know that he also worked hard to make progress in it. I can give the assurance he asked for, and I would say to people that if they are concerned, they should seek expert advice about their own personal circumstances. All of the expert advice and relevant committees are content that this is the right way forward.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her personal commitment to this issue. Can she give a categorical assurance that the regulations will be amended across the entirety of the United Kingdom at the same time? She will know that in Northern Ireland we have a different regulatory regime for some of these matters due to the Windsor Framework. Can she also assure the House that there will be a common approach across the United Kingdom in both timing and content?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I know that the noble Lord takes a great personal interest in these matters and has also campaigned very strongly. The area he refers to is being pursued because we want collective agreement on this across the whole of the UK, so that we can confirm that it is government policy with absolutely no qualifications, and that everyone is moving on the same timescale. I can confirm that we have notified the EU Commission and the WTO in order to fulfil international obligations and have thus far received no responses; that is why we are able to proceed with the next legislative steps.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is a great asset to the Front Bench. This is a bipartisan issue, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his excellent work over the years. When I was a Member of Parliament in the other place, Shine—formerly known as ASBAH—the charity for hydrocephalus and spina bifida, was located in my constituency. I say gently to the Minister that we have been campaigning on this issue for almost 20 years, and to my own Front Bench that there is no demonstrable, empirical scientific evidence of any substantial side-effects of putting folic acid into basic foodstuffs, and that it should happen. Finally, more than 30 countries have pursued this policy; they have tackled the enduring tragedy of spina bifida and hydrocephalus, and the impact they have on families. Therefore, can we please do this as soon as possible?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly hear the very welcome points that the noble Lord makes. As we progress, this will make us the first European country to mandate folic acid fortification of non-wholemeal flour. While some European countries, including Ireland, have voluntary fortification, mandatory fortification is not the case. I and my ministerial colleagues are keen to be in this position.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am grateful to and congratulate the Minister on her perseverance on this issue and on decreasing neural tube defects. Can she also ensure that products are appropriately labelled with warnings that they are not fortified and that any woman who might become pregnant should take additional folic acid supplementation? Without that, we will not tackle the ongoing problem of neural tube defects. I do have a concern that there is inappropriate fear over toxicity, given that in 1991 there was a very good randomised controlled study. People were divided into groups, given fairly high doses, including with multiple vitamins, and compared with those on a placebo. There were no adverse neurological or other effects.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s contribution and can reassure your Lordships’ House, and anyone else who may be concerned, that, as noble Lords have said, this has been gone through over many decades. Safety is paramount. On products that are non-fortified, I will have to look into this, but for those that are fortified, there will be a transition period for industry because the equivalent of some 11 million loaves of bread are sold in the UK every day but only 65% of the flour used in their manufacture is produced in the UK. We have to look at this huge diversity of food products, including biscuits and cakes, and where it is a food ingredient in ready meals and soups. It is quite an undertaking, but your Lordships’ House can be assured that we are on it.
HIV Care: Access
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the number of people with diagnosed HIV in England who are not accessing HIV care.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a patron of the Terrence Higgins Trust.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, in 2022 England exceeded the joint United Nations programme on HIV and AIDS targets, with 98% of people diagnosed with HIV receiving treatment. The UK Health Security Agency estimates that between 6% and 15% of people living with diagnosed HIV in England did not access HIV care that year. Re-engaging people into HIV care is a priority for the current HIV plan for England and for the new plan that is in development.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, we know from the opt-out testing programme in A&Es introduced by the last Government that up to 15,000 people in England who are aware that they have HIV are not accessing life-saving care, with devastating personal consequences for them and profound ramifications for public health, because if you are not on medication, you can pass on the virus. Is the Minister aware of the case of a 45 year-old man, out of care for several years, who went to hospital with a headache and was found to have a CD4 count of just four. He was diagnosed with cryptococcal meningitis, an AIDS-related illness. He went blind and died three months later, one of a growing number of tragic preventable deaths. Can the Minister ensure that we get an HIV action plan as soon as possible and that this issue—with funding, if necessary—will be a key part of it, to ensure that we get those lost to care back into it?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, Ministers have already commissioned officials for advice on how to progress the development of a new HIV action plan. On the very tragic case that the noble Lord refers to, he will be aware that since April 2022, NHS England has funded emergency departments in London, and in areas of very high diagnosed HIV prevalence, to provide routine blood-borne virus testing for HIV as well as for hepatitis B and hepatitis C in everyone aged over 16. That attention at the point of contact is crucial in this area.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an ambassador for UNAIDS. Is it not a fact that we have been extremely successful in developing the means to combat HIV and AIDS, but we still face the obstacle of stigma around the whole subject, which is a serious deterrent for treatment and continuing treatment, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, suggested? Will the Government make the fighting of stigma around HIV a priority, so that we can become one of the first countries to be absolutely AIDS free?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord’s campaign in this area is very well regarded, and for good reason; I certainly agree with him. The fact is that engagement in care is strongly affected by a number of factors, including a person’s well-being and quality of life, discrimination and, as the noble Lord says, stigma. That, alongside accessibility of service, will define how successful we are. I am keen that our new plan will absolutely take account of stigma.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the crisis of people lost to HIV care is of course underpinned by serious health inequalities. Are the Government taking account of the pilot work by the Elton John AIDS Foundation in south London, which has successfully returned people to care through case-finding, focus follow-up and wraparound support for people when they return to clinics, thus saving the local NHS millions in the care that would be necessary if they were not receiving it?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can confirm to my noble friend that we are, and say how grateful we are to a number of charities, including the Terrence Higgins Trust and the Elton John AIDS Foundation. As she says, there have been pilots for emergency department HIV opt-out testing since 2018. A pilot that began in April has expanded that to 47 additional sites, and we will be looking closely at the impact of that.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, if that pilot in the 47 areas shows, as it did in London with the Elton John work, that such testing finds people who not only do not know their status but are lost to care, will that form a basis of the national plan the Government are working on? Will there be a particular emphasis on extending services to people in rural areas, who do not have the access to clinics that people in metropolitan areas do?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, and I thank the noble Baroness for making those points, which I certainly agree with. The challenge for us now is to reduce the number of people who live with undiagnosed HIV, but also to reduce the number not seeking care and treatment. For the first time, the latter has exceeded the former, which suggests that we have a challenge we must focus on in the new plan, and we will do so.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Black for his consistent campaigning on this issue, and especially for helping those with HIV. What has been learned from previous initiatives? We know that in recent years, the NHS and the previous Government looked at ways to address issues such as vaccine hesitancy, and the reluctance of some to seek tests and treatment at any time. What lessons have been learned from these previous initiatives for the HIV action plan—for example, by working with local communities and the charities that a number of noble Lords have mentioned to encourage more patients with HIV to seek treatment, especially in communities such as black and Asian communities, where there may also be a stigma, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, mentioned, around admitting that they have HIV?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
There is what I call a three-pronged approach to interventions to reduce the number of people not being seen for care, which is so important, as I know the noble Lord is aware: identifying people who have not been seen for care; contacting them and re-engaging them; and addressing the barriers to engagement, which a number of noble Lords have referred to. This means sustaining engagement with care in the long term and supporting people with HIV.
We will review what lessons we are learning from the HIV action plan for England, which runs to 2025, and that means we will be able properly to inform the development of the new plan. I look forward to updating your Lordships’ House on this.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we have come a long way since the dark days of the 1980s and 1990s, when many lives were lost. Progress has been made primarily through the work of activists, NGOs, the commitment of Governments and, indeed, the commitment and leadership shown by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to whom I pay tribute. But we are seeing greater numbers of people disengaging from HIV care for many reasons, including stigma, mental health issues, poverty, discrimination, and the terrifying fear of isolation within families and communities. Will the Government therefore look at the projects carried out across the country, including in Greater Manchester, and, indeed, as has been mentioned, the NHS South East London Integrated Care Board project, which focused primarily on these issues and groups and successfully reintegrated people back into HIV care? Arguably, this approach must be in any national HIV action plan.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, we will be looking at all the work currently going on and at the successes—and there are many. I believe that my noble friend is referring to Fast-Track Cities, an international initiative involving cities tackling HIV through a multidisciplinary, multi- sectoral approach. There are 13 signatory cities in the UK, and all are beacons of good practice that we must learn from, including in order to find out what is not working. I also want to emphasise peer support, which has been shown to reduce self-stigma, but also to improve engagement in care and the taking of treatment, and to having low levels of virus. This area will obviously very much feature in the new strategy.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, looking at HIV internationally, the UK has long been a proud supporter of the Global Fund. In 2022 alone the Global Fund reached over 15 million people with HIV prevention services, including 710,000 HIV-positive mothers, who received medication to keep themselves alive and to prevent transmission of HIV to their babies. Will the Government commit to continuing to support the Global Fund?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Certainly, as the noble Baroness says, the Global Fund is crucial in HIV care. The UK remains a world leader in efforts to end the global AIDS pandemic and funds all the key partners in the global AIDS response. I confirm to your Lordships’ House that some £1 billion was recently pledged to the Global Fund. That will save more than 1 million lives, including by providing antiretrovirals for 1.8 million people, and provide HIV counselling and testing for 48 million people. It will also reach 3 million members of key affected populations with prevention programmes. We will continue to have discussions with the FCDO about the support this Government give.
Road Investment Strategy
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Snape
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to continue with the Road Investment Strategy 2: 2020–2025; and what are their plans for the road network.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the second road investment strategy is being delivered by National Highways and runs until 31 March 2025. The strategy covers the day-to-day running of the network, continuing operations, maintenance and renewals and the delivery of schemes and construction. Our plans for the future of the road network will be informed by the spending review and by the review of the department’s capital spend portfolio commissioned by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that a substantial chunk of this budget ought to be spent on repairing the roads we already have, rather than building new ones? Will he consider allocating more funds from this budget to public transport, particularly to our bus network, in view of his recent welcome announcements about bus franchising? Finally, if there is anything left over, could he put it towards the enormous deficit left by the party opposite when in government?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. In the current circumstances, he is a bit optimistic about having any money left. Of course, a substantial amount of the road investment strategy 2 money is, in fact, spent on the operation, maintenance and renewal of the national highways network. The review of the capital spend portfolio embraces all the modes of transport the department is responsible for, so there will be the opportunity to choose the best schemes that deliver the most for growth, jobs and housing.
Lord Geddes (Con)
Can the noble Lord confirm the singularly ill-conceived and unbelievably expensive plan to tunnel under Stonehenge to avoid congestion on the A303, when there is plenty of open land immediately to the south of that single carriageway?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I can confirm that, following the Chancellor’s Statement and a review of the Treasury’s spending audit, which identified more than £2.9 billion-worth of unfunded transport spend this year, the scheme for the A303 at Stonehenge will no longer go ahead.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, can the noble Lord say what progress has been made with constructing the new junction for the A3 and the M25, when he expects it to be complete and what he expects it to cost?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I do not have the precise answer to that question, so I will be delighted to write to the noble Lord to clarify the questions he asked.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, the answers we have had so far, which are welcome, refer to future strategy in terms of economics and finance, but there is another element that this Government have built into their programme, which is making long-term decisions. Is any future road strategy being looked at holistically in relation to public transport development? They cannot run in separate grooves.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The way the road investment strategy works is that the Infrastructure Act 2015 requires a road investment strategy—known as RIS to the initiated—to be set. As I said, this strategy expires in March 2025. We might normally have expected to see the publication of a draft road investment strategy 3, for the five years beyond 2025, published by the previous Government, but in fact it was not. We are now required to do that and the Government will, in due course, do just that. It is stand- alone, but it must be recognised that the department, which is responsible for all modes of transport, including public transport, will have to consider how it spends both its capital and its revenue in the best way to achieve the targets of growth, jobs and housing.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, more than a fifth of the UK’s emissions come from surface transport, primarily from fossil fuel vehicles, so if this new Government value the future of our planet and the health of our nation, they will reconsider road-building plans. I am pleased to hear what the Minister said about that. Will he agree that the priority for government spending on roads should first be with the £20 billion backlog of road repairs, which makes our crumbling roads very dangerous at the moment, in order to put safety first? Will he commit to the completion of the ongoing programme to bring so-called smart motorways up to an acceptable safety standard?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The point about emissions and the environment will be covered by the capital spend portfolio review. I think potholes are a major part of what the noble Baroness referred to. The state of the roads is pretty disgraceful, and the Government are committed to doing far more on filling potholes and making roads safe than the previous Government. There will be no more smart motorways, and my understanding is that the programme to modify those already installed will be completed.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord’s admission that road transport contributes to growth, jobs and housing, but when one looks throughout the country, wherever the Labour Party is in power, be it in Wales, London or many local authorities, one sees increasing costs and restrictions being imposed on the motorist, many of them felt most deeply by working people who are struggling to make ends meet. Does his welcome statement today about the value of road transport mean that Labour’s war on the motorist is now at an end?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
If the objective is economic growth, jobs and housing—I am pleased that the noble Lord agrees—we should choose those transport projects that contribute the most to it in various parts of the country. I have a wry smile because he was the deputy chair of Transport for London when I was the commissioner, and between us we probably removed more road space from the streets of central London for a Conservative mayor, so I am not sure that this alleged war on motorists is quite as one-sided as he might suppose. It is very important that the highways are managed in the best way possible because transport is a facilitator of growth, jobs and housing. The projects that we are able to choose to fund in these difficult circumstances should always be the ones that deliver the most in those categories.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, filling in potholes is a temporary measure. On many of our roads, the substructure has gone because of a lack of investment over many years, especially under the last Government. Are the Government trying to do something about the long-term state of our roads?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that filling potholes is a temporary measure. It is a shorthand for having the roads in better condition. I could bore the House with how the condition of roads is measured, but I will not. Filling potholes is a temporary measure; we are using that phrase to seek to improve the general condition of roads for the safety of all road users.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will the noble Lord take this opportunity to rule out introducing road pricing as part of the Government’s plans to increase the tax burden on this country?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There are no plans for road pricing. Indeed, to clarify what I thought I said on Monday to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, there are no plans for the withdrawal, reduced eligibility or means testing of the English national concessionary fares scheme, commonly known as the freedom pass.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to his role. I worked with him at City Hall all those years ago, and we worked on smoothing traffic flow in London to improve journey time reliability and help motorists, especially as we knew that autonomous vehicles, electric vehicles and mass-person mobility would be a key part of the public mix in future. Will he look at that as he looks to the future of the road network?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord recalls the project to smooth traffic. A key element of that is the use of modern technology in managing traffic signals. The Government are enthusiastic for the use of modern technology. For too long, not enough modern technology has been used in the control of traffic signals, and we will endeavour to use the latest technology to improve the flow of traffic for all road users.
Ticket Sales: Dynamic Pricing
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Moynihan
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in the light of the selling of Oasis concert tickets, what action they plan to take against (1) dynamic pricing, and (2) other ticket sale practices.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
This Government are concerned to see fans prevented from going to live events by vastly inflated prices. We will launch a consultation in the autumn on options for introducing new protections for fans buying tickets. We welcome the Competition and Markets Authority’s announcement that it has launched a formal investigation into Ticketmaster. As it is a live investigation it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the specifics of that case, but I declare an interest as one of many people who spent a ridiculous number of hours in the queue, only to have the site crash when I got to the ticket selection page, and subsequently to be told I looked like a bot.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I warmly thank the Minister for her reply. She is right that we are not in a position to reflect on the details of the review that is under way on dynamic pricing, but the second part of my Question is a request to investigate how tens of thousands of tickets end up being harvested illegally through bots and sold on sites such as viagogo and StubHub within seconds of officially going on sale, as evidenced in the conviction of Hunter and Smith, who are the tip of the iceberg of thousands of similar touts. They were found guilty of making millions fraudulently and dishonestly by buying and reselling tickets for high-profile music and entertainment events. Is the time to act not now? We have had nearly 10 years of extensive review since Waterson reviewed. Will the Minister come forward with legislation as soon as possible to protect genuine music fans from the criminal activities of modern-day ticket touts?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We committed to taking action on secondary ticket sales during the election, and we are consulting in the autumn on the best ways to implement our manifesto commitment to introduce new protections for fans in the ticket market. This will include proposals to protect fans on ticket resale and a call for evidence on price transparency that will include dynamic pricing.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has been a great champion of fair ticketing for many years. When we discussed his amendments at ping-pong on the digital markets Bill back in May, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, helpfully said,
“if elected, a Labour Government would strengthen consumer rights legislation to protect fans from fraudulent ticket practices, to restrict the sale of more tickets than permissible and to ensure that anyone buying a ticket on the secondary market can see clearly the original price and where it comes from”.—[Official Report, 23/5/24; col. 1193.]
That is very specific. The Labour Party manifesto outlined plans to cap resales. Is there a plan for legislation rather than yet more consultations and reviews, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said? After all, we had the Waterson review back in 2016.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is appropriate to undertake further consultation in light of recent events. If we went on just the previous consultation—I know it is something we committed to—it would not necessarily have included this. It is right that we consult further on additional consumer protections, and the Government will do so over the autumn. I hope that noble Lords across the House will take part in the consultation and encourage everyone affected by this, as so many people are, to take part.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the correct expression is customer fleecing, not dynamic pricing. Too many companies are profiteering while luring customers with misleading advertising, misleading prices and violation of implied sale of goods contracts. This abuse is wide- spread. Train companies, airlines, hotels, theatres, Uber, Amazon and Airbnb are some of those engaging in this abuse. We need action. Can the Minister say when the first prosecution can be expected?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Dynamic pricing is not illegal. Businesses must follow consumer protection law when they engage with their consumers using dynamic pricing.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, a number of us have been very disappointed at being unable to obtain tickets for Oasis concerts, yet we are concerned that a number of members of the Front Bench of the Government elsewhere have appeared on television claiming that they have obtained tickets. Can the Minister kindly confirm that no special provisions were in place to give those people an advantage over mere mortals like ourselves?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I cannot speak for Front-Benchers to whom I have not spoken, but I know that a number of my noble friends on the Government Benches in this House spent, as I said, a ridiculous amount of time trying to get tickets on the day and failed miserably.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, like it or not, dynamic pricing, driven by supply and demand, has been with us for centuries and is a key ingredient of economic growth. Does the Minister agree that Sir Keir Starmer’s pledge last week to
“make sure that tickets are available at a price that people can actually afford”
is at odds with the Government’s number one mission? Is the Prime Minister committed to economic growth or—with apologies to Oasis—is this a case of “Definitely Maybe”?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Noble Lords will note that I have taken a deliberate decision not to quote song titles. The Minister of State, Chris Bryant, described people being able to access live events as “a joy”. The joy of live events should be available to everyone and that has to be reflected in fair pricing.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, unlike the Front Bench, I am more of a Blur man myself. This all demonstrates that at the top of the tree there is a huge amount of money to be made, but every headlining band started life in small, independent music venues and it is those venues which are suffering. They are closing and really have their backs against the wall. Can the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to support the research and development of our great music industry in this country? Are they considering adopting the proposals for a smart fund whereby a small levy on tickets in big venues can be used to support the small venues that created the bands playing there?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
In Labour’s plan for the creative industries we committed to supporting creative small businesses and defending existing grass-roots music venues, nurturing fledgling arts spaces and working to prevent the loss of cultural spaces. One of our top priorities is to work closely with stakeholders and across government to ensure that the live music sector is financially resilient, and to explore potential further opportunities for support.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My noble friend will be aware from the mood of the House that there is really quite a feeling that action is required here. On all the issues discussed so far, we have talked about the impact of the primary market and now the secondary market but, in addition to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, what about the artists themselves? Their ability to reach out to their audience is often frustrated by the way that the system works against them.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
If I understand my noble friend’s question correctly, this is about people starting out, at the beginning of their career. He is shaking his head so I will try again. We are committed to live music. We will do everything we can to make sure that live music is accessible to everybody but that there is that connection between artists and their fan base.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for confirming a moment ago that dynamic pricing is not illegal. Will she also take the opportunity to remind the House that when more people want something than there is of that something —in this case, more people wanting tickets than there are tickets—the price will naturally rise? That is not a market failure; it is what is meant to happen.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
There is an ongoing investigation by the CMA and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the specifics of the case. However, we need to look into whether there might be a different pricing system.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, further to the mischievous suggestion made opposite that there might have been some preference for the Government on this matter, can the Minister confirm that, unlike for Covid, there was no VIP lane?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am fairly confident. I am humble enough not to count myself as somebody who would have access to that. There were, however, VIP tickets, which were way beyond my means.
Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 11th September 2024
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
Consumer Products (Control of Biocides) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 11th September 2024
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Consumer Products (Control of Biocides) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Consumer Products (Control of Biocides) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
Mortgage Prisoners Inquiry Bill [HL]
Wednesday 11th September 2024
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Mortgage Prisoners Inquiry Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Mortgage Prisoners Inquiry Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 11th September 2024
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
That the order of commitment be discharged.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Arbitration Bill [HL]
Wednesday 11th September 2024
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Arbitration Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Arbitration Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-I Marshalled list for Committee - (9 Sep 2024)
Lord Hacking
“Safeguarding against fraud and corruptionIn section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (general duty of the tribunal), after subsection (1)(b) insert—“(c) safeguard the arbitration proceedings against fraud and corruption.””
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, before I address my amendment, I would like to express to your Lordships complete support for this Bill. I had the honour to be a member of the Special Public Bill Committee, so ably chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. I sat through all the hearings and then sat with my co-members of the committee throughout our deliberations.
Perhaps I can do no better in expressing my support for the Bill than to quote from the Explanatory Notes. Paragraph 6 reads as follows:
“The intent of the Bill is to further the principle found in section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996: to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense. Thereby, the aim is to fulfil the policy objective of ensuring that the Act is fit for purpose and that it continues to promote the UK as a leading destination for arbitrations”.
I now move to my amendment and, as I do so, I express thanks to my learned friend—or rather, my noble friend—the Minister. Unfortunately, he does not take the “learned” with his name, although he is very learned. I am very grateful to him for his letter to me of 15 August on the corruption issue. I have read the entire contents of that letter and express gratitude without reserve, but I am afraid to tell your Lordships—for reasons that I will now develop—that the reply in this letter is not complete.
First, we must look at the extent of corruption and I am afraid that it is bad news. There is the Nigeria case and the judgment of Mr Justice Robin Knowles on 23 October 2023; nobody in this Committee knows more about that case than the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, KC, who took the role of a senior counsel throughout the long hearings before Mr Justice Knowles. The fact is, however, that in the arbitration proceedings resulting in that case, there were two very distinguished English arbitrators—former judges of the High Court—who made a very large award of $11 billion. Because of the corruption that was found by Mr Justice Robin Knowles, that very large award had to be set aside in its entirety.
Moreover, this is not the only case where corruption has evidenced itself. The charity under the title of Spotlight on Corruption has identified three recent cases in which serious corruption was found. There was the Mozambique case before the UK Supreme Court in September 2023; the Steinmetz case before the ICSID tribunal in Paris in May 2022; and the BSG case before the LCIA in April 2019. So this is a serious problem and I remind your Lordships of what I said at Second Reading: that I have had experience as an arbitrator in commodity arbitrations relating to Ukraine and Russia, where corruption was most evident, often with the bribing of officials to obtain export licences.
Lord Hoffmann (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that, since retiring from the Appellate Committee of your Lordships’ House, I have practised as an arbitrator. More to the point, I was the presiding arbitrator in the Nigerian case to which the noble Lord referred. Of course, no one could object to the sentiment behind the noble Lord’s amendment—we all disapprove of bribery and corruption—but the question your Lordships have to think about is: what does that mean we arbitrators are supposed to do in practice?
Take, for example, the Nigerian case to which the noble Lord referred. It was a claim for breach of contract against the Government of Nigeria: they were supposed to supply the claimants with quantities of gas over a very long period, but they did not do so. The question was: was that a breach of contract? If it was, what were the damages to be? No objection was made on the validity of the contract. We heard the arguments about whether there had been a breach, and we decided there had. Eventually, at another hearing, we went into the question of what damages had to be paid. Arguments were again brought, with expert witnesses on both sides, and we came to the conclusion that it was a large figure, because the gas was due to have been supplied over a period of 25 years and it all added up. That was the rub.
As the noble Lord said, at the hearing before Mr Justice Knowles it turned out that there had been some bribery and corruption in obtaining the contract and in the conduct of the litigation. None of this was known to us. So the question is: what ought we to have done? Should we have said to the parties at the beginning, “By the way, can you please assure us that there has been no bribery and corruption?” It seems an extraordinary ritual that we would have had to go through, and it would have to be the case in every arbitration.
Arbitration is a consensual arrangement. The parties have agreed that each of them will come before a tribunal, that each will present his case and that the tribunal will decide on the basis of the arguments the parties present. Is it consistent with that form of decision-making that the tribunal should attempt to dig away at a point on which the parties have not relied? Of course, if one of the parties suspects that there has been bribery and corruption on the other side, so to speak, that would enable it to resist the application, it would no doubt do so. But, in a case in which neither party raises this point, it is difficult to see what the arbitrators can do.
It is also difficult to see why that should not also be the case in ordinary litigation in the Commercial Court. Is the judge in the Commercial Court to say to the parties, “Has there been any corruption? Nobody’s mentioned it yet, but can you please tell us and inquire as to whether there’s been corruption?” It is quite inconsistent with the way in which litigation and arbitration are conducted that the tribunal should have to take that sort of active investigatory role.
As far as I can see, all that introducing this amendment would do is add a formalised ritual to the conduct of arbitrations, and it may even provide a technical ground on which a party who has lost an arbitration can say, “Well, it’s true that I can’t say there was any corruption, but the tribunal didn’t do enough to investigate whether there was, and that was a breach of its duty under this new provision in the Arbitration Act”. It would therefore create uncertainty and unnecessary difficulties in the way in which arbitrations are conducted. For that reason, I invite your Lordships to reject the proposed amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I entirely endorse what my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann has said, but I would like to say a word about the procedure that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has invited the Minister to adopt. Surely the stage of conferring with people as to what they think about this amendment has passed. This matter could have been raised in the Committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas —it was not, of course—but now it is a matter for this Committee to decide whether or not to accept the amendment. It is as simple as that. With great respect, I think it is a matter for the Committee and not for anybody else now. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann that this amendment should not be accepted.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I agree with both the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Hoffmann, that this amendment ought not to be accepted. However, it seems to me, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said, that everyone agrees with the sentiment behind what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has proposed.
I had thought that we had agreed how to deal with this matter when the then Minister dealt with it at a hearing of the Special Public Bill Committee. I raised this point by way of an amendment to the old Arbitration Act. The Minister agreed, in response to that, that he would write to the arbitral institutions and we would see what the best practice was. I had assumed that all that would be made public, and I am entirely at a loss to understand why the letters that were written and the responses have not been made public. It would be extremely helpful to have all this information put into the public domain to show, for the benefit of London, what was being done to address this point. As I understand it, these were documents written by the Minister in his capacity of trying to deal with a problem that had arisen and was discussed in this House. It would be very helpful to have a discussion and look into the matter in detail. If something needs to be done—more than is being done—we can return to it. Certainly, we ought not to delay the Bill by this amendment.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, in our Second Reading debate on 30 July, I asked the Minister to respond about these consultations that had taken place, which he did in a letter on, I think, 15 August. He set out in some detail the various ways in which the existing system deals with corruption.
It would be beneficial, as the noble and learned Lord has just pointed out, if the documents which the Minister was summarising were themselves made public, with the consent of the relevant organisations, because there is a lot of detail here that needs to be discussed. Indeed, the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, illustrate that we cannot proceed on the matter of this amendment without some pretty extensive discussion about how it could work and how it affects the role of the arbitrator. Although I am very sympathetic to the amendment, to try to introduce it at this stage would be an unnecessary delay to a Bill that has had quite a lot of delays already, not least because of the general election. That would be an unfortunate consequence.
The most reassuring thing in the Minister’s letter is the reminder that the case to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, referred, and in which he was directly involved, was of course dealt with in the High Court. The High Court set aside the results of the arbitration, having discovered the corruption that had occurred. This is a demonstration that, even without new statutory provision, our system can deal with corruption of this kind. It is still there, however. There is a lot of corruption about and it is quite likely that it will emerge or be present in matters that are the subject of arbitration, particularly between states and very large commercial undertakings.
I therefore do not think that we should be content simply to set aside the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has introduced, but I do not think that we should attempt to insert it into the Bill at this stage. We should seek to establish whether both the substance of the law and our ability to enforce it would be improved by new statutory provision, and I am not yet persuaded that that is so. We strongly support the Bill and do not want to see its progress delayed.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, in relation to the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, your Lordships will recall that on 27 March this year, when I was then the Minister in charge of the Bill, I said that I had written to the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the ICC, the LCIA, the London Maritime Arbitrators Association, GAFTA, the Law Society and the Bar Council to ask them
“what measures they have in place to mitigate the risk of corruption in arbitration, whether more should be done in the sector to mitigate corruption in arbitration”,
and any suggestions they had as to
“the best way to proceed and how the Ministry … could support the sector’s efforts”.—[Official Report, 27/3/24; col. 12.]
Before I had a chance to review or indeed see any of those replies, Parliament was dissolved, so I still do not know what the replies were. I understand from the Minister in a call this morning that there is some glitch in relation to the convention about what documents an incoming Government could see if those documents arose under the previous Government. I would have thought that this was an area where continuity between the Governments, transparency and a common approach were essential and necessary. I very much hope that in the meantime, any technical glitch about the change of Government should not interfere with the tackling of this problem.
As has been pointed out, the Minister in his letter of 15 August summarised the responses in some detail, but the question remains, as has been raised by two noble Lords—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith—as to whether those responses should be made public, with the co-operation, of course, of the institutions concerned, from the point of view of establishing and reinforcing the reputation of the City of London and, in particular, reassuring those who wish to arbitrate in this country that the question of corruption is being addressed.
It is true that the ICC is conducting an international review of the approach to arbitration in this sector, but that review is not due to report until the end of 2025. It seems to me that there is an argument for the present Government—the Minister—to go back to the persons to whom I wrote and ask them whether they would be prepared to make public their responses, with a view to reassuring and continuing to protect the reputation of the City of London.
That said, although I think we are all with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in spirit, amendment to the Bill is probably not the best way to proceed at this stage. As I indicated when I was myself the Minister, I would not support an amendment to the Bill to deal with this particular matter, but I invite the Minister to give us an assurance that the Government will continue to monitor the issue, to keep in touch with the relevant arbitral institutions in London, and take such steps as the Government think fit to ensure that the arbitration scene in London is as free from corruption as can conceivably be achieved. Nothing less will do. At the same time, I also invite him to perhaps revisit the question of publishing the responses, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, have just invited him to do.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I associate myself with the wonderful words of the three noble and learned Lords and I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, but when I was reading theology, my then—wonderful—professor of theology said that the only way you know whether you have resolved a theological conundrum is to try to find some practical solution to your particular difficulty.
My greatest concern with the amendment is this. It talks about safeguarding the arbitration proceedings against fraud and corruption. Probably Queen Elizabeth I would have said to such a suggestion what she said to the troops at Tilbury:
“I have no desire to make windows into men’s souls”.
How do you safeguard proceedings against corruption? Corruption is in the hearts and minds of people. How do you do it? I cannot find a real, practical solution. Therefore, on those grounds, although the amendment is well intentioned, I think the burden it would put on the proceedings of arbitration is far too great, so please may we not have a desire to make windows in people’s hearts.
Lord Mance (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an arbitrator, including in cases involving corruption in my practice hitherto. It seems to me that there are two types of corruption that we may be talking about. One is substantive corruption affecting the transaction which is the subject of an arbitration. That is regularly arbitrated and investigated, and tribunals do their best. With respect to the noble and right reverend Lord behind me who has just spoken, I am afraid that sometimes involves trying to see into men’s minds. Arbitrators do make findings of corruption. I will come back to what might be done with those findings slightly later.
We have been talking mainly about corruption in relation to the arbitration proceedings, which is the area to which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is directed. We have heard of cases in which—one hopes, remarkably—it has been found in court that both sides were involved in some sort of collusion. I am thinking not of the case which has been expressly mentioned but of a case which I believe was decided in the Commercial Court by Mr Justice Butcher, where a non-existent arbitration award endorsed by a non-existent foreign court judgment was attempted to be enforced in the Commercial Court. That could happen only by some form of collusion between those appearing in front of the court, hoping that the persons to be affected by an English judgment would not get to know of it or involve themselves in time. As it happens, they did, and of course the non-existent award was not enforced. I believe the matter was referred to public authorities who might be interested.
I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann that such investigations into the propriety or ethical behaviour of those appearing in front of arbitrators as a matter of standard procedure would be difficult to contemplate, given the sort of exercise that would be involved. That said, I am sure that arbitrators, if they were on notice for any reason of possible complicity in some corrupt activity by those appearing in front of them, would be very concerned to try as best they could to get to the bottom of it. I suggest that the noble Lord’s proposed amendment would, if anything, be duplicative and unnecessary if read mildly, but if read widely, as involving the sort of initial admonition which he suggested, it would be problematic and would not carry matters very far, so I, too, do not support it.
I will make a general observation about corruption, which, as I have indicated, is regularly fought in the courts in a substantive respect. Of course, arbitrators have the problem that they are confined by the agreement to arbitrate, which usually relates to a specific transaction. However, if you are talking about a widespread scheme of corruption, perhaps involving fraud on a foreign state, the state may not be party to the arbitration, and it may be quite difficult to investigate all the other ancillary transactions that form part of the web of corruption. Corruption notoriously involves complexity designed to confuse and conceal. That problem is inherent in arbitration; it seems to me that it may be one of the disadvantages of arbitration. It is a problem that can, to some extent, be alleviated by court assistance. There is a valuable clarification of Section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in this Bill, which will enable that assistance to be secure when third parties are involved.
It is difficult to foresee arbitrators being made into investigators. That would be a change of role for which they are not suited. The one possible area where I suggest that legal attention might be considered—but not in this Bill, for the reasons already given by noble Lords—is where corruption is found by an award. There might be something to be said in that context for an express provision permitting disclosure, to interested public authorities, of corruption that has actually been found. One would not have or contemplate a situation where arbitrators had to disclose allegations of corruption that they were concerned to decide. But once they decided that there was corruption, disclosure might then be contemplated. It seems to me that it is probably already permitted by common law, because there is no privilege in iniquity; on the other hand, I do not believe that arbitrators at the moment would, without express legislative backing, be likely to disclose even corruption that they had found in their award. That might be a possible area where an express legislative provision—so they could at least just disclose corruption —would be valuable.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I begin with an apology. I could not attend Second Reading because I was having my cataracts done. The happy consequence is that I can now see the Minister even more clearly on the Government Front Bench. I take this rather belated opportunity to welcome him to that place and to wish him well.
I declare two interests: first, as a barrister working in international commercial arbitration as both counsel and arbitrator. Secondly, in 2021, when I was in government, I invited the Law Commission to undertake this review of the Arbitration Act, to burnish what is generally regarded as a gold standard for an arbitration statute. It bears taking 30 seconds to put on record that the Law Commission is an underappreciated part of our legal landscape and does sterling work. Indeed, the Minister introduced earlier today the digital assets Bill, which also emanates from the Law Commission. The Government accepted all the Law Commission’s recommendations in this context.
I also pay tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, who, when he was a Minister, worked very hard on this issue and introduced a previous Bill before it fell, with others, at the general election. Nevertheless, this is a good Bill, and we should get it on to the statute book.
On the amendment before the Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, kindly referred to my role as counsel in the Nigeria v P&ID case. Of course, client confidentiality applies even now, but he was kind enough not to point out that I lost that case, and I am grateful to him for not making that clear. As to the other cases he mentioned, I appeared early on in the Mozambique litigation and acted in the Steinmetz proceedings before the ICSID tribunal in Paris. I also acted for BSG in the LCIA arbitration and the subsequent litigation in London. I won a number of those cases, fortunately.
Nobody wants corruption in arbitration—we all want to root it out—but we are not persuaded that the general duty either is necessary or would achieve its aims, for the reasons set out so clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. It is not clear what arbitrators are meant to do; under Section 33 they already have a duty to resolve cases fairly, and if corruption disentitles a right to a remedy, the tribunal can say so.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, pointed out, there are a number of issues here. Take a case where there is a London seat but the substantive contract is governed by Ruritanian law. Ruritanian law might regard as permissible that which English law regards as impermissible. Would this clause mean that the London-seated tribunal would have to decline to enforce or to give a remedy? The Act as presently drafted provides that public policy can trump an award in some cases. Section 103(3) deals with foreign awards, substantially reflecting Article V of the New York convention, and Section 68(2)(g) deals with appeals from London-seated arbitrations—that was a provision in the Nigerian case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for welcoming me to my current position; I am very glad that he has 20/20 eyesight and is looking at these matters so closely. I am also thankful to my noble friend Lord Hacking for initiating this debate. He said very clearly when he introduced his amendment that he supports the Bill, and I am grateful for that. He is again raising the issue of protecting the arbitral process against corruption, and of course that is extremely important. Having considered this very carefully, the Government’s position is that our framework already provides a robust regime and that no law reform is necessary. A tribunal, like a court, must always guard against fraud and corruption, and I will explain what mitigations our existing regime already provides.
Under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the tribunal is already under a duty to “act fairly and impartially”, and to
“adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the … case”.
An arbitrator who is corrupt would fail in their duties under Section 33. Furthermore, the arbitrator’s appointment can be revoked by the parties under Section 23, or an arbitrator can be removed by the court under Section 24. An arbitrator who acts in bad faith loses their immunity under Section 29 and can be sued.
When arbitral proceedings are tainted by fraud or corruption in the arbitral process, any arbitral award can be challenged in court under Section 68 for serious irregularity, as indeed was successfully done in the recent case of Nigeria v P&ID, which we heard about earlier. Indeed, the reason why arbitral corruption is currently a talking point is that the court identified corruption and prevented abuse in that case. Arbitral awards can also take account of corrupt conduct and deprive a corrupt party of any arbitral award which is sought to permit fraud or corruption. It would be unenforceable as contrary to public policy under Section 81. It is possible for an arbitrator to publish their award and denounce the fraud publicly. In ruling an award to be unenforceable, the court can also publish its judgment publicly. The scheme under the 1996 Act is sufficient and has not revealed any deficiency in practice.
The Government oppose legislative reform here precisely because it is unclear what additional benefit it would provide over the current regime, which provides both parties and arbitrators with routes to challenge and address corrupt conduct, as well as duties on the arbitrator to ensure fair and proper proceedings. A new, untested measure may simply introduce uncertainty for both parties and arbitrators.
The 1996 Act and the modernising impact of this Bill are designed to ensure robust and efficient arbitral proceedings. Our framework provides this balance and well equips the tribunal and courts to deal with corruption. The Government will continue to support the sector’s efforts on arbitral corruption. We will keep track of initiatives that are under way, such as that of the ICC anti-corruption task force, to which a number of noble Lords referred, and engage with the sector to push for the swift adoption of best practices as they are developed. I hope that this explanation reassures my noble friend and that he will withdraw his amendment.
To go a little further, as noble Lords are aware the previous Government wrote to leading arbitral institutions seeking views on the mitigations that are currently in place and whether more are needed. I understand that responses were received from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the International Chamber of Commerce, the London Court of International Arbitration, the London Maritime Arbitrators Association and the Grain and Feed Trade Association, in addition to the Law Society and the Bar Council.
All those institutions mentioned mitigations they had in place against corrupt conduct. None expressed support for amending the Arbitration Bill to strengthen anti-corruption. In addition, concerns were raised that a one-size-fits-all approach would be ineffective and risk unintended consequences. Nigeria v P&ID was raised as a highly unusual case where the court effectively performed its proper role in setting aside the award. Where a role was suggested for the Government, it was in ensuring that the courts continue to be equipped to provide checks in cases put before them, as they did in the Nigeria case, and to engage in discussions with the sector and promote its work combating corruption.
The noble and learned Lords, Lord Bellamy and Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, raised the issue of the letters and whether they could be published. I am unable to share those letters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, can see the letters that were responded to when he was a Minister, but they were written specifically to him in that role. I would not necessarily be able to see those letters, which would create a difficult situation. I understand that a couple of letters came in when the new Government were formed. But I can say with complete confidence that the substance of those letters was explained and explored within the letter that I wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, which is in the public domain. I am confident that if I was wrong somehow in asserting that the substance was inaccurate, those various bodies would be able to draw that to my attention. I am confident that the substance of the letter I wrote on 15 August is completely accurate. I hope that noble Lords will accept that.
A number of noble Lords spoke of their reasons for opposing my noble friend’s amendment. They said that it might well be duplicative, unnecessary and problematic in various ways, which they explored. I have to say that I agree with the noble Lords who made those points.
In closing on one point, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked about relevant arbitral bodies being given a nudge regarding corruption. They are of course perfectly able to do that. It would be beneficial, and maybe they should remind themselves that they have that responsibility to give a nudge if they suspect corruption in particular cases. So, having said all that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, it is my intention to withdraw my amendment, but perhaps I could say just a few words after a fairly long debate on it. First, I thank those noble Lords—there were several—who accepted the principle that I sought to express. It was nice to have that support but, as was very clear, not one noble Lord accepted my amendment. Therefore, I am not exactly in a strong position to press it now, or indeed on Report.
I did not realise when I cited three cases put before us by Spotlight on Corruption that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was counsel on every one. So he has extensive knowledge—greater than that I gave him credit for in my opening words.
One thing that has been missed in this debate—it was the first point I made—is that I wanted us, by legislation, to set out our standard. I described the first importance of my amendment as putting a flag in the ground so that the world may know that, in arbitration proceedings where England is the seat of the arbitration, we will not countenance corruption and fraud. I still think that is an important point.
I did not know when I got up to speak that there would be such a formidable line of noble and learned Lords alongside me, including the former Lord Chief Justice, who has not actually spoken but who has a devastating commitment to good argument, so I am not inviting him now to make any interventions because he will make some argument that will totally defeat what I am trying to say.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said that he thought my amendment was impractical, and of course arbitral tribunals do not have the power of investigation. The point I was making was that, at the commencement of the arbitration, the arbitral tribunal could speak to both counsel and the parties who should be present at the inaugural meeting and remind them of the seriousness of rooting out any corruption or fraud. I also point out, as a former counsel and solicitor, that when you take instruction from a client, and statements from clients’ witnesses, you have a lot of opportunity to know what is going on. So there is a role for counsel and the parties in rooting out corruption, and that is why I thought it useful to have this revision.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said that the committee—which was so well chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas—had not reached any view about corruption. There was in fact a reason for that. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is listening, but we received these two reports from Spotlight on Corruption at his instigation, and his view, and that of the committee, was that under the timetable we were working to, this was too big an issue for us to take on. That is why we made no pronouncement on that subject.
My Front Bench is getting a bit restless, but I am sure that there will be plenty of time to consider the next amendment. I rather get the feeling that there will be an intervention now in Committee on the Arbitration Bill and we will debate another excitement. I am withdrawing this amendment, but I hope that noble Lords have heard and agree that this is a continuing matter. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for his promise to keep this under review—and may it continually be kept under review.
Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:03 - Division on Baroness Altmann’s Motion - Ayes: 30 / Noes: 138 - Baroness Altmann’s Motion disagreed.
Baroness Altmann
That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024 (SI 2024/869), laid before the House on 22 August, be annulled because they would significantly reduce state support for pensioners without sufficient warning and without a proper impact assessment, and because they present a significant risk to the health and wellbeing of many pensioners on low incomes.
Relevant document: 2nd Report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I would like to say from the start that I believe the noble Baroness opposite is a very, very good woman and I hope that the House will forgive me in some way for bringing this before your Lordships. But I have spent my life trying to stand up for people who have no voice and trying to do what I believe is right. On this particular occasion, with a heavy heart, I believe I must do so.
Let me read some of the words of those people from whom we are taking away £200 or £300 this winter. These are the poorest pensioners. We will hear that the Government is protecting the poorest. It is simply not the case. I apologise, but that is the reality. “I do not qualify for pension credit. I live on my state pension and one small occupational pension that pays me the cost of a couple of bags of carrots and potatoes a month in an annuity. I receive just a little over the qualifying limit and fall into that group of pensioners who are in limbo. I am 75 years old and not in great health. I will be trying very hard not to turn my heating on this winter. I have only a few pounds a week for food, toiletries, insurance or any other repairs. Why is this being done? I always turn off the lights and am very careful, but I don’t know how I will get through the cold weather this year. I have arthritis and COPD and need to keep warm for my health.”
Another says, “I am 82 years of age and live alone. I am on £220 a week state pension and therefore £2.85 a week over the pension credit limit. Since the cost of living crisis, I have not been able to afford any central heating for the last two winters. I did not put on my gas central heating and I will not be putting it on again this year. My welcome winter fuel payment went towards my electricity bill, which increased due to the single room heater I used. I work on the ‘heat the person not the room’ principle. I fall into that group of pensioners who do not qualify for pension credit, and I am not sure how I can economise further”.
One more example says, “I am 91 years old and my husband and I struggled to keep our home warm enough last winter. The fuel bills rose so much, and even though our home is small we were spending so much on heating that we only had the heating on in the sitting room and our bedroom. He had Parkinson’s and I have had cancer, but we looked after each other. We spent our time in the one room downstairs and used lots of blankets, as well as often having three cardigans on. We went to bed early so we could turn off the heating, and would try to keep the heating off in the bedroom most of the time, but we would cuddle up together to keep warm. My husband passed away a few months ago and I don’t know how I will manage this winter. I don’t have enough money to warm the house more, and my small pension has put me over the limit for pension credit”.
This is the reality of the statutory instrument we are debating. I agree with the Government’s aim of removing a tax-free payment from millions of people who do not need it. Indeed, I have called for that to be done for a long time, or for it at the very least to be taxed: it could perhaps be rolled into a higher state pension but then become taxable.
I would support this measure if it was dated 2025 instead of 2024, giving time to put in place some mitigation and protection for these poorest pensioners. Those on pension credit are not the poorest as they get extra help—as the Minister herself has said, some get thousands of pounds extra. It is those who are just a few pounds a week above the limit or those who are eligible but do not claim or receive it who are the poorest. Nothing in these regulations will ensure they receive the money they expected, which has been withdrawn from them with no warning or time for them to economise in time for November, when it was due, or for the colder weather this winter.
I believe that the Government do not want to hurt these people. I do not expect that the needs and situation of these very poorest pensioners were really considered when this announcement was made. The aim, which I fully endorse, was to take the winter fuel payment away from the quarter of pensioners who have assets worth £1 million, and from those higher up the income scale, who clearly can manage without it. But that is not the impact that I am concerned about if we pass this measure today.
I am particularly concerned because of the wording in the statutory instrument document itself:
“A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, public or voluntary sector is foreseen”.
If that had been the expectation, since that publication the voices of Age UK, Independent Age, Silver Voices and the trade unions have all warned clearly that what the Government perhaps did not foresee is indeed foreseeable and potentially about to happen.
The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum says:
“No consultation was undertaken ... Whilst making the necessary Exchequer savings, it retains support for pensioner households on the lowest incomes”.
This is simply not correct, and I am trying to help the Government see that what I believe they do not wish to do, they may not need to do. I understand that there are pressures on the public finances, and I completely support the idea that a universal payment to those who do not need it, especially one that is tax-free, should not be made. Why not work out a system whereby they do not receive it, but the consequence of taking it away is not that we also have to take it away from perhaps 3 million of the poorest pensioners in the land?
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has brought this issue to the attention of the House:
“We are unconvinced by the reasons given for the urgency attached to laying these regulations and are particularly concerned that this both precludes appropriate scrutiny and creates issues with the practicalities of bringing in the change at short notice”.
That is the problem I have, the short notice. It is not the aim of the policy that I query: there is no time to prepare, no time to increase pension credit—although that is a worthy aim, and I hope a few extra people will claim it. According to the Government’s own figures, more than 800,000 households are eligible but not claiming. The idea that they will receive the money this winter, having gone through the 243 questions on the application form, be approved and start receiving it, is simply fanciful. With the best will in the world—and I believe the Government have the best will to try to increase take-up—even if half the households were to receive it, the savings the Government say are so essential to make will be wiped out. This argument does not make sense. It is not logical to say that we have to take it away from the poorest because we want to take it away from the well-off.
Taking this money from people is, effectively, a 3.4% state pension cut this year. For anyone on the old basic state pension who is over 80, £300 is 3.4% of the money they received from the Government last year. This measure was introduced in 1997 and it has been an essential part of the state pension support package for pensioners ever since. No Government have said it will be removed; indeed, that was suggested and rejected time and again. I believe there could, and will, be a way of dealing with this. For example, to save money, you could tax it rather than axe it; or you could just say that anyone paying higher rate tax will have their tax coding adjusted and the money will be taken back from them. If you pay 40% or 45% tax, of course you do not need it.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on her appointment as a Minister. I genuinely wish her well in that capacity and look forward to working with her on areas where we can.
The Government’s decision to end the winter fuel payment for all pensioners except those in receipt of relevant benefits will be a real blow to millions of older people across the country this winter. Reducing financial support for older people before the colder months will harm many who rely on their winter fuel payment. This is a betrayal on a shocking scale. The Opposition are critical of this policy for three primary reasons: it will leave millions of vulnerable pensioners worse off this winter; the Government are wrong to prioritise above-inflation pay rises for public sector workers over the interests of vulnerable older people; and the Government were not straight with the British people about their plans during the general election this year. The Government should listen to the concerns of noble Lords and take time to consider how they can make the savings they need without punishing older people. That said, it is not the place of this House to override the decision of the elected House, and that is why the Opposition have tabled a regret Motion today.
In government, the Conservatives showed a stalwart commitment to pensioners who had paid in all their lives, with the triple lock, pensioner cost of living payments, the warm home discount and winter fuel payments. All these measures were either introduced or maintained by the Conservatives because we on these Benches know what is right for pensioners and that it is patently unfair to put the most vulnerable pensioners in jeopardy as winter approaches. The Conservative Party consistently did what was right for pensioners throughout our time in office, and there are valuable lessons for the Government in that record.
The winter fuel payment has been a lifeline for millions of pensioners, with 11.4 million older people receiving it in 2023. Vulnerable pensioners rely on this support, and it is that group about which the Opposition are most concerned. The Government have said that pensioners in receipt of relevant benefits will continue to receive winter fuel payments, but the Government’s own estimates show that approximately 880,000 households are eligible for pension credit but do not currently receive it.
It is important that we remember just what position those 880,000 people are in. To be eligible for pension credit, a single person must have a weekly income of less than £218.15; it is £332.95 for a couple. These are some of the most vulnerable people in our society and I ask the Minister: is she comfortable depriving 880,000 of the most vulnerable pensioners of the winter fuel payment this year?
In April this year, the now Prime Minister, writing in the Daily Express, said:
“I firmly believe that if you spend your lifetime working hard and contributing to society, you deserve a comfortable, secure retirement”.
He went on to say:
“It was that belief that meant the last Labour government introduced winter fuel payments, free bus passes and pension credits”.
Please can the Minister tell us in detail what has changed from that statement?
I trust noble Lords will forgive me if I pre-empt the Minister’s reply. We will hear, no doubt, that the previous Government left office with a £22 billion black hole in their public finances. This is not a fair statement of facts. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood at the Dispatch Box in the other place, setting out the Conservatives’ supposed profligacy, she included in that calculation a total of £9.4 billion of spending on public sector pay awards. The Chancellor claims that these were a result of Conservative decisions, but they are political choices. It is not a fair presentation of the facts to say that the Conservatives are responsible for a £22 billion black hole when almost half of that calculation is made up of public sector pay awards agreed by the Government.
Ministers have also claimed that the public finances were worse than they expected when they took office earlier this year. I need not remind the House that the Office for Budget Responsibility, which was founded under the Conservative Government, audited the public finances just 10 weeks before the general election was called. Indeed, since January this year the then shadow Chancellor, in line with constitutional convention, had privileged access to the Treasury Permanent Secretary. The books were open, yet the now Government did not come clean during this period about their plans to remove the winter fuel payment for most pensioners.
Indeed, if the public finances were as tight as the Chancellor would have us believe, Ministers would be showing pay restraint across the board. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite. Since taking office, the Government have allocated £8.3 billion for GB Energy, £7.3 billion for a national wealth fund and, of course, the £9.4 billion I spoke of a moment ago for vast above-inflation public sector pay awards. It is becoming clearer every day that the Government will prioritise train drivers, junior doctors and civil servants—their own political vanity projects—over the needs of the most vulnerable pensioners in our society.
In addition to these concerns, we must ask the Government whether this policy change will be successful in achieving its stated aim. During Treasury Questions in the other place last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that the Government expect to raise £1.5 billion a year by cancelling the winter fuel payment for the majority of pensioners. This led me to look up the total value of unclaimed pension credit. The latest official statistics show that up to £2.1 billion of available pension credit went unclaimed. If 100% of eligible pensioners claimed their pension credit, the Government would make no saving at all. We can conclude that the fact that 880,000 pensioners who are eligible for pension credit will be deprived of their winter fuel payment by the Government is not an unintended consequence. The savings the Government expect to make are predicated on those people not claiming.
We on these Benches put in a great deal of effort to drive up pension credit when we were in office. In June 2022 the Pensions Minister launched a campaign to urge pensioners to check whether they were eligible. In June 2023 the then Pensions Minister, Laura Trott, launched a further campaign and trialled the Invitation to Claim initiative through which the Department for Work and Pensions wrote directly to potentially eligible households that received housing benefit, encouraging them to apply. In July 2023 the DWP confirmed that these campaigns had been effective, and applications were around 75% higher in the year to May 2023 than in the same period the year before.
We have made progress on this in the past, and the Government’s new campaign is unlikely to succeed in getting every eligible person to claim pension credit. The Government should listen carefully to these concerns and take action to protect this vulnerable group.
While it is unlikely that we in this House will be able to convince the Government to change their chosen course—although I live in hope—I hope that the concerns raised by Members across the House will at least encourage Ministers to work on mitigating measures to ensure that pensioners eligible for pension credit are not left without the support they need.
I know that many noble Lords would want me also to highlight the needs of pensioners who are only just above the pension credit threshold. My friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has already done this. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have considered increasing the pension credit threshold so that pensioners in that group are protected?
Before I conclude, I ask the Minister whether she will commit—I implore her—to meeting concerned Peers to discuss other options to this policy, to suggest ways to make the pension credit uptake campaign more effective and to explore the alternatives. I know that noble Lords would appreciate the opportunity to engage with the Government constructively to protect the most vulnerable pensioners.
In conclusion, it is clear that the Government have the wrong priorities, putting public sector workers and their own vanity projects first while depriving vulnerable pensioners of a lifeline. Indeed, the Prime Minister is damned by his own words earlier this year, when he said he believes pensioners “deserve a comfortable … retirement”. This Government took office on a change theme, which we are so encouraged by, and said they would make money so that everybody would be better off and have a better quality of life. As yet I have not seen too much of the making of money, but I see a lot of taking and I hope it is not a trend that will continue.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the Motion standing in my name, the third of the Motions on the Order Paper today. In doing so, I must stress sympathy with the sentiments spoken of so well on the Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. However, I understand from reading the House that there is not a lot of support in your Lordships’ House for the fatal Motion—although, as I say, I have great sympathy with it.
My Motion calls attention to the most vulnerable pensioners, many of whom will lose support just as energy bills are set to rise again. About 10 million pensioners will lose winter fuel payments of up to £300 because of the decision taken by this Government, after years of Conservative mismanagement that has left the public finances in crisis. But this is the wrong answer to the challenges we face: it is clear that many pensioners rely on a winter fuel payment, which is not a luxury.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations are a mistake and I want my concern on the record. I want to make it clear from the start that the financial mess inherited by our Government is a result of 14 years of austerity and financial mismanagement, and I reject any suggestion that public sector workers are benefiting at the expense of pensioners. That is simply a crude attempt to divide working people, and we should reject it as such. I will therefore vote against the cynical regret Motion from the Official Opposition, and I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, that she does herself no favours attaching her name to the Motion.
There are several key points I wish to make. First, even if the case for austerity measures were accepted, the cut in winter fuel payment was not a necessary element in the July package; it was a choice. Secondly, whatever steps are taken to increase the take-up of pension credit, millions of the poorest pensioners will still suffer from an increase in fuel poverty—Age UK came out yesterday with a figure of 2.5 million. Thirdly, the effect of the triple lock should not be double counted and, in any event, it will fail to offset the effect of the cut in the winter fuel payment over the lifetime of the current Parliament. I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to hold back on any change, pending full consultation on an alternative approach to tackling fuel poverty, while retaining the advantages of a universal benefit.
It is important to understand more about why the Government wanted to include the measure in the July package, despite its obvious political downside. Unlike other possible options, it achieved in-year savings and used an existing structure for means testing the benefit, rather than having to create a new structure. However, they failed to appreciate the two adverse consequences of using the pension credit means test. First, it has a ceiling that everyone agrees is far too low. Secondly, there is no form of marginal relief, as it is not relevant for the purposes of means testing pension credit.
In response, the Government—my Government—have attempted to head off the widespread opposition to the regulations. First, they have argued that the winter fuel payment had to be cut as part of the July package to make the figures balanced. Secondly, they have argued that the impact would be offset by increasing the take-up of pension credit and, thirdly, that the impact would be ameliorated by the existence of the triple lock on the state pension. All of these arguments, regrettably, fail.
First, the cut was not necessary, even as part of the July package. There is of course a debate to be had about the need for austerity, particularly as an instant response. However, even if the need for the July package were to be accepted, the question as to whether it had to include the cut in the winter fuel payment is a separate issue. Posed in those terms, it is obvious there is no a priori reason that it had to be a necessary element of the package. Whatever risks the Government faced, they were addressed by taking the package as a whole and not by its individual elements. Despite the Government’s protestations about tough choices, there is no avoiding the fact that it was, nevertheless, a choice, thereby raising concerns about their attitudes to universalism and pensioners in general.
The second issue is pension credit, which other speakers have addressed. We know that the increase in the take-up of pension credit will be limited. It is important to acknowledge what the Government are doing to increase the take-up of pension credit, but, regrettably, there is a long history of ineffective take-up campaigns for means-tested benefits, going back to the 1940s, for national assistance, and beyond. There is no evidence that we now know more than they did in the past about how to overcome the intractable problems arising from stigma, complexity and a lack of knowledge. I am sure other speakers will go into detail on that.
My third point is about the triple lock, which does not offset the impact of the cut in the winter fuel payment. The Government suggested—not today but in other commentaries—that the triple lock increases to the state pension over their term in office would
“outstrip any reduction in the winter fuel payment”.
Unfortunately, this is an obvious case of double counting. I have done the sums, and almost all the pension increases that will occur over the coming five years are required to protect pensioners against the impact of inflation. Pensioners cannot spend that money twice, covering both increases in the cost of living and at the same time replacing the winter fuel payment. The purpose of the triple lock is to protect pensioners against inflation, keep state pensions in line with general living standards and nudge the pension gently upwards. I have calculated that, based on the latest OBR assumptions, the impact of the triple lock, taken by itself, means that the new state pension and the basic state pension will be barely 1% higher than they would have been, even with the statutory minimum increases. This is less than the winter fuel payment, which pensioners are losing because of this measure.
In all the debates on the cut in the winter fuel payment, I am not aware of anyone arguing that there is no case for change. The winter fuel payment is and always was an anomalous benefit, particularly as it affects high earners. A payment that, in practice, recipients can choose to spend as they wish should always have been included in taxable income. The fact that it was not is a historical accident, arising from how and when it was introduced, rather than a clear policy decision.
I therefore agree with the 2015 Labour manifesto, which said:
“We will stop paying Winter Fuel Payments to the richest five per cent of pensioners”.
That was the right policy then, and something like it is the right policy now. In other words, those with the broadest shoulders should bear the burden of the cut, rather than the millions of the poorest pensioners who struggle to make ends meet. Given the case for change, the Government at this late stage should hold back on the cut to the winter fuel payment, pending a full consultation on an alternative approach to tackling fuel poverty while retaining the advantages of a universal benefit.
Lord Desai (CB)
My Lords, there seems to be rather a hurry to embrace economic rationality on the part of the new Government. We know what economic rationality always says: cutting income tax for the rich is good policy because that encourages growth, and cutting the benefits of the poor is good policy because that balances the budget. All through economics—the science that I teach—there has always been this root. The poor must be made to suffer because, as Malthus pointed out, if you give them more money, they will only breed more children. That is no good. Giving money to the poor is a loss, but give money to the rich and the rich will benefit.
I imagine that there is an idea that a big hole in the fiscal accounts was suddenly discovered. I do not think so: I think we all knew there was a fiscal hole. We have all been through the pandemic and through the last 15 years, when the economy has had a very low growth rate—in fact, practically no growth rate. We know all that. We also know the public accounts numbers that were available giving us the ratio of deficit to GDP. None of this was a surprise. If you want to really tackle the deficit, you need a 10-year horizon to do it. Do it rationally; do not do it quickly, do not do it in a haphazard fashion and do not just immediately say, “Oh, I have to make a very tough decision”. As soon as a politician says “tough decision”, you know the poor are going to suffer.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I do not believe that this was in the 1997 manifesto of the Labour Party. It was introduced by Gordon Brown, I believe, because he had a vision that everybody should have a financial relationship with the state. I had a short time as the liaison person with Gordon Brown. I was appointed by the European Parliamentary Labour Party and our great leader then, Alan Donnelly, said, “I’m sending you to Gordon—he’s about the most difficult one, but you’ve got a thick skin”. I recall meetings where this was discussed; it was never discussed in the area of poverty, but always in the area of benefits and helping everybody. So this was introduced by Labour and is now being scrapped by Labour, which seems embarrassed by the size of its majority and is trying to make itself unpopular—and I would like to say that it is succeeding.
There have been economic problems all my life: in 1964, 1970, 1974, 1979, 1997 and 2010. Incoming Governments claim they have found big black holes—it has always been the same; but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say, as Liz Kendall said in the House of Commons yesterday, that the Tories were spending like “no tomorrow” and at the same time say that there is a huge deficit in public services, that teachers need more, that schools and hospitals need rebuilding and that the National Health Service is in crisis. It just does not add up. You cannot have an economic crisis and a big black hole, and at the same time huge demands for more money.
Obviously, I read the three Motions and listened to the very good statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, but I am afraid that, on balance, because of the conventions of the House, I will be supporting the position my party is taking on that Motion. I have listened attentively to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, who made a very good contribution, but there is one point with which I disagree: point two, the decision to prioritise above-inflation pay rises for unionised public sector professionals.
The pay award bodies came in with awards, which the Government accepted. Is it now the position of His Majesty’s Opposition that the pay awards given by the boards that we set up would have been rejected by us? It does not add up. Quite frankly, public sector workers and trade unionists have had just about as much as they can take. All the time, everything is blamed on them, but these are the people who man the hospitals, schools and all the parts of the state we rely on, and they deserve decent pay and conditions. Although I am on the Benches that do not normally say that, I have been saying it for years and I will say it now.
I also remind the House that the British Medical Association may be a union, but it is not affiliated to the TUC and nor is the Royal College of Nursing. There is a widespread demand in society for fairness, and these pay awards were part of it. The Government did not prioritise the pay awards over the pensioners; those were two quite separate decisions. The pay awards were in line with the procedures set up and continued by our Government. The decision on pensioners was a grubby little decision, taken God knows why, which does not save much.
It is quite right that we should have made it a taxable benefit from the beginning. I was only ever asked once by a Chancellor of the Exchequer—he is now my noble friend Lord Hammond—what I would put in the Budget if I were Chancellor. I said that I would tax the winter fuel allowance and abolish the £10 Christmas bonus and the 25 pence for 80 year-olds, which I have had paid to me recently and does not even buy a packet of sweets these days. I would have consolidated this money into a better pension for all the other people. There was no basic reason why people like most Members of this House should get an untaxed winter fuel allowance. That would have been my solution, and I wish the Government had chosen it.
Having made this speech, I will support the Motion that our party has put down. If it comes to it, I will also support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I regret that I cannot support the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for the reasons I have outlined. That is not because I do not support what she says, but as an Opposition, we need to have respect for the traditions of the House and the way we conduct our business.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I grew up in Barnsley in Yorkshire, which is a Labour stronghold, and I find it inconceivable, even as I look at this instrument, that the Labour Government are taking away the winter fuel payment from 880,000-plus very poor people, who will go very cold and hungry this winter as a consequence.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her clear explanation of the access available to the shadow Chancellor prior to the election. What she told us was important; I did not know it.
There are disabled pensioners who may not be in receipt of pension credit but who, as a consequence of this, will have grave difficulty keeping their houses as warm as they need to keep them. They cannot go and sit in the malls, shops and cafes, as so many other pensioners do, to keep warm. We should bear them in mind, and we should not be doing this.
Noble Lords have already indicated ways in which a similar saving could be achieved, through taxation processes or windfall taxes, et cetera. Noble Lords should reflect on whether they could keep themselves warm on £218 a week, and eat. The Labour Government should think again about what they are doing.
Finally, the conventions of this House are simply that: conventions. There are particular and extreme circumstances in which we should disregard our conventions for the benefit of those who have no voice. Pensioners will lose a benefit they so desperately need, and this is the one thing people have repeatedly stopped me on the street about since the Labour Government made this announcement. This is an occasion on which we should ignore convention and vote with these Motions.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, there is a sense of bewilderment for so many people at one of the new Labour Government’s first actions being to punish the poorest pensioners for the shortcomings of the previous Conservative Government by restricting winter fuel payments to those receiving pension credit.
Means-tested pension credit is renowned for its low take-up: 39% of those entitled to it do not claim it. At this point, I would like to welcome the Minister. I am sure she will recall that during her time in opposition, we worked on a cross-party basis to try to boost the take-up of pension credit, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. However, despite a fairly vigorous campaign, its success was marginal and small. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has said, successive Governments have wrestled with this problem over the years and failed to crack it.
The reasons that emerged for the low take-up were the resistance of this generation of pensioners to what are perceived as state handouts; and that the level of bureaucracy, as has already been mentioned, but also the burden of proof of need are so demanding that many people are intimidated by the idea of claiming. Many older pensioners do not have access to the ICT equipment and skills which are essential to make a claim. I would be interested to know what action the Government will take, where so many people have failed, to increase take-up. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, has said, if they are successful, what will be the impact on the savings of £1.4 billion?
Age Concern tells us that more than 2 million pensioners will be harmed by this measure: some 1 million who are eligible for but not receiving pension credit; 1 million who are just below the pension threshold and on low incomes, about whom the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, spoke so movingly; and 200,000 who have high energy costs due to disability or a health condition, or who have to live in poorly insulated homes. It is also true, as we have heard in this Chamber from many noble Lords, that many pensioners who receive winter fuel payments do not need them; but surely a blanket withdrawal with no time for those affected to plan and assess their financial circumstances is callous and arrogant.
It is also irresponsible to introduce such sweeping measures without a proper impact assessment, given the risk to vulnerable and elderly people. I was interested to hear from the Minister today that we need several months to conduct impact assessments and consultations on ticket touting, yet somehow this was inappropriate for a measure such as this.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Minister on her appointment and I declare an interest as a beneficiary myself hitherto of the winter fuel payment—but only in very recent years. Indeed, I wonder whether your Lordships’ House should not pass a resolution declaring a corporate interest. Members of this House are unlikely to be seriously affected by the measure. That is not the point. For many pensioners in my diocese and for considerably larger numbers, possibly extending to millions, across the country, this will be a significant financial hit, with adverse repercussions this coming winter.
As has been alluded to, the origin of the Chancellor’s decision to cut winter fuel payments lies in her view of the state of public finances. It is not a manifesto commitment. The Minister, for whom I have enormous respect, has appealed to the House to neither annul the regulations nor express regret, but I suspect that there are those on the Government Benches who are internalising their regret at this very moment. I fear, and I think this feeling is shared across the House, that the Government’s decision on this matter will define them in the public mind for years to come. It is a signal gesture on their part and one that I believe should be resisted, notwithstanding the Minister’s careful appeal.
First, all Governments should take scrupulous care with our public finances, and it is true that the national debt is now at a level not seen since the early 1960s. But a third of our national debt is owned by the Government themselves through the exercise known as quantitative easing. Secondly, deficit financing, investment, growth and reductions in debt went hand in hand in the decades following the Second World War. Thirdly, the principle of universality in public benefits, as here, is one that is being steadily eroded.
The advantage of a universal benefit is simplicity in administration, the certainty of application and the absence of a social stigma. Means-tested benefits attract doubtless unintended stigmatisation, with a burden to both applicant and state in terms of administration and, inevitably, a failure by those eligible to take up the benefit. Despite the sharp increase in those applying for pension credit, it remains the case that a significant number of people eligible for the credit have not applied for it and would not wish to seek special treatment, as they see it, by so doing.
The Beveridge report in 1942, at a time of desperate stress, identified five giants that needed to be slain on the road to reconstruction: want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. The prescription for their demise was universal, as had been all the great reforms of the previous century, from public parks to museums and galleries, free lending libraries, open-air concerts, healthcare, pensions and unemployment benefit. Those principles were extended after 1945.
The prescriptions in more recent years have been of restricted access, increased commodification and means testing. Of these, means testing is always the costliest option. They have accompanied low growth, increased inequality and an atrophy of positive outcomes. After a wide consultation, the proposal suggested by other Members to make the payment a taxable benefit clearly has much to commend it.
I shall listen to your Lordships with care, but I am minded to vote for the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, if not for that of the noble Baroness, Lady Altman.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I entirely understand why the Government want to get rid of a fuel payment to many people who can afford to deal with even the heightened cost of fuel for heating, but I make no apology for repeating what others have said, because it seems to me that it has to come from right across the House in order for—just possibly—the Minister and therefore the Government to listen to what we are saying. I do not think, from what I heard happened in the Commons yesterday—although I was not in this country—that there is more than a faint hope of that, but it is so important that we should be saying this from across the House.
We know that those eligible for universal credit do not always take it; we have been told that. But we also know of a large number of people who have an income just above universal credit and that is the group about whom I am most concerned when it comes to an increase in heating costs. The triple-lock pension increase does not come until April, but the heating cost is coming now. These people are going to suffer this year and I find it inconceivable that a Labour Government who have done so much for this country in so many ways should put themselves behind depriving ordinary, elderly people—and I speak as a very elderly person—of the opportunity to not have to choose between eating or heating. This seems to me the saddest thing I could possibly think of.
It may be a short-term problem in the sense that the triple-lock payment may help for next year, but, having heard what other speakers have said today in your Lordships’ House, that seems to me unlikely and it does seem that we will need a fuel payment for those on universal credit and those not on universal credit but earning very little more. I absolutely beg the Government to think again.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I commend my erstwhile noble friend the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on her powerful opening of this debate. I agree with the arguments she put forward, as well as those of my noble friend on the Front Bench. There is very little for me to add to what they have already said about this decision that the Government have made and for which they have no mandate. They have not even had the respect to set out a proposal in a Budget in a much more rounded way, as put forward by my noble friend Lady Altmann.
I want to make a bigger point. What a lot of people find quite hard to take at the moment is that, alongside this decision, the Prime Minister has the gall to say that his Government are acting in a way which will restore public trust. He seems not to understand that all of us in the political class over the last few years have lost public trust—himself included—because of our disregard and disrespect for what the electorate have been demanding from us. For this Government now to take decisions that affect people so directly without any notice—believing that such decisions can be justified because the Prime Minister and his Chancellor are convinced that they know best—damages public trust further.
Of course, the impact of this politically on the Labour Party is a matter for it, but I urge the Minister and the rest of her Government to accept the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Altmann today. I hope that she does not mind me calling her my noble friend; she will always be “my noble friend” to me.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I also urge the Prime Minister to drop his misplaced belief that he and his Government are somehow morally superior and are acting in a way which will restore public trust. On the basis of this decision, they are not.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, the decision by the Government to remove the winter fuel payment for millions of pensioners is both cruel and reckless. It will mean that many elderly people will have to decide, as others have noted, between heating and eating this winter.
This is an attack on many who worked hard and contributed much to the prosperity of our country over their lifetimes. Many pensioners in Northern Ireland have no alternative to oil-fired burners for heating their homes and, with this Government’s proposal, 250,000 will lose this payment. Citizens Advice, Age UK and other charities across the United Kingdom have warned of the implications of this proposal—that low-income households that are already struggling will face intolerable choices—but their voices and warnings are falling on deaf ears. Surely Ministers must acknowledge that those now forced to live in cold home conditions are at increased risk of serious illness. Vulnerable pensioners and those with disabilities can add to the burden placed on our National Health Service this winter. In fact, it is believed that, through this proposal, many will die.
It is also noted that the Government chose to invoke the emergency provisions that permit them to bypass the scrutiny of the Social Security Advisory Committee. I thought that this Government proclaimed that, coming to power, they would be transparent and open and would restore integrity to our system of government, but at the very first hurdle they have failed miserably. I hope that the Minister will honour this House by giving us an answer to a simple question: when will they publish the impact assessment for these regulations? That question was asked three times in Prime Minister’s Questions today in the other House, and the Prime Minister gave no answer at all.
This decision was taken by the Labour Government also without consultation with the devolved regions. The action taken by the Government is callous and was not in the Labour Party’s general election manifesto. This is an attack on vulnerable pensioners, and a deliberate one. I know that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, “We had to do this”, but that is not true. They did not have to do this; they chose to do it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there have been some very fine speeches, but I will not repeat them. I really hope that the Government Benches are listening because there is agreement across the House.
I will add a couple of points. Something I found very galling over the last few days is Members of the Government telling us that they are not frightened to be unpopular. I admire people who are not frightened to be unpopular, but sometimes you are unpopular because you are unpopular and not because you are brave. There is something to be said about the self-congratulations of people saying, “This proves that we’re proper leaders and that we’ve got courage”. Actually, it does not prove that. It sometimes can prove that you are tin-eared, not listening, and more interested in yourself and your internal party discipline than in the state of the country. Bravery might have been to have gone out on the doorsteps during the election to tell people that you were going to abolish the winter fuel subsidy. I might have had some admiration if that had been a campaigning tool from the manifesto, but it was not.
I am very worried about something else that is an implicit part of this discussion: this debate is in danger of becoming quite polarising and divisive in a very different way. I saw that in relation to what is known as boomer bashing. I do not know whether people have heard the insult “Okay, boomer”, but it is quite fashionable. There was a social media tweet—I do not know what it is called any more, maybe a posting—that went viral a few days ago. It was posted by a clinical consultant with quite some considerable followers, who wrote:
“I’ve elderly parents & most of my patients are elderly. However, I find it tough to sympathize with a demographic that’s been fortunate to see kids & grandkids grow up; voted for Brexit; got free education; triple lock pensions; and kept the Tories in power”.
I quote that because it completely split the audience. Thousands and thousands of people commented. Either people said that this is absolutely right—“These are the greedy boomers who’ve destroyed this country, the pro-Tories” and all the rest of it—or people said that it is a really unpleasant and nasty point of view.
I worry, and I warn the Government, that there is a danger of stirring up this notion of a gerontocracy. I have been doing quite a lot of media, and if noble Lords listen to phone-ins they will hear what I have heard frequently: that these are old, greedy people who have ruined the planet, ruined the country, ruined everything, and they deserve what they get. I do not in any way imagine the Government think that this is what they are doing, but it is a defence that people use to justify this policy.
I say that particularly because we have had a number of lectures from the Government about other people being the kind to use toxic language and stir up divisiveness—it is always the other people and not the nice people. In this instance, the “nice” party is in danger of having stirred up quite a lot of antagonism and hatred towards a generation who deserve better—ordinary working people who just happen to be old and proud enough to not want to claim benefits. They really deserve better, as do we all.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I speak in broad support of the regret Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I appreciate the very tight fiscal constraints under which the Government are having to operate, and the need for tough choices to be made. I also accept the recent Statement by the Prime Minister that tough choices are almost by definition unpopular choices. Tough choices must also be wise choices, however, and I confess that I harbour misgivings about the wisdom of this proposal for two reasons.
First, as others have observed, I worry about the speed at which these regulations have been laid, given the likely impact on some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. There has been no careful assessment of this impact, which is bound to be exacerbated by the fact that the energy price cap has just been lifted, meaning that this winter many pensioners will face increased fuel tariffs precisely when they are bound to incur increased fuel consumption, and just when a relief that they previously enjoyed has been withdrawn.
Secondly, I wonder whether the threshold for continued receipt of winter fuel payments is the right one. I understand that pinning continued payments to pension credits will make it straightforward to administer and, given the speed with which the Government feel that they need to act, I appreciate the appeal of this simple solution. However, I doubt that in this situation a simple solution is the best solution. All Members of this House recognise that many either do not claim pension credits to which they are entitled or are marginally ineligible for those credits and will inevitably experience considerable additional hardship on account of these regulations.
I am grateful to the Minister for the encouragement she has been giving this week to all those who are entitled to pension credits to apply for them, and I assure her that I shall do everything I can to communicate that message across South Yorkshire and the East Riding. However, I ask her, in a constructive spirit, whether the Government are confident that they have calibrated with sufficient care the eligibility bar for continued receipt of winter fuel payments. Will the Government not consider again the possibility that the bar has been set too low?
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I have listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott on the Front Bench, and I have sat here thinking, “How did we come to this?”—a first-world country that could treat our pensioners so badly. How could we sit here and have a debate about taking away really needed money from the elderly and most vulnerable people in our communities? Today is quite a cold day; it suddenly went cold, and I am feeling it, and I am pretty certain that most pensioners in their households will be thinking, “Should I switch the heating on or leave it off?”
I speak on behalf of the 10,207 pensioners in the city of Leicester who are now not going to receive this payment. I feel sad, but also ashamed that we are standing here debating a very small saving in the bigger scheme of things. I do not understand it—I do not get it—because I felt that we were a country that looked after the most vulnerable. I felt that we were this gold standard that people looked at, and that we were able to say that we protect those who cannot protect themselves. Yet here we are, quite happy to debate £1.4 billion. I am not going to challenge the public sector workers’ pay award; I just want to focus long and hard on why we are sitting here thinking that we have no hope in changing the Government’s mind. If the Government really want to help, they need to take this ridiculous notion back and rethink. If the Government want to save £1.4 billion there are plenty of other ways of doing it, and I urge the Government to use them.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I, and I think many colleagues in the House, were surprised when this measure was selected to save money. We understand why Governments have to save money from time to time; we seem to have forgotten that we spent our way out of the Covid crisis, which has contributed very substantially to the debts this nation has and which the next generation will be paying back—and maybe their children as well. The Labour Party has just won a very convincing election victory, and while I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and indeed what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said with regard to challenging this measure, I personally do not think it is appropriate for us to challenge a newly elected Government at this stage, even though this measure was not in their manifesto and must have been clearly in their mind before the election—they did not just invent it on 4 July.
However, this idea is bonkers. It is not going to save £1.4 billion and, as the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, said, it will probably increase the number of people who will have to engage in health service requirements. If we manage to increase the take-up of pension credits, that is well and good, but that will also take away from the £1.4 billion saving. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, a very highly respected committee in this House, has rarely produced a more depressing commentary than that on how the Government have dealt with this.
I would also like to localise the impact of this measure. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, made a point about how my own region in Northern Ireland will be affected. We have 306,000 households that get the allowance, but that number will be reduced to 57,000, plus whatever additional pension credit is claimed. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, made a forensic assessment of these proposals, but we all know that that is going to be at the margins; no matter how we push these things, there are a whole variety of reasons why we cannot achieve them. Nevertheless, of all the issues that we could look at to save money, this is the last area at which we should look. I just do not understand it. This is a poll tax moment for the Labour Party—it is on that scale, and it will last. It will not go away.
I can only suggest to the Government what I think has happened: they have got themselves on to the hook, and for tough-guy leadership reasons the Prime Minister does not want to be seen to be backing off —blah, blah, blah. The Government forced their MPs into the Lobby or sent them off with a slip for the day. They said, “Get out of the way, do not vote against us”, et cetera. I understand all that.
However, I think that we all would respect and acknowledge a Government that said, “Okay, perhaps we haven’t gone about this the right way. We will find other savings, but we will start a consultation process as we normally would, through the system, and see what we can come up with”. We all know that many of us in this House get the benefit, and we do not need it. So, tax it, or do whatever you like—the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is an accountant and he knows these things—but, whatever can be done, let us do it. “Please”, we must say again to the Government, “this is bonkers”.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I have a few brief comments in relation to what is before the House. As far as my party is concerned, we will not have any trouble supporting either the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, or the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, because we are infuriated by this matter.
The decision to discontinue paying the £300 winter fuel payment to pensioners is a shock and a surprise, as it comes after just 68 days in office by the Labour Administration, who often declare their support and concern for the most vulnerable in our society. I suspect that this is an opportunity at the start of their tenure to get the bad news out of the way quickly so that, when they come back for another mandate, most people will have forgotten who “done them in” and when it happened. However, I suspect that people will not forget. I implore the Government to think carefully, even at this late stage.
We have all heard much about the £22 billion black hole in our finances. If this is the case, one is left wondering why the most vulnerable should be targeted in an attempt to balance the books. Surely there are other ways, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has just mentioned. Why pick on the most vulnerable, on those who cannot answer back? It is very difficult to take this.
Pensioners who already find it very difficult will find it even more difficult to survive following this measure by a Labour socialist Government. I was speaking to some folk today who said to me, “I voted for the Government, a new Labour Administration, for change, but I didn’t realise that this was the change they had in mind”. They are now learning that they may have made a mistake and misplaced their vote on this occasion. They were quite moderate in their condemnation of the Government, but they said, “I did not expect to get this slap in the face, and I certainly did not expect it within two months or so of Labour taking over”.
The Government say, “We didn’t know that we were going to be confronted with a £22 billion black hole”. I suspect that we will hear some of that when the Minister responds. I used to sit in a degree of awe when the Minister was on the other side of the House, and every time she finished, I used to say, “Well, there is one Peer at least with a social conscience”. I am not saying that she has now lost her social conscience, but she has a wonderful opportunity now to demonstrate it. I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
Now that this Administration are in office, it seems that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. In my part of the world, they will say, “Well, when was it ever any different?” I said to them that Labour is now in and has promised that there will be change. The footnote to everything that they said was that they wanted change. Well, this is a change in the wrong direction. I am sure that the Minister will give us the reason why they had to change and hit, below the belt, the weakest and the poorest in society. I look forward to hearing it.
Was there a single word in the manifesto that this is how it would be? Labour has been returned with a very convincing majority—overwhelming, some of us would say. However, I suspect that, had they hinted that they were going to target pensioners, that majority would not have been so overwhelming; it would have been much less, if it existed at all.
I suspect that many Labour Peers here today are uncomfortable with this and they will find it difficult to walk through the Lobbies here this evening and say, “This is exactly what I came into this House to do: to punish, punish, punish the weakest in society”. I implore Labour now to step back and think again. How many more punitive measures will this Government foist upon us and particularly on the vulnerable? Balancing the books is important, but balancing the books on the weakest in society is not the way to go. I say to the Government, “Please rethink your goal”.
When Labour was in opposition, it boldly declared—and these are the figures not from the bad Tories, my colleagues or the Lib Dems—that to scrap the £300 fuel payment would cost as many as 4,000 lives, as OAPs would be unable adequately to heat their homes. Are they still saying that? Is that still their position? If not, why has it changed so quickly? Just when they get their hands on the levers of power, they decide, “We’ve a very convincing majority: we can think, do and say what we like and show everybody who’s in control”. Yes, they can, but please can they reconsider what they are doing here? They have not endeared themselves to very many.
That £1.5 billion is a small amount in the scheme of things. My noble friend Lord McCrea has already alluded to the fact that there will be no savings at the end of the day. What about those who get cold, are taken to hospital and must be cared for? Where will the savings come from? I am sure that the Minister will outline in some detail where she sees them coming from.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for long, but I want to just say one thing. I may be the only person who speaks up for the Government Front Bench, for which I do not expect them to thank me.
It is appalling to suggest that Members of this House are somehow personally lacking in social conscience when it is other people’s money, rather than their own, that we are talking about. Again and again, we see this conflation between the public need for economy and people’s personal morality, as though it was their own meanness or generosity. We had the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, talking about them as Scrooge. Scrooge was dealing with his own assets, not somebody else’s. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who knows how much I admire him, just said that the Minister has a chance to re-establish her social conscience. It is not her social conscience.
We can disagree with this policy. I would have done many things differently from this Government, as they know. One thing, which will make me even more unpopular, is that I would not be putting up the cost of energy as we do in this self-congratulatory way in vote after vote and then complain about the consequences, as we have been doing today. But can we please conduct our debates on the basis that, if you happen to favour the idea of benefits as a last resort for the needy rather than a universal entitlement, that does not make you a bad person? People on both sides of this issue are motivated by humanity and decency and, ultimately, by a concern for the welfare of the nation as a whole.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, that seems a good place to start. I start by thanking all noble Lords who have contributed to tonight’s debate. We have covered a lot of ground and there have been many thoughtful and constructive contributions. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her welcome and I welcome her, in turn, to her place on the Opposition Benches. We have worked well together over the years, although I must admit I prefer it this way round—if not tonight.
Before I turn to the specific issues and questions that have been raised, I want to start by clearly setting out why the Government feel the need to take action and what we are doing. Then I will do my best to answer all the questions that have been asked tonight. I might not manage to attach everybody’s name to them, but I want to try to hit all the questions, so please bear with me if that is what happens.
The reason for the change is simple: there is a huge hole in the public finances. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, started by addressing the projected £22 billion overspend for this year which the Chancellor found when she came into office. The noble Baroness seems to think that the OBR knew all about this. The OBR has clearly specified that it was not told about the overspend. It described it as
“one of the largest year-ahead overspends against … forecasts outside of the pandemic years”.
Beyond this figure that we are bouncing back and forth, what does it mean in practice? It means that the day-to-day departmental spending by the previous Government as set out in the Spring Budget was, frankly, not even close to reality. Some noble Lords might remember that my first appearance at this Dispatch Box was to answer questions from around the House calling to keep the household support fund, which helps local authorities to help people with the cost of living, until the end of the year. The fund was due to run out in September, and I was called upon not to let that happen in the middle of the financial year. I went back to the department, but there was money in the budget to fund it only until September; there was nothing for the second half of the financial year. We found the money to cover that, but doing so, plus the Barnett consequentials, came in at an estimated £500 million—which had to be found from nowhere.
Ask my colleagues on the Front Bench what they found—a £6.4 billion overspend on the asylum system; a £2.9 billion overspend on the transport budget; and new roads, hospitals and train stations promised but not funded. There has not been a spending review since 2021. As a result, the public sector pay rises were not budgeted for and our reserves were spent three times over. This needs to stop. I take very seriously the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell and Lady Fox, about the importance of public trust, but the manifesto on which we were elected began with a promise that we would regain economic stability and by that means deliver growth. To do that means that we have to take difficult financial decisions right now to stabilise our economy before we can start the rebuilding, and then we can start to give the people we are all here to serve the better future they deserve.
No one thinks that things are okay in our country—do they, really? Public services are struggling, the prisons are full to bursting, the courts are overrun, and NHS waiting lists are sky high. We must deliver the change the country needs, but none of that is possible if we simply ignore the overspends right in front of our faces and put economic stability and credibility at risk.
That is why, as well as our plans—the noble Lord, Lord Desai, may be glad to hear this; I cannot remember what economic rationalism is, but it probably does not include this—to scrap non-dom tax status, close the loophole enjoyed by private equity investors and introduce a proper windfall tax on energy company profits, we are having to make some difficult in-year spending decisions. This has included cancelling capital projects, stopping discretionary spend and, yes, means-testing the winter fuel payment so that it will no longer go to all pensioners—many of whom are clear that they do not need it—but to those who need it most.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that I am absolutely with her. I do not want to see this as being about pensioners versus young people or public sector workers versus pensioners. The fact is that pensioners are not a homogenous group—we can tell that by looking around the House. There are rich pensioners and poor pensioners, and our job is to try to have a system that does its best to be fair across the piece.
I think most noble Lords would agree that the winter fuel payment should not be going to the richest, so we are therefore going to target those who need it most. Let me be clear for the record: those on pension credit, and those over state pension age living in a household that gets universal credit, income-based JSA or ESA, income support or tax credits will still receive £200 or £300 a year. That is on top of the significant rises in the state pension, which I will come back to in a moment.
I am not saying that this was an easy decision, and nor were many of the other decisions the Chancellor has had to take; but she believes that it was a necessary decision, and so do we. These are difficult circumstances, and we should be targeting.
I have heard very few noble Lords, if any, call for no reform of the system, with the possible exception of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. I would love to have a conversation with him on another day about how we balance means-testing versus universal benefits, because there is an interesting conversation to be had. But when public money is tight as it is right now, it is completely legitimate to decide to prioritise those who need it most.
I would like to see an end to the stigma around benefits. The benefits system is like social security insurance for all of us—it is there because needing it could happen to any of us. That is why putting money into it should not be stigmatising, and we should all encourage people not to see it that way.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Baroness to her position on the Front Bench. She brings huge expertise and value to that position. I hope that we can work together in the future on other pension-related issues—but on this issue, I have listened carefully to all noble Lords who have spoken and I have not heard any reasonable justification at all for the hurry to take this money away from the poorest pensioners this year. I have heard a marvellous case for changing it, and about the excellent work that is being planned to try to improve the take-up of pension credit and maybe to help people get the support fund, but none of these off-sets the loss for the possibly 3 million of the poorest pensioners—I repeat, the poorest pensioners, who are not the ones who are already on pension credit or might have a chance to receive it with the current take-up increase plan. This year they are at risk in their homes. This is the last chance to protect them and help them keep warm this winter.
For me this is about policy, not politics. I do not welcome any of the undertones or overtones that have tried to look at politics in this. There is none for me. My whole pensions policy life’s work has been about the idea that pensions are about not just money but people and giving them a better life in retirement. On that basis, I have not heard how the Government can possibly protect the poorest this winter.
We have heard about the triple lock. A triple lock increase of 4% on the basic state pension next April will give pensioners—many of whom, demographically, will not survive that long, regardless of the winter fuel payments—an extra £6.80 a week. They will not recoup a £300 loss until about February 2026. They need the money for their bills this winter. As I said, if the Government were to talk about this for next year, I would not be here—and believe me, I wish I was not here.
I know how hard it is to defy a Whip. I also know, though, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said, that the conventions of this House are just that: conventions. We are the only mechanism left to protect the poorest pensioners and help them keep warmer this winter. With a very heavy heart, I believe that I must now test the opinion of the House.
Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
19:17 - Division on Baroness Stedman-Scott’s Motion - Ayes: 164 / Noes: 132 - Baroness Stedman-Scott’s Motion agreed.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That this House regrets (1) that the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations (SI 2024/869), laid before the House on 22 August, will leave pensioners worse off in winter; (2) the decision to prioritise above-inflation pay rises for unionised public sector professionals over the needs of the elderly, including many households that are eligible for Pension Credit but do not claim it; and (3) the lack of transparency on these policy decisions during the election period.
Relevant document: 2nd Report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on the regret Motion tabled in my name. I cannot think there is anyone in this Chamber who wants this to happen—withdrawing the winter fuel allowance in the way the Minister has so eloquently outlined. The two phrases that come out time and again are “take time” and “think again”, and I live in hope that that may happen. I look forward to the day when we will meet with people in this House to see if there is anything we can do to make this more palatable. To that end, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
19:31 - Division on Lord Palmer of Childs Hill’s Motion - Ayes: 65 / Noes: 132 - Motion disagreed.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
That this House regrets that the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024 (SI 2024/869), laid before the House on 22 August, will remove support from many of the poorest pensioners at the same time as the energy price cap is being lifted; and calls on the Government (1) to take steps to identify those who are eligible for pension credit but do not claim it so that they can receive both benefits; (2) to support vulnerable pensioners this winter; and (3) to take action to end fuel poverty, including with an emergency home insulation programme and a windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, for the third time, here we go again. I thank the Minister for responding in so much detail and with so much fervour. I know she believes that we can find a way through this morass.
The point of the Motion in my name is not to make political points at all but to guide the Government on things I think they will 100% agree with. Therefore, it is unlike the Conservative Motion, with which I mostly agree but which added the political aspect of union pay, which the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, referred to as one thing he found regrettable.
I hope noble Lords will feel that this regret Motion will not be confrontational. It is meant to be something that both the Government and the Conservative Opposition could live with, and I would like to test the feelings of the House.
Arbitration Bill [HL]
Wednesday 11th September 2024
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Arbitration Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Arbitration Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-I Marshalled list for Committee - (9 Sep 2024)
Lord Hacking
“Award of costsIn section 61(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (award of costs), for the words from “costs should follow” to the end substitute “a reasonable amount of the costs of the successful party should be paid by the other party or parties, but account should be taken of costs incurred by the successful party which were unnecessary or excessive in whole or in part and which should not fall to be paid by the other party or parties.””
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I will pause for a moment to allow Members of the House to leave, so that only those taking part in this Committee remain. I look to my right with some caution, because when I stood in support of my Amendment 1, I was unaware of a bank of noble and learned Lords on my right-hand side—there were three of them. Now there is only one: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffman, who is sitting in his place. He told me over tea that the reason he is remaining is to oppose my next amendment. He opposed my Amendment 1 with some fierceness, and now he is staying back to oppose my next amendment.
This amendment goes back 28 years to the passage of the Arbitration Bill in 1996. I then objected to the introduction of the principle of “costs following the event”, which was in general usage in the English courts when the successful party was seeking costs against an unsuccessful party or parties. It was generally thought then that the event meant the winner won the costs, but Mr Justice Bingham—later Lord Bingham, Lord Chief Justice and then a senior Law Lord—said that was not right. It was in a case called Re: Catherine that Mr Justice Bingham said we should look at which party was responsible for what costs, and that the costs order should accordingly be made. My argument was that this obscure phraseology went against the drafting of the whole Bill.
Noble Lords who remember those days and now look at the Bill may remember that there was much praise for Mark Saville, later the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, who was chairman of the DAC that drafted the Bill—assisted by the secretary of that committee, the young barrister Toby Landau, and the wonderful parliamentary draftsman Geoffrey Sellars. The joy of the 1996 Act is that you can read it, passage by passage, in its clear, logical way and its clear, logical language. What a contrast that is to so many Bills that come before us—the detail and complication of many clauses cause most of us to put cold towels around our heads before we have a chance of understanding what is meant. I am not sure what the phraseology was then, in 1996, of the rules of the Supreme Court or the county court—in other words, the White Book and the Green Book—but I know now what the rules are in the new CPR. In particular, CPR rule 44.2(2)(a) says that
“the unsuccessful party will … pay the costs of the successful party”.
That is in the clearest possible language, so why should we continue to inflict upon the international community these ancient words of “costs following the event” when they are not used anywhere else? Why do international parties have to seek out the meaning? I am not suggesting that my drafting is perfect—indeed, noble Lords who have been looking at the Marshalled List will note that I made a mistake and had to re-draft—but it can all be quite simply done without any delay. For example, my drafting could be put in front of the rules committee of the Supreme Court, which can be consulted, as can the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the London Court of International Arbitration, the ICC and so forth. There is no cause for delay. If the drafting of my amendment is thought to be worthy of improvement, I accept that, but can the Minister—and this is the second time I am asking him, almost imploring him after the response I got to my earlier amendment—keep an open mind and not leave this strange phraseology of “follow the event” in Section 61(2) of the Arbitration Act?
Lord Hoffmann (CB)
My Lords, I greatly regret that the noble Lord should have cast me as his personal nemesis, particularly since it is entirely desirable that an arbitration tribunal should have the power to do what he said Lord Bingham did in the case to which he referred; that is, to distinguish between the cost of issues on which people have been successful and those on which money has been spent and on which they have been unsuccessful. However, the tribunal has such a power already.
I am sure that my friend the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, would recognise that in the end the power to award costs is entirely a matter for the discretion of the tribunal. It can take into account whether it thinks the party has spent too much or whether it has succeeded on this or that issue. All these issues can be taken into account. What it says that is salutary—this is something which attracts persons to come to London and have arbitrations under English law—is that in the ordinary way, if you have not spent too much and not lost on some issues, if you have won the case you will get your costs. That is a very attractive thing to offer to people who are about to launch an arbitration.
We have in the 1996 Act a time-honoured formula which everybody knows. They know exactly how it works and I really see no advantage in substituting a new formula, when nobody quite knows now how it is going to work.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I hope that I can be relatively brief because this is a short point. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said, the costs of any arbitration are in the discretion of the tribunal. I would add only a slight gloss on that. As the noble and learned Lord knows, there is provision in the Act that if the parties have agreed the result or the provisions on costs, the tribunal has to respect that agreement, with one exception in the Act. Of course, that underlines a very important point: the whole arbitral process is consensual and contractual. We should therefore tread very lightly in this area generally, and especially when we are considering making changes to the terms of the Act.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I have a certain amount of sympathy with his language point because we do not use “follow the event” anymore. That phrase is no longer used in the CPR, as he pointed out, but I took the opportunity this afternoon to have a look at the DAC report. At paragraph 268, it said in terms that the intention was to follow the normal rule in this jurisdiction—that the successful party should get the costs. That is one of the reasons why people choose to arbitrate in London and not somewhere else, and certainly not to litigate somewhere else where you can win and not get your costs back. I would be reluctant to do anything which would undermine London arbitration.
We could of course change the words to track CPR 44.2(2)(a), but I suggest that would be unnecessary and ill advised. I am not aware that there is any confusion in the international arbitration community as to what “follow the event” means. Arbitrators are perfectly able to make what are effectively issues-based awards of costs, or to reflect the fact that the claimant might have won on two issues but the defendant has won on another. Although I understand the noble Lord’s language point, I suggest that we should leave matters as they are.
As for the amount of costs or recoverable costs, which is the other point that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, deals with in his amendment, Section 63(5) of the Act already provides that the tribunal can limit its award on costs to those costs which have been reasonably incurred. As someone whose fees are often challenged on the basis that they are unreasonable, that is a provision with which I am personally familiar. We appreciate the thrust of the amendment but, certainly on these Benches, we would suggest that it is not needed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I might read out from Rule 44.2 of the CPR. It says that
“the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party; but … the court may make a different order”.
There is then considerable further guidance on the assessment of costs in the remainder of Rule 44. I can say, as a non-lawyer, that I think that is pretty clear. I note the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made about having some sympathy with the language used, but the language which I just quoted is quite straightforward.
My noble friend Lord Hacking said that he was imploring me and he called the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffman, his nemesis. I might be my noble friend’s nemesis as well, because I will be arguing to reject his amendment. Of course, I thank him for tabling it. It is right that it is common practice that arbitrators already have great discretion on this matter under Section 61 of the 1996 Act. The Law Commission has made no recommendations for reform of Section 61, so we believe there is no reason for having a reform that may introduce some level of uncertainty, which we do not believe is necessary.
The previous arbitration Acts of 1889 and 1950 simply provided that costs were at the discretion of the arbitrators but the 1996 Act then provided the current default rule, which mirrored the position in the rules of the Supreme Court, which were the court rules then in force. Although the language has changed with the CPR now in force, the underlying principle is still the same. The CPR, and the RSC before them, take the view that costs should follow the event as a fair default rule. Section 61 allows arbitrators to depart from that rule as appropriate. In substance, therefore, Section 61 already allows the arbitration tribunal to award whatever costs it thinks fair.
The Law Commission received no representations from stakeholders that Section 61 was causing any difficulties in practice, and it is unusual to change the language of an Act if there is no change in principle. Indeed, it is possible that the amendment could be interpreted as a new, untested principle. In the light of this, I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the current arrangements and would suggest that no amendment is needed. I therefore invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I intend to withdraw this amendment but perhaps I could say a short word before I do that. Of course, I have to do it because I have no support from anybody; I am doing no better than I did 28 years ago. I still say that this is unfortunate terminology and that it would be much more sensible if we brought the description of what decision should be made by the tribunal on costs into modern language, but if noble Lords like this ancient phrase of following the event they can chase around and look at Mr Justice Bingham’s judgment in Re: Catherine and so forth.
So I am in no better position than I was 28 years ago. However, there is one point I would like to make, which the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, correctly made when he drew attention to Section 55. He could have drawn attention to Sections 62, 63, 64 or 65, because all of them deal with various provisions that are applicable to the cost issues that the tribunal faces. I respect and agree with that. I agreed with it 28 years ago and I agree with it now, but I still think it would be much nicer if we dropped this strange phraseology of costs “following the event”.
“Appeals to Court of Appeal from High Court decisions(1) In section 18(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (restrictions on appeals to Court of Appeal), for paragraph (g) substitute—“(g) from a decision of the High Court under Part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in a case where that Part makes provision about appeals from the decision, except in accordance with that provision;”.(2) In section 35(2) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (appeals to Court of Appeal from High Court), for paragraph (fa) substitute—“(fa) from a decision of the High Court under Part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in a case where that Part makes provision about appeals from the decision, except in accordance with that provision;”.(3) In Schedule 3 to the Arbitration Act 1996 (consequential amendments), omit paragraphs 34(2) and 37(2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause corrects a drafting error identified in the House of Lords’ judgment in Inco Europe v First Choice Distribution and makes clear that appeals from High Court decisions under Part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 may, subject to provision in that Part, be made to the Court of Appeal.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, in this group I will speak to Amendments 3 and 4, tabled in my name.
It has come to light that Clause 13 does not adequately codify the case law on appeals under Part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996. I have tabled Amendment 3 to replace Clause 13 and correct the root cause of this issue: a drafting error in the 1996 Act that provided for an incorrect approach to appeals under Part 1 of the Act. Allow me to explain both the underlying issue and the approach I am taking to resolve it.
Clause 13 of this Bill as introduced seeks to codify case law regarding leave to appeal decisions on staying legal proceedings under Section 9 of the 1996 Act, namely the House of Lords decision from 2000 in Inco and First Choice Distribution. As such, the current Clause 13 inserts into Section 9 provision that
“the leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section”.
During the passage of this Bill, certain noble and learned Lords raised the point that Clause 13 as drafted would permit leave for appeal to be sought only from the High Court—the High Court being what is meant by “the court” in the provision. However, the current situation established by case law provides that leave to appeal can be sought directly also from the Court of Appeal. It seems that Clause 13 as drafted would have the effect of inadvertently narrowing the existing position, which was never the intention.
The root cause of this issue is that the 1996 Act made an incorrect consequential amendment to Section 18(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and Section 35(2) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. In Inco and First Choice Distribution, the late Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead identified that this provision in the Senior Courts Act was originally meant to give effect to restrictions on the right to appeal contained in Sections 1 and 2 of the Arbitration Act 1979. The Senior Courts Act then needed updating to reflect additional appeal restrictions in the 1996 Act. But, as Lord Nicholls put it,
“for once, the draftsmen slipped up”.
The provision in the Senior Courts Act, when read literally, suggests that no appeals against decisions under Part 1 of the 1996 Act are allowed, except where expressly provided for in the 1996 Act. However, the intended and correct position is that appeals are indeed permitted unless expressly restricted by the 1996 Act. Due to this misunderstanding, Clause 13, in inserting its express language on appeals into Section 9 of the 1996 Act, establishes restrictions on those appeals. Accordingly, the provision that
“the leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section”,
as used in other sections of the 1996 Act, is intended as a restriction providing that leave under those sections can be sought only from the High Court. As it was not the intention of the Law Commission or the Government to add such a restriction on Section 9 appeals, we must correct it.
Simply amending Clause 13 to permit direct appeals to the Court of Appeal under Section 9 could raise questions about other sections of the 1996 Act and whether similar provision should also be made elsewhere. Deleting Clause 13 would maintain the current appeal process but miss the opportunity to fix the issue properly. This seems remiss, given that the clear objective of this Bill is to refine and clarify our arbitral framework.
Amendment 3 therefore rectifies the underlying issue. It replaces the current Clause 13 with amendments to the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. These clarify that appeals against High Court decisions under Part 1 of the 1996 Act, including under Section 9, may, subject to provision in that part, be made to the Court of Appeal. This will establish beyond doubt the current position on appeals.
Amendment 3 also necessitates a change to the Bill’s Long Title, which is currently:
“A Bill to amend the Arbitration Act 1996”.
However, under Amendment 3, it will now also amend the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. This will not practically widen the scope of the Bill, given that it modifies that other legislation only to the extent that it relates to the 1996 Act. Nevertheless, Amendment 4 is required and updates the Long Title, adding “and for connected purposes”. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, we support this amendment and are grateful to the Government for bringing it forward. The Minister’s remarks could usefully be framed and provided as an object lesson in the fact that drafting really does matter and that, when it goes wrong, the consequences mount up in subsequent legislation. He illustrated that well.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am personally grateful to the Minister for engaging with me and others on this. These are technical matters, but it is important to get them right. I acknowledge the assistance I have had from my colleague Toby Landau KC, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said on the previous group, did a lot of work on the original DAC report. I also acknowledge members of the Law Commission team with whom the Minister and I have both engaged, especially Nathan Tamblyn.
As the Minister said in moving his amendment, in Inco Europe, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, with whom the rest of the Appellate Committee agreed, said:
“I am left in no doubt that, for once, the draftsman slipped up”.
He put it in those terms because, again, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said on the previous group, this is an extremely well-drafted Act. It is probably one of the best-drafted Acts on our on our statute book. To pick up the other phrase that Lord Nicholls used in that case, for once, Homer had nodded. This amendment rectifies the position—I am not sure what the opposite of nodding is, but, whatever it is, it puts Homer’s head back upright. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward this amendment, which we support.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their support for this amendment. I agree with noble Lord, Lord Beith, that drafting matters, and I agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I note the support given to him by those individuals, including Toby Landau, who was an expert witness in the previous consideration of these matters.
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment amends the long title to cover my amendment to replace Clause 13.