House of Commons
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 months, 1 week 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
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Before we proceed to business, I should like once again to thank the Speaker’s Chaplain, the Venerable Patricia Hillas, who, as I told the House in the summer, will be consecrated next month as Bishop of Sodor and Man. That means that today is her final day saying Prayers in this Chamber and this is her final week in the House Administration.
During her tenure, Tricia has been involved with some of the most challenging times to face this House: the impact of covid on the parliamentary community; the murder of our much-loved colleague Sir David Amess; the deaths of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh; and, of course, the coronation of His Majesty King Charles III. At every gathering, in all circumstances, Tricia has had a calming presence, showing warmth and giving wise counsel to MPs and staff alike. I personally will miss Tricia, and all the support and help that she has given me in my position. I am sure that the whole House would like to take this opportunity once again to wish Tricia well. The Isle of Man’s gain is our loss.
I do mean this, Tricia: you will always be with us, and you will always be there for us. Thank you. When Members lost their seats and were troubled about it, as we were, you were there to give compassion and support. I know that you have met new Members as well. Thank you for everything that you have done and for the compassion that you have given the House. You will be missed, but I hope that you enjoy the Isle of Man. Tricia’s successor will be announced in due course.
I also hope that the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating Terry Wiggins MBE, sous chef, who retires this week after an astonishing 50 years’ service to the House. Terry joined the House Service in 1974 at the age of 16, starting in the Members’ Dining Room and working his way up through various chef roles, culminating in running the Debate in Portcullis House. Terry was also pivotal in the establishment of the Commons and Lords rugby team—wrong code!—which has raised significant sums for charities over the years. In 2005, he was awarded an MBE for services to Parliament. Terry is a most talented, friendly and hard-working individual. I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking him for his long and loyal service, and in wishing him and his wife Christine a long and happy retirement. But if we are struggling, we will call on you, Terry! Thank you for your service.
I can now announce the results of the remaining Select Committee Chair election. I congratulate Patricia Ferguson, who has been elected Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee. A breakdown of the results of all of yesterday’s elections will shortly be made available in the Vote Office.
Business before Questions
Lords
Ordered,
That the Lords Message [11 September] relating to the Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords] be now considered.
That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.— (The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
First, I add my congratulations to the Speaker’s Chaplain on her distinguished tenure, and to Terry Wiggins, who has been here much longer than all of us.
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. The Government recognise the importance of innovation in supporting farmers to boost Britain’s food security, drive productivity and improve nature’s recovery. The UK has world-class science and innovation capabilities. The Government will promote the UK as a great place for technology innovators, which will drive investment, economic growth and create high-skilled jobs, supporting farmers to embrace the latest technology and best practice.
Sir Julian Smith
One of the challenges for risk-taking farmers is the regulatory environment. Will the Secretary of State update the House on how he will bring together Natural England, the Environment Agency and other agencies to reflect and be much more responsive to the enterprise culture in farming?
Steve Reed
I share the right hon. Member’s interest in the need for effective regulation. I will soon make an announcement about our intentions to review regulation to ensure that it is fit for purpose across the Department and helps to achieve the priority objectives that we have set out as a new Government and ministerial team.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I echo the good wishes of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to your chaplain, Mr Speaker, and to Terry, who have nourished us in mind, body and spirit.
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her election to the House. This Labour Government are fully committed to environmental land management schemes. We will optimise the schemes so that they produce the right outcomes for all farmers, including small, grassland, upland and tenant farmers who have been too often ignored, while delivering food security and nature recovery in a just and equitable way.
Claire Young
On a visit to a local farm this summer with the National Farmers Union, it was raised with me that some farmers are not signing up for one of the Government’s sustainable farming initiatives, because they fear being locked in when a better deal may be just around the corner. If we want farmers to farm more sustainably, we need to ensure that they are getting the support they need to do so. With that in mind, will the Minister clarify whether farmers who sign up for an SFI will be able to transition to an alternative one, and if not, whether the rules will be reviewed so that they can do so?
Mary Creagh
I believe a cow was very interested in the hon. Lady’s coat on one of her recent visits—I hope both the cow and the coat have recovered.
We encourage all farmers to apply for the sustainable farm initiative, and we are actively looking at how we can achieve stability going forward.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to see my hon. and right hon. Friends in their places on the Front Bench.
The environmental land management scheme approach was a really innovative idea from the previous Government, but its implementation has been a shambles and it is leaving far too many farmers desperately worried about their future. Can my hon. Friend tell me any more about what the Government have inherited and the urgent steps that they will take to support Britain’s farmers to farm in a more natural way in the future?
Mary Creagh
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election to Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee—obviously the finest Committee in Parliament, of which I have very fond memories. He is right, and he will know that this Labour Government are addressing the £22 billion hole in the public finances. No decisions on the farming budget have been taken. Spending on the Department’s priorities will be confirmed as part of the spending review, but we will not be overturning the apple cart and we are fully committed to environmental land management schemes.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Arguably, and in the view of some of us, ours is the finest Select Committee in the House.
The problems with the uptake of ELMS have been at the heart of a significant departmental underspend. No fair-minded individual would blame the current Government for that, but if that money disappears back into the Treasury, never to be seen again on farms, that blame will be attached to the current Government. In opposition, they said that any underspend should be rolled over into future years. Is that still their position in government, and how will they do it?
Mary Creagh
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his election to the second best Committee in the House of Commons. We will have to sort that out outside.
There was about a £350 million underspend in the farm budget under the previous Government, who failed on their manifesto pledge to spend £2.4 billion a year on farmers. We are looking at everything as part of the spending review and decisions will be announced in due course.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
In my constituency we are about to hold regular water quality summits, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), with the water company, Ofwat, the local council, the Environment Agency and, most importantly, residents, with the aim of ending the scourge of sewage dumping. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree with me that this is a good local model and a good blueprint to be used nationally, and would he like to join us at an upcoming meeting?
Mary Creagh
I cannot speak for the Secretary of State, but I am sure that all Ministers will fight over any invitation to visit my hon. Friend’s gorgeous constituency. We are announcing a review into water. I urge him to participate and feed into that review. The sort of innovative model that brings partners together is certainly one we will be looking at.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her achievement in the election.
The Labour Government will restore stability and confidence in the sector, introducing a new deal for farmers to boost rural economic growth and strengthen food security alongside nature’s recovery. We will make the supply chain work more fairly, back British produce, and cut energy prices through GB Energy. We are continuing the roll-out of the sustainable farming initiative, and will optimise schemes and grants.
Sarah Bool
In recent weeks, I have had the pleasure of meeting farmers in Evenley at Stowe Heights farm and Barnowl farm, two of the amazing producers in South Northamptonshire. However, they and many other farmers are gravely concerned by media reports that the farming budget will be cut by £100 million. Can the Minister confirm that that is not the case, and that support for local producers is to be maintained?
Emma Hardy
Those sound like wonderful farms to visit—I might even be tempted to pop in and see them myself. Our farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), has done an incredible job, going up and down the country visiting many farmers and talking to stakeholders. As I am sure the hon. Lady will understand, anything involving the Budget is part of the spending review process, and answers will be given in due course.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Both in that answer and in the earlier answer from the environment Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), the House has heard Government Front Benchers say that no decision has been taken on the farming budget. However, media reports say that the Chancellor has decided to cut the farming budget by £100 million, as she prioritises her trade union paymasters over farmers. In these first DEFRA questions of the new Parliament will the Minister rule out cuts to the farming budget? Farmers are watching these questions, and need to be able to plan their business and have confidence that the budget will be maintained.
Emma Hardy
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that it was the previous Government—in fact, the Department for which he was responsible—who underspent the farming budget, despite their promises to spend £2.4 billion a year. That underspend broke a manifesto promise. He will also remember, because it is not all that long ago that he was on the Government Benches, that decisions about the Budget are made as part of the spending review.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
I welcome my outstanding former employee to her place in the Chamber, and thank her for her question. After 14 years of Conservative failure, the public are furious at the levels of sewage being released into our rivers, lakes and seas. Last week, this Government introduced the Water (Special Measures) Bill to strengthen the power of the water industry regulators and turn around the performance of failing water companies. The Bill will ban bonuses for chief executives when environmental standards have not been met, and will bring forward criminal charges for obstruction.
Sarah Coombes
Our canals are the pride of the Black Country: they are very important to our communities, our wildlife and our tourism. Unfortunately, like the rest of the waterways, we have seen serious pollution incidents in the canals in recent years. What are the Government doing to protect our canals and waterways and clean up the failures of the last Government?
Steve Reed
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being such a champion for waterways in and around her constituency. Toxic pollution of canals or, indeed, any other waterway is disgraceful and unacceptable. The previous Government cut resources for the regulators, leaving them incapable of investigating all the incidents that were happening. We are putting firepower back with the regulators through the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which will allow them to claw back the costs of prosecution from the organisations that are prosecuted, so that they can carry out more enforcement against organisations that got away scot-free with polluting our waterways under the previous Government.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Dozens of homes and businesses across Alverstoke village in my constituency were flooded with polluted water from the Alver creek when Storm Pierrick caused a tidal surge in April this year. We now hear that, without urgent flood protection measures, that could be a one-in-20-years scenario. Those measures will cost an extra £3.5 million, and we are waiting desperately for news from the Secretary of State’s Department about whether we have been awarded that flood and coastal erosion risk management grant so that the work can start. We are now heading into winter, with higher tides, and some of my constituents still have not been able to return to their homes and businesses after the previous flooding event. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give me that that announcement is coming soon, and will he please meet me urgently to discuss this scenario?
Steve Reed
I congratulate the hon. Member on winning her seat in the general election and taking her place. I will certainly make sure that the relevant Minister is able to meet her to discuss that issue in more detail. I am very pleased that the first meeting of our new flood resilience taskforce will be later today. The intention of that organisation is to ensure much better co-ordination between Whitehall at the centre, where the resources are held, and the agencies on the frontline that need to be taking appropriate action as quickly as possible to protect communities, businesses, farms and all of the rest of the people who can be affected by flooding, particularly given that we are seeing more frequent severe weather incidents because of climate change.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Sound management of water companies is of course vital if customers are to receive the high level of service they expect and environmental performance obligations are to be strictly adhered to. Some water companies are better managed than others, so will the Secretary of State guarantee that in his efforts to hold water companies to account, no offer of a regulatory easement will be provided—in other words, no permission to lower standards, relax environmental permits or reduce agreed levels of investment will be provided to any water company, no matter their financial circumstances, by the Government or the regulator?
Steve Reed
I will be announcing later this autumn—in just a few weeks’ time—a review of the entire water sector, including regulation. In particular, I want to make sure that regulation is as tough as possible to ensure that the practices and, frankly, the abuses that were going on can no longer happen. Part of that will be complete transparency about what is going on—on the part of the water companies, and also, I have to say, on the part of Government. It was very disappointing that, when he was a Minister, the hon. Gentleman tried to cover up the extent of sewage spills before the election, telling Environment Agency officials not to put the key figures on the front page of its environmental portal.
Mr Speaker
Order. Saying that the hon. Member “tried to cover up” is suggesting that a Member is lying, and I do not—
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member cannot raise a point of order now. He has been here long enough to know that they come at the end of questions. [Interruption.] Order. I am dealing with this. We really have to reflect on what we say about other Members in this House, and I would like the Secretary of State to withdraw what he has suggested.
Steve Reed
I withdraw that comment. Perhaps I should have said that the shadow Minister could have been more open and transparent. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not going to open up that question. We will now have the second question from Robbie Moore.
Robbie Moore
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
So there we have it: the Secretary of State’s first outing at the Dispatch Box, and he was not able to clearly answer the question I asked. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in fulfilling his obligation to hold water companies to account, he will not issue regulatory easements, no matter their financial circumstances? Will he answer that question clearly right now from the Dispatch Box?
Steve Reed
As I have already said, we are looking to strengthen, not weaken the regulation. The regulation was inappropriate. It is not just the regulation itself, but the lack of resources the regulators have had. That is why the Water (Special Measures) Bill we are introducing will allow the regulators to claw back resources from water companies that are successfully prosecuted, so that they have the firepower to prosecute further wrongdoing by those water companies or others responsible for it.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
The Government will restore stability and confidence in the sector by introducing a new deal for farmers to boost rural economic growth and strengthen food security alongside nature’s recovery. The Government are currently conducting a spending review, which will conclude in October. Departmental budgets, including spending on farming, will be confirmed through this process.
Harriet Cross
The Labour party manifesto rightly stated that the Labour party
“recognises that food security is national security.”
I agree, but those words must be matched with actions. We have already asked today about future budgets, but have not heard any answers. Will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no real-terms cuts to the agriculture budget?
Steve Reed
As the hon. Member will know, there is a spending review process going on, which will culminate with announcements in the Budget. That is the point at which all of that will be made clear and apparent.
I would gently remind the hon. Member that it was her Government who underspent the farming budget by £130 million in the previous financial year. That money should have been in the pockets of farmers, who desperately need it for the work they are doing to provide the food we want to eat and to help nature’s recovery, yet that Government were too incompetent to get it out the door. This Government will make sure that the money allocated to farmers is handed over to farmers so that they are able to use it for the purposes for which it is intended.
John Lamont
Being an MP for the Scottish Borders, I am lucky enough to represent some of the best farmers and food producers in the whole of the UK. However, as we have heard, the new Government have chosen not to give them any clarity about their future funding settlement, so I ask again: can the Secretary of State commit not to cut the funding for farmers and food production?
Steve Reed
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland.
As I said previously, a spending review process is going on. No Government announce their Budget in advance of the Budget taking place. I cannot do that either, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keen to ensure that farmers in every single part of the United Kingdom receive the support they need to do the job that we as a country need them to do to ensure that we have the food security that we want, because it is part of our national security, and that this country deserves.
Martin Vickers
Farmers in my constituency who receive funding through the sustainable farming incentive are concerned that some of the schemes are becoming over-subscribed and therefore their income is reducing. Will the Secretary of State give a reassurance that that particular initiative will continue and will do so at the existing funding levels?
Steve Reed
I have been clear, throughout the election campaign and since, that we do not intend to overturn the applecart in respect of the old schemes in general, including the SFI. We support the principles behind the schemes and want to see them continue. In terms of what the hon. Gentleman alluded to, there are ways to make them work better. My intention is to work closely with the farming sector and the nature sector to make sure that we get the maximum bang for our buck for every single penny that goes through those schemes, and that the farmers who need it get the support they deserve.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
British farmers have been badly let down by crippling trade deals, skyrocketing energy prices and devastating floods. Will the Secretary of State outline how he will restore confidence and support British farmers?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are all sorts of ways in which farmers have felt very let down over the past 14 years, and that has contributed to the tragic situation today in which we have the lowest levels of confidence ever recorded in the farming sector. Our new deal for farming is intended to start to sort part of that out.
My hon. Friend referred to trade deals that undermine farmers; they are furious about that, and at the National Farmers Union’s Back British Farming Day reception yesterday farmers made that clear to me again. We have ruled out any future trade deals that undercut and undermine British farmers in the way the previous Government’s Australia and New Zealand trade deals did.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
May I support your thanks to Terry Wiggins, Mr Speaker? He has been a great servant of this House and is a lovely bloke.
The Conservative complaints about support for farmers are a bit lame. Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity yet to work out why there was an underspend of over £100 million in the agricultural budget last year?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Opposition Members are asking me today about budget decisions that they know cannot be announced before the Budget, when presumably they are aware—because the statement has been laid—that they underspent the previous budget to the tune of £130 million. It is not that they were not warned about this either, because while we were in opposition we were making points, as were farmers, about underspends and the desperate need to get that money back out to the farmers who needed access to it. We will review the situation, find out exactly what went wrong and publish that information as soon as it is available.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Somerset is home to 8,500 farmers and food producers, which is more than any other county in the UK. They are worried that the £130 million of support will be stripped from them because the previous Government replaced the basic payment scheme with systems that were too complicated for many farmers to access. Notwithstanding the previous comments, will the Secretary of State confirm that he will not be slashing their funding, and give farmers the confidence that they need to be able to invest in the future and secure the nation’s food security?
Steve Reed
I am delighted to congratulate those farmers, producers and growers in Somerset. It is a fine county and they do an incredibly good job, of which the hon. Lady is rightly proud. I hope she will understand that I cannot make comments about the Budget in advance; I would be in deep trouble with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is something I wish to avoid. At the appropriate time, we will make absolutely clear what we intend to do. My intention is to fight the corner of farmers through the spending review process so that we can make sure they receive the resources they deserve.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
This Labour Government will introduce a new deal for farmers to boost rural economic growth and strengthen food security alongside nature recovery. We will make the supply chain work more fairly, better protect farmers from flooding and back British produce. We are continuing the roll-out of the sustainable farming initiative and will optimise schemes and grants to ensure that they work for farmers.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is the time of year when we thank farmers and nature for the harvest, and it has been a particularly difficult year. Farmers are planning ahead for next year, so will the Minister kindly give me a one-word answer to my question? I understand that she cannot announce what is in the spending review, but in the request that her Department has made to the Chancellor, is the amount she has asked for more or less than £2.4 billion?
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Lady—dare I say, my hon. Friend—for her question. Yes, it is good to remind ourselves that this is the time of harvest, when we should all be grateful and give thanks. In answer to her question, as a previous Chair of the Treasury Committee she knows that we cannot make comments on the Budget before it comes through. Like the Secretary of State, I do not wish to be in trouble with the Chancellor either.
Mr Speaker
Right, we come to Mike Amesbury—let us see if he gets in trouble.
Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Last week, I met farmers in the Frodsham part of my constituency who were asking for support to curtail the industrial thefts of GPS systems. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that, with representatives of the National Farmers Union?
Emma Hardy
It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend, and I would be delighted to talk to him about that in more detail.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
Scotland’s financial allocation will be confirmed through the spending review that concludes in October. As agriculture is devolved, it will be for the Scottish Government to allocate funding to farmers in Scotland. The UK Government are supporting farmers across the country with a new deal to boost economic growth and strengthen food security. We will protect farmers from being undercut in trade deals, make the supply chain work more fairly and back British produce.
Graeme Downie
Farming and agriculture are a vital part of the economy in west Fife and in my constituency of Dunfermline and Dollar. Yesterday, I was delighted to meet a delegation from NFU Scotland. Given the economic, social and environmental value of active farming and crofting in Scotland, and its significant contribution to the wider UK economy, will the Secretary of State share what he will do to ensure that food security and food production in Scotland remain at the heart of our national security?
Steve Reed
Many of those issues are devolved to the Scottish Government. I have already held meetings with the Scottish Agriculture Minister and we are due to meet again next week, and I will be making sure that we have a strong working relationship.
Where the UK Government have a role in particular is with trade deals. Many British producers were upset that because the previous Government erected barriers to trade when they were told that they would continue to get open access to the European markets, they could no longer continue to sell their great British produce into those markets, damaging them economically and financially. We will be seeking a new veterinary deal with the European Union to get those exports moving again.
Mr Speaker
I remind those on the Front Bench that it is topical questions, so questions and answers have to be short and punchy. The thing is, I have to try to get in as many as I can. Let us see a good example of that with the shadow Secretary of State.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State has repeatedly talked tough with the water companies, yet the Water (Special Measures) Bill that he announced actually weakens a number of measures, such as the automatic fines for category 1 and 2 prosecutions, and removes the unlimited penalties that would apply. He said that the review of water regulation would strengthen requirements on water firms; will he therefore confirm to the House that there will be no regulatory easements as part of that review?
Steve Reed
The very Bill that the right hon. Gentleman referred to strengthens regulation. We will be looking further at regulation through the review. The intention will be to make it stronger, not weaker, because it was far too weak under the previous Government and we need to turn that around.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Congratulations to my hon. Friend on her election. She is absolutely right to be outraged at the level of sewage pumped into our rivers, lakes and seas under the previous Government. I hope that where she saw inaction in the past, she will see this Government taking action right now through our Water (Special Measures) Bill. We will not stand by and allow these levels of pollution to continue.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Emma Hardy
Of course, we recognise the impacts of the cost of living on all our constituents, but the years of under-investment by the Conservatives mean that we need £88 billion-worth of investment in the industry. Customer bills will be ringfenced under the changes brought about by the Government, and if that money is not spent on infrastructure improvement, it will be refunded to customers. Of course, the final bills are determined by Ofwat, not the Government.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/ Co-op)
Steve Reed
What has been going on in my hon. Friend’s constituency is completely unacceptable. I know that she has been a huge champion for cleaning up the water in that part of the country. One of the things we are looking at doing is doubling the rates of compensation from water companies when they let down their customers as she described.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new seat and congratulate him on winning the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ Massingham advocacy award. The Department remains vigilant to potential global disease threats and has robust measures in place to prevent and detect disease incursion. We will be looking at funding as part of the spending review, but I pay tribute to those officials and veterinary officers who are working so hard to tackle the outbreaks that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Mary Creagh
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. We need to educate the public and ourselves that there is no such place as “away” and that when we bring our children and our picnics to the beach, we should consume the food and leave only footprints in the sand. I am convening a circular economy taskforce, and we will look at seasonal needs as part of that.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Steve Reed
The Government remain fully committed to the ELM schemes, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make announcements about the budget at the appropriate time.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Under the Conservative Government, there were almost 18,000 hours of sewage dumping in my constituency in 2023. What is the Minister doing to ensure that Yorkshire Water cleans up its act and our beautiful River Don?
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and welcome her to her place. She is already a tireless champion for her constituency, and she has raised this issue with me in the past. Our new Water (Special Measures) Bill will clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, undoing the damage left behind after 14 years of Conservative rule.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Steve Reed
We will publish all information relating to the Bill at the appropriate time during its passage through Parliament.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
What action will the Secretary of State and his Department take to support farmers in addressing rural crime, which is a huge issue for farmers in my constituency and across Essex?
Steve Reed
I am pleased to say that I made a joint announcement with the Home Secretary that this will be the first Government to have a cross-departmental rural crime strategy intended to cut the huge impact of rural crime on communities.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Biodiversity net gain is critical to replacing the loss we are experiencing in our environment and is now mandatory in planning applications—but with exemptions. Those exemptions mean that most developers are avoiding biodiversity net gain, so what will the Government do to tighten up the exemptions and make that more difficult?
Mary Creagh
This is a very new policy and has only just come into force, as the hon. Lady will be aware. There are very limited exemptions in place at the moment, such as that on side returns on housing, but we are keeping the issue under active review and I am in discussions with officials about it.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The bluetongue outbreak in Haddiscoe is seriously concerning, and it is crucial that the Animal and Plant Health Agency is provided with sufficient resources to conduct testing swiftly. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss this urgent matter?
Steve Reed
I am happy to ensure that the relevant Minister meets my hon. Friend to discuss the issue. However, the APHA and other authorities are doing a good job right now of containing a very worrying incident of bluetongue.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
In Bexhill and Battle we get to enjoy the amazing High Weald area of outstanding natural beauty, but it is expansive, covering more than 1,400 sq km. What advice did the Minister’s Department give the Housing Department on taking such issues into account when centrally imposed housing targets are putting pressure on the area as a whole?
Mary Creagh
It is important to remember that our national landscapes are protected landscapes and that the planning authorities work appropriately on such issues. I am in discussions with officials and I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with a proper answer on the issue.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
In my constituency we also have confirmed cases of bluetongue, and I recently met a farmer who lost six pregnant ewes last week. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue and how we can support farmers in my constituency and across the east of England?
Steve Reed
I will happily ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting, perhaps with our hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), to discuss the issue in her region.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Before the school summer holidays, 26 year 3 students at Holy Trinity primary school in Cookham wrote to me about sewage in the Thames. They are really concerned that water companies are allowed to get away with putting sewage in our water. Will the Minister meet me and students at Holy Trinity to discuss their concerns?
Emma Hardy
As a former primary school teacher, how can I not say yes to a meeting with the students from my hon. Friend’s constituency? I am already looking forward to it.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I am very concerned about the future of the Thetford biomass facility in my constituency. Every year, it turns half a million tonnes of poultry litter into electricity. Has the Secretary of State had meetings to discuss the potential impact of the end of the renewables obligation scheme on the disposal of poultry litter?
Mary Creagh
We are in the early stages of looking at how we deal with the country’s waste and considering the policies we will bring forward. This will be looked at as part of the review. We will be working with colleagues from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to ensure we get the right results.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State meet me and the Environment Agency to discuss the closure of Marsh Lock bridge on the Thames path in Henley-on-Thames?
Emma Hardy
I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and the Environment Agency to discuss the matter in more detail.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Solicitor General (Sarah Sackman)
It is a privilege to be appointed as His Majesty’s Solicitor General. My fellow Law Officers and I will be working to restore public faith in government and the rule of law, and to support the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor in delivering our safer streets mission.
Sentencing policy is quintessentially a matter for the Ministry of Justice; sentencing is a matter for our judges. Offenders already have the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal against their sentences, including when they consider them to be unduly excessive.
Ellie Chowns
Since 4 July, more than 40 people have been jailed in the UK for peaceful acts of conscience: some for protesting climate breakdown, some for taking measures to stop violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza. The UN special rapporteur, Michel Forst, has made public statements to the effect that these sentences violate international law and are not acceptable in a democracy. With our prisons in crisis and radical measures necessary, as we have seen with the release of prisoners this week, will the Attorney General issue guidance to judges to ensure that sentencing for peaceful protest is realigned with common sense, democratic principles and international law?
The Solicitor General
Decisions to prosecute, convict and sentence are rightly made independently of Government by the Crown Prosecution Service, juries and judges respectively. As I have already said, if someone wants to appeal an unduly excessive sentence, they can do so and our courts are there to handle that matter.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Government have pledged to undertake a review of sentencing generally. I wonder whether I can tempt the Solicitor General to support a wider review of aspects of the criminal justice system that do not seem to be working, in particular the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the CPS in dealing with potential miscarriages of justice. This week, Oliver Campbell’s conviction for murder was quashed by the Court of Appeal as unsafe. The Criminal Cases Review Commission was asked to look at the case in 2005. The CPS resisted the appeal and asked for a retrial after 33 years.
The Solicitor General
First, I welcome my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his election as Chair of the Justice Committee. He is right that we will be undertaking a review of sentencing. On miscarriages of justice, we will want to work with him to look into that further. I am happy to meet him to discuss such matters.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
May I first warmly welcome the Solicitor General to her place, and the Attorney General to his place in the other place, in what the Solicitor General will already know is one of the most interesting and challenging parts of government? While I am at it, I should of course also welcome the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) as the new Chair of the Justice Committee. May I also take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), the shadow Solicitor General, on the responsibilities he will shortly take up on behalf of the whole House, which he will do brilliantly after an all-too-short career on the Opposition Front Bench?
I do not know for how long the Solicitor General and I will have these exchanges over the Dispatch Boxes, but I am glad to be able to start on a note of consensus. I agree with her that it would not be appropriate to extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme to cover unduly severe sentences, for which, as she says, appeal is already available, but she will agree that the scheme is always capable of improvement. It is currently wholly reactive, responding to requests from others for sentences to be reviewed. May I ask the Solicitor General to consider the merits of her Department, and indeed the Ministry of Justice—I see that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), is sitting beside her—monitoring sentencing more proactively, in particular for newly created offences, so that we can all have confidence that, particularly in relation to those offences, sentences are being passed within anticipated ranges?
The Solicitor General
I thank the right hon. and learned Member for his question, and also for his warm welcome. He is enormously experienced in these matters, as both a former Attorney General and a former Justice Minister. As he rightly notes, newly created offences, such as those created by the Online Safety Act 2023, do not currently fall within the scope of the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, and I understand that there are no immediate plans to extend the scheme further, but—again, as he rightly notes—we always look for opportunities to reform, and, along with my Department, I will keep that under review.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Sarah Sackman)
For too long, women and girls across the country have faced routine threats of appalling violence and abuse. This Government were elected with a clear mandate to halve violence against women and girls within a decade; that is what we will deliver, and it is something to which I am personally committed. In the early stages of that process, I have recently met both the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner to discuss how the Crown Prosecution Service can work closely with the police from the earliest point to build robust, victim-centred investigations that will drive improvements in conviction rates.
Debbie Abrahams
I, too, welcome the Solicitor General to her position. She will be aware of the appalling increase in crimes against women and girls throughout the United Kingdom, including my constituency and Greater Manchester more widely. More than a million such crimes were recorded last year, constituting both 20% of all crimes logged and an increase in the number of violent crimes against women and girls. Given the seriousness of the situation, what plans do the Government have to ensure that we prosecute effectively and quickly?
The Solicitor General
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election as chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. The statistics that she has given are indeed worrying, and the mission of halving violence against women and girls is therefore central to the Government’s agenda. Behind each of those statistics lie heartbreaking personal stories. We need to do much better, which is why the Lord Chancellor has committed herself to introducing specialist rape courts to fast-track rape cases and why the Home Office is delivering plans to introduce specialist rape and sexual offence teams in every police force. It is measures of that kind that will address the problems highlighted by my hon. Friend.
Peter Swallow
The 2023 police efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy report on Thames Valley police established that the force did not make full use of Clare’s law. Does the Solicitor General agree that Clare’s law is a powerful tool to protect women from those who have already been prosecuted for domestic violence?
The Solicitor General
I thank my hon. Friend for raising an important issue. He is right: Clare’s law is a powerful tool, and it needs to be applied more evenly and consistently. The domestic violence disclosure scheme, known as Clare’s law, enables the police to disclose information to a victim, or potential victim, of domestic abuse about previous abusive or violent offending by a partner or ex-partner. The police need to consider each request on its own merits. However, more needs to be done to ensure that the scheme is used consistently by police forces across the country, and I understand that the Home Office is currently engaging with the police to see how its application can be improved.
Catherine Fookes
May I warmly welcome the Solicitor General to her place? I am sure she agrees that the dreadful legacy of the last Government’s record on rape convictions cannot be allowed to continue. She knows that behind the statistics—less than 2% of rapes are prosecuted—lie real people such as a woman in my constituency of Monmouthshire, who has been waiting on a CPS decision for two years and three months. Her life has been on hold and in limbo as she waits to hear whether the perpetrator will be charged. She has summoned up the courage to report, and we cannot leave her or anyone else in indefinite limbo. Can the Solicitor General share what progress has been made on the introduction of the Government’s new rape courts? What impact does she expect them to have on the time lag between reporting and charging, and on prosecution rates for those charged with violence against women?
The Solicitor General
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concerns. As her constituent’s heartbreaking experience illustrates, such delays are traumatic for victims. They too often lead to what is known as victim attrition, which leads to trials collapsing and deters others from reporting these sorts of offences. This has gone on for far too long, and we need to get a grip on the situation. That is why the Lord Chancellor has committed to introducing specialist rape courts and working with the judiciary to drive down wait times. Obviously, those need to be carefully considered while navigating other pressures on the justice system, and I hope to be able to update the House on the Government’s plan in due course.
Anneliese Midgley
Between 2022 and 2023, my constituency of Knowsley had the highest number of deaths per capita due to domestic abuse, but very few people are charged for domestic abuse, let alone prosecuted. Will the Law Officers meet me to discuss how we can join up the criminal justice system so that the police and prosecutors work together to take dangerous abusers off our streets?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the incredibly distressing figures. As I said before, the human stories that lie behind them will each tell a tragic tale, which is why tackling this issue is at the heart of this Government’s agenda. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and her local chief Crown prosecutor, Jonathan Storer, to discuss this serious issue and look at how we can improve joint working between the CPS and the police.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
May I congratulate the Solicitor General on her appointment?
Among the most serious offences involving women and girls are rape and serious sexual offences. Once victims come forward, there are often delays in their cases being heard, and a frequent driver of that is the difficulty in getting sufficiently experienced counsel. A major driver of that is the gap between the fees for prosecuting and defending counsel. Does the Solicitor General agree that there is an urgent need to plug that gap?
The Solicitor General
We know that the availability of sufficiently experienced prosecutors is a problem that needs to be looked at. That is why, in appropriate cases, we are looking at using associate prosecutors to clear the backlog in our courts more generally, but for the most serious crimes of rape and violence against women and girls, we need specialist prosecutors. The Government will be looking closely at both recruitment and retention.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I welcome the Solicitor General to her place? I wish her well in the role and hope that it goes according to plan. Can she further clarify that funding is available for each branch of the prosecution services to provide the protection and support that helps victims to speak out? Is there any discussion about whether increased funding for victim support could embolden victims and help to facilitate even more safe prosecutions?
The Solicitor General
It is vital that we place victims at the centre of our justice system, which is why this Government are looking to strengthen the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. As we announced in the King’s Speech, the victims, courts and public protection Bill will strengthen those powers to improve accountability and ensure that victims’ voices are centred and heard from start to finish throughout the criminal justice process.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
May I, too, welcome the Solicitor General not just to the House, but to her place? I thank the shadow Attorney General for his warm words and for the good nature of yesterday’s election.
Only a few weeks ago, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing issued a joint national policing statement on violence against women and girls, which said:
“We are transforming the way police officers investigate rape and serious sexual offences and over the last year we have trained over 4,500 new officers in investigating this complex crime.”
The Solicitor General does not have direct responsibility for policing services, but she did say that she would be working with her Home Office and Ministry of Justice colleagues, so can she confirm that those 4,500 newly trained officers, who were trained under the previous Conservative Government, will dedicate the majority of their policing activities to working on cases exclusively involving violence against women and girls?
The Solicitor General
I echo other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Gentleman. As we have said, the mission to halve violence against women and girls within the next decade is a central priority for the Government. One aspect of that will be cross-departmental working between the Attorney General’s office, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, as well as with other departmental colleagues. It is an absolute priority and at the moment—in the earliest stages—we are looking at exactly how we will do that. It is right that those priorities are communicated to every branch of the criminal justice system, including policing, the Crown Prosecution Service and other agencies involved.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Just one in 83 rape offences recorded by Avon and Somerset Police last year resulted in a charge or court summons. Compared with other police forces in the south-west, that represents a significant increase in 2023-24 for rape and sexual offence crimes. Does the Solicitor General agree that more needs to be done to strengthen the justice system as a whole to properly deal with sexual violence and domestic abuse, not just in Avon and Somerset but across England and Wales?
The Solicitor General
I entirely agree with the hon. Member that this needs to be an absolute priority and that we need to drive improvements in conviction rates. That is why there is a commitment to introduce specialist rape courts, working to fast-track rape cases and driving down wait times, and why it is important, at the start of the system, to put domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms. It is that whole suite of measures that will lead to the improvements that we all want to see.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Solicitor General (Sarah Sackman)
Our safer streets mission will drive essential change to bring an end to the epidemic of shoplifting that is plaguing our high streets. Between 2018 and 2023, under the last Government, the charge rate for shoplifting offences went down significantly, by 5%, so we are seeing 10,000 fewer charges a year. Rather than criminalising vulnerable people, this Government believe that criminal gangs have been emboldened by poor enforcement and immunity for low-level shoplifting. We are not prepared to stand by and allow that to continue, which is why the time is right to take action against that unacceptable behaviour.
Steve Darling
I congratulate the Solicitor General on their appointment. The British Retail Consortium identified a £1.7 billion cost to traders from the offence. Having spoken to traders in Torquay and Paignton, I know that it has a massive impact on the viability of them trading on our high streets. How will the Solicitor General ensure that we expedite shoplifting prosecutions?
The Solicitor General
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. Members will be all too aware of the impact that such offences have on our constituents, whether they are customers or business owners. The police are working closely with CPS colleagues to prosecute shoplifting, but we know there is more to do. Among additional measures, the Government will introduce a new offence of assaulting retail workers, in order to protect the hard-working and dedicated staff who work in those stores. There are other things that we can do, but that is a start.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Sarah Sackman)
There seem to have been a lot of congratulations this morning, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on being elected as Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have been clear that there is no place for senseless violence on our streets. During the summer, after the recent disorder, the Crown Prosecution Service deployed an additional 100 prosecutors, expanded its 24-hour charging service and received additional advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions to enable it to charge more quickly. The deterrent effects of this swift action are an example of how the system can work well when it works together.
Bill Esterson
I thank the Solicitor General for her kind words, and I congratulate her in turn on her appointment. I also congratulate the Government on their excellent response to the riots over the summer, which she has just outlined.
My hon. and learned Friend has talked about the early release scheme, which is, of course, the result of the shortage of prison places inherited from the previous Government, but does she agree that those convicted and imprisoned as a result of the riots, and those imprisoned for inciting the riots, should not benefit from the early release scheme?
The Solicitor General
I express my solidarity with my hon. Friend and his constituents, who will have been closely affected by the awful recent events in his neighbouring constituency. I know the Attorney General was deeply moved by his recent visit to Southport and what he learned there.
On the early release scheme, my hon. Friend will have heard the Lord Chancellor set out very clearly this week the importance of taking action on the mess on prison places that this Government inherited. Without the action we have taken, courts would have been unable to hold trials, the police would have been unable to make arrests and there would have been a total breakdown of law and order. The Lord Chancellor has provided details of the scheme, including its carefully considered safeguards. The scheme will apply across the board to all offenders, including rioters and those convicted of the most serious offences.
Jake Richards
It is wonderful to see my hon. and learned Friend at the Dispatch Box. I also congratulate the Government on the speediness with which justice has been done for many of the summer’s rioters, which is testament to the good work of the CPS and defence lawyers. What lessons can be learnt more generally to ensure that speedy justice can occur for specific offences, particularly domestic violence?
The Solicitor General
The main lesson that we can take from this is how well the system can work when all of its constituent parts—the police, the leadership at the top of Government, and the CPS—all pull in the same direction. That approach will inform this Government’s commitment to mission-led government, which will bring all the key elements of the criminal justice system together and ensure that decisions are taken with the whole system in mind. That will particularly apply to the mission on halving violence against women and girls.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Sarah Sackman)
This Government have made tackling antisocial behaviour, which blights our streets and threatens many of our communities, a top priority. The new crime and policing Bill announced in the King’s Speech will include strong measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, to support neighbourhood policing and to give the police stronger powers to crack down on antisocial behaviour and keep our streets safe.
Ms Billington
What we have noticed, particularly in town centres such as Ramsgate and Margate, is that antisocial behaviour, drug dealing and street crime, particularly knife crime, continue because of people’s anxiety about giving evidence against the criminals. What will my hon. and learned Friend and the Government do to give people confidence that the criminal justice system and prosecutions will flow once they have given their evidence?
The Solicitor General
Just this week the Prime Minister met police, victims, families and media companies specifically to discuss knife crime, which plagues my hon. Friend’s community and many others across the country. The Prime Minister has promised to double down on these crimes, and to halve them in the next decade. I am part of a cross-departmental team that will work to deliver this. The Government are committed to taking back our streets by increasing the amount of neighbourhood policing, recruiting more prosecutors to deal swiftly with these crimes and bringing forward laws to ban zombie knives and machetes.
Point of Order
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sir David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Transparency of justice is vital. To that end, Members of this House should be freely able to see exactly what happens at any trial in this country. Yet when I tried to obtain a transcript of the Lucy Letby trial from Manchester Crown court, I was told it would cost me £100,000. That number eventually reduced to £9,000. In any event, that is more than any of us in this House can afford. It is critical that parliamentarians have free access to that kind of data. Will the House authorities talk to the relevant Government Department to ensure that transcripts of all trials are freely available to Members of this House?
Mr Speaker
This is not a matter for the Chair, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not the only Member with concerns about the cost of such transcripts. I will ask the House authorities to look into the matter, because such costs inhibit Members. The outrageous amount of £100,000 prohibits Members of Parliament from carrying out their duty on behalf of their constituents. The Solicitor General is in the Chamber, so I hope that she will take these comments on board and let us speak to the company concerned. I will also take the matter up with the Clerks of the House. Does the Solicitor General wish to make a comment? If not, let us proceed.
Business of the House
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House provide a statement about forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 7 October is as follows:
Monday 7 October—General debate on Lord Darzi’s independent investigation into NHS performance.
Tuesday 8 October—Opposition day (2nd allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition; subject to be announced.
Wednesday 9 October—Second Reading of the Renters’ Rights Bill.
Thursday 10 October—As well as my birthday, a general debate on sport, following the Team GB and ParalympicsGB successes.
Friday 11 October—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 14 October will include:
Monday 14 October—Second Reading of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill.
Tuesday 15 October—Second Reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.
Wednesday 16 October—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats; subject to be announced.
Thursday 17 October—General debate; subject to be announced.
Friday 18 October—The House will not be sitting.
Chris Philp
The business announced for the first week back strikes me as extraordinarily light. There is only a single piece of substantive Government business and half the time will be taken up with general debate. This “Government of service” seem to be taking it pretty easy. In fact, after 70 days, only 13 Bills have been introduced. I looked up the record of the previous Government. I discovered that they introduced 31 new Bills in 100 days following the 2019 election. The right hon. Lady has quite a lot of work to do in the next 30 days, if she is going to catch up with Boris Johnson.
Millions of pensioners are sick with worry following the vote earlier this week to strip them of the winter fuel allowance, including pensioners in poverty. I acknowledge and recognise the 53 courageous Labour MPs who did not support that appalling measure, but the other 350 did vote for it. I join the Leader of the Opposition in urgently calling on the Government to publish the impact assessment.
On 8 July, in a speech to the civil service, the Prime Minister said that his Government would be “open and transparent”. Where is the openness and transparency here? The only impact assessment that we have seen is the Labour party’s own impact assessment suggesting that the policy would cause 3,850 deaths. I call on the Leader of the House to do the decent thing and publish that impact assessment. This is not so much a Government of service as a Government of secrecy.
I also call for an urgent debate on the management of the early release scheme for prisoners. The Justice Secretary came to this House on 25 July and promised us that the “worst violent and sexual” offenders would be “excluded”—I am quoting her words directly. She also promised that domestic abuse offenders would be excluded. I am sorry to say to the House that that is not what has happened. The Napo general secretary, Ian Lawrence, says:
“Members have shared examples where those with both Domestic Violence offences and Sexual Offences have been released”.
He goes on to say that his members—prison officers—
“are extremely disappointed that this has been denied during several media appearances by Government ministers”.
He calls on the Government to correct the record, and I call on the Leader of the House to do so now: to correct the record and correct the inaccurate information that her colleagues have provided to the public.
Some of the examples of those being released early, contrary to the assurances that the Justice Secretary gave to this House, are appalling. Lawson Natty, age 20, who is due for early release, provided the machete that was used to kill 14-year-old Gordon Gault, whose mother describes herself as “sickened” by the early release. Adam Andrews, who is also due for early release, brutally assaulted a 21-day-old baby, leaving that baby blind and paralysed. We were promised that serious violent offenders would not be released early. That promise appears to have been broken. Not a Government of service; a Government of shameful incompetence.
It has been 70 days since the election and it has been a pretty terrible start to government: pensioners in poverty have been stripped of their winter fuel allowance, while there are inflation-busting pay rises for train drivers who already earn £65,000 a year; Labour party donors have been appointed to civil service positions; and there has been the botched release of prisoners, contrary to promises made to this House that violent offenders would not be released early. No wonder the Government’s approval ratings have plummeted at what, as far as I can see, is the fastest rate for any Government in modern times. The rates now stand at minus 36%. But not to worry: the Government do have one new supporter. Mr Djaber Benallaoua says that he will now be “a lifelong Labour voter”. The only problem is that he is a convicted drug dealer who is very happy about his early release. Not so much a Government of service as a Government for their donors, for their trade union paymasters, and for violent criminals who they promised would not be released early, but who they did in fact release.
Lucy Powell
May I start by welcoming the news that the Princess of Wales has completed her chemotherapy and is moving on to the next stage of her recovery? Like you, Mr Speaker, I place on the record my thanks to the Speaker’s Chaplain, the Venerable Patricia Hillas, in her final week. We thank her for her contribution to this House.
I congratulate all the newly elected Select Committee Chairs; they play a very important role in this House. I also send my regards to Terry Wiggins, who has served us as a chef for an astonishing 50 years. We all know Terry as the mainstay of the Debate, and I am sure that he will miss serving up the famous House of Commons jerk chicken. I know that he is looking forward to having more time for walking with his dogs. They must be the best-fed dogs in the country.
This week, for the first time in 14 years, a Labour Bill became an Act. The Budget Responsibility Act 2024 ensures that there can never again be a repeat of Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget. It comes as we grapple with the £22 billion black hole left by the Conservative party—what a stark reminder that is of the importance of economic stability.
The theme this week is the Government honouring their commitment to all those who have been let down. We have published the Renters’ Rights Bill, which will finally end no-fault evictions—a measure long promised but never realised. In order to help unlock town centre regeneration, we have begun reform of outdated compulsory rules—levelling up, remember that? And to the workers of Port Talbot Steel left hanging by the previous Government, the Business and Trade Secretary announced a new deal, welcomed by workers and their representatives.
Today, we introduce the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, otherwise known as Martyn’s law, meeting a promise that the Prime Minister made to Figen Murray, who lost her son Martyn Hett in the Manchester arena attack. I am personally delighted that we are doing this today. This is a Government of service, delivering their manifesto, sticking to their promises and cleaning up the mess left by the Conservative party.
Work began this week on another commitment that we made, with the first meeting of the Modernisation Committee. I thank Members from across the House who have joined and contributed to the process so far, including the shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who is taking his membership very seriously indeed. This morning, the Committee published a memorandum setting out its core principles and early priorities, and I encourage Members from across the House to take a look at that.
We seem to be developing a common theme in these exchanges. The Conservatives lost the election badly because they crashed the economy, made people worse off and did not fix the foundations of this country. The shadow Leader of the House seems to think that we can just carry on as we were, but we saw that movie and it did not end well.
The shadow Leader of the House asks me about the prisons crisis—[Interruption.] Okay, he say it was the management of the prisoner release scheme. Let us just remember that we inherited from the Conservatives prisons on the point of collapse. After the riots, we came within 100 places of our prisons overflowing. If we had not acted, courts would not have been able to hold trials and the police would not have been able to make arrests. Our entire criminal justice system was on the brink of collapse. Police chiefs warned his Government that failing to act before the election would increase the risk considerably, including the risk of serious disorder. What did his Government do? Absolutely nothing. We took the difficult decisions that we had to in order to ensure that our prisons and the whole criminal justice system did not collapse. The previous Government ducked the big issues, as ever; we acted. I will not take any lectures from him about that.
I notice that the shadow Leader of the House did not ask me about the NHS. The damning findings of the Darzi report, out this morning, are another utterly unforgiveable example of the state of public services that we inherited from the Conservative party. The true scale of the crisis in our NHS, experienced by all our constituents, family and friends every day, has been laid bare this morning. Does he want to take the opportunity to apologise for that? No, I did not think he would.
I also notice that the shadow Leader of the House did not repeat the claim that he often makes that the previous Government left us a booming economy. Is that because yesterday’s growth figures confirmed what we all know: that under his party’s watch, we had no growth, falling living standards and a stagnant economy? That is the legacy of his party, and he knows it.
We are fixing the foundations and stabilising the economy. That is why the Conservatives lost and we won. We will not put our heads in the sand. We are keeping our promises—to renters, to steelworkers, and, today, to Figen Murray—and restoring the trust in politics squandered by the Conservative party. This is the change that the country voted for, and the change that we are delivering.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on glioblastoma drug treatments? As Mr Speaker and she will know, 3,200 people each year are diagnosed with this death sentence. It is the largest killer of the under-40s, and life expectancy at five years is just 5%. Without Government intervention in the pharmaceutical industry and the NHS, there will be no improvement for another 40 years, and we will continue to see the same number of people traumatised, dead and scandalised.
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. I know what an amazing campaigner she has become on the issue of brain cancers, following the tragic death of her much loved sister, Margaret, whom we all dearly miss to this day. My hon. Friend and I both know many people affected by this terrible disease, which is the killer of so many, and delivers people such a terrible prognosis. It is absolutely heartbreaking. I will ensure that the Health Secretary has heard what she has said. Should she apply for a debate on the subject, I am sure that it would be very welcome to the House.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the forthcoming business, and echo her in wishing the Princess of Wales all the best in her further recovery. May I also say how proud it makes me that the first Opposition day debate in the name of the Liberal Democrats has been announced?
Tomorrow marks the beginning of the Jane Austen festival in Bath. It is the largest festival of its kind, and a wonderful occasion to celebrate one of the city’s most famous residents. Everybody here is invited to come and celebrate Jane Austen in Bath’s regency glory. Austen is one of the UK’s best known female authors, and her writing is still known hundreds of years after she wrote her famous novels. She was a strong advocate for education and broke down barriers for women in education and literature, which makes it all the more disappointing that even today many students will not study a female author at GCSE. A shameful 2% of students did, according to End Sexism in Schools. It is not just when it comes to the authorship of novels that women lack representation; over 70% of the set texts offered by the most popular awarding body have both a male author and a male protagonist.
Diverse literature enriches children’s education. There is a wealth of inspiring novels written by women that children unfortunately do not get to read in school. If the next generation is to grow up challenging male dominance in society, boys and girls need to be exposed to empowering representations of women. We need more pride and less prejudice in the curriculum. In the light of the Government’s upcoming curriculum and assessment review, can we have a statement from a Minister on how to address the gender bias in English literature?
Lucy Powell
What a wonderful issue to raise in business questions. I wish the residents of Bath, and everybody across this country, good wishes in celebrating the fabulous work of Jane Austen. I have not had time to think of a better pun than the one that the hon. Lady weaved into her tribute, but she is right that women, young girls, and young boys really should study female authors, and understand the contribution that women have made to the progress of society across not just culture, the arts and literature but science, engineering and technology. They are too often forgotten in our history and curriculum. I am sure that this matter figures in our curriculum review, and I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Education has heard her very good question.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I associate myself with the words of the Leader of the House about Terry Wiggins. I knew Terry over 50 years ago, as we grew up in the same area. He is also a commissioner of scouts in Greenwich, and he puts a lot into our local community.
Will the Leader of the House consider the contaminated blood scandal as a possible subject for debate on Thursday 17 October? We were promised a full day’s debate on the scandal following the publication of Sir Robert Francis’s report on the compensation scheme.
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He will be aware that in the short time we have been in Government, there have been two statements to the House on the infected blood compensation scheme. Over the summer, the Government worked at pace, and incredibly hard, to ensure that our statutory deadline for establishing the compensation scheme was met by 23 August. That compensation scheme is now up and running, and money is being paid out. He is right that there is a commitment to providing further time for debate of the issues on the Floor of the House, and there is active discussion about bringing that forward.
Mr Speaker
I call and welcome the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I urge the Leader of the House to publish the membership numbers for Select Committees, and urge the usual channels to get on with populating those Committees, in particular of course the Backbench Business Committee, so that we can start to schedule the debates that Back Benchers, rather than the Government, want to table.
The Leader of the House has not announced when the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will come back. In Committee, I and many Labour Members proposed amendments to the then Government’s Bill that we will want to progress. I realise that the matter will be considered by the Health Secretary. Will the Leader of the House also take away and consider the view that shisha lounges and the sale of paan need to be included in the measures? Otherwise, we will leave escape clauses for those who want to resist taking action on mouth, throat and lung cancer.
Lucy Powell
I welcome the hon. Gentleman, following his election, to his position as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. I know what fantastic work he did as Vice-Chair of the Committee in the previous Parliament, as he and I were in these sessions together for many hours. I look forward to working with him, and have already been in touch with him to fix up a meeting at the earliest opportunity, so that we can table forthcoming business in the Chamber. We will absolutely work at pace to populate the Committees and get them up and running as quickly as possible.
We announced in the King’s Speech that we would take forward the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which will come to the House in due course. One issue that the Secretary of State is considering is how to strengthen the Bill before we introduce it by looking at amendments from the previous Session.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
May I say how good it is to see my right hon. Friend in her role as Leader of the House?
The Competition and Markets Authority, backed by the Court of Appeal, found that pharmaceutical firms Auden McKenzie and Actavis UK charged excessive and unfair prices for hydrocortisone tablets. NHS spending on those products rose from around £500,000 to over £80 million a year. Producers gaming the system to gouge the NHS is a bad look. Tens of thousands of people depend on those tablets to treat conditions such as Addison’s disease. May we have a statement on NHS procurement? Our new plan for procurement must prevent bad actors from ripping off our NHS.
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. It is a pleasure to continue working with him in this new Session, as I did so closely in the last. He is a real champion for transparency, accountability and value for money in government, and he raises those important matters today. He may wish to raise them after business questions, during the statement on the NHS audits that have just been carried out, as procurement is a key part of those findings.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I recently visited Lindsey Lodge hospice, which serves my constituents along with St Andrew’s hospice in Grimsby. They rely on Government for approximately a third of their income. Obviously, there were concerns that that income may be reduced in the near future. The volunteers do tremendous work, but they need that Government support. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to reassure those hospices about their future income streams?
Lucy Powell
That topic came up a lot in last week’s business questions, so I am sure that there would be wide support for the hon. Gentleman’s request. The role that hospices play in end-of-life care is critical to this country. I think it would surprise most people to understand that the vast majority of hospice funding is charitable and not from the Government. I encourage him to apply for a debate, because I think that he would get a lot of support.
Mr Speaker
I call Patricia Ferguson, whom I congratulate on her election to the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Will the Leader of the House comment on the Government’s actions to reset the relationship with the Scottish Government? The early meeting of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with the First Minister of Scotland was widely welcomed, but what more can be done to ensure that both Governments work together to deliver for the people of Scotland?
Lucy Powell
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her election to the Chair of the Select Committee. I know that she will approach that job with gusto and be a powerful voice on those issues in the Chamber. She is absolutely right: it is important for us to work constructively and in a grown-up way with the Scottish Government. The Prime Minister has begun the process of resetting the relationship. I myself have met the Scottish First Minister, and I will go up to Scotland in the coming weeks. We also want to strengthen the Sewel convention, to which I know she will give great consideration as the Chair of the Select Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
May I pick up on the question asked by the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) about the infected blood scandal? The Leader of the House confirmed that there would be regulations to establish compensation for eligible persons affected—the families, widows in many cases, or children who were left without parents—by the scandal. Will she make time for a debate in which the Government confirm when those regulations will be made?
Lucy Powell
I congratulate the hon. Lady, too, on becoming Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I know she will perform the role with great passion and diligence as she did in the last Session.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The compensation scheme is now established. Those infected will receive their compensation by the end of this year, and those affected can expect to receive their compensation in 2025. There will be further statements from the Paymaster General as the compensation scheme progresses.
Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)
May I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 169, which expresses my concern about the low threshold for pension credit and its cliff-edge nature?
[That this House notes that the current threshold of pension support to open the gate way of winter fuel allowance is too low; further notes the need to change the cliff-edge nature of the pension credit threshold; and calls upon the Government to capture the gateway support for those citizens with small occupational pensions that take them just above the threshold.]
Will we have a ministerial statement on how the Government are going to address that?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is a fantastic campaigner for those who are on the breadline or struggling, especially the many pensioners in his constituency. I know he will continue to raise those matters with the Government, as he should and is right to do. We have protected the triple lock, which has increased the state pension by £900 this year and over £400 next year. We are ensuring that there is other support for pensioners on pension credit and aligning that with housing benefit. I encourage him to keep raising these questions and I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard his call for a further statement.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The issue of special educational needs funding is well known in the House. Local authorities are still waiting for clarity on an extension to the statutory override that allows them to fund the shortfall from core council budgets, including their reserves. The deficit in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, where many of my constituents’ children go to school, has reached £64 million with reserves at just £65 million. Councils are not permitted to borrow to fund the deficit, and without urgent action they will be unable to set a legally balanced budget in February. Will time be made for the House to discuss special educational needs and disabilities funding and local government finance before well-run councils such as BCP become insolvent and more vulnerable children are failed?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing up an issue that is raised frequently with me and other Ministers, because, too often, those with special educational needs find that our education system does not cater for them. Our children’s wellbeing Bill will come to the House in due course. It will require all schools to co-operate with local authorities on special educational needs inclusions. There will be further announcements about education funding as part of the comprehensive spending review.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
This Tuesday was World Suicide Prevention Day. Sadly, the latest statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that suicide rates are higher than we have seen for two decades. These are not just statistics; they are people, and each suicide affects families, friends, colleagues and communities. Suicide is preventable, not inevitable, so can we have a debate in Government time on how we can prevent these dreadful suicides?
Lucy Powell
Suicide remains one of the biggest killers of young people in this country, and the figures are growing. It is a terrible blight on all those who are left behind and many people struggle to come to terms with it. Any action that we can take on suicide prevention is action that we will take, and putting mental health on a parity with physical health is a key part of the reforms that the Secretary of State will be discussing in a statement shortly.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Many constituents across the Worth valley, Keighley and the wider area are deeply concerned about proposals to construct 65 wind turbines on Walshaw moor in Calderdale. That development will have a hugely detrimental impact on the carbon storage capacity of the peat bogs and on the ecology, but also on local communities, and I am staunchly opposed to it. Constituents are concerned that as a result of Labour’s choice to remove the moratorium on the development of onshore wind farms, that development is more likely to take place. Could we have a debate in Government time on the negative impacts of the Government’s choice to remove the moratorium on onshore wind farms?
Lucy Powell
We make no apology for removing that moratorium, because it is absolutely critical that we increase the capacity of wind and clean energy in this country to lower bills and give us the energy security and independence that is crucial to the future of our economy and our wellbeing. The hon. Gentleman might want to raise this issue at Energy Security and Net Zero questions, which will take place on 8 October.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Due to a legacy of financial mismanagement and effective bankruptcy left by the previous Conservative administration, services in my constituency have been cut to the quick. That includes home-to-school transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities—including children under the age of five and young people between 16 and 19 years old—which local authorities do not have a statutory requirement to provide. Given the well-documented positive impact of early intervention, particularly for children with SEND, and the devastating effect on children aged 16 to 19 of removal of provision at that point of their development, will the Leader of the House allow time to discuss whether the statutory framework meets the needs of all children with SEND for home-to-school transport?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important issue. As she has said, local authorities have a statutory duty to arrange free home-to-school travel for children of compulsory school age, but many others fall outside of that obligation. I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Education has heard my hon. Friend’s plea. If she applied for an Adjournment debate on this matter, I am sure that it would be granted.
Mr Speaker
I will be running business questions for about another 40 minutes, so to help each other, shorter questions and brief answers might be a way to get everybody in. If people are disappointed, they should look to colleagues who may have taken too long.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 introduced the requirement that directors and other individuals verify their identity before being listed at Companies House. I have found company directors whose registered addresses simply do not exist, which at the least means that papers cannot be served, and at the worst enables fraud and other crime. May we have a debate on the progress of two things: the secondary legislation that needs to be passed for those basic checks to take place; and an update on how Companies House’s systems are progressing to allow directors’ identities to be checked?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady raises an important technical matter, and I will certainly look into the progress of that statutory instrument. Given that she has such expertise and diligence in this space, she might want to consider going on the Public Accounts Committee or other Committees as those places come up in the coming weeks.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Earlier this week, I met a constituent who was distressed by the fact that Enhertu—which could extend her life by two years—will not be available in England on the NHS. May we have a debate in Government time on the impact of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s new methods of evaluating health technologies, and in particular, the impact on secondary breast cancer of not approving life-extending medicines for NHS use that might have been approved under NICE’s earlier evaluation methods?
Lucy Powell
NICE’s agreement to the use of drugs on the NHS is a very topical issue that comes up in the Chamber, including at business questions, many times over. My hon. Friend might want to raise this issue at Health questions after we return from recess, but I will certainly ensure that the relevant Minister has heard her call today.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I would be grateful for some help and advice from the Leader of the House. When the winter fuel announcement was made, I wrote to the Treasury and was told three times no, it was a Department for Work and Pensions issue. Following that logic, when it came to VAT on school fees, I wrote to the Department for Education, and much to my surprise it told me that assessing its impact was a Treasury issue. I am therefore stuck on a merry-go-round of trying to find out how this policy, which is due to be introduced in January, will impact on my constituents. Will she advise me on how I can do that, and would she be kind enough to ask the Education Secretary to meet me to discuss the impact on my constituents of VAT going on private school fees?
Lucy Powell
I am sure the Education Secretary would be happy to answer the hon. Member’s questions on that. It a clear policy of this Government. We want to ensure that the 93% of children who attend state schools get access to the high-quality education and expert teachers they desperately need, and that is why we are imposing VAT on private school fees. Our analysis suggests that many schools and parents will be able to absorb that cost. Unfortunately, that is the situation as it is.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Hatfield Town cricket club in my constituency on its 150th anniversary? At the recent anniversary celebration, many residents asked me about my commitment as their MP to reopening Doncaster Sheffield airport. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to work with me, Mayor Ros and Doncaster city council and others to support progress with its reopening?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend, and I join him in congratulating Hatfield Town cricket club on its 150th anniversary. He has been a real leader on the issue of reopening Doncaster Sheffield Airport, and I know that progress is being made. A 125-year lease has been agreed, and I very much look forward to the progress that he and Mayor Ros will continue to make in once again getting planes flying over Doncaster.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
This morning I attended Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, and I was surprised and somewhat confused to realise that only 40 minutes were allocated for them compared with the hour that is standard for other Departments. Why are this Government following what I understand was the convention under the previous Conservative Government of restricting the time allocated for EFRA questions, considering that it is such an important Department, covering everything from river pollution to farming support and the biodiversity crisis? Please would the Leader of the House consider expanding the time allocated to EFRA questions to the full hour?
Lucy Powell
It is always a struggle to balance the demand and supply of oral questions on the Floor of the House, and I know you share those concerns, Mr Speaker. We look at these things periodically, so I suggest that Members enter the ballot for EFRA oral questions, because if demand is increased significantly, we would take that into account. Demand in other Departments is sometimes much higher.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Over the summer, many parents in my constituency were in touch with concerns about our local schools. Of particular concern to parents of children at Ark Alexandra secondary is a new rule that children must leave their mobile phones at home. Many parents support measures to reduce mobile phone use and social media use in school—they know how damaging it is—but they are really concerned about children having phones on the journey to and from school and the safety issues involved, and they want schools to look at options, such as lock boxes, which have been used successfully elsewhere. Can the Leader of the House advise me how in this House I can take forward that issue and the wider issue of improving our local schools?
Mr Speaker
Order. I will try to call as many Members as possible, but we are really going to have to be a bit quicker, otherwise other colleagues will not get in.
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. As the mum of teenagers, I know what an issue it is to balance the desires of parents to be able to contact their children and see where they are with their not wanting them to be on their phones all the time, especially while at school, which would be damaging to their education. Schools are encouraged to consult parents on these issues to get that balance right. The issue of mobile phones for teenagers and children is a big one, so and if she puts in for a debate, I am sure she will get one.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Mr Speaker, may I associate myself with your words of thanks to Tricia Hillas, who has given superb service to this House and who will always have the gratitude of the Smith family, having baptised my sons Charlie and Rupert in 2022.
Something else that happened in the previous Parliament was the passage of my private Member’s Bill—through to Royal Assent, with the support of the then Opposition —on combating equipment theft from farms and other elements of rural crime. That Act requires a statutory instrument to bring it fully into force. Instead of having all these general debates, will the Leader of the House bring that SI forward?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman will know that in many cases statutory instruments do not require time on the Floor of the House, but as I have responsibility for triaging SIs, I will look at the progress with that and let him know in due course.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the importance of investigative and public interest journalism? The best journalists are an essential part of our democracy. I urge Members to look at “The Long Read” by Tom Burgis in today’s edition of The Guardian, “How oligarchs took on the UK fraud squad—and won”. May I pay tribute to Telegraph journalist David Knowles, creator of the brilliant “Ukraine: The Latest” podcast, who tragically died last weekend at the age of only 32? I am sure my right hon. Friend will join me in sending condolences to his family and friends.
Lucy Powell
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election as a Select Committee Chair.
I certainly send my condolences to David’s family. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: investigative journalism is so important to our democracy and we should do whatever we can as a country to support it. I am sure that the Culture Secretary would be happy if he were to raise these matters with her in forthcoming oral questions.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer offered assurances on 29 July from the Dispatch Box about the construction of railway stations at Wellington and Cullompton, but this was contradicted the following day in a letter I received from the rail Minister, who said that those stations were still at the design stage. The rail Minister offered a meeting in the Tea Room when the House was sitting, but given that the House is about to adjourn for three weeks for the party conferences and the next Transport questions are not until 10 October, can the Leader of the House suggest how I might progress the case for a station at Cullompton with the Rail Minister with urgency?
Lucy Powell
I was going to say the same thing, Mr Speaker. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has done that in raising the matter this morning. I will ensure that the Transport Secretary has heard that call and will ask for a Transport Minister to meet him urgently, as he was promised.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
First, may I pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Jack Hearn? He turns 101 this week and is the UK’s oldest judo teacher and also one of just five living veterans who fought at the battle of Monte Cassino in world war two. He is supported by Forward Assist, a local charity that helps veterans around the country. Will the Government make time for a debate on support for veterans?
Lucy Powell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Jack. I am sure that, as is often the case, around the time of Remembrance Day there will be ample time on the Floor of the House to do what this Government and many Members will want to do: pay tribute to all those veterans who served this country so well over many years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I would like to draw the attention of the House to a recently passed anti-discrimination law in the Philippines that is aimed at enhancing equality and protecting marginalised groups which has sparked a nationwide debate about the implications for religious freedom. The key question is: although the law seeks to prevent unfair treatment in employment, education and public services, how can the Government ensure that religious freedoms are safeguarded, particularly given concerns raised by faith-based groups about potential conflicts with their beliefs on gender identity and sexual orientation? Will the Leader of the House join me in questioning such persecution of religious freedom and will she urge the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to raise this issue with its counterparts in the Philippines?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for once again raising the important issue of expression of freedom of religion or belief for all. I certainly will ask the Foreign Office to raise these issues about what is happening in the Philippines. He will know that the Government are committed to ensuring that there is freedom of religion and belief for all across the world.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
There have been a number of tragic road traffic accidents in my constituency in Wickersley, Anston, Sitwell and Whiston. I am meeting South Yorkshire police to look at steps we can take to prevent these accidents from happening. Can we have a debate on how agencies, local authorities and the police can work together to tackle speeding and boy racers in my constituency and across the country?
Lucy Powell
May I first congratulate my hon. Friend on coming so high up in the private Members’ Bills ballot? I know that achievement will be the envy of many.
My hon. Friend raises an important matter about road traffic accidents and road safety. We will soon update the strategic framework for road safety, and I will ensure that is brought to the House as soon as it is ready.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
This month, Bournemouth hosts the Arts by the Sea festival, the largest arts and culture celebration of its kind in the south-west. Investments in the arts and culture and in community arts festivals have been crucial to revitalising our seaside towns by bringing visitors, supporting the local economy and nurturing a community of creatives. Can I ask the Leader of the House for a general debate in Government time on how we invest and support the arts to help our cities and towns to develop?
Lucy Powell
I commend my hon. Friend on her campaigning for an art gallery in her constituency and on all the campaigning she is doing to bring attention to Bournemouth West and all that it has to offer. She is right that the creative sector and the creative economy are critical to regeneration and levelling up. This Government fully support that agenda.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
In the town of Dudley, the Conservative-led council has proposed the introduction of parking charges. That will affect students from Dudley College of Technology, learning development, local businesses, traders, users of the leisure centre and my residents, who will struggle with the costs. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on how we support town centres and properly consider the potential negative impact on economic activity and community wellbeing caused by the hiking of parking charges?
Lucy Powell
As the Member of Parliament for Manchester Central, I am all too familiar with the challenges of parking charges in our towns and city centres. That is in part why we as a Government are ensuring that we have better public transport, and in particular better buses, so that people have alternatives. I know that this issue creates a lot of interest, should my hon. Friend wish to apply for a debate on parking charges.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Over the recess, I met the Hubb Foundation in Stoke-on-Trent, which has delivered yet another fantastic holiday activities and food programme over the summer. I have seen the impact of its work at first hand over many years, and it was a bittersweet moment when it handed out its 1 millionth meal a couple of weeks ago. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the continuation of such programmes to alleviate child poverty in Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove and across the country?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The fact that in this country in 2024 we still need to operate food banks and holiday clubs to stop children from starving in the school holidays is frankly something that should bring us all shame. That is why we have a child poverty strategy. We will continue to support holiday clubs, such as the one he describes in Stoke-on-Trent North. I thank him for raising this important matter.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
The Darzi report published earlier today clearly outlines the importance of prevention. One aspect of that is the provision of good-quality school meals and increasing the uptake of free school meals. May I request consideration of a debate on an opt-out free school meals scheme, perhaps on the basis of universal credit?
Lucy Powell
That is the second question in a row on food poverty and the importance of children getting access to healthy, hot, high-quality meals. My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the uptake of free school meals and how they are delivered in schools, so that we do not have the stigma we have sometimes seen in the past. I am sure that if she put in for a debate on free school meals, she might find her bid successful.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A couple of Members are standing who came in very late. I will not be taking their questions.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Our creaking water infrastructure is rarely out of the news, and just this week my constituents in Shoreham had to endure burst sewage pipes. Thanks to years of under-investment by our water companies, record amounts of sewage are being pumped into our rivers and seas. Will the Government make time for this important issue to be discussed?
Lucy Powell
The state of our waterways in this country is shocking, as is the decriminalised way in which our water companies have been run over many years. That is why the Government have taken quick action to clamp down on the water companies. Just last week, we introduced the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which will eventually find its way to the House. My hon. Friend might want to take part in its Second Reading when it comes.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Digital access has become an increasingly essential part of everyday life. However, large parts of my constituency suffer from both slow speeds and digital dead zones, which has a massive impact on residents and businesses, particularly as more of my constituents are embracing flexible hybrid working. Will my right hon. Friend grant a debate on digital connectivity?
Lucy Powell
Digital inclusion is critical to ensuring that the growth we want to see in our economy reaches every part and every community. My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important matter, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology will want to hear from her at oral questions in October.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The House may be aware that Holmfirth is one of the most cherished locations in Yorkshire, nestled in the heart of the Yorkshire Pennines. The Holmfirth food and drink festival offers a delightful family day out brimming with live music, delicious food and entertainment. This weekend, along with thousands of others, I will explore the stalls for local produce and enjoy the street performers. I welcome the £10 million that the West Yorkshire combined authority and Kirklees council are investing in the town, which will enhance the town centre, attracting more visitors to the town, its festivals and local shops, as well as to venues including the Picturedrome. Can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of the rural economy in the Government’s growth agenda?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question on Holmfirth, where I recently went for a short staycation. What a beautiful Yorkshire town it is. It is a lot more than its reputation as the location of “Last of the Summer Wine”, which many will remember. My hon. Friend raises an important point. The rural economy is being continuously raised as an issue for a debate, and I am sure that we will look into it.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Grub Hub in my constituency is supporting some of my most vulnerable constituents, offering not only vital food support but companionship and wraparound services to help people to move forward with their lives. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending that organisation for its fantastic work? While its work is fantastic, I join colleagues in asking for a debate about how we ensure that there will no longer be any need for food banks in towns such as Aldershot.
Lucy Powell
It is a disgrace that towns such as Aldershot still need food banks and that food poverty is still so prominent. That is a key issue for the Government and part of the work of our cross-cutting taskforce on tackling child poverty. I will ensure that the House is updated on that taskforce’s progress on an ongoing basis.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Recently, a lovely constituent of mine spoke to me about the serious drug shortages affecting Creon 25000, which he needs to treat his condition of pancreatic enzyme insufficiency. The drug is also used to treat people with cystic fibrosis and pancreatic cancer—a horrible cancer that killed my mum. Joe is now petrified because he is running out of his tablets; he is scared to eat and terrified about the pain he will be in. Will the Leader of the House provide a statement on the supply of Creon 25000 and its alternative Nutrizym, which is also in short supply?
Lucy Powell
Access to appropriate drugs freely on the NHS continues to be raised with me and the Health Secretary, who was in his place as my hon. Friend asked that question. I am sure that he will take that up; I will write to him to ensure that he does.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
One third of the children in my constituency now live in poverty, and a recent report by Shelter showed that an increase in homelessness and child poverty is affecting many parts of the country. Will my right hon. Friend find some Government time for a debate on child poverty and its causes?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that child poverty, which is still too high and which blights us all, is a cross-cutting issue, and housing is a key part of it. That is why we have the cross-cutting taskforce looking at these issues and why, just this week, we introduced the Renters’ Rights Bill, which will look at the challenges of the private rented sector.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The devastating impact of knife crime is of huge concern to my constituents in Redditch and the villages. One constituent, self-defence instructor Pete Martin, who witnessed a friend being stabbed 12 times, has been working with local schools to educate young people on the dangers of carrying knives. Will the Leader of the House make space in Government time for a debate on how we can support the work of people such as Mr Martin and reduce knife crime in our communities?
Lucy Powell
I welcome my hon. Friend to his place, and it was a pleasure to visit him before the election. He is absolutely right, and tackling knife crime is a key part of our mission to have safer streets. Just this week, the Prime Minister, along with campaigner Idris Elba, launched the coalition to tackle knife crime. Last month, we launched a nationwide call to hand over zombie-style knives and machetes, ahead of such weapons being banned from our streets on 24 September.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Small businesses, coffee shops and traders are the lifeblood of constituencies such as mine in Peterborough and across the country. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Federation of Small Businesses, which celebrates its 50th anniversary this Sunday? Will she also make time in the House for us to debate the amazing contribution made by the 5.5 million small business owners in this country?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the vital contribution of small independent shops to our high streets, including his in Peterborough. Let us be honest: the Conservative party hollowed out high streets and town centres across the country. But this Government will turn the tide and put that right.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The Altrincham minor injuries unit was relied on and appreciated by my constituents, but it has been closed since 2020, and the Trafford locality board recently recommended that it should never reopen. I am opposing that recommendation, shaped as it is by 14 years of Conservative failure on our national health service. Could we have a debate in Government time about the importance of minor injuries units in alleviating pressures on A&E departments and in ensuring that our national health service can truly be a neighbourhood health service?
Lucy Powell
As the Secretary of State for Health is about to outline in his statement, the truly shocking state of our NHS after 14 years of under-investment and neglect is being laid bare. One of the key priorities he will shortly outline is to ensure that our services move from hospitals to communities, and minor injuries units such as that in Altrincham would be important to that endeavour.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Antisocial behaviour is ruining lives. In my short time as the MP for Leeds South West and Morley, I have been inundated with residents’ requests for help about persistent antisocial behaviour by neighbours and by repeat offenders in public spaces and parks. Given that the previous Government decimated the services available to councils and the police to deal with the issue, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House please grant an urgent debate in Government time to get the police and councils the resources they need to deal with this persistent problem?
Lucy Powell
Tackling antisocial behaviour is a top priority for this Government, which is why we will get thousands more police and police community support officers on our streets, with neighbourhood policing roles back in action. It is also why we will bring in tough new powers and legislate to ensure that they are as effective as possible.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Residents in South Norfolk are being let down badly by Royal Mail. Those living in the Poringland area are waiting weeks to receive urgent post, such as NHS letters, legal documents and birthday cards. Can we have a debate in Government time about the importance of Royal Mail connections in our rural areas to ensure that we get post delivered on time to the people who need it the most?
Lucy Powell
The universal service is vital to communities such as the one my hon. Friend represents. That is why any changes to it will be a matter for the House to debate thoroughly and robustly, and I am sure my hon. Friend will want to take part in any such debates.
NHS: Independent Investigation
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on Lord Darzi’s investigation into the NHS.
Unlike the last holders of this office, this Government will be honest about the problems the NHS faces and serious about fixing them. That is why I asked Lord Darzi, an eminent cancer surgeon who served both Labour and Conservative-led Governments with distinction, to conduct an independent investigation into the state of our national health service. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in thanking him for producing this expert, comprehensive report, a copy of which I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
I told Lord Darzi that we wanted hard truths, warts and all. His findings are raw, honest and breathtaking. He says:
“Although I have worked in the NHS for more than 30 years, I have been shocked by what I have found”.
He has uncovered an enormous charge sheet, too long to list in this statement, so these are just a few: the NHS has not been able to meet its promises to treat patients on time for almost a decade; patients have never been more dissatisfied with the service they receive; waiting lists for mental health and community services have surged; 50 years of progress on cardiovascular disease is going into reverse; and cancer is more likely to be a death sentence for NHS patients than for patients in other countries. It is not just the sickness in the NHS that concerns Lord Darzi, but sickness in society. Children are sicker today than a decade ago and adults are falling into ill health earlier in life. That is piling pressure on to the NHS and holding back our economy.
Those are some of the symptoms; the report is equally damning on the causes. First, a decade of under-investment left the NHS 15 years behind the private sector on technology, with fewer diagnostic scanners per patient than almost every comparable country, including Belgium, Italy and Greece, and in 2024 mental health patients are treated in Victorian buildings with cockroach and mouse infestations, where 17 men are forced to share two showers.
Secondly, there was the disastrous 2012 top-down reorganisation overseen by Lord Lansley. Lord Darzi’s assessment is damning:
“A calamity without international precedent…it took a ‘scorched earth’ approach to health reform”.
“By 2015…ministers were…putting in place ‘workarounds and sticking plasters’ to bypass the legislation”.
“Rather than liberating the NHS, as promised, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 imprisoned more than a million NHS staff in a broken system for the best part of a decade”.
“the effects…are still felt to this day.”
Just imagine if all the time, effort and billions of pounds wasted on dissolving and reconstituting management structures had instead been invested in services for patients—clearly, the NHS would not be in the mess it finds itself in today.
Thirdly, there was coronavirus. Everyone can see the lasting damage caused by the pandemic, but until now we did not know that the pandemic hit the NHS harder than any other comparable healthcare system in the world.
The NHS cancelled far more operations and routine care than anywhere else. As Lord Darzi writes:
“The pandemic’s impact was magnified because the NHS had been seriously weakened in the decade preceding its onset.”
In other words, it is not just that the Conservatives did not fix the roof while the sun was shining; they doused the house in petrol and left the gas on, and covid just lit the match. That is why waiting lists have ballooned to 7.6 million today. [Interruption.] If I were an Opposition Member, I would not complain about the diagnosis. I would take responsibility.
Fourthly—this sits firmly at Opposition Members’ door, so they should sit and listen—there was the failure to reform. From 2019 onwards, the previous Government oversaw a 17% increase in the number of staff working in hospitals. Did it lead to better outcomes for patients? No. At great expense to the taxpayer, the NHS has instead seen a huge fall in productivity. We paid more, but got less—a deplorable waste of resources when so many parts of our health and care services were crying out for investment. As Lord Darzi has put it:
“British Airways wouldn’t train more pilots without buying more planes.”
Doctors and nurses are wasting their time trying to find beds for their patients and dealing with outdated IT when they ought to be treating patients.
Too many people end up in hospital because they cannot get the help that they need from a pharmacy, a GP or social care. The effective reforms of the last Labour Government, which drove better performance and better care for patients, have mostly been undone, and that is why patients cannot get a GP appointment, an operation or even an ambulance when they need one today. That is what the Conservatives did to take the NHS from the shortest waiting times and highest patient satisfaction in history to the broken NHS that we see today.
Lord Darzi has given his diagnosis. Now it is over to us to write the prescription, and we have three choices. The first is to continue the Conservatives’ neglect, and allow the NHS to collapse. That is the path on which they set the NHS, and the path that it is on today. Or we could—as some of my critics on the left demand—pour ever-increasing amounts of money in without reform, wasting money that is not there and that working people cannot afford to pay. That would be wasteful and irresponsible, so we will not take that path. This Government are making a different choice: we choose recovery and reform. We are taking action today to deal with the immediate crisis by hiring 1,000 GPs whom the Conservatives had left without a job while patients were going without an appointment, and agreeing an offer to end the strikes that they allowed to cripple our health service.
At the same time, we will introduce the fundamental reforms needed to secure the future of our NHS. Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed that the Government would publish a 10-year plan for change and modernisation, on the foundation of Lord Darzi’s report. Our plan will deliver the three big shifts needed to make our NHS fit for the future. The first is from analogue to digital, giving patients proper choice and control over their own healthcare, and finally realising the untapped potential of the NHS app. There will be fully digital patient records so that your surgeon can see the notes that your GP writes. By marrying our country’s leading scientific minds with the care of more than 1.5 million NHS staff, we will put NHS patients at the front of the queue for cutting-edge medicines and treatments that we can only imagine today.
Secondly, there is the shift from hospital to community, turning our NHS into a neighbourhood as much as a national health service so that patients can get their tests and scans on their high streets and be cared for from the comfort of their own homes. That means bringing back the family doctor and building a national care service that can be there for us when we need it, able to meet the challenges of this century.
Thirdly, there is the shift from sickness to prevention, which means taking the decisions that the Conservatives ducked to give our children a healthy, happy start in life. It means stopping the targeting of junk food ads at children, banning energy drinks for under-16s, reforming the NHS to catch illness earlier—starting by offering health checks in workplaces and on smartphones—and delivering the Tobacco and Vapes Bill that the Conservatives failed to pass, to tackle one of society’s biggest killers.
Lord Darzi’s diagnosis is that the NHS is in a “critical condition”—unless we perform major surgery, the patient will die—but he also finds that
“its vital signs are strong”:
an extraordinary depth of clinical talent, and a shared determination to improve care for patients. This is a public service, free at the point of use, so that whenever we fall ill we never have to worry about the bill. The NHS is broken, but it is not beaten. Every person I have met in the NHS during my first two months as Health and Social Care Secretary is up for the challenge. It will take time, but this party—the party that created the NHS—has turned the NHS around before, and we will do it again. I commend this statement to the House.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
How long has the hon. Member been here? Points of order come at the end—you cannot intervene in the middle of these proceedings.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement.
The NHS belongs to us all, and we all care about it, so let us stop the political posturing and talk constructively about its future. We all know that our healthcare system faces significant pressures, as do all health systems around the world. We are living longer, and with multiple and complex conditions. We have wider societal pressures, such as the impact of social media on the development of some young minds, as well as the cost pressures of miracle drugs developed by our world-class life sciences sector for their treatment benefits, and the shock of the pandemic has had catastrophic impacts on the NHS and its productivity.
I believe there is much to be proud of in the NHS. Its dedicated staff look after 1.6 million people a day— 25% more people than in 2010. It has more doctors, more nurses and more investment that at any point in its history. It is delivering tens of millions more out-patient appointments, diagnostic tests and procedures for patients than in 2010, and we delivered the fastest roll-out of vaccinations for covid in the world, freeing our society more quickly than other countries. We have more healthcare in the community, with the opening of 160 community diagnostic centres—the largest central cash investment in MRI and CT scanning capacity in the history of the NHS—and 15 new surgical hubs; and the launch of Pharmacy First, helping to free up 10 million GP appointments for those living with more complex conditions. [Interruption.] I say to the Secretary of State that I paid him the courtesy of listening to him in silence, so I hope he will do the same for me.
Victoria Atkins
The right hon. Gentleman was chuntering from a sedentary position. We on the—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the right hon. Lady, and Members’ constituents want to know what is being said. Please, let us give the same courtesies that I expected for the Secretary of State.
Victoria Atkins
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
We on the Conservative Benches never pretended that everything was fixed. We have not pretended that we have a monopoly on wisdom or that there are easy answers to the difficult challenges we face. For the NHS to thrive in its next 75 years, it needs to reform, modernise and improve productivity. That is why the Conservative Government, working with NHS England, announced the NHS productivity plan at the spring Budget to transform how the NHS works through better IT systems for frontline staff, the expansion of services on the NHS app, which is used by three out of four adults in England, and the use of new technology, including voice-activated artificial intelligence. Together, that would see productivity grow by 2% a year by the end of the decade and unlock £35 billion-worth of savings, yet the plan is not mentioned in the 163-page report. Why is such an important and forward-looking reform missing from the report, and can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is choosing to cancel it—yes or no?
New medicines and trials are an essential part of the productivity challenge. There is only one mention of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the 163-page report. Do the Government have a strategy for life sciences and the provision of rare medicines, including cancer and dementia drugs? Why have they paused the childhood cancer taskforce?
The need for reform was also why we implemented the first ever long-term workforce plan with NHS England to train even more doctors, nurses, midwives and other healthcare staff for the future. The plan was described by the NHS CEO Amanda Pritchard as
“one of the most seminal moments in our 75-year history”,
yet it is not mentioned in today’s report. Again, why is such an important and forward-looking reform missing from the report? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to cancel the new places and forms of training, including apprenticeships, that were to be provided through that plan?
The need to modernise is why, in 2019, we announced the largest programme of hospital building in modern history: 40 new hospitals across England by 2030 [Interruption.] I would be careful if I were some Back-Bench MPs. Today, seven new hospitals have opened, the Midland Metropolitan university hospital will open at the end of the year—I imagine the Secretary of State will enjoy going to its launch—and a further 18 are in construction. We are not even halfway through the decade.
Since January 2023, it has been Labour’s plan to pause, review, delay and, presumably, possibly cancel those new hospitals. That was when it published its health mission; it is on page 6 for those who have not read it. In other words, it was always Labour’s plan to delay and possibly cancel the new hospitals, and it has nothing to do with the Chancellor’s questionable accounting since the general election.
When that was pointed out in the general election campaign, Labour candidates ran around promising voters that their new hospital or community diagnostic centre was safe with them—in Torbay, Chelsea and Fulham, Basingstoke, Watford, Bracknell, Truro, Corby and Kettering to name a few. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Labour will delay those hospitals?
Mr Speaker
Order. It is difficult, but the time limit is supposed to be five minutes, and it has now been six minutes 22 seconds, so we are well over. Can you now conclude on that sentence?
Victoria Atkins
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
There is one part of Great Britain where, on almost every measure, the NHS performs the worst: Labour-run Wales. The right hon. Gentleman has compared—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry; I meant that you were to conclude now, not to continue with the rest of the speech. I call the Secretary of State.
Wes Streeting
The first word that the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care should have said was “sorry”. She says that she never pretended everything was fixed, and that is true, but it is about time that she admitted that it was her party that broke the NHS in the first place.
In fact, it has been a feature of debate in the House since the general election that the Opposition have taken absolutely no responsibility for the mess they left our country in, including a £22 billion black hole and the new hospitals programme that the right hon. Lady referred to, in which the timetables were a work of fiction and the money ran out in March. She knew that when she went to the country to claim that the programme was fully funded. She talks about the decisions made by NICE; that was a new Labour reform and modernisation—one that thankfully survived the last 14 years.
The right hon. Lady has endorsed the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) in the Conservative party leadership election. I wonder what she makes of his admission that the Conservatives failed to make the tough reforms that the NHS needed because they were afraid of what Labour might say. Is that not the most derisory excuse for 14 years of neglect?
My predecessor does not bear responsibility for everything in the Darzi report—this crisis was more than a decade in the making—but I wonder when the right hon. Lady will show some humility on behalf of her party and apologise for the mess that her Government made of our national health service. Otherwise, why should anyone trust what the Conservatives have to say ever again?
This Government were given a mandate for change, and nowhere is that more needed than in our NHS. The report must mark the beginning of the long, hard work of change. It is the platform from which we will launch a decade of reform that will make sure that the NHS can be there for us when we need it—for us, our children and our grandchildren. It must draw a line in the sand, so that we never go back to the pain, fear and misery that the Conservative party inflicted on millions of patients.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
This statement will run for an hour, so please help each other. Let us try Clive Efford as a good example.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will rise to the challenge.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. In 2008, the previous Labour Government commissioned a report from Sir Michael Marmot on the state of society and health, and he found that there was health inequality, particularly in deprived areas. Ten years on, his second report found that health inequality had become even worse against the backdrop of an underfunded NHS. Does that not demonstrate the urgency of the need to invest in those communities under this Government? What can my right hon. Friend do to direct resources into the most deprived communities in order to turn around those health inequalities?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that our country has stark health inequalities. It is not right that people who live in different parts of the country have such different chances of living well. A girl born in Blackpool can expect to live healthily until she is 54, whereas a girl born in Winchester can expect to live healthily until she is 66. That is why, with the Prime Minister’s mission-driven approach, we will not just get our NHS back on its feet and make sure it is fit for the future; we will also reduce the cost and burden of demand on our national health service by attacking the social determinants of ill health.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Much of the content of Lord Darzi’s report has been known for some years. None the less, today’s report is a scathing summary of the complete devastation that the Conservatives have wrought on our health services and on the health of our communities. We Liberal Democrats have long argued that we need to shift healthcare from hospitals to high streets, and from treatment to prevention, because doing so improves health outcomes and saves taxpayers’ money. It is a win-win.
But the report is long on diagnosis and short on prescription, so may I invite Ministers to read our fully costed manifesto to fix public health and primary care by recruiting 8,000 GPs, ending dental deserts, boosting public health grants by £1 million, implementing our five-year plan to boost cancer survival rates, and putting a mental health expert in every school?
Does the Secretary of State accept that there is an elephant in the room: social care? Will he meet me to discuss the Liberal Democrat plans for social care, starting with free personal care? This bold idea would prevent many people from going into hospital in the first place, as well as enabling them to be discharged from hospital faster. Does he accept that it is a truth universally acknowledged that we cannot fix the NHS if we do not fix social care too?
As for the dire state of our hospitals and primary care estate, well, the Conservatives have left it to fester like a wound. Will the Secretary of State give the green light to hospitals that are ready to rebuild, such as mine in west Hertfordshire? Will Ministers look to reform outdated Treasury rules that are preventing our integrated care boards and hospital trusts from spending and investing their funds in the GP practices and hospitals that we need? This Government say that they want growth. Well, health and wealth are two sides of the same coin, which is something the Conservatives do not understand. If Labour wants economic growth, fixing our health and social care must be its top priority. And it must be a priority without delay.
Wes Streeting
How refreshing to have constructive opposition in the Chamber. It was clear throughout the election campaign that my party and the Liberal Democrats have much in common, both in the commitments we made, which in some cases were identical, and in our shared areas of emphasis: the link between health and wealth, the importance of prevention and the importance of social care.
As the Prime Minister reiterated again this morning, we are absolutely determined to address both the short-term crisis and the long-term needs of the century in our social care system. We want to work on a cross-party basis wherever possible, so I would be delighted to meet the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Hundreds of thousands of operations, including dozens of my own lists, were cancelled because of the strikes in the NHS over the past two years. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Conservatives’ refusal to negotiate with the doctors contributed to the terrible state of the health service, and that ending the strikes is the first step towards fixing the NHS?
Wes Streeting
It sticks in the craw to hear the carping and criticism from the Conservatives, and their obvious bitter resentment that we were able to do in three weeks what they failed to do in over a year. All the while they complain about the costs of solving the strikes, they say nothing about the costs they racked up—the direct financial costs of covering the strikes, as well as the untold costs of misery to patients whose operations, procedures and appointments were cancelled, even as the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and her Ministers had not even bothered to meet the junior doctors since March this year. The Conservatives have no grounds to complain.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I thank those who daily work in NHS services across our country. If the Secretary of State is truly serious about assisting and supporting the whole of our NHS in England, across all our constituencies, “warts and all”, as he says, will he explain thoroughly why the health outcomes and experiences of families across Wales, over the last 25 years, do not merit this attention equally? Is it perhaps because Wales is Labour-run?
Wes Streeting
I have never denied, nor have the Welsh Government, that our health and social care systems are in crisis across the United Kingdom, and that waiting times and patient outcomes are not where they should be. [Interruption.] The Conservatives do not wish to acknowledge the truth, and even now, without a shred of humility or acceptance of the responsibility of their record in government, they carp from the sidelines. They will not admit or accept that different parts of the United Kingdom have different strengths and weaknesses.
Regardless of the fact that there is a Scottish National party Government in Scotland or a unique arrangement in Northern Ireland, as well my friends in the Welsh Government, I am proud that in my first weekend as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, I made it my business to phone my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I made it clear that we will always work constructively, whatever our parties and however hard we will fight each other at the ballot box. Rather than pointing fingers at other parts of the United Kingdom, as the Conservatives did when they were in government, this Government are determined, just as the last Labour Government were, to create a rising tide that lifts all ships. I look forward to working with every devolved Administration to improve health and care outcomes across the whole of our United Kingdom.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is right that the future of our NHS lies in reform, and not waiting until people get sick before we intervene to keep them well, but we cannot do that without money. He says we cannot waste money that is not there, but we are wasting money that is there on the contracts we have with the private sector. He knows I feel strongly about this issue. Millions of pounds are being paid to private equity-backed funds to run sexual health centres in the NHS—the iCare clinics. Billions of pounds are being lost to the legal loan sharks of our NHS—the private finance initiative companies—and some trusts are spending more on PFI payments than on drugs. As part of the process, will he commit to an urgent review of the way in which the NHS has worked with the private sector, because reform must also include restructuring our debt?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend has done a lot of work in this area and I would be delighted to meet her. Let me give the Conservative party a lesson in humility. However proud I am of the last Labour Government—and I am incredibly proud of what they did to our health estate, the investment they brought in, through a range of different types of private financing, and the impact that had; I can see the benefits in my own constituency— I have never shied away from what we did not get right. At the same time as celebrating what we got right in government, we must reflect on what we did not get right and genuinely learn those lessons, which is what we did in opposition. It took us too long to get back into government—we will learn from that for the future—but it has been really interesting to listen to Conservative Members over the past nine weeks. They have not learned anything, they have not got the message and they are not going to change.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
As Labour embarks on a reform programme, may I ask whether the Secretary of State has read the report of the Mid Staffordshire public inquiry, which looked at the shocking patient neglect last time Labour was in charge? Reading it might temper the hubris that he is showing in the Chamber today, in the face of the challenges that his colleagues in Wales have certainly not managed to overcome.
Wes Streeting
I gently point the hon. Gentleman to the bold claims made by the now shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), about patient safety. He might like to reflect on every subsequent patient safety scandal. In fact, he might want to walk into maternity services across the country and ask himself whether the Conservatives bothered to learn lessons on patient safety.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Pharmaceutical producers Auden Mckenzie and Actavis UK charged excessive and unfair prices for hydrocortisone tablets. NHS spending on those products rocketed because producers gamed the system. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that future procurement processes deter the rigging of drug prices?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend makes a great point, and he has given great service to the Public Accounts Committee of this House by drilling into waste, inefficiency and exploitation of the public purse. I want to work with the great life sciences sector and pharmaceutical industry in this country and globally, but in a spirit of genuine partnership. A really good working relationship requires social responsibility; it certainly involves not ripping off the taxpayer.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I welcome the report. The previous Government left this Government with NHS and care services in the worst crisis in their history. The Secretary of State led by emphasising the decade of underinvestment; that needs to be coupled with pointing out the very weak workforce planning. When he meets the Liberal Democrats, will he review our costed plan to raise the investment necessary to address the issues highlighted in the report and to strengthen workforce planning in order to deliver services?
Wes Streeting
Fiscal policy is a matter for the Chancellor. I know on which side my bread is buttered, so I will not write her Budget or spending review now, but let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that, notwithstanding the £22 billion black hole that the Conservatives left in the public finances this year and the weak foundations of our economy that we have inherited, the Chancellor knows as well as I do that it is investment and reform that will deliver results. It will take time—we cannot reverse more than a decade of underinvestment in a single Budget or even a single spending review—but at least we have a Government able to face up to the hard choices and capable of making them.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I very much welcome Lord Darzi’s report, which exposes how our country was let down by the previous Government. In my Bassetlaw constituency, I will be asked when people who need a GP appointment will get one, and when the 2,000-person dental waiting list will come to an end. I am listening to my GPs and my dentists so that I can work with them to tackle this crisis. I will be meeting them shortly. What is the Secretary of State’s message to them all?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend, who I am delighted to see representing Bassetlaw, is already showing herself to be an outstanding champion for her community. She raises a really good challenge that we all face as constituency MPs: the public recognise that change takes time and that we cannot fix more than a decade of problems in the immediate future, but they want to know that at least we are hitting the ground running and getting the job done.
I can reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents in Bassetlaw that within our first couple of months, this Government employed 1,000 more GPs on the frontline who had been left unemployed by the previous Conservative Government. We did that pretty much immediately. We have settled—I hope; we await the outcome of the ballot—the junior doctors’ dispute, so we can remove the cost of disruption and industrial action and start work on getting the waiting lists down. We will be working at pace to deliver 40,000 more appointments every week so that we can cut waiting lists, and 700,000 urgent emergency dentistry appointments so that we can ensure that people get the care they need. Every single promise in our manifesto, notwithstanding the challenges in the public finances, was a fully costed, fully funded promise that we will keep and that the country can afford.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I urge the Secretary of State to learn from what is working well in the NHS, as well as from what has gone wrong? In reference to the Health and Care Act 2022, paragraph 14 on page 121 of the report states:
“The result is that the basic structure of a headquarters, regions, and integrated care boards (ICBs) is fit for purpose.”
I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the Suffolk and North East Essex ICB, which is one of the most successful in the country. Can we learn from that success, and build it into other areas?
Wes Streeting
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach. The tragedy of the Health and Care Act 2022 was that a large part of its focus was on trying to correct the enormous damage done by Lord Lansley through a top-down reorganisation that nobody wanted and that the country could not afford. That is why I have said very clearly that we will not repeat the mistakes of top-down reorganisation. With the architecture of the system, we will take an approach of evolution rather than counter-revolution.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about learning from what is working well in the NHS, what gives me great hope for the future of our national health service is that every day there are amazing people providing great-quality care, reforming, innovating and showing us what the future looks like. It is the responsibility of this Government to take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. That is exactly what we will do.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Lord Darzi’s report makes grim reading and lays bare the failure of the last Government. NHS staff up and down the country will recognise everything in it. Does the Secretary of State agree that much more needs to be done on retaining, recruiting and compensating the NHS workforce and making sure that we have a workforce fit for the future?
Wes Streeting
For all the innovations that modern technology will bring—the revolution in big data AI, machine learning and medical advances that we will see very soon but can scarcely imagine today—health and social care will always be fundamentally a people-based service. If you do not value your people, you lose them and end up in the appalling situation that we are in today. We have invested so much money and time in training people who imagined a long future for themselves in the NHS but who, because of the reality to which they were subjected by the previous Government, are now packing up and moving into different careers—or to other continents. We are determined not just to recruit the great staff we need, but to value and retain the brilliant staff we already have.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that cancer is the biggest cause of death by illness for children under 14 in the UK, and that this is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. He will not know that it is also the third anniversary of the death of my constituent Sophie Fairall, who was 10 years old. With Sophie’s mum Charlotte, I have been campaigning for the past three years for the children and young people cancer taskforce to be set up. The taskforce was set up at the beginning of this year with the stated aim of meaningfully changing detection, treatment and care for children with cancer. I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State and have heard him passionately set out that he wants to focus on prevention and early intervention, yet this month we learned that he is pausing the taskforce. Parents of children with cancer are deeply disturbed by that announcement, as am I. Can the Secretary of State set out why it was made?
Wes Streeting
Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for the way she put her question. I send my deepest condolences to Sophie’s family on what will inevitably be a difficult day—I suspect just the latest of many difficult days—on the imaginable pain, grief and loss that they have suffered. I thank the hon. Member for her work over many years campaigning on children’s cancer in this House on behalf of her constituents and so many other families affected by young cancer.
The pause is because we are looking at the breadth of the work of the Department to make sure that we have the right vehicles to deliver the outcomes that we want. That is why we have paused rather than cancelled, slammed or criticised the work that she was doing. I would be delighted to meet her to talk about the genesis of the taskforce and how we can take forward the outcomes that she wants to see. What we are trying to avoid is a plethora of taskforces, and the risk that there has sometimes been—this is not a party political point, because this spans successive Governments—of taskforces being an alternative for action. I know that she wants action, so let us meet and see what we can do together.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
When I grew up in Stretton under the last Labour Government, I could get an appointment with my family doctor the next day. After 14 years of the Conservatives, Stretton residents now often have to travel more than six miles to a GP surgery in another village just to get an appointment for which they have already waited weeks. Does the Secretary of State share my view that this is unacceptable, and that it falls to this Government to fix the Conservatives’ mess?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to make sure that we have the right staff in the right place and an equitable distribution of access to NHS services right across the country. We also want to shift from the hospital-centred NHS that we see today to a neighbourhood-centred service. That is why we have acted immediately to put 1,000 more GPs on the frontline before the end of this year. I am looking forward to working with GPs to expand access to primary care right across the country, especially in communities that are particularly under-served.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
This review highlights the need for capital investment in the NHS. The question that NHS staff and patients in North West Norfolk have is urgent: are the Government committed to replacing their hospital, which is affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, with a new Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn by 2030—yes or no?
Wes Streeting
I can absolutely reassure the hon. Member that RAAC-impacted hospitals are a priority. We are putting safety first, and it is just a shame that when his residents had a Prime Minister in their backyard, the Conservative Government did not fix the problem.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
For the sake of openness and transparency, I will just mention that I am a former chair of an NHS trust and a public health academic. I recognise the real issues that are raised in the findings of the Darzi rapid review. I am grateful to Lord Darzi for referring in particular to the inequalities that we have experienced, and how those inequalities were laid bare during covid. Will the Health and Social Care Secretary expand on the cross-departmental work that he is doing? I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) that people’s socioeconomic circumstances drive their health status. We do not want a situation where, for every 1% increase in child poverty, six additional babies per 100,000 live births do not reach their first birthday.
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and congratulate her warmly on her election to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. I am looking forward to sharing, through the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the work that our Departments are doing together, particularly on the link between mental health and unemployment and on integrating pathways. She is right about the social determinants of ill health. That is why I am genuinely excited that, through the mission-driven approach that the Prime Minister has set out, we are already bringing together Whitehall Departments, traditionally siloed, to work together on attacking those social determinants. The real game changer is genuine cross-departmental working, alongside business, civil society and all of us as active citizens, to mobilise the whole country in pursuit of that national mission, in which we will be tough on ill health, and tough on the causes of ill health, as someone might have said.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I greatly respect the Secretary of State, and, as an older person who relies on the NHS, I support his radical zeal. I repeat what he said in his statement: cancer is more likely to be a death sentence for NHS patients than for patients in other countries. We have had this conversation previously, but can he at least look at the health systems in other countries, particularly those in the Netherlands, Australia, France and Germany? Those countries, which have wonderful health systems protecting the vulnerable, use a mixture of social insurance and public and private funds to maximise inputs into their health services.
Wes Streeting
Every time the right hon. Gentleman praises my zeal for NHS reform, Labour Members get very nervous. Let me reassure him that I have looked at other countries, and I will definitely continue to do that. I genuinely do not think that it is the model of funding that is the issue—the publicly funded, public service element. I hope that he knows me well enough to understand that if I did think so, I would be more than happy making, and would quite enjoy taking on, the argument, but I think that the equitable principle that underpins our NHS is one that we should cherish and protect. The single-payer model has enormous potential for the century of big data, AI, and machine learning. There is huge potential there that we must unlock, but that does not mean that we cannot learn from the way that other countries organise care, particularly in the community and particularly social care. This week, I met virtually with my friend the Health Minister in Singapore. I will continue to work with my international counterparts to learn from other countries whose health outcomes are far better than ours.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
In my constituency of North Warwickshire and Bedworth, patients wait far too long for GP appointments. The Conservative party has presided over sticking-plaster solutions, papering over the cracks in our health service rather than making it fit for the future. Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s report is a chance to get the right diagnosis of the problems, so that this new Labour Government can come up with the right prescription, and my constituents can once again get the treatment that they so desperately need?
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend in her place. She is absolutely right. We will take Lord Darzi’s diagnosis to write the prescription and ensure that our reform agenda benefits every part of the country—not just big cities and the wealthiest communities—so that every person, wherever they are from, grow up and live, has access to the very best health and care services.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
A key finding in the Darzi report is that NHS staff morale is low. The Medical Defence Union of medical practitioners stated recently that more than 44% of NHS staff will reduce the number of hours that they work, because of low morale. Will the Secretary of State meet representatives of the union to explore those issues and work out ways of improving staff morale?
Wes Streeting
Of course we seek to work constructively with all trade unions representing staff across our health and care services, and also with the royal colleges. We want to work in a spirit of partnership, and we are only able to do so because people sent Labour MPs to Parliament to replace the Conservatives.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with my right hon. Friend: this is the most devastating analysis that I have read of the NHS in over 30 years. It just shows the challenges that lie before him. Talking of challenges, will he challenge the integrated care boards to focus on moving resources into primary care? In particular, will he look at what is happening in York, where Nimbuscare has been able to pull out services from the acute sector and deliver work in the community?
Wes Streeting
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. She has a huge amount of expertise in health and care, and she is absolutely right about the need for that shift. I have made it very clear to ICB leaders and to trusts across the country that I want more focus on secondary prevention, which means much more activity in the neighbourhood. I know that she will keep on championing these causes. She is a good critical friend, and I know that she will hold my feet to the fire to ensure that I deliver.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I declare my interest as the husband of an NHS doctor; I also served as a non-executive director of my local NHS trust. The last time that Lord Darzi was brought into service was by a Labour Government, shortly before they appointed him to the House of Lords. Will the Secretary of State take steps to ensure the widest possible input from senior clinicians? It is clear that some, including Professor Sir John Bell, do not share Lord Darzi’s prescription for the improvement of the NHS. Will he also apologise to my constituents for the doubt that he has cast over the future of the new Hillingdon hospital, on which work had already started under the previous Government?
Wes Streeting
I am not sure that is a fair characterisation of Sir John Bell’s position. I have a huge amount of respect for him. I am grateful to Lord Darzi for writing the diagnosis. Given that the Conservative party was in government for 14 years, repeatedly promised to rebuild Hillingdon hospital and left my Department in a position where the money for the new hospitals programme ran out in March, the hon. Member has some brass neck to point the finger at us while he is in opposition.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
In 2016, the Horton hospital in my constituency lost its consultant-led maternity unit—a temporary downgrade that ended up being made permanent three years later. Is it not about time that someone from the Conservative party apologised for the damage done to Banbury’s hospital, as well as to the NHS as a whole?
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend here. His constituents can already see that he is not backwards in coming forwards. He will stand up and champion their interests in this House as a great constituency MP. When it comes to the Conservative party, sorry seems to be the hardest word.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I welcome the announcement of the Secretary of State about the shift from hospital to community care. My fellow Liberal Democrats and I fully believe that fixing social care is part of the solution in getting the NHS back on its feet, so I also welcome the announcement of a national care service. Part of care in the community is of course the hospice sector. I recently met the chief executive of St Catherine’s hospice, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies). He highlighted to me that, although the hospice has 24 beds, it is currently using only 12 of them. What assurance can the Secretary of State give me, and people right across the country, that fixing the hospice sector will be part of the solution as we take the NHS forward?
Wes Streeting
I am so grateful for that question, not least because it gives me the chance as a constituency MP to say a huge thank you to St Francis hospice and Haven House children’s hospice for the care they provide to constituents, like so many other hospices around the country. I know that the sector is under real pressure. We look forward to working with the sector throughout the period of the spending review and the 10-year plan, not only to support our hospices but to improve end-of-life care, which is pertinent to debates that I know this House and the other place will have about how we ensure a good death for everyone, in every part of the country.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
On Tuesday, I was at the Birmingham children’s hospital. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the excellent staff on their work and their commitment to each individual patient who goes through the door? That evening, I was also with a local GP at Sparkbrook health centre whose frustration was with the outdated computer system. If he could get one message across to the Secretary of State, it would be that he has to reboot his computer numerous times a day. Will the Secretary of State put resources in to ensure that the IT is up to date?
Wes Streeting
First, my hon. Friend is right that we should celebrate and thank staff who are doing an outstanding job against a very difficult set of circumstances. On his second point, we have to ensure that, on the tech side, we unlock productivity in the system. Having literally sat looking over the shoulder of GPs at their IT systems, I well understand those frustrations. For the benefit of all observers, there is sometimes a perception that I am up against NHS staff when it comes to reform. Actually, it is staff who are crying out for change.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
One aim of the Lansley reforms was to transfer from Ministers to clinicians decisions on the day-to-day running of the health service. It is not clear from his statement whether the Secretary of State intends to change that process, but let me give him a constructive proposal that he might take on board, which is to streamline the business planning side of the NHS. Staff have to go through multiple bids and preparations of business plans before decisions are made. That means that more money is spent on employing business consultants than consultants in hospitals. I have campaigned for this change for many years. Will he take that on board? [Interruption.]
Wes Streeting
The Minister for Secondary Care was whispering in my ear that it was her frustration with exactly the bureaucratic processes that the hon. Gentleman describes that led to her seeking election as a Member of Parliament to sort them out, so I defer to her on this one.
On a serious note, he is right that wherever we find waste and inefficiency designed in, we must deal with it. I want to see an NHS that is more clinically led, free from political interference. We must also be honest: as it is such an enormous part of the public sector, which the public pay an enormous price for and value so much, there will always need to be an accountability relationship. What I have tried to build with NHS England in the last couple of months, with real joy in the process, is a real team between the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England, as well as the team across the country. I look forward to continuing to galvanise that team as we embark on the 10-year plan process.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
In my constituency, a staggering 28% of patients said that it was “not easy at all” to get through to someone at their GP practice. Worse, the figure for patients who said that doing this was “generally easy” was far below the national average. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Conservatives have pushed the NHS to breaking point, and only this Government can get the NHS fit for the future?
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend in her place, standing up for her communities in Penistone and Stocksbridge. In opposition, it was very frustrating watching successive Ministers promise better hold music for people trying to get through to their GP, rather than solving the problems of access. Fixing general practice, and building general practice so that it can meet the needs of this century, will be a vital part of our 10-year plan process.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
May I make the Secretary of State a little more nervous? The Darzi report makes seven high-level recommendations, the fourth of which is to drive productivity in hospitals. From 2017, in south Essex we saw a merger of Basildon, Chelmsford and Southend hospitals to create the Mid and South Essex NHS Hospital Trust. It has not been an unmitigated success. As local MPs, we were promised significant back office savings that could be channelled into patient care. In fact, the reverse has been true, and there has been such a turnover of senior managers in that trust in recent years it has been like a game of musical chairs. The trust is now trying to appoint three permanent managers and directors for each hospital to provide stability, which makes sense, but is offering a salary of £200,000 for each post, which is more than the Prime Minister earns to run the country. Now that this is on his watch, will the Secretary of State take a personal interest? We should pay a good rate for that job, but £200,000 sends the wrong signals to all the other very hard-working people in the trust.
Wes Streeting
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He is not too far away from me geographically, but he is miles away from me politically, and I always get nervous when he stands up to praise me. We have to keep a sharp eye on value for money. The Darzi report presents some politically challenging messages about NHS management. I could be wildly popular with the country if I stood up and said, “I’m going to take the axe to management across the country and sack loads of managers.” What we need is better management and a sharp eye on value for money. The NHS would not work without good leadership. We have to ensure that we have the right people in the right place, delivering against the public’s expectations, so it is a more nuanced position, but I am sure that what he says will have been heard by his local trust. I will certainly keep an eye on value for money across the country.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Darzi report rightly says that prevention is better than cure, and that public health interventions that protect health are far less costly than tackling the consequences of illness and ill health. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recklessness and incompetence of the 14 years of Conservative government, stripping millions of pounds from local authorities, which deliver the public health work, has contributed to children being sicker than they were 10 years ago, and adults getting iller sooner?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is right, and at some point the Conservatives will have to take responsibility for it. We learned through bitter experience that if we did not change as a party, the country would not choose to change the Government. Long may the Conservatives continue, therefore, with their head in the sand, and long may we continue to get on with the job of clearing up their mess and building an NHS that is fit for the future.
The relationship between the NHS and local government, and between my Department and local government, is of particular importance in relation to social care, which is why I was especially delighted that the Prime Minister chose this week to appoint Tom Riordan, the chief executive of Leeds city council, as second permanent secretary. He is an outstanding public servant with a demonstrable record on health and care integration, public health and prevention. I look forward to having that local government perspective, and local community delivery perspective, at the heart of our Department.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I think the whole House agrees with what the Secretary of State said in his statement: the NHS needs reform. In reality, when I speak to people in the NHS, almost all of them say that this is not about a shortage of money, but about the legendary levels of waste, bureaucracy and mismanagement. Indeed, the report refers specifically to the huge number of regulators, accountants and bureaucrats from the top down. Is there recognition among the NHS senior leadership that management reform is a critical part of improving healthcare in the United Kingdom?
Wes Streeting
I welcome the hon. Member to his place and thank him for that question. I am always cynical about huge volumes of regulation. We reassure ourselves as legislators and regulators that putting regulations in place means that we have dealt with the issue. But the problem is that if we fail to deliver, we put another regulation in place, then another, and then more, and before we know it, we have drowned the people responsible for delivery in so much regulation that they cannot sort the wheat from the chaff or see the wood for the trees, compromising standards and patient safety. That is why I welcome the work that Penny Dash has done in relation to the Care Quality Commission, and we will continue to work with her to reduce the burden of regulation, focus on the things that really matter and free NHS staff from red tape. I hope that he finds that reassuring. I plead with him not to send his party leader to agree with me as well, or I really will be in trouble.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the mother of an NHS nurse. It is important that we remember what is at the centre of this issue: people. Three individuals came to my Carlisle surgery last week because they were at the end of their tether about the care that their loved ones had received, or not received, at our local hospital. One is the husband of a woman who has profound physical disabilities and cannot leave the House unaccompanied. She now has no trust in her local hospital because, among other things, her recent care involved her being fed food that she was known to be allergic to.
I also saw the parents of a young woman who has epilepsy, a physical disability and profound anxiety. The failure to put in place a care plan to account for all that means that she is now self-harming. The other case was that of an elderly woman whose husband was discharged from the hospital without her consent. He is now in a care home 20 miles away, and she cannot visit him. Will the Secretary of State assure those people that this Government will not only fix our NHS, but restore their broken trust in it?
Wes Streeting
I am so grateful to my hon. Friend. I enjoyed visiting her Carlisle constituency ahead of the general election campaign, and I look forward to working with her to improve health services there and across the north-west, especially in the rural and coastal communities that rely on the hospital in Carlisle, as well as on more local neighbourhood services. I must warn new Members that one of the most depressing things about the last nine years has been constituency advice surgeries, where people would come to see us about the consequences of the failure of Government and the failure of this place. We owe it to them to do better—better integration of health and care services, better access and outcomes, and better joined-up care. As she has painfully described, if we do not tackle the problems early, they become multiple, higher-cost and personal tragedies. We have seen enough of that.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Famously, the House has not seen an impact assessment of the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance from frail 85 and 90-year-olds on low incomes. Has Lord Darzi or the Secretary of State seen an assessment of the impact of that decision on NHS bed capacity over the coming winter?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Member is an experienced Member of this House, as both a former Chair of the Treasury Committee and a former Treasury Minister, so she knows how impact assessments are done at the Treasury. She knows that impact assessments of all the Chancellor’s fiscal decisions at the Budget and the spending review will be published at that time. She also knows, I suspect, that despite the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance from some pensioners—it will be targeted at those most in need—they will still be better off because the Government have committed to maintaining the triple lock and to extending the warm home discount scheme and the available hardship support, so that pensioners are not left behind as we clean up the £22 billion mess that the Conservatives left behind.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Lord Darzi’s report lays bare the scale of the challenges that our NHS faces. Does the Secretary of State share my deep concern that because of the Conservative party’s dismal record, the progress made by the previous Labour Government on heart disease and stroke—of which I have had recent personal experience—is now in reverse? The number of people in England dying from cardiovascular disease before the age of 75 has risen to its highest level in 14 years.
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend in the House representing my old east end stomping ground. I wish her and her husband well in his recovery, and for their recovery, as a family, from his experience. Let me reassure her that, when it comes to the future of health and social care, we will clean up the mess that the Conservatives made. That will take time. The reverse in the progress made on cardiovascular disease, and the early warning signs of an uptick in smoking, are why we must put public health and prevention at the forefront. That is not just about what is good for the individual, their health and their chances; look at what the Office for Budget Responsibility says today about the long-term cost to the Exchequer. We have no choice but to act.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
A key conclusion of the report is the absolute necessity of focusing on productivity and not just throwing money at the NHS; I think we all agree on that. Ministers are constantly telling us that government is about making difficult decisions—something that that we already knew. Why, then, on one of his first opportunities, did the Secretary of State do the absolute opposite of that? In solving the doctors dispute, he took the easy option of throwing money at it, and did not require productivity enhancements and changes. Will he reassure me that in future he will practise what he preaches?
Wes Streeting
I like the hon. Gentleman very much, but what audacity to criticise this Government for cleaning up the Conservatives’ mess. He fails to acknowledge the cost to the Exchequer and to patients in delayed and cancelled operations, appointments and procedures. More than £1 billion has been lost and more than 1 million appointments cancelled because of the Conservatives’ gross incompetence and failure to understand the difference—they are penny-wise and pound-foolish. That is why they have been sent into opposition and Labour has been trusted to clean up their mess.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
There can be no greater example of the previous Government’s failure than the shocking outcomes for our children and young people, as Lord Darzi’s report highlights. Our children now have some of the worst health outcomes in Europe, with higher rates of obesity, diabetes and asthma, and poor oral and mental health. From head to toe, they have been failed. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Government’s long-term plan for our NHS will give young people’s health the priority that it deserves?
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend in her place. She might be from the wrong side of the river, but she is absolutely right about the importance of prioritising children’s health. As the Prime Minister said this morning, it is shocking that the No. 1 cause of hospital admission among children aged between six and 10 is tooth decay. I was criticised by the shadow Secretary of State, who said that I called our children “short and fat”; she is more outraged by my calling out the scourge of childhood obesity that her Government fuelled than she is by the scourge of child obesity itself. That is why we will act and why the Conservatives failed.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I welcome the fact that the Health Secretary talks about a shift from hospital to community care; that builds on Lord Darzi’s finding that 13% of beds are occupied by people who are waiting for care in more appropriate settings. Caring for patients in community hospitals is much more cost-effective than caring for patients in big acute hospitals like the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital where I live. What thought has the Secretary of State given to the use of community hospitals that have lost beds in the last decade, such as Seaton, Axminster, Honiton and Ottery St Mary?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the value of community hospitals, step-down accommodation and care close to people’s homes—or, better still, wherever possible, in their homes, so long as it is clinically safe and the right support and care is available. The shift from hospital to community will be at the heart of our 10-year plan for reform and modernisation. Like lots of his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches and lots of those on the Government Benches behind me, the hon. Gentleman has already done a good job of putting his local lobbying of Ministers on the record in the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am aiming to end this statement at 1 pm. I remind Members that anyone who was not in for the start of the statement will not be called.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
A recent survey of staff at East Kent Hospitals University NHS foundation trust showed that less than half of employees would be happy for their loved ones to be treated at an east Kent hospital. That is a devastating verdict from staff, showing the impact on their morale and on confidence in the community for the care that people need. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that a broken NHS is not the fault of staff like them, but down to the previous Government’s decade of austerity and top-down reorganisation of the NHS?
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend in her place. She is absolutely right. I feel really sorry for NHS staff for what they have been put through over more than a decade of mismanagement and political incompetence, and we will work with them to clean up the mess. She establishes exactly the right test, which is whether we would want our loved ones to be treated in our local health and care services, and whether we would have confidence that, in every case, on every occasion and in every interaction, they would have access to the best-quality care. The truth is that we do not have that certainty, and too often it feels like chance. That is why we will always put the patient voice, the patient interest and the patient experience at the heart of our reform and modernisation programme.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for the honesty in his statement, and for his contact with the regional Minister responsible at the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those are the first actions of a Secretary of State who, I suggest, does not run away from issues but takes them head on. I congratulate him on that.
I appreciate the terminology used in the report, which outlines the seriousness of conditions in the NHS but also highlights the fact that the vital signs are still strong. Will the Secretary of State outline how he intends to address the fact that the NHS in devolved regions is in an arguably worse condition? Will he confirm that the review will incorporate Northern Ireland and will he ensure that the findings, new practices and standards will be in place for Northern Ireland, along with increased funding in a new funding formula?
Wes Streeting
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said; coming from him, that means a great deal to me. I reassure him that I am committed to working with Ministers in all devolved Administrations to improve health outcomes for everyone in every part of our United Kingdom. I know that the system is particularly pressed in Northern Ireland and I will do whatever I can, working with Ministers in Northern Ireland, to help that situation and create the rising tide that lifts all ships right across the UK.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I truly learned to appreciate the NHS when I became a parent and saw the care given to my family and children. It therefore horrified me, having sat in A&E with an ill child, to see in Lord Darzi’s report that 100,000 infants waited for over six hours in A&E last year. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is a shocking state in which to leave the NHS? Will he commit to bringing the numbers down and making sure that parents do not have to endure that terrible wait?
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend representing Calder Valley. He has captured the fear and anxiety about the length of the wait experienced by far too many parents when they access A&E departments. It is a terrifying experience, particularly for parents with small children, to be in that situation. Frankly, the lack of focus on paediatric waiting lists and waiting times, whether in A&E or for electives, really is shameful. We have got to put children first and that is exactly what this Government will do.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
My constituents in Bournemouth West have faced rising NHS waiting times; we have GP surgeries closing despite rising populations and health burdens; there are no dentists accepting any NHS adult patients and residents are being told to go to Southampton; and the junior doctors and nurses I meet are devastated that they cannot deliver the quality of service that they want to. Does the Secretary of State agree that although the road ahead is long, Lord Darzi’s frank and raw assessment is the first step to recovery under a Labour Government?
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend in her place representing the people of Bournemouth. The great thing about where we are at this moment is that, for the first time in a long time, there is a feeling of hope and optimism about what the future could be. We are determined to build on that and give staff and patients the confidence of knowing that the best days for the NHS lie ahead.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Lord Darzi’s report highlights the use of capital expenditure to cover in-year spending by successive Tory Governments. Money intended for long-term investment has been redirected over and over, and that has exacerbated the extremely serious and urgent problems that the Secretary of State so rightly raises today. Does he agree that that has stopped us making progress on capital projects that would enable big productivity improvements and improve access to care for all, particularly those in my constituency of Leyton and Wanstead?
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to see my parliamentary neighbour in his place; he has big shoes to fill and he will certainly do that. The Chancellor and I are determined to break the vicious cycle in which ballooning costs and overspends in day-to-day spending see raids on capital and tech budgets to fund the shortfall. The £22 billion black hole that we have inherited is a direct example of exactly where Conservative short-termism leads. That is why, in respect of the spending review, I assure my hon. Friend that productivity, tech and capital will be my focus in my representations to the Chancellor and in the work we will do together to fix the mess that the Conservatives left behind.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I ask Members to help each other with one or two-sentence questions.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
To return to a subject close to the Secretary of State’s heart, does he agree that people’s actual experience is how we will measure whether the NHS has been improved? One of my children’s grandparents, who was diagnosed under a Labour Government, had 12 great years of cutting-edge treatments and 12 years with their grandchildren. Their grandfather, who was diagnosed under a Conservative Government, had 12 weeks.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work she does championing Milton Keynes. Therein lies the challenge: it cannot be right that delays in diagnosis lead to the difference between life and death. I am very lucky that my cancer was caught early. It was diagnosed quickly and treated quickly. Not everyone is fortunate, and I am so sorry that my hon. Friend’s family is bearing the consequences of what happens when things go wrong.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Despite the damning analysis of the state in which the Conservatives left the NHS, Lord Darzi says that its vital signs remain strong. Does the Secretary of State agree with the case for the health service being taxpayer funded, free at the point of use, and based on need and not the ability to pay?
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend from Dudley. I agree wholeheartedly, 100%, unequivocally.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
In a recent conversation, a nurse in Brunswick Village in my constituency shared her damning experience of the increasing number of black alerts in her hospital. Does the Secretary of State agree that, although her experience is no surprise to many who have used the NHS recently, the Tories have pushed our NHS to the brink and it is up to Labour to fix it and make it fit for the future?
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The amazing NHS staff in my constituency work tirelessly, day in and day out, in our local hospitals and surgeries. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking them, and will he be clear that Lord Darzi’s shocking findings are not on them, but on the appalling legacy of the Conservatives, who still have not apologised?
Wes Streeting
NHS staff did not break the NHS—the Conservatives did—and this Labour Government will mobilise them to help fix it.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It was great to see the Prime Minister speaking this morning at the King’s Fund, where I worked as director of policy for a number of years. In my constituency, I met a man who had been told he needed urgent surgery on his leg, but was still waiting 18 months later and had had to give up work. It is clear from today’s report that too many people have been stuck on NHS waiting lists and locked out of work. Does the Secretary of State share my view that a healthy nation is critical to a healthy economy, and will he work with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to deliver that?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the health of the nation and the health of the economy are inextricably linked. Under this Government, the Department of Health and Social Care is a Department for growth as well as a Department for health and care, and the Chancellor understands those linkages too. I can say to my hon. Friend and all of her friends at the King’s Fund—we were delighted to see them host the Prime Minister this morning—that unlike our predecessors, this Government cannot get enough of experts.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
That concludes the statement. We have had more than 45 contributions from Back Benchers, so I thank you for your patience.
Points of Order
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are all passionate about our hospices, our hospitals, our GP practices and the other health services that our constituents get. Coming to this place is not for the faint-hearted, but is it appropriate for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to adopt the tone that he brought to the Chamber earlier? As I say, we are all passionate, but perhaps his tone—his bedside manner, may I say—needs a new approach on occasion. I noted his more collegial tone later in the statement, but to tell Opposition hon. Members—we are all hon. Members in this place—to sit down and listen, or to liken some previous holders of his role to arsonists and similar paraphernalia, is not befitting of this Chamber.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I like the hon. Lady very much, and I will just say two things in response: first, she has been around in this Chamber a long time. Conservative Members cannot sit and heckle, then get cross when Ministers respond robustly. Secondly, I think that was a perfectly legitimate analogy; indeed, I might say that the arsonists should not complain about the fire brigade.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind all hon. Members that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of a good debate.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that I have raised in the House the use of crossbows by criminals. These are lethal weapons. The previous Government added to the list of weapons that are banned, and the current Government are implementing those measures. Have you had any notice of a statement being brought to the House by Ministers to respond to the increasingly pressing cries from those who want to see crossbows added to that list of banned weapons?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank Sir John for his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but I can clarify that we have not had notice of a statement.
Bill Presented
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Yvette Cooper, supported by the Prime Minister, Pat McFadden, Secretary Ian Murray, Secretary Jo Stevens, Lucy Powell and Dan Jarvis, presented a Bill to require persons with control of certain premises or events to take steps to reduce the vulnerability of the premises or event to, and the risk of physical harm to individuals arising from, acts of terrorism; to confer related functions on the Security Industry Authority; to limit the disclosure of information about licensed premises that is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Monday 7 October, and to be printed (Bill 9) with explanatory notes (Bill 9-EN).
Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I am honoured to open this debate in the memory of our great friend—my great friend—Sir David Amess, a fallen comrade whose plaque I am looking at right now. It is on the other side of the Chamber, just above where he used to sit; appropriately enough, it is directly opposite that of Jo Cox, another fallen comrade who graced this House while she was here.
As there are a number of new Members in the Chamber, maybe nervously waiting to make their maiden speech—I remember that feeling, too—perhaps I could explain why we call this debate the Sir David Amess debate. It is not just in honour of his service, but because he was a past master at making use of it. In essence, David would manage to cram a vast number of different topics, usually related to his constituency, into a very small amount of time. From memory, the all-time record was 20 different subjects in 12 minutes, each of which mysteriously led to a subsequent press release. He basically turned it into an art form, and as a result, the end-of-term Adjournment debate was always known in the Commons Tea Room as the Sir David Amess debate. As such, after his loss, Mr Speaker and the House authorities decided to turn that from de facto to de jure, and formalised it by giving the debate his name. I am delighted that we have done so, because it helps to keep his name alive. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Jim Shannon
I commend the right hon. Gentleman on the speech he is making. Every one of us who had the pleasure of knowing Sir David Amess can picture him over on the far side of the Chamber. He was able to rattle off about 30 things at some speed, every one of them pertinent to his constituency, but he did it with a grace and respect that we all loved, and we miss him dearly. Is it the right hon. Gentleman’s intention to do the same—30 items in about 12 minutes?
Mr Francois
No, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I only intend to raise three topics.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of Sir David, whom I first met in the 1970s—in a different place, and when I was briefly in a different party—I ask him to confirm my recollection: that in all those many years, I cannot think of a single occasion when David said a mean, unkind or unfair thing about anyone. There are not many people about whom one can say that, and I for one regard him as an inspiration.
Mr Francois
I generally agree with my right hon. Friend, particularly about defence matters, and he has summed my great friend up very well. At the end of my speech, however, I will make a small revelation about David and the 1983 general election, which I hope colleagues will find amusing.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Of course, David Amess was a famous Back Bencher—he spent his career in this place entirely on the Back Benches. During the 19 years that I was on the Front Bench, I tried to do all kinds of things, but I am absolutely certain that David Amess achieved far more than I ever did speaking from the Back Benches. That tells a story of its own: as David illustrated, it is perfectly possible to make a huge difference from all parts of this House, not only to one’s constituents but to this place.
Mr Francois
I think my right hon. Friend is being too modest about his own achievements.
Mr Francois
I hope Hansard got that!
I want to raise three specific topics. The first is animal welfare; the second is local NHS services, perhaps in a non-partisan way; and the third and final is the story about the election. To turn to animal welfare first, David was an absolutely renowned animal lover. He frequently raised a number of animal welfare issues in this House and campaigned for them passionately, including by forming alliances with people on the other side of the aisle, as they would say in Congress. Specifically, he was a patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, a wonderful organisation run by two brilliant people, Christopher and Lorraine Platt. It has actively campaigned for a number of years on animal welfare issues such as increasing penalties for animal cruelty, seeking to ban imports of hunting trophies and ending the cruel use of farrowing crates for sows and piglets. It has succeeded with one of those—two more to go.
David was also a serial entrant to the Westminster dog of the year competition. Every year he would faithfully enter his dog, and every year he would come back to his office full of faux outrage about the fact that, for some inexplicable reason, his dog had not been awarded the prize. My office was around the corner on the same corridor, and we always knew to hide when David was coming back from the competition, except that in his final year he entered his French pug named Vivienne. She was named, incidentally, after Julia Roberts’s character in “Pretty Woman”. Only my mate could name a pet after a lady who earned her money in that way.
When David put Vivienne in, he was asked by a local journalist, “Why should members of the public vote for Vivienne rather than one of the other dogs?” His answer was, “Because Vivienne wants Southend to become a city.” He won twice: after he was murdered, Southend did become a city, so we like to think he won in the end, and on a wave of public sympathy, Vivienne was indeed voted the Westminster dog of the year. My great friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and I had the privilege of accepting the award on David’s behalf, with Vivienne in tow.
I am delighted to tell the House that I am very honoured to have been asked to become a patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, a duty I have proudly taken up this week, partly in David’s memory. I will attempt to match his legacy in campaigning for animal welfare, and I am deeply indebted to the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation for giving me that opportunity.
Secondly, David always had a strong interest in the national health service. He served for many years as a senior member of the Health Committee of this House. I declare an interest at this stage, as I am proud to say that my wife Olivia works as a senior neuroradiographer in the NHS and has done for many years. I am very proud of what she and all the other staff of the national health service achieve for us day in and day out.
I had the privilege of going on a ride-out with the East of England ambulance service a few weeks ago. I was accompanied by a senior paramedic named Emily, who showed me the ambulance service in action. We were in an emergency response vehicle, and I was immensely impressed not just by her professionalism, but by her empathy with the people with whom she came into contact—an absolute professional.
I am pleased to report that, while the East of England ambulance service has been through a turbulent time—it was in special measures for a while—it came out of special measures under the leadership of its previous chief executive, Tom Abell. Whereas before there were often a dozen ambulances in the car park early on a Thursday evening, when we went to Southend hospital as part of my ride-out, there were only three.
However, there is an issue at Southend because the A&E unit is, shall we say, not very well designed. There is a very narrow entrance to it, such that if there is a trolley in the corridor, it is very difficult to get people in and out. So I am pleased to report that the hospital trust has secured £8 million of capital to completely rebuild A&E with a proper, purpose-designed entrance that ambulances can back into and discharge their patients from more quickly. The first phase of that will, I hope, open prior to Christmas, and it will also be possible to expand capacity in A&E and to treat more patients more quickly. That was something David and his successor, Anna Firth, campaigned for very hard, and he would be pleased to know that.
I campaigned some years ago to expand primary care in my constituency. I helped to get an expansion of Audley Mills surgery in Rayleigh, and I have been involved in campaigns to expand two others: the Riverside medical centre in Hullbridge and the Jones Family practice in Hockley. As it happens, Tom Abell has now taken over as the chief executive of the new Mid and South Essex integrated care board, and I had a meeting with him about these surgeries only a week or so ago. I am pleased to report to the House that it was a very positive meeting, and I am therefore hopeful that we will be able to secure those expansions.
I did say that I would tell the House about the 1983 general election, but I am not sure whether what I am about to reveal has previously been in the public domain. For context, in 1979 Basildon was one of the largest constituencies in the country, so in the early 1980s the boundary review basically divided it in two along the A127 arterial road. David never liked the term “safe seat”, because he felt it implied that one took one’s constituents for granted, which he palpably never did. However, the pundits said that a safe Tory seat had been created around Billericay to the north of the A127 and a safe Labour seat had been created in Basildon new town, so at the time it was regarded as a one-all draw. But a Tory sacrificial lamb still had to come along and fight this seat, so along came David Amess. He had fought a Newham seat at the 1979 general election in his late 20s, and at age 31 he became the Conservative candidate for Basildon.
The campaign did not get off to an auspicious start. In those days, electoral law required that prospective candidates should have a formal meeting at which they would be legally adopted by their party. David’s local association had hired the Northlands community centre in Pitsea to have the meeting. Unfortunately, there had been a miscommunication, and when they arrived the place was padlocked up. There were no mobile phones in those days, so a colleague was immediately dispatched to a nearby telephone box to try to get the council caretaker to come and open the community centre. These efforts proved unsuccessful. By now it was approaching dusk, so he was adopted as the parliamentary candidate while standing under a lamp post in the community centre car park—and thus he went into battle.
David being David, he fought a feisty campaign. There was lots of music and balloons, and it was all very high profile. However, as he told me when we had supper a few years ago, he thought that he was going to lose but that he would go down fighting. So in the run-up to the count, he wrote a defiant speech, saying that although he had been defeated, Margaret Thatcher would surely win the election and carry the torch forward. He arrived at the election count armed with this speech, steeling himself for what was to come.
As hon. Members will know, at an election count there is a moment before the result is read out when the returning officer calls the candidates and agents together to go through the result with them first, and to make sure there are no irregularities and no one wants a recount. The call went out for candidates and agents, and David walked across. There was a small huddle around the returning officer, who turned to David and said, “We’ve completed the count, and there is a clear winner. Well done, Mr Amess—you’ve won.” David looked at him and said, “What?” and the chap said, “You’ve won. You’ve been elected. You’re the Member of Parliament for Basildon. I’m going to read it out in five minutes’ time. I hope you’ve got your speech ready.” David looked at the returning officer in awe, and said, “Could you just give me one moment?” He dashed into the gents, ripped off some loo paper and jotted down some bullet points, because obviously the speech he had prepared was no longer appropriate, and he went out on to the stage.
For the record, he won by 1,379 votes. The result was read out and he observed all the courtesies, and he thanked the returning officer and other officers for conducting an efficient count, he thanked the police for maintaining order, and then he said, “I never doubted for one moment that I would win this seat. I always knew that by fighting an active and lively campaign, I would be elected to represent the people of Basildon in the House of Commons.” And so it was sheer chutzpah literally from the first moment. Those of us who knew him know that he carried on like that for the rest of his career, and that is why the House loved him.
David always had great concern for all colleagues on all sides of the House, so if he were here now he would be thinking of those about to make their maiden speeches, and he would say something like, “Don’t worry, don’t be nervous, you’ll be absolutely fine.” And of course you will. After all, you worked very hard to get here—even if you were not adopted under a lamp post. So ladies and gentlemen, it is wonderful to have this debate in his name, and I thank the House and the Chair for the great honour of being allowed to open it. To all those who are about to make their first speech in Parliament, I say, “I wish you all the very best of luck—but not too much.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
David Amess was my mentor, as he was for many colleagues, and he helped me become a good constituency MP. He also spent time with us, especially colleagues who felt threatened or unsafe; he gave us his time for nothing. We all miss him.
I call Daniel Francis to make his maiden speech.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate. It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), having served with his brother on my local council 20 years ago. I wish to add to his tributes to Sir David Amess and Jo Cox.
I would like to start by paying tribute to my predecessor, Sir David Evennett, who represented our local area for 33 years, first in the former Erith and Crayford constituency and then in Bexleyheath and Crayford. He took a keen interest in education, serving twice as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Education Department. He was elected with the other Sir David in 1983 and they were close friends, and it is apt that this debate is named after Sir David Amess. Sir David Evennett was the only Conservative Member of Parliament to lose their seat in 1997 and then regain it at the second attempt in 2005, which says a great deal about his tenacity, and I wish him and Marilyn a happy and healthy retirement.
I note that when Sir David Evennett made his maiden speech in 1983, he followed and complimented the then Member for Sedgefield, who of course went on to be a great Prime Minister for 10 years, so I say to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, please feel no pressure in the years ahead.
At this election, my constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford gained parts of the Northumberland Heath and West Heath wards that were previously represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare). Given the new boundaries, it is a privilege to follow former Members who have represented parts of my constituency, including Jennie Adamson, Norman Dodds, Jim Wellbeloved, Sir Ted Heath, John Austin, Nigel Beard and Teresa Pearce. It is an honour to have been elected to this House and I am indebted to those constituents who have sent me here, and I shall work tirelessly for them as well as for those who did not vote for me.
I have lived in the London borough of Bexley all of my life, attended local schools and served as a councillor for 20 years. My constituents include former school friends, former work colleagues, my parents, who are here today, and my grandmother. My constituency is located at the south-east tip of London, with my constituents looking both west into the capital and east across the Kent boundary. My family roots are like those of many of my constituents: families from south London who moved a bit further east, with my maternal roots in Southwark and my paternal roots in Plumstead.
We in the constituency are proud of two amazing heritage assets: the grade 1 listed Hall Place, built in 1537; and the Red House, designed by Philip Webb and William Morris in 1859. We are also proud of our contribution to the hits of my childhood, having been the birthplace of Boy George and Kate Bush.
We have an industrial past, with the Thames at the north of the constituency, but today most jobs are in manufacturing, retail and hospitality. However, that past helped change history and ensure that Britain is the country it is today. The Vickers works were located in Crayford for 101 years, from 1884, and during the world wars they manufactured the Vickers machine gun, aircraft, naval gun laying equipment, and the casings for the Barnes Wallis bouncing bomb of Dambusters fame. Famously, it was where the British aviators John Alcock and Arthur Brown manufactured the first Vickers Vimy bomber, with the first 12 manufactured in Crayford, while it was the thirteenth, manufactured elsewhere, which in 1919 made the first non-stop transatlantic flight. That history of our constituency continues today with my constituents across Barnehurst, Bexleyheath, Crayford, Northumberland Heath, Slade Green, and the small parts of Abbey Wood, Belvedere, Erith and Welling that I represent, working hard and delivering for our country.
Every day I speak to local residents who work in the public sector, and I know how grateful their neighbours are for the work they do and on which we all rely. My constituents rely on train services provided by Thameslink and Southeastern, which have a depot in Slade Green where they maintain rolling stock and train staff. It is those railway workers who keep my constituents on the move. Those commuters work in the financial and professional jobs that London relies on, but also, importantly, in shops, restaurants and hotels, keeping London’s economy moving. And if we take a quick glance around any road in my constituency, we see a variety of white vans and black taxis, demonstrating that my constituents are the workers that London relies on to get them from A to B, and the builders, plumbers, brickies and lift engineers who will help us grow our economy.
But there is one set of workers on which our community really does rely: our volunteers and carers. Today, my day started as many others’ will have done: I lifted my child from her bed; I changed her nappy, dressed her, fed her and tidied her hair; and then I ensured that she was in her wheelchair and ready for her transport to collect her for school. Our children are twins but will lead very different paths in life. One talks of a future in work and the journeys she will make; the other, after many years of work from professionals, can now manage to talk, but her language is limited to about a dozen words. The eldest of our twins has cerebral palsy and a range of complex disabilities. Like other carers, the greatest concern that my wife and I have is what will happen to her when we are gone.
Many of us know what it was like to have to work and educate our children at home for months during the covid pandemic. In our case, this was stretched by the fact that one of our children requires full-time care, our family network and carers were not allowed into our home, and my wife was undergoing chemotherapy at the time—she is now thankfully recovered, due to the fantastic work of our incredible NHS. I can assure Members that in my time in this House I will be the greatest of champions for carers and the disabled, because I really do know the challenges that families in our position face on a daily basis: having to fight the local authority because either it has not transferred the money to pay the carer, or it is not paying at a rate that meets minimum wage requirements; the constant battle to ensure that our child has a wheelchair that works; the arguments over which part of the public sector will fund the person required to cut our child’s food at lunchtime because the education, health and care plan is not clear on the matter.
I could take the easy path and sit at home rather than be here taking difficult decisions to fix the inheritance bequeathed to this Government, but I believe that this House really does need people like me, who know how badly reform is needed in the special educational needs system and for the rights of carers.
My constituents, like me, rely on volunteers and charities across the constituency. I am not going to name them, because as I am bound to miss one out, but those charities know that I have the greatest admiration for them, having worked alongside them for many years. They make such an important contribution across Bexleyheath and Crayford, and I look forward to continuing to work with them, our faith groups, businesses and my incredible constituents to deliver the change that our community and our country so desperately need.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That speech was very powerful indeed. I call Bob Blackman.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I congratulate the new hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) on his maiden speech. It is clear that he will contribute to the work of this House in an incredible fashion. May I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for opening this debate? I thank the Leader of the House for responding to my request at business questions last week to properly entitle this debate the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate. I persuaded Sir David to join the Backbench Business Committee purely by undertaking that we would always ensure a pre-recess Adjournment debate, to which he could contribute. His self-interest was clear even then.
It is fitting that this is the first Sir David Amess Adjournment debate since the release of the Grenfell inquiry report, because Sir David was my immediate predecessor as chairman of the all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group. The inquiry’s report is incredibly comprehensive and makes for terrible reading. I strongly suggest that all Members read at least the executive summary—the full report is of a daunting size. It is clear that Governments of all persuasions badly let down people in this country and, in particular, the people of Grenfell. The all-party group tried relentlessly to bring forward urgent changes to building safety, but they were refused. Jason Beer KC, representing the Department at the inquiry, even apologised on behalf of the Government for not listening properly to what the all-party group was saying. Sir David said, “If Government had listened to us, Grenfell would not have occurred.” I am glad he has been vindicated on that, but I am very sad that he was not here to hear that.
Deadly fires do not just happen; they are the result of a series of failures over a number of years on a number of levels. There were a number of alarming similarities between Grenfell and the King’s Cross fire, which claimed 31 lives back in 1987, although Sir Martin mentions it only once in his report. I remember it vividly; I was a commuter to central London at the time. Just as Sir Martin’s report has done, Sir Desmond Fennell’s report on the King’s Cross fire identified key failings over several years across many public bodies that could have prevented the fire from spreading out of control. The similarities do not end there; they include inadequate fire training, the use of unsafe materials and the failings of the London Fire Brigade. It is alarming how similar the two fires were, despite being dealt with by totally different Departments.
Sir Martin talks about improving the cross-government response. I wonder what would have happened if the lessons learned about unsafe building materials at King’s Cross been implemented across all Departments. I welcome the Government’s promise to respond to the recommendations within six months, but we need to get the ball rolling on the legislative changes that Sir Martin recommends sooner rather than later. It will take a long time to get the legislation right, to get it through Committee in both Houses and on to the statute book, and then to find the solutions to the problem of the regulatory gap as a matter of priority. We cannot wait six months for a White Paper. I urge the Government to consider at least that key point urgently. Let us get the legislation laid before this House as soon as possible.
That leads me on to the scandal of the remedial work required to fix buildings up and down the country that are still coated in dangerous cladding. The recommendation from King’s Cross to replace wooden escalators took until 2014 to be completed. Surely the cladding replacements cannot take 27 years as well, but the start has not been great. There is another question about this work: who will pay for it? I am adamant that it should not be leaseholders and tenants. They are the one group who have done nothing wrong, and I hope that the Government will address that point.
On Monday, I was pleased to be elected unopposed—that is a mode of election that I welcome—as Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee. It has terrific honorificabilitudinity. That leads me neatly to my tribute to my predecessor in the role. Ian Mearns served as Chairman for nine years, and as the Member of Parliament for Gateshead for 14 years. I am sure that the new hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) will be as dedicated a servant to the people of that community, and I hope that my chairmanship will live up to Ian’s legacy.
My other role is chairman of the 1922 committee. You will remember the role well, Madam Deputy Speaker, having been vice-chairman. For the benefit of Members who are wondering when the Prime Minister will face a new opponent at lunchtime on Wednesdays, let me say that we have concluded the second ballot of MPs; further ballots will occur after the party conference, and there will be a new leader in November. I thank the officers on the ’22—a somewhat smaller team than in previous years—namely my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who has been elected to the august role of Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), for being so efficient in helping me with the ballots over the past couple of weeks.
Moving on to transport, this is the first opportunity I have had to talk about the new part of my constituency that came in after the boundary changes. I am sure that PARLYapp will be pleased to hear that I will not give a history of Queensbury from 1249 to 2024, but there are two interesting titbits on the history of Queensbury station. The branch from Wembley Park to Stanmore began life as part of the Metropolitan railway, in the final fling of the Met as a private venture. Government Members should perhaps note that all four of the tube stations in my constituency resulted from private investment and initiatives, not Government diktat. When Queensbury station was built around 90 years ago, there was no development in the area, and the company could not decide what to call it. The local authority adjacent to the area was Kingsbury, so naturally it was named Queensbury. That leads me on to a bittersweet point about Queensbury station.
While it was nice to gain Queensbury, it is yet another tube station in my constituency without step-free access. Those who follow these debates closely will know that I have raised the issue of Stanmore station before. It is in dire need of a lift, as it has about 3 million passenger entries and exits a year. I continue to bang the drum and to point out to the Mayor of London, Transport for London and the Department for Transport that Stanmore is not step-free. In fact, it forces disabled users to wheel themselves through a car park and up a steep ramp on the other side. Even one of our great Paralympians cannot do it unaided. It is completely inadequate as a step-free entrance, and a public lift is badly needed, so that the 48 steps that people are “meant” to use while entering or exiting the station can be circumvented. I am disappointed that my pleas seem consistently to fall upon deaf ears, but here is a warning: I will continue to campaign until we get a lift at Stanmore station and the other stations in my constituency.
We are all conscious in this House of the escalating situation in the middle east. There is a clear and present danger that if terrorists remain in Gaza, there will be no long-term resolution to the conflict; indeed, Hezbollah, Iran and the extremist forces in the middle east could be dragged into a full-scale war with Israel, which none of us wants. I am therefore concerned about several U-turns by the Government, which I want corrected. Many of us who are friends of Israel are alarmed by the message that is sent by the Government’s suspending 30 arms licences. It gives the impression that, in the Government’s eyes, Israel and Hamas are the same, but let us be clear: they are not, and the Government should not treat them as such. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel, and as we come to the one-year anniversary of the 7 October attacks, which were the largest loss of Jewish life since the holocaust, Israel needs the UK’s support, not censure.
On 25 June, Labour said that if elected, it would proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as many of us had called on the Conservative Government to do for a number of years. On 8 July, The Guardian reported that this Government would not proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist group, which is a complete U-turn. I am concerned that anything but proscription is simply a cop-out, particularly given that Israel-Iran tensions are escalating.
There needs to be Government action on defence spending. We had commitments from the previous Government to raising defence spending, first to 2.5% of GDP and then to 3%. We now seem to have a road map from the Government towards spending 2.5%. Given the challenges that our defence industry faces, we need to take appropriate action.
My Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 from the last Parliament mandated the Government to establish a supported housing advisory panel within 12 months of the Act being passed. The sifting date was listed as 31 July, but nothing has been heard since. As of 30 August, that is overdue, and technically that puts the Secretary of State in breach of the law. I urge her to get the job under way and to ensure that we set up the panel.
I am conscious that other colleagues want to contribute, so I will mention only one or two other things. On the potential free trade deal with India, the last Government promised it by Diwali—they forgot which year—but both sides decided to put negotiations on hold because of elections here and, of course, in India. Those elections are now over, and the Governments have settled into place, so let us get on with the job of getting the free trade agreement that everyone wants.
At business questions, I mentioned the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which I wholeheartedly supported in the last Parliament. Javed Khan’s review on achieving a smoke-free 2030 ought to be implemented in full. I hope that the Government will take on board the various cross-party amendments proposed to the Bill, so that we can get over any objections from the industry and progress that legislation swiftly.
I am delighted that the Government have taken forward the plans for a Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria gardens. I strongly support that. I also chair the all-party group on Holocaust memorial. We recently heard from Holocaust survivor Eve, who reiterated our plea to get the memorial built before the survivors unfortunately pass away. We are seeing huge increases in antisemitism; that is clearly a scandal.
There has not been a Government statement on Bangladesh. The Government in Bangladesh have been displaced and there is a human rights catastrophe, particularly for the Hindu population, yet we have heard nothing from the Government. I hope that we will hear what the Government will do to safeguard Bangladeshi citizens.
Finally, on a local issue, I turn to Edgware Towers. There is a proposal in the neighbouring constituency to build 29 blocks of high-density multi-storey flats, the tallest of which would be 29 storeys; 20 would be above 20 storeys high. That is in a cramped area. Most important is the proposal to build a bus garage for 100 electric buses under a 29-storey tower block. Given the fires that have taken place on electric buses, the consequences are unthinkable. The London Fire Brigade has objected, and this proposal should be ruled out of order straightaway at planning application.
I thank all colleagues in the House, those in the other place, the staff on our teams, the security teams, the catering teams and everyone else who plays a key part in keeping everything afloat. I also wish everyone celebrating it a very happy Rosh Hashanah. As ever, I end by paying tribute to my great friend and colleague. We all miss you, David. I hope that everyone has a good recess, enjoys their party conference and finds some time to relax with friends and family.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have 30 Members wishing to contribute, so if everybody’s speech is around five or six minutes, everybody will get in. For her maiden speech, I call Olivia Bailey.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for a wonderful tribute to Sir David Amess, and for his kind words to those of us sitting nervously on these Benches today. I am proud to be the first Member of Parliament for the new constituency of Reading West and Mid Berkshire. The most populous part of my constituency is the village of Tilehurst, where I live with my family. Tilehurst has always been a place of skilled labour. Our name reflects our history in the manufacture of tiles, but today we are proud to be a place of brewers, beauticians and builders. In this place, I will always stand up for small businesses and the self-employed.
My constituency also has a proud history of defending our great country. There are many military families, and we are also home to the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston and Burghfield. I am really proud of the work that my constituents do there, and I will always support our nuclear deterrent.
We are an unusual constituency in that we are made up exclusively of villages and hamlets, discounting our official overlap with Reading. There are more than 70 settlements, most nestled in the north Wessex downs national landscape. The rivers, fields and architecture around Pangbourne and Basildon are said to be the inspiration for E. H. Shepard’s beautiful illustrations of “The Wind in the Willows”. My constituency is truly the quintessential English countryside. Perhaps the most picturesque leaflet rounds of any constituency are had strolling through Streatley, Yattendon, Compton, East and West Ilsley, Mortimer and Frilsham, although eyebrows were raised when I asked one of my activists to take a trip to the hamlet called World’s End. Thankfully, they were met with beauty rather than eternal doom.
I thank the many activists who worked so hard to see me elected to this place, and I thank everyone who placed their trust in me at the ballot box; many voted Labour for the first time. I will work tirelessly to live up to that trust and to fight for everyone in my constituency, no matter how they voted. I know that my predecessors sought to do the same, and I also want to thank them for their service.
The majority of my constituency was previously represented by Sir Alok Sharma. He was a good constituency MP, held in high regard by many locally. He was also a tireless campaigner in the battle against climate change, most notably as President of COP26. I wish him all the best in the other place.
I must also mention the last Labour MP for Reading West, Martin Salter. Martin served for over a decade and gave me one of my first tastes of politics as I undertook my work experience in his office. He remains a force within the constituency—as I am sure hon. Members can imagine—as a passionate campaigner for the protection of our waterways, and in particular our fragile and precious chalk streams. My constituency also contains areas previously represented by Laura Farris and John Redwood. I put on record my thanks to them both for their commitment and public service.
While the rural villages of Berkshire may not be traditional Labour territory, I think that my constituency shares the values of this new Government. We are a place of service to our country, to our land and to each other. We are a place where people work hard, enriching our economy, our community and our families, and we are a place of opportunity, where our young people can get a great start. In this place, I am determined to do everything in my power to embody that service and support our communities to prosper.
My political passion was sparked in the corridors of my school, where Government policy in section 28 told me that I should be ashamed of who I was. But my commitment to public service came from my parents. My dad, a police officer known as “Red Roy” because of his belief in building relationships with the community, not simply asserting power, first took me out delivering leaflets for the Labour party. My mum, an English teacher who would always fight the corner of even the most badly behaved pupils, instilled in me the determination captured in her favourite book:
“you never really understand a person until you consider things from their point of view”.
I have spent my career trying to honour their contributions. I have developed policy solutions to improve our public services, reconnect the police with their communities and tackle discrimination. I have sought to put the public at the heart of our politics through my work conducting public opinion research.
But the political is ultimately personal. It was political progress that enabled my wife and I to marry and to build our own family. My political flame, sparked at school, burns now for my two boys and for all young people still in our care system. It burns most fiercely as I hold the hand of my mum, being taken from me by Alzheimer’s while being let down by the state.
I am very proud to find myself here today, and my two boys are very proud as well. The problem is that, having spent the election telling their teachers to vote Labour, they are now telling all their friends that I am some sort of supreme leader—[Laughter.] That may be funny, but I am at pains to remind them that the opposite is true: I am a servant, and in the years I have in this place I hope to continue the hard work and dedication of the many men and women who, little by little, have fought for change.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). It is daunting to undertake a maiden speech, but both of them did so with panache and with passion, and my hon. Friends and I are grateful to them for sharing their insights with us on this very, I hope, non-partisan occasion.
Both hon. Members rightly spoke about the aspects of their constituencies in which they take pride, and that gives me a cue to put in a brief word for the Waterside Arts Festival, which has been going on this week. Sadly, I have had to miss most of it, being up here in Westminster, but last Saturday, on a very rainy day, I was privileged to see a few of the offerings of this cultural feast, which is supported by Culture in Common and Arts Council England. One was a remarkable pair of acrobatic dance artists, Olivia Quayle and Jan Patzke, who operate under the title of Joli Vyann. One artist uses the body of the other as a sort of climbing frame, ultimately ending up standing unsupported on one foot on the head of the other artist. That is not something I have ever seen even on television, let alone live, and it was quite impressive to see it on a rainy Saturday afternoon in Hythe, in Hampshire. Another theme was cartoonists, and there was a remarkable, fascinating talk by Clive Goddard about not only technique but the effort involved in a cartoonist ensuring that his or her precarious life as a freelancer somehow makes economic sense.
Next year will mark the 80th anniversary of the end of the second world war, so anyone old enough to have fought in that terrible conflict must now be at, or very close to, their 100th birthday. On suitable occasions, I have previously referred to friends among the wartime and early post-war veterans who are now no longer with us. They have included world war two Mosquito pilot Doug Gregory DFC, who flew a replica world war one biplane fighter at air displays until the age of 90, and who died in 2015 at the age of 92; Fleet Air Arm telegraphist air gunner Norman “Dickie” Richardson DSM, who flew from HMS Victorious in the far east, and who died in 2020 aged 96; and my late father-in-law, Malayan emergency supply drop navigator Frank Souness DFC, who died at the end of 2022 aged 92.
It is not surprising, but still sad, that this year has seen the passing of the last of my second world war friends, all of whom lived in New Forest East. There was Marion Loveland, who reached the magnificent age of 102 and who was a lady of grace, poise and elegance. She was born on 6 June 1921 and was a Wren third officer at HMS Collingwood on her birthday in 1944 as D-day began. Her moving and dignified television interview, recorded earlier this year shortly before her passing, and telling how her fiancé, a decorated Royal Marines commando, was killed landing on Sword beach on 6 June—D-day and her birthday—is still available to view on the ITVX website, and I commend it to right hon. and hon. Members.
Then there was the wonderful Liz Gregory, the widow of Doug, whom I mentioned earlier. She helped him build his replica SE5a world war one biplane fighter in their back garden—as one does—and unfailingly supported him in all his flying adventures and escapades. This great lady lived to the age of 95, and Members can read all about her in Doug Gregory’s fascinating autobiography, “Aeroaddict”, published by Little Knoll Press—if I were not forbidden from brandishing props in this presentation, I would wave it around at this point—[Laughter.]
Finally, just last month, we lost Dr Arthur Page at the age of 100. He was a comrade of Dickie Richardson in 849 Squadron, Fleet Air Arm, on HMS Victorious. Arthur also flew in the famous Palembang raids against the oil refineries in Sumatra and on many other dangerous missions in the far east. Both The Times and The Daily Telegraph published remarkable obituaries of this fine and gallant officer, who quietly resumed his interrupted medical studies after the war and served as a GP in Totton, in my constituency, for more than 30 years. He too continued to fly—until the age of 75—and Members can read about his and Dickie’s adventures in “Palembang and Beyond”, a book written by the late Mike Roussel. Again, I am not allowed to brandish it in the Chamber, but it is an eminently worthwhile read. Although all those outstanding individuals have now gone, the example they set will long continue to inspire those who knew them and generations yet to come.
In the time remaining, I shall return to a continuing constitutional issue, which I previously raised in the debate on the King’s Speech. With the election of Select Committee Chairs having just taken place, we must hope that the Prime Minister, after consulting the Leader of the Opposition, will soon present to the House nominations for membership of Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. The matter is pressing, not just because the Committee was about to complete a key inquiry when the election was called, but because of the fact that, while there is no Committee, its dedicated expert staff are left vulnerable to the tender mercies of some of those whom it oversees. That is of serious concern.
For the benefit of new MPs, I should explain that the ISC is a cross-party Committee of both Houses of Parliament created by statute. Under the Justice and Security Act 2013, the ISC has the legal responsibility for overseeing the UK’s intelligence community on behalf of Parliament and its Members. After confirmation in both Houses, its members choose their own Chairman from among their nine members.
Right hon. and hon. Members may be surprised to learn that the ISC’s office—with a very small number of staff—belongs to the Cabinet Office, despite the ISC overseeing several sensitive organisations within the Cabinet Office. They would be right to be surprised, because that is indeed a fundamental conflict of interest. That is why, at the time of the Justice and Security Act, the Cabinet Office was supposed to be only the temporary home of the ISC’s office. Yet here we are, more than 10 years later, with the Committee’s staff still beholden to, vulnerable within, and unfairly pressured and even victimised by the very part of the Executive the Committee is charged with overseeing.
The Executive should not be able to constrain and control the Committee’s democratic oversight on behalf of Parliament by exerting control over the Committee’s small staff team to prevent them doing their job independently. Such control means that part of the Cabinet Office can and does starve the team of resources, so that the ISC’s staff are unable to fulfil the Committee’s legal responsibilities. That is in complete contravention and disregard of a clear ministerial undertaking given by the then Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), before the election. It also means that they can stigmatise and penalise the ISC’s staff, with damaging consequences for their careers in the civil service.
The outgoing members of the ISC value the Committee’s staff very highly indeed, and we found such treatment to be unacceptable. In the last Parliament, the Committee therefore formally resolved, by a unanimous vote across all three political parties on the ISC, that it is essential for parliamentary democracy and its scrutiny system that the Committee’s office must move out from under the control of the Executive—that is, the Cabinet Office—and should be established instead as an independent “body corporate” with a link to Parliament rather than to the Executive. That unanimous decision was confirmed by the members of the Committee at its meeting on 19 March 2024, following expert and authoritative external advice that it is indeed within the ISC’s power to take such a step and to determine the suitable mechanisms for implementing it.
This constitutional change, essential to protect the separation of powers, is easy to achieve. It requires a very short amendment to the Justice and Security Act to change the status of the ISC’s office. The amendment would establish an independent office to support the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament to safeguard the independence of the Committee itself. It had been hoped that the amendment would be included in the new legislative programme. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly in the Committee’s absence, the Cabinet Office has hitherto managed to block it. However, this is to underestimate the previous members of the Committee, from both sides of the House and in both Chambers, who are convinced that the Committee’s office cannot and must not continue to be controlled by the Cabinet Office.
There is already, in the legislative programme, an obvious vehicle for achieving the necessary change: the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill is designed to change the status of those two organisations. It is therefore the obvious place to include a short amendment to the Justice and Security Act to change the status of the Committee’s organisation, too. As a measure to secure democratic oversight, I am confident that it should and would secure cross-party support in both Houses. Prior to the election, both the then Government and the then Opposition seemed to accept that this reform was needed, which does rather beg the question why it has not happened yet.
I trust, in conclusion, that the Government will ensure that this change is not being blocked somewhere by forces unknown, and will ensure that it is now taken forward, together with the emergency uplift in resourcing that was approved by the then Deputy Prime Minister before the general election but which has been disregarded by the Cabinet Office since. This is urgently required if the new Committee is to have sufficient efficient staff to be able to meet and function fully when it is reconstituted. The Government should recognise that this cannot wait. Too much valuable time has been lost already.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Satvir Kaur to make her maiden speech.
Satvir Kaur (Southampton Test) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to start by congratulating hon. Friends and other hon. Members on some fantastic maiden speeches today, but also on the many I have heard since the election in July. They have made me proud to be British.
However, notwithstanding those incredible speeches and hearing about the amazing and beautiful places across the UK, I would still argue that Southampton, the place where I was born and bred, where I have always lived and which I have the honour to represent as the Member of Parliament for Southampton Test, is the best city on earth.
Listen, I know it is a bold claim and many will have heard me make it before, but Southampton is where the world meets Britain. We have helped shape the world and we continue to do so, from the pilgrims who set sail from Southampton on the Mayflower over 400 years ago in search of a new life in America, to being the home of the Spitfire, which helped to defeat fascism in Europe during world war two. It was the University of Southampton that invented the internet as we know it today. And were those achievements not enough, Southampton also gave the world the fishfinger sandwich—you’re welcome.
We are a city rich with culture, from our medieval walls that protected our nation in times of conflict to our award-winning parks, most notably Southampton common, which are the green lungs of our city, and our renowned art galleries and our theatre, the Mayflower. Southampton is where Jane Austen was schooled and lived, and it inspired some of her masterpieces. Even today, Southampton continues to produce great talent, from the singer Craig David to “MasterChef” winner Shelina Permalloo.
Southampton is also a world-leading maritime city that is integral to the UK economy. The port of Southampton handles over £71 billion-worth of trade every year, while also serving as the busiest cruise port in Europe.
We are a city of political firsts. Many will know that our country’s first Prime Minister of colour is from Southampton. I was the first female Sikh council leader in the UK. And the former MP for Southampton Test, my good friend Dr Alan Whitehead, was the first, and I believe the only politician, to have a song dedicated to them by none other than Led Zeppelin—clearly, they have a “whole lotta love” for Alan.
Now, paying tribute to Alan Whitehead as my predecessor in this Chamber is an honour. He has been one of those unique politicians who was universally liked, valued, and respected on both sides of the House. His knowledge on climate change and green energy is unparalleled. He is essentially the Taylor Swift of the energy sector. [Laughter.] I’m pleased you got it. He leaves behind a legacy, not only of shaping Government policy on energy right now but of benefiting future generations, for which we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude. As I approach my 40th birthday in the coming days—[Hon. Members: “Surely not!”] I know! It is incredible to think that Alan has served our city for as long as I have been alive, first as leader of the council and then as a Member of Parliament. He has done so with unwavering dedication, integrity and kindness, meaning that he will be sorely missed by many. I am acutely aware that I have very big shoes to fill.
Alan, and the former Member of Parliament for Southampton Itchen, John Denham, have both been instrumental in helping me to reach this place today. Indeed, John, on a visit to my school fair, awarded me first prize, when I was only eight years old, for my fancy dress costume. I do not know what it was about me dressing up as a clown that made John think that I might one day be destined for a career in politics.
The truth is that I owe so much to my incredible city and the remarkable people of Southampton who gave me the opportunity to be where I am today. Southampton has made me who I am. As someone who grew up in one of Southampton’s most deprived communities, I saw at first hand the importance of community and service to others. Southampton has a unique ability to come together when it is needed most. I have been inspired time and time again by the many examples set by our faith organisations, local businesses and incredible local charities, from Love Southampton, a faith-based initiative, to businesses such as the Saints Pub on the Millbrook estate, and charities like Yellow Door, No Limits and Saints Foundation. All work tirelessly to make Southampton a better place, and remind us that when we lift our poorest and most vulnerable in society, that lifts everyone.
Our city’s diversity has made me realise that we are the great place we are because of it—historic, but modern, dynamic, creative, and so much more. I may stand here as our constituency’s first female MP and MP of colour, but I know that there are many more before me who have paved the way. I feel that responsibility here as well, and feel their weight on my shoulders. As a graduate of Southampton’s two world-class universities —the University of Southampton, and then Solent University —I know that they put our city on the map, and that both are institutions that inspire, innovate and push boundaries. They have helped me, and our city, to be more forward-thinking and outward-looking. As a Saints fan, I must confess that supporting our team is a bit of an emotional rollercoaster, which has taught me, above anything else, enormous resilience. We are thankfully back in the premier league, but whether we are winning or losing, together as one city we march on.
I am incredibly proud of Southampton and everything it represents, but like any major city, we know that we face challenges. One in every three children lives below the poverty line, and life expectancy can drop by 10 years simply by being the wrong side of a bridge. Public services are on their knees, and many families I represent are struggling. That is why I want to be part of the renewal that this Labour Government are promising, and want to rebuild the services on which my communities rely—from a decent home becoming a basic human right to people feeling safe in our streets and neighbourhoods again; from having access to healthcare when it is needed to protecting our environment and rivers. Another key priority of mine is to ensure that we create opportunities for all, and include the excluded. We know that children from poor areas or ethnic minority backgrounds, or those with disabilities, are not less talented; they are simply given fewer opportunities. Britain’s talent is spread evenly across our communities and our country. If we are to realise our potential, we must ensure that those opportunities are spread more evenly too.
These challenges will not be easy to resolve, but the people of Southampton, like so many across Britain, are rightfully proud and ambitious for themselves, their families and their country. That is why we need a Government who are equally ambitious, and committed to unlocking the potential and opportunities of places like Southampton. I know that, as a city, we stand ready to seize this moment to thrive and grow—and the drive, passion, compassion, togetherness and determination of the people of Southampton will see it through. Let me end by saying directly to them: I will be forever grateful to you for making this daughter of a market stall trader, who grew up in our inner city on free school meals, your Member of Parliament. You are the very best of me, and I am a product of every opportunity that you have given me. I shall never take that trust for granted, and I will spend every day, in here and beyond, championing our great city, fighting for it, and helping us to reach our enormous potential.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. It is poignant that it is called the Sir David Amess debate. I knew Sir David well, and the last time I saw him was on the day before he died. I was in Qatar with him, in a country that he loved and for which he advocated for many years during his career. When I arrived, he was leaving. I said, “You are leaving, and I am just arriving.” He said, “It’s nothing personal; I have my surgery tomorrow, and I can’t miss it.” He was someone who embodied his constituency, and put his constituency and his constituents first. That is something that is shared by all of us, on both sides of the House, and we remember him particularly today.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
As the new Member for Southend West and Leigh, I have to say that on the doorstep in the constituency everyone knew Sir David Amess—or they thought they knew Sir David Amess—and that is the sign of a fantastic constituency MP. Although we may be different politically, Sir David was an amazing constituency MP. In his name, we are now a city, and that will continue to be recognised through the City Day being introduced by the city council. I join the hon. Member in recognising Sir David and his dedication to his constituents.
Paul Holmes
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, and I think that intervention shows the measure of the man that he will be in this House over the next four years. Judging by a debate in which he participated yesterday, I know that he will be a vocal advocate for his constituency, and that he will make Sir David very proud.
It is a genuine honour to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur). I declare an interest, because I know the hon. Lady very well indeed. We were both on Southampton City Council, as councillors and in leading positions, and we both graduated from Southampton University. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), the Whip on duty who will respond at the end of the debate—I am sure it is coming—should probably close his folder now and leave this out of his notes, but I was actually the best man at the hon. Lady’s wedding. And on my phone I have video evidence of how good she is at dancing, of how bad her husband Ben is at dancing, and of how good a partyer she is at 2 o’clock in the morning.
I often call the hon. Lady “Mrs Southampton”, because that is what she is. We both care about Southampton genuinely and passionately. She was a groundbreaking council leader; she cares about her city and she cares about her constituents; and she will be a groundbreaking Member of Parliament. I will just remind her that I secured more votes in Southampton Test than she did when I stood in 2017—but I did lose by 12,500, so she did a lot better than me.
As is customary, I wish to raise a few issues on behalf of my constituents. I promise that I will not take too long, because I know that other Members want to make their maiden speeches, and today is a day for them—particularly the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), my constituency neighbour, and my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed). I am watching him because he is in my flock in the Opposition Whips Office and I will be marking his homework later, and I know that he has two very special people waiting in the Gallery who probably want a cup of tea, so I will keep my speech short.
I have always spoken in these debates because I think it important to be able to raise issues on behalf of my constituents—very quickly but also, I hope, very thoroughly. The first issue is one on which I have been campaigning for five years in the House: the Access for All funding that the last Government awarded to a number of stations—including two in my constituency, Hedge End and Swanwick—and the vital importance of ensuring that our train stations are accessible to people who are less able-bodied than we are, and to people with children, particularly those with pushchairs. Following that five-year campaign and two Adjournment debates, we finally received the award, but under the present Government I have been told in a letter that the feasibility study funding is under review.
That is a disappointment to me and to my constituents, living in an area where there is excessive development built by the leadership of my local council. As the area grows, it is difficult for my constituents to travel to and from work using Hedge End station; they have to get off the train at Southampton Airport Parkway, 9 miles away. I really hope that the hon. Member for Bridgend will speak to the Department for Transport to ensure that Members on both sides of the House whose local stations have been awarded Access for All funding are given urgent clarification of whether they will receive it, because many people in our constituencies will rely on it. I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to place this under review. Hedge End will not require a massive amount of money. I do not want to hear about a £22 billion black hole; this is not enough money to make a difference to in-year spending. That is the last party-political point that I shall make, but the issue is important in my constituency and many others throughout the United Kingdom.
The next issue is broadband and mobile phone signal. A lot of new developments have been built in Whiteley, in my new constituency of Hamble Valley. It has the infrastructure of a number of old, chocolate-box villages that I inherited from the old constituency of Winchester. Many young professionals have bought homes along the Curbridge corridor and down into Burridge, and, in this world of working from home, they want to be able to conduct their business and their work life at home. A number of them receive fines because they cannot pay their bills, and a number are getting into trouble because they cannot turn up to work. I am very interested in hearing from the Government on the investment—maybe not necessarily today, but I hope they can allocate some time to debate the really important issue of digital deserts across the United Kingdom, which is vital. My new constituency is more rural than my old one, and I have picked up this issue across the whole of the constituency since I became its Member of Parliament on 5 July.
I want to raise an issue that the Government will hear about from me in a number of debates over the next five years: we need a walk-in centre in Whiteley in my constituency. We have the fantastic Fareham community hospital, which has a great diagnostic team. It opens its doors to the local community and takes some of the pressure off the primary care services that we have in other areas of the constituency, but we need to have more services at the hospital. It is a fantastic site and, with its excellent leadership and staff, has the capability to provide more primary care and more acute care. I hope that the Government will look at allocating funding for walk-in centres at Fareham community hospital and in Whiteley shopping centre.
Lastly, people who are watching us from the Gallery or on television—I suspect there are not many—do not see the hard work of the staff of this House. I particularly thank my office staff—they are paid by me, so they should expect to do all the hard work—and the House staff, who are really important. They include the Clerks and the Doorkeepers, who make sure that I get to meetings from time to time and that I know where I am going. New Members will find them particularly useful. I also thank all the catering staff and the people who make our lives here easier. I wish them a wonderful break as we go to argue things out at our party conferences. I hope they get a rest.
May I wish all Members from across the whole House, who represent a vast array of different parties, a wonderful recess? Go and have a good argument at various seaside locations across the United Kingdom.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I must put on record my thanks to the staff in the Tea Room, particularly Margaret, Godfrey and Gemma; otherwise, they will not make me a good cup of tea.
I call Sally Jameson to make her maiden speech.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to deliver my maiden speech in the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate, and to follow some truly inspirational maiden speeches by Members from across the House, and the speech by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes).
It was the honour of my life to be elected to represent Doncaster Central—my home, the place where I was born, and a place I care deeply about. Doncaster’s industrial history is one of transformation and innovation, shaping us into the town, and now city, that we are today. During the industrial revolution we became renowned for railway manufacturing. We built iconic trains like the Mallard and the Flying Scotsman, which are still a source of great pride. We also have a long and deep mining history, which has significantly shaped our local economy, community and heritage. Only the other week, I was at the Markham Main Miners Memorial Gardens in Armthorpe for the annual commemoration of the miners who died in the mine. The gardens remind us all of the miners’ sacrifice, but also of the community that they helped to build, which is still woven into the spirit of Doncaster today.
We also have much to celebrate. This week, young chefs from the DN1 Delicatessen and Dining Room are at the World Skills Culinary Arts final in France. We have exciting and innovative companies, like Clean Power Hydrogen and Agemaspark, and a young generation ready to shape our future, like Millie and Emily from Hall Cross sixth form, who did their work experience on my campaign. From our racecourse, where the St Leger festival takes place this weekend—that is a quick plug—to our beautiful Mansion House and our sensational market, we may be a new city, but we have a long and rich history, which makes me proud to say that I am from Doncaster.
While we have much to be proud of, I must also recognise that Doncaster has faced a number of challenges over the past 14 years, with cuts to local government and a number of broken promises. But there are opportunities to grasp. The Labour Government’s commitment to making Britain a clean energy superpower will not only bring down the soaring bills that people in Doncaster face, but bring greater energy security and the opportunity for a new, green industrial future with Great British Energy. As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I am particularly proud that, as part of that mission, we will deliver a local power plan that will have the community at its heart in order to empower people and the places where they live. I am sure that we in Doncaster will seize on this new industrial strategy to forge our future and build our city’s legacy.
I am also determined to work alongside our fantastic council leadership, Mayor Ros Jones and Deputy Mayor Glyn Jones, the brilliant Doncaster Chamber, and my parliamentary colleagues across the city as we work to get our airport reopened and ensure that it thrives, and to get the health service and hospital that we so desperately need and deserve.
I could not let this speech pass without paying tribute to my incredible predecessor, Baroness Winterton of Doncaster. Baroness Winterton is a formidable politician, an incredible woman and a dear friend. She served as a Government Minister across a number of Departments, as a long-serving Opposition Chief Whip and, of course, latterly as Deputy Speaker of this House. Doncaster is a better place for having had Baroness Winterton as our MP for 27 years, and while I know that I will never be able to live up to her legendary shoe collection, I hope that I am able to continue her legacy of service to the people of Doncaster Central and to this House.
It is a great source of personal pride for me to be one of only two prison officers elected to Parliament, and to be one of the only POA branch chairs. Today I want to acknowledge my former colleagues in His Majesty’s Prison Service across the country, who are doing an incredibly difficult job in increasingly difficult circumstances. For too long, the work of prison staff has gone unnoticed and without reference to the outside world, and I am determined to change this with my election to this House and my appointment as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Ministry of Justice.
I want to pay tribute to the prisons in my area, starting with HMP Doncaster in my own constituency. I pay tribute to HMP Lindholme, and to HMP and YOI Hatfield, in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. Finally—I am saving the best till last—I pay tribute to the staff at HMP and YOI Moorland, where it has been a privilege to serve for over six years with some of the bravest and most dedicated people I have ever met. They take on workplace challenges that most could not bear to think of. No matter what danger you are in, they are by your side. In moments of peril, you know that you do not need to look behind your shoulder to see what is there, because your colleagues have always got your back. To work in a place that is fraught with so many dangers and so many difficulties, and still to feel safe, is a testament to the people with whom you work. Today I pay tribute to the prison staff at HMP and YOI Moorland for their commitment to our service and for their friendship, which will stay with me throughout my time in this House and, indeed, for the rest of my life.
The criminal justice and prison system has highlighted to me the many things that we still need to do to ensure that children get the best start, and one area that needs urgent work is the children’s care system. Sadly, there are a disproportionate number of care-experienced people in our criminal justice system, and they make up around a quarter of the overall prison population. This shows the urgent need to address the fact that we are failing so many of the most vulnerable children, leaving them targets for predators and criminal gangs. We are failing to give them the start in life that we would expect for our own family and friends.
In this area, along with so many other areas, including economic growth and restoring our services in Doncaster and across the country, change must come. I will ensure that I use every day during my time in this House to speak up and be a part of the change that the new Government will bring, to serve my constituents in Doncaster Central and to bring the prosperity, public services and progress that we deserve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Freddie van Mierlo to make his maiden speech.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
That was very well pronounced, Madam Deputy Speaker. I echo the comments about Sir David Amess. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for alerting me to the Westminster dog competition. My two Shiba Inus looking on at this debate will be very excited about that. I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) on her maiden speech. Her passion for her constituency is clear. I am looking forward to visiting HMP Huntercombe in my constituency and paying tribute to the prison staff there.
I thank my predecessor, John Howell, who represented the constituency for 16 years before stepping down. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing him well as he recovers from a stroke. Among his achievements was his commitment to the Council of Europe; he led the UK delegation for many years. It is sad to see Conservative leadership hopefuls now calling for the UK to step back from the Council of Europe by leaving the European Court of Human Rights. That would put us alongside Belarus, Russia and the Vatican as the only non-member European nations.
It is an honour to be the new MP for Henley and Thame, which is a new constituency made up largely of the former Henley seat that was last Liberal in 1910. In the intervening period, the constituency has played host to well-known Members of the House, including, most famously, Michael Heseltine and the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. Although they are well-known names, I am very much looking forward to making my own distinct contribution to this House. I can only hope to emulate my relative, Hans van Mierlo, the founder of the Dutch liberal party D66, who exited government more respected and popular than when he entered—a rarity in modern politics. I will not comment on which of my predecessors achieved that feat and which did not.
Thame is one of the two main towns of the constituency, alongside Henley-on-Thames. As well as hosting two stunning, chocolate-box market towns, the constituency is characterised by the Chilterns national landscape and its iconic escarpment, and is bisected by a section of the historic Ridgeway national trail. Henley and Thame is also host to a significant portion of the Oxford green belt, and is criss-crossed by an abundance of well-cared-for villages and hamlets, such as the wonderful Waterstock and Waterperry in the north of the constituency, and the aptly named Christmas Common, which has supplied and decorated Christmas trees for No. 10 for many years. Watlington is the constituency’s lesser-known third town, but is nevertheless known locally for its vibrant high street and welcoming community. It is also the town that I have had the sincerest pleasure of representing as a county and district councillor since 2021 and 2023 respectively.
The Rivers Thames and Thame and their chalk stream tributaries define not only much of the physical landscape of the constituency, but the communities that live there. Henley is, of course, home to the annual royal regatta, which fills residents with pride. This year, there is much to be proud of as we welcome our Olympic and Paralympic heroes back to Oxfordshire. In recent years, however, the river has been filled with something altogether more sinister. Rowers treat the water as a toxic substance, meticulously cleaning hands and covering mouths while they row, but that is still not enough to stop the steady flow of reports of serious illness following encounters with the waste-filled water. The shameful sewage crisis cuts deep in Henley and Thame, with Henley-on-Thames town council recently declaring no confidence in Thames Water in a precedent-setting vote. I join the council in declaring no confidence in Thames Water in this Chamber, and call for proper root and branch reform.
I am honoured to represent RAF Benson and its residents, and I pay tribute to the men and women of the armed forces who serve this country so ably. The constituency has a considerable and proud military history that dates back to the battle of Chalgrove field in 1643. Exactly 300 years later, construction started on Chalgrove airfield, from which reconnaissance missions were flown in preparation for the invasion of occupied Europe. Later, US army Pathfinders set off from Chalgrove, dropping into Holland as our allied forces sought to liberate my father’s home town of Arnhem in Operation Market Garden. That same airfield now hosts the world’s leading manufacturer and tester of ejector seats and fighter aircraft. Sadly, the airfield was sold off to Homes England under the Conservatives and forced into an unpopular local plan as a site allocated for a new town. I will continue to support residents in their fight to keep Chalgrove a village and to protect its heritage in defence.
I close with a few words of thanks to my wonderful wife, who has put up with so much from me as I set about reversing 114 years of Conservative rule in Henley and Thame. I feel extremely privileged to stand in this Chamber, but whatever the future holds, I will have no greater privilege than being married to my wife. Having committed that sentiment to the public record, I trust I have now corrected my failure to mention her in my 6 am acceptance speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am not sure that is the get-out clause the hon. Gentleman is hoping for. I call Phil Brickell to make his maiden speech.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve my constituents as the first Labour Member of Parliament for Bolton West in almost a decade, and to speak in this debate under your chairship, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to speak in the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate. I extend my thanks to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for opening the debate and for his very kind words.
As a new MP, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Chris Green, who always tried his best for the people of Bolton West. It is a great honour to be elected alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), and for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi). It is the first time in nine years that Bolton has elected three Labour Members of Parliament. I look forward to working with them to realise my ambitions for a healthier, more prosperous constituency.
Over the years, Bolton West has had a long tradition of pioneering Labour Members of Parliament. Baroness Ann Taylor served Bolton West from 1974 to 1983. In her maiden speech, she noted the vital role that Government can play in addressing regional inequalities, and she highlighted the need for civic pride in our towns—both themes that, 50 years later, continue to resonate with my constituents. Ann still serves in the other place. I am proud to call her a friend. She is a true inspiration and I pay tribute to her for her lifetime of public service. More recently, Ruth Kelly was first elected to represent Bolton West in 1997, before going on to serve in the Cabinet. Most recently, Julie Hilling served as the MP from 2010 to 2015. I am the first male Labour Member of Parliament for my constituency since the 1970s and, rest assured, I have big boots to fill.
May I now enlighten the House about my background? Surprisingly, I am the first Brickell in this place, and I am proud to be Bolton born and bred. My parents served our country for many years. My father was a soldier in the Royal Artillery, stationed in Germany, Northern Ireland, Canada and Cyprus, before going on to work as a paramedic in Bolton and then as a carer on the minimum wage; and my mother worked in the women’s health department at the Royal Bolton hospital for more than 30 years. Indeed, my first job was at the Bolton hospital, before I went on to spend more than a decade tackling serious financial crime—bribery, corruption, money laundering and the facilitation of tax evasion. Let us not forget that four out of 10 victims of crime are victims of fraud, often online. The importance of public service was instilled in me from a young age by my parents, which is why I found myself wanting to stand for election to this place. I pay tribute to my family and my wife for their tireless support of my campaign to become a Member of Parliament and my ongoing work on behalf of my constituents.
Bolton West is a misleading name for a constituency that is made up of towns with distinct local identities. There is the former mining town of Westhoughton, the historic locomotive town of Horwich, Blackrod, and the western fringes of Bolton. Straddling the M61 between Rivington Pike and Leigh, the towns of Bolton West have a rich history. Indeed, last week marked the 126th anniversary of the Winter Hill mass trespass, when working people walked up together from Bolton to the West Pennine moors in search of open countryside, fresh air and a right to roam. To this day, there remains work to be done to open up our countryside for all to enjoy in a responsible manner, and I will work throughout this Parliament to secure that goal.
I know that Mr Speaker and I have a shared interest in following the ups and downs of Bolton Wanderers football club, who play their matches at the Toughsheet community stadium and provide vital support in the community for my constituents. Horwich has a long history of manufacturing, and more recently, the services economy, which is centred around the Middlebrook retail and business parks. It is home to Scan computers, a pioneering firm that remains family-owned to this day and that continues to invest in local talent across the borough. Elsewhere, MBDA, one of the UK’s largest defence firms, manufactures at the Logistics North site in my constituency. Cohens Chemist, which provides invaluable GP and pharmacy services, is headquartered in Lostock. Finally and importantly, the plastic recycling firm Toughsheet focuses on repurposing waste products for use in the building industry.
There are fantastic organisations and charities working day in, day out to support my constituents. Bolton mountain rescue team, based in Ladybridge Hall, is made up of tireless volunteers who are called out every week to save lives. Pioneering charities such as The Hub in Westhoughton and Blackrod sports and community centre go above and beyond to ensure that local people have opportunities to thrive.
Turning back to politics, the recent general election campaign spoke to many of my constituents’ concerns: the state of the local NHS; the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete found in our local hospital and schools; the 8 am scramble each morning to obtain a GP appointment; spiralling housing costs; the need for better, well-paid jobs in the local area; better integrated transport that is both reliable and affordable; and effective policing that prevents individuals from falling into a life of crime, tackles repeat offending and ensures that local people feel safe in their neighbourhood.
I will work as hard as I can to secure the improved public services my constituents urgently deserve. I also want to draw attention to what will be a key focus during my time here—standards in public life. We must always strive to be better if we are to retain public trust. We all know that politics has the potential to change lives immeasurably for the better, yet all too often, the public feel let down, and there is a perception that vested interests sometimes subsume those of constituents in need of support, but it does not have to be like this. That is why I am proud to see the Prime Minister stress the importance of public service.
As we look ahead to the remainder of this Parliament, let us never forget why we are here and who we serve. Let us embrace the politics of unity, which recognises that we can achieve lasting progress for our constituents by working together across party divides. Let us turn our back on the dog-whistle politics that sows division. The truth is that politics is far more difficult, more nuanced and, yes, more fractious than many of us might like to admit.
I end by drawing an analogy between this place and my favourite pastime. In my spare time, I am an avid white water kayaker, navigating our rivers from source to sea. The sport has taken me to far-flung destinations such as the Nepalese Himalayas, the White Nile in Uganda as it flows north out of Lake Victoria, and the upper reaches of the Alps. White water kayaking is an assumed-risk sport, and it is a team endeavour. There are many obstacles to navigate on the way downstream, blind corners that might belie a tree blocking the entire river, vicious recirculating features that can trap a kayaker whole, and huge hidden waterfalls can appear suddenly. That is before we get to the effluence being discharged into our waterways. The parallels to politics are striking, even for those uninitiated in the dark arts of navigating white water.
Growing up, I had a poster on my wall quoting the Chinese philosopher Confucius. It read:
“One’s greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time one falls.”
That is an apt quote for politics, and one that we would all do well to bear in mind over the coming weeks and months. Together we have the power to make a lasting impact that will benefit our constituents. That is the privilege of being elected to this place, and it is one on which I intend to deliver during the coming years on behalf of the people of Bolton West.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call David Reed to make his maiden speech.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I congratulate all hon. Members who have delivered their maiden speech. They have all spoken about their constituency with wit, passion and enthusiasm, and I have no doubt that they will be strong representatives for their constituents.
It is a real privilege to deliver my maiden speech during the Sir David Amess general debate. Sir David was a stalwart Member of this House and was barbarically murdered in the line of parliamentary duty. As I stand here in this most historic of Chambers, I look over to Sir David’s memorial plaque behind the Government Benches and, as I start life as a Member of Parliament, I hope I can be a strong voice and a man of action for my constituents, as Sir David was for his.
I start with a heartfelt thank you to the people of Exmouth and Exeter East, for they are the reason I am here. They have put their trust in me to represent them as the first Member of Parliament for our new constituency. It is a responsibility that will always weigh heavily on my shoulders.
I also say thank you to my family and campaign team, who have been bastions of love and support through the long journey to this place. For the record, I want it to be known that getting married during the early stages of a general election campaign makes for an interesting start. Thank you to my wife for being a constant voice of reason and my rock throughout.
Although Exmouth and Exeter East is a new constituency, it was created by amalgamating areas from three previous constituencies, of which East Devon was by far the largest contributor. Referring to all my predecessors, as is custom in a maiden speech, may, therefore, mark me to the Speaker’s Office as someone who does not abide by time limits. I say this because all three of my predecessors have made significant contributions to local and national life.
Simon Jupp, the former Member for East Devon, worked hard for his constituents and campaigned relentlessly as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the great south-west. He helped to secure investment into the region and always championed our part of the world. I consider Simon to be a friend, and his contribution to this House will be missed, as will his encyclopaedic knowledge of local Devon ciders.
Exmouth and Exeter East also incorporates one ward each from the Exeter and Central Devon constituencies. The new hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) no doubt gave the right hon. Sir Ben Bradshaw the respect he deserves in his maiden speech. However, I would like to pay my own tribute to Sir Ben, and I know that his judgment and leadership will be missed by the Labour party.
Lastly, I have been blessed to inherit the beautiful Exe valley from my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), who continues to serve and lead in this House. His loss is my gain, but I will ensure that I diligently represent the good people of the Exe valley as he has for the last 14 years.
For those who have not had the good fortune to visit Exmouth and Exeter East, please allow me to indulge in a Cook’s tour of my new constituency, and to give Members a flavour of the geography, the history, the settlements, the people and the organisations that make my part of the world so irresistibly enchanting.
Starting at the mouth of the River Exe, going out to the heathlands of Woodbury Common and finishing in the countryside above the city of Exeter, the constituency of Exmouth and Exeter East has it all: beautiful beaches; serene, open and arable landscapes; the eastern part of a thriving city; vibrant towns; and picturesque villages. Many parts of my new constituency have been inhabited for several millennia, with areas such as Topsham being settled by the Celts, turned into a port by the Romans and expanded by the Saxons.
Possibly our most famous resident has been Sir Walter Raleigh who was an Elizabethan statesman, soldier, writer and explorer. Although he achieved much in his life, I will do my best not to meet the same fate, which was to be tried for treason before meeting his end outside this Chamber in Old Palace Yard.
We have some fantastic organisations across Exmouth and Exeter East, such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which works tirelessly to keep locals and tourists safe in the waters around the constituency. We have global experts working to advance the frontiers of knowledge on weather and climate at the Met Office’s headquarters. We have Clinton Devon Estates, which is ably responsible for the stewardship of much of the land in the southern area of the constituency. As an example, the Clinton Devon Estates team, working with the Environment Agency, recently demonstrated to the world how to proactively regenerate land by completing the lower Otter restoration project.
As is to be expected, we are fortunate to have some of the best farming produce anywhere in the country. For those looking to visit, I highly recommend stopping in for a pasty at Darts farm or Greendale farm shop.
However, the organisation that has the most special place in my heart is Commando Training Centre Royal Marines. For decades, the training camp in Lympstone and the area of Woodbury Common have been the proving ground for all wannabe Royal Marines, and for those from across our armed forces who aspire to become commandos. Having endured Royal Marine commando training over 16 years ago, I am happy to announce that I have learned, once again, to enjoy spending time on Woodbury Common, without fear of being cold, wet, hungry and covered in gorse thistles.
The Royal Marines is a proud organisation, in its 360th year in service to our country. Sadly it had become increasingly rare for a former Royal Marine to enter this House as a Member. However, Royal Marines must share the same tendencies that buses are afflicted by: none turn up for eons, then four turn up at the same time. Although the other three former Royal Marines, the hon. and gallant Members for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) opted to join the party now in government, I know that the kinship that binds Royal Marines together through shared adversity will benefit this House, and, I hope, provide combative but constructive debate.
While Exmouth and Exeter East has much to be celebrated, it also has its fair share of issues. From an aged and degraded sewerage network to antisocial behaviour, there are many issues that my constituents have placed trust in me to help improve. For too long we have built new houses in the area without delivering appropriate and corresponding infrastructure. I fear the new Government’s top-down housing targets will further compound that issue, and I will do all I can to ensure that the right mix of houses are built, in the right places, with the right infrastructure and public consultation.
I am also deeply concerned that large parts of Exmouth and Exeter East will be tarmacked over within one generation. Of course we need new homes for the next generation, so that they can live near their friends, family and work, but we must have a tempered approach and ensure that we do not overdevelop and destroy our countryside, and the culture of our historic towns and villages. There are also areas that I will work hard to improve across Exmouth and Exeter East, such as social care provisions, post-16 education schemes, job opportunities, transport links, and support for farmers and those in rural affairs.
It is worth voicing that this new Parliament brings the winds of political change to Devon and the wider south-west of England. As a new MP, I am open and willing to work with fellow south-west MPs, regardless of political affinity, to ensure we drive as much investment and opportunity as possible to our part of the world, in a joined-up way.
In an increasingly connected world, I believe our MPs must have a firm understanding of the national and international issues that affect us, and most importantly how these issues affect our constituencies. For much of my adult life, I have fought hard in several organisations to keep our United Kingdom safe and prosperous, both in the physical and the digital environment. We are on the precipice of a new industrial revolution. Frontier technologies, such as artificial intelligence, supercomputing and nanobiotechnology, will radically change our world and the relationship we have with it. It is imperative that the new Government understand these issues and work across the public and private sector to ensure that our United Kingdom remains a technological global leader.
There is no getting away from the fact that the international system is becoming more volatile. It is deeply sad that conversations about international conflict are no longer hypothetical. War has broken out across multiple global regions, and we must act without delay to increase defence spending to meet the threats that are clearly present. Anthropogenic climate change has long ceased to be purely an academic debate—it is visible and happening now. We must continue to work closely with international partners to reduce our overall global carbon emissions.
It is beyond a faux pas to speak in communist tones from the Conservative Benches—I could risk making the same treasonous mistake as Sir Walter Raleigh. However, there is modern resonance in Lenin’s purported quote:
“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”
In isolation, any of the points I have raised have the ability to cause mass societal and environmental change. When decades happening in weeks become the new normal, we must keep pace to ensure the United Kingdom remains strong, allied and ahead of the pack in an ever-changing world.
My final message is to the people of Exmouth and Exeter East who sent me to this House. I promise that I will always fight for us, and that I will represent us to the best of my ability, while I have the privilege of serving as their Member of Parliament.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Jonathan Davies to make his maiden speech.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) on his maiden speech. It was a joy to hear a little about his constituency.
I will begin by thanking my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Mid Derbyshire, Pauline Latham, for all she did to serve its residents. Pauline represented the constituency from its creation in 2010 until she stood down at the end of the last Parliament. Prior to 2010, the communities that make up the constituency were part of other constituencies, served by many illustrious former Members, perhaps most notably George Brown. Pauline championed many important causes in this place, including international development. She also led the charge to increase the marriage age from 16 to 18, a lasting change that reduces the risk of young people being subjected to coercion or abuse. I send Pauline my every best wish for her next chapter, and I look forward to working with her on areas of shared concern.
A small but important part of my constituency was served by the former Member for Derbyshire Dales, Sarah Dines. I thank her for her service and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) will give a more extensive tribute to her in his maiden speech.
One of the most exciting priorities of this new mission-led Government is their commitment to harnessing the power of nature to deliver clean power and, in turn, to deliver energy security, new jobs and cheaper bills. There is a history, stretching back over 250 years, of using nature to power the economy in the Derwent valley, which runs through Mid Derbyshire. The world’s first water-powered mills were built on its river banks to spin cotton, making the valley the birthplace of the industrial revolution. Among its early pioneers was Jedediah Strutt, a hosier and cotton spinner from Belper. Through an entrepreneurial approach, Strutt progressed from humble beginnings to become one of the leading industrialists of his age. Along with Sir Richard Arkwright and Samuel Need, he was a father of the modern factory system, which was adopted around the world.
Although the Derwent valley no longer hums to the clatter of looms or the rhythm of the people who operated them, it continues to harness nature to sustainably power homes and businesses through the hydroelectric schemes it supports today. However, despite being the east midlands’ only UNESCO world heritage site, home to some of the country’s most beautiful landscape and extensive biodiversity, some of the valley’s iconic industrial buildings face an uncertain future, due to their poor state of repair and lack of occupation. We must save these buildings. They have incredible potential, including to support local economies, increase job opportunities and alleviate the housing crisis. They are also vital to telling Derbyshire’s story, and the story of our country.
Celebrating and preserving the past is not frivolous or sentimental nostalgia. It is vital to our sense of place and our perception of who we are today, what we share with others and what makes us distinctive. Knowing where we have come from also shapes where we venture next; that is as true of buildings, countryside and historic sites as it is of our politics.
It is also true of our arts and culture. The creative industries are among Britain’s most important exports. They are a huge part of our economy and boost our standing around the world. They are a vital catalyst to express and explore ideas and bring communities together. They have been common to every culture since primordial times. Music, the visual arts, dance and drama provide an opportunity to walk in somebody else’s shoes. They build a more inquiring society and help us to understand who we are and what it might be like to have somebody else’s experience. They are also a vital educational tool, but in far too many cases they are not a staple in schools or something that people have an adequate opportunity to engage with throughout their life. I look forward to making the case, throughout my time in this place, that this is an underused opportunity for our country.
As we face the huge challenges ahead and return the country to economic stability and renewal, opportunity must be our watchword: opportunity to help people get ahead in life through good jobs, for example in the small and medium-sized businesses that proliferate in my constituency or at places like SmartParc in Spondon, where food production is being reimagined; opportunity to benefit from exceptional education and training, such as is being offered at Rolls-Royce and at the University of Derby in my constituency; opportunity to enjoy good health and community safety through renewed public services; and opportunity to live in a greener world through the new Government’s commitment to the environment and to tackling climate change.
Being given the opportunity to serve the people of Mid Derbyshire is the privilege of my life, and I thank everyone who supported me along the way. I thank the voters of Mid Derbyshire: whether they voted for me or not, I am here to serve them. I also thank my many friends and family, who have been a great source of strength on the journey. I am determined to do the people of Mid Derbyshire proud, and to support the new Government to deliver the change that my constituents tell me they need and that they rightly deserve.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
It is a real privilege to contribute to my first Sir David Amess Adjournment debate. I did not have the privilege of knowing him, but may I acknowledge and pay tribute to his colleagues for keeping his memory very much alive?
We have had some brilliant maiden speeches this afternoon, and I know that there are more to come. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on his confident speech; my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), whom I welcome to the Liberal Democrat Benches; and the hon. Members for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), who delivered confident and assured speeches. I also want to acknowledge the very moving and raw contribution from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and the very personal speech by the hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey).
I wish the hon. Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur) an early happy birthday. Her pride in her city shines through, as does that of the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson). I echo the tribute that the hon. Member paid to Baroness Winterton, who was in the Chair when I gave my maiden speech.
Over the summer recess, I spent a lot of time in the smaller communities in my constituency, including Knotty Green, Winchmore Hill, Chenies, Coleshill, Seer Green and Jordans. There were some common themes that I would like to raise before the House adjourns. As Members might imagine, some of the issues are particularly local to the area.
In Coleshill, there is real frustration at the continuing lack of broadband in the village. In Coleshill and Winchmore Hill, I was told about the lack of reliable bus services. Recent bus timetable changes have made it harder for pupils to get back to school this term. A solution was found for the boys at a local boys’ school, but the same cannot be said for the girls, who no longer have a viable way to get to one of the local girls’ schools on public transport from the villages affected by the timetable change. I am mystified as to why boys and girls have been treated differently by the council.
It will not surprise the House that in all the villages that I went to, residents shared their horror at the state of our rivers. Many of them volunteer on the River Chess and the River Misbourne, which are rare chalk streams, and they can see the devastating impact of pollution and sewage.
A number of younger constituents came to share their concern for the environment and for making sure we all do our bit to save the planet. I pay tribute to one young constituent, Stella Jackson, for presenting her petition to me: she deserves particular praise for her efforts in gathering signatures for the petition that she ran in her village to encourage us all to reduce, refuse, recycle and reuse.
While I am talking about our young people, I have to say that I was encouraged to see that last week’s Westminster Hall debate on services for special educational needs and disabilities was so well attended; indeed, I was unable to voice the experiences of my constituents, because Westminster Hall was so full. There is a crisis in SEND provision. In our local area, Buckinghamshire council states that demand for SEND services has increased by 50% in the past three years alone, and that this is unsustainable. The heartbreaking conversations that I had with families over the summer support that assessment.
It is also hard to hear the stories of people of all ages who have been waiting for healthcare appointments and treatments. We know the NHS is under great pressure. We know, too, that healthcare workers are working tirelessly in difficult circumstances. I hope that we can look back on today’s Darzi report as the point at which the NHS started to turn a corner.
I wish to finish by mentioning the pensioners from my constituency who came to see me this summer worried about the cuts to the winter fuel allowance. The matter came up in every village that I visited. Since the summer recess, almost 100 other constituents have written to me with similar concerns. This Government cannot be held accountable for the mess they inherited, but stripping support from the poorest pensioners just when energy bills are set to rise again cannot be the answer. One constituent with Parkinson’s told me that cutting back on their heating will almost certainly exacerbate their symptoms. Taking away this vital support is, quite simply, the wrong thing to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Dave Robertson to make his maiden speech.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I thank hon. Members who have made their first speeches today for setting the bar so high? I hope I can live up to the standard that they have set.
I am sent to this place by the constituents of Lichfield, a constituency that includes not only the city itself, but the town of Burntwood and around 40 villages and hamlets in the great county of Staffordshire. I am proud to serve the area that has been my home since before I knew to call anywhere home and where I hope it will be for many, many more years to come.
My predecessor in this House was Sir Michael Fabricant. He was knighted in 2023 for political and public service after more than 30 years representing first the constituency of Mid Staffordshire and then Lichfield in this House. Thirty-two years in total Sir Michael served, and I think that would be a number to which we would all aspire. Should I be fortunate enough to still be in this place in 30 years’ time, Madame Deputy Speaker, I can only hope to have such a head of hair.
It is, however, to longevity that I wish to turn now. Although I have received advice from some colleagues not to mention the Domesday Book, I can neatly sidestep that as the recorded history of my constituency dates back some 1,000 years before William the Conqueror to the Roman invasion and the establishment of Letocetum, a Roman fort and later settlement near the crossroads of Watling Street and Rykneld Street in my constituency. The crossing of those two roads remained an important place throughout the Roman and Saxon periods, and, in the 7th century, Chad of Mercia established a cathedral and diocese in Lichfield, which still exists today. In just over a week’s time, I will be proud to be in attendance at the installation of—I think—the 58th dean of Lichfield cathedral. The Right Reverend Jan MacFarlane will be the first woman to hold that post and will not only smash a glass ceiling, but be an excellent advocate for the cathedral and the Church in the local community and beyond.
The 7th century is also noteworthy for the burying of the Staffordshire hoard, which was uncovered in Hammerwich in my constituency in 2009, near that same crossroads of Watling Street and Rykneld Street. The largest collection of Anglo-Saxon gold ever found, the hoard is already having, and will continue to have, a significant impact on our understanding of the people of these isles, before there was an England, a Scotland, a Wales or a Northern Ireland.
Let me move on from the 7th century. Over the coming years, the city would continue to flourish and establish itself as a religious and ecumenical centre, although much of the surrounding area maintained its rural and agrarian aspect for many centuries to come. In this time, the area did produce innumerable great lives, and, while they are far too numerous to mention all of them here, I should note Gregory King, the world’s first economic statistician; Elias Ashmole, whose collections founded the Ashmolean museum, the first of its type in the UK; David Garrick, the noted theatre innovator and manager; the physician Erasmus Darwin, a founding member of the Lunar Society who had a rather famous grandson; the poet, Anna Seward; Thomas Gisborne of Yoxall Lodge, an abolitionist and a close associate of William Wilberforce; the painter John Louis Petit, who is having a wonderful renaissance in the understanding of his work; Frederick Oakeley, who translated the words to “O Come All Ye Faithful” in Lichfield cathedral; and, of course, Samuel Johnson, a man of letters and the author of the first dictionary of the English language.
Johnson’s heir, Samuel Barber, was a freed slave who would go on to run a school in Burntwood, decades before Tom Jenkins would begin teaching in Teviothead in Scotland, and who would also serve as a dozener in local government in Lichfield and almost certainly become the first black man to serve in local government in the UK.
Before I move on from some famous people from around the area, I should mention a local success story in Sophie Capewell. Lichfield’s golden girl brought home not just a gold medal from Paris this year, but a world record as part of Team GBs fantastic efforts. In doing so, she ended my reign as the most successful former pupil of my old school, Nether Stowe in Lichfield, and although I had hoped to hold that title a little longer than 32 days I am happy to be disappointed on that point.
Returning to my historical tour of Lichfield and its surrounding area, we reach the early and mid-19th century, and the town of Burntwood, a conurbation of mining villages, which grew up some four miles from Lichfield and has a similarly proud history. Its most notable resident was the fundraiser and campaigner Stephen Sutton, who raised millions for the Teenage Cancer Trust despite his diagnosis. We lost him far too soon, at the age of just 19. He was made an MBE for his fundraising, so it is more than fitting that Burntwood town council remembers him through a student award named in his honour.
Not to be outshone by the cathedral down the road, Burntwood also took its place in ecclesiastical history when, in 1883, St Anne’s church in Chasetown became the first in the country to have electric lighting. Today, the people of Burntwood still maintain a close-knit community, typical of former mining areas. That is shown by the great examples of the Spark café and Burntwood Be a Friend, which have done so much to step in to replace services cut during 14 long years of Conservative Government. If we are discussing Burntwood, we cannot forget the giant-killing exploits of Chasetown FC in the FA cup of 2007-08. At some point, I will forgive the Members for Cardiff.
Burntwood is not the only part of my constituency that has a mining history. The village of Handsacre also more than played its part in powering the industry of the 19th and 20th centuries. It is also the village where my old man taught his first lessons as a probationary teacher in the 1970s. The suggestion that his Geordie accident was in part responsible for his hiring in a school built to teach the children of new arrivals from the north-east remains suspected, if unconfirmed.
Mining was not the only industry that found its way to my part of Staffordshire. Many of us will recognise the name Armitage Shanks, but few will know its links to the village of Armitage, just a short trip up Rugeley Road from Handsacre. As the new Government focus their legislative agenda on growth, I remind colleagues that while many of us may have already spent a penny with Armitage Shanks, they are all welcome to visit and spend many more in the coming years.
All this industry meant that the canals came to my constituency. The Coventry canal and the Trent and Mersey canal are still navigable today, and the work of the Lichfield and Hatherton Canal Restoration Trust should be commended, as it aims to restore that link as a green and blue way over the coming years.
Having touched again on transport, I will complete the circle and return to the crossroads that made Letocetum. Watling Street, or the A5, as it is now known, and Rykneld Street, the A38, are major transport arteries that link my constituency together, and link it easily to the rest of the country. The A38 in particular has helped to establish a logistics centre in the village of Fradley on the site of the former RAF Lichfield. Fans of the BBC’s “Bargain Hunt” will know Fradley well, given the regular appearances of Richard Winterton and his auctioneers on that show. I hope that I can get as much airtime as they do.
Slightly further up the A38 is the National Memorial Arboretum near Alrewas—a wonderful venue, as the site of national remembrance. I advise every single person to make a visit there to remember, not just in November but on any day. I am sure that in the coming months the Secretary of State for Transport will grow tired of my lobbying about the need for a railway station to serve that amazing location. On a dissimilar note, the first Travelodge in the UK was opened slightly up the road some 39 years ago, near the village of Barton-under-Needwood, although that village should be much better remembered as the home of the Holland tug of war team. Founded in 1970, the team has represented England at numerous international tournaments, and even brought home a silver medal from the 2010 world open championships.
It is to this constituency that I will return during the recess. I look forward to speaking to my constituents about transport, access to healthcare, education, health and care plans, and many other issues that are on their lips. I look forward to bringing those stories back to this place, so that I can continue to advocate on my constituents’ behalf.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Edward Morello to make his maiden speech.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I am extremely honoured to be giving my maiden speech in a debate named after the late, great Sir David Amess. I am grateful for this opportunity. I thank all Members who have given their maiden speeches today. I enjoyed the lot of them. It has been wonderful to learn about the many famous former residents of Lichfield, and I wish the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) the best of luck in adding his name to that pantheon. Special mention goes to the hon. Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur) for providing the answer to the pub quiz question: what links Craig David and fishfinger sandwiches? We all know better now.
I am the first non-Conservative MP for West Dorset in its 139-year history—something I am extremely proud of. That notwithstanding, I will start by paying tribute to my Conservative predecessor. Chris Loder’s family has farmed West Dorset for over 100 years, and he should be deservedly proud to have served as its MP. We are both successors to Sir Oliver Letwin, an MP who was so well respected by the residents of West Dorset that they would stop me at every opportunity to tell me what a fantastic constituency MP he was. I can only hope to leave this House as fondly remembered in the area as he is. Although each of us has been proud to be the Member for West Dorset, we are not West Dorset’s proudest member. That honour goes to the Cerne Abbas giant, a 55-metre-high chalk fertility symbol whose presence stands proud over the Cerne valley for all to see.
West Dorset is the best constituency in the country. I know that for a fact because the towns of Bridport, Dorchester, Lyme Regis and Sherborne have, at various times over the past few years, been described as the best towns in Britain by no less an authority than the Dorset Echo, a newspaper that shares my unrivalled objectivity when it comes to the virtues of West Dorset.
West Dorset is home to the world-famous Jurassic coast, a UNESCO world heritage site, where Mary Anning helped to revolutionise our understanding of prehistoric life. She was long overlooked by historians, but her contribution is now recognised with a beautiful statue in her home town of Lyme Regis.
At the other end of Chesil beach is the Fleet lagoon, the UK’s largest saltwater lagoon, on which sits the Abbotsbury swannery, which is home to over 600 swans and is a fantastic day out, especially if you love swans. As well as the swans, one can also see, rather incongruously, a prototype of Barnes Wallis’s bouncing bomb. Quite what the swans of Abbotsbury thought about their home being used as a replica for the Ruhr dams is still unknown.
Sadly, our beaches and rivers saw over 45,000 hours of sewage released into them last year. The River Lim, which exits at Lyme Regis, was declared “ecologically dead” due to the levels of pollution in it. It is shameful that I and my family, before we go swimming at the nearby beach of West Bay, must log on to the Surfers Against Sewage app to check whether it is safe to swim. I committed during the campaign to using my seat in this House to pressure the Government to take serious action on the issue of sewage, and I promise to do so.
West Dorset is Hardy country. Thomas Hardy is renowned the world over for his poetry and novels, such as “Far from the Madding Crowd” and “Tess of the d’Urbervilles.” His works famously deal with themes of melancholy, sadness and moral conflict—emotions that I am sure are familiar to Members voting in the Tory leadership contest. In his lifetime, he was also highly critical of the declining status afforded to rural Britain. For even more than its beautiful towns and coastline, West Dorset is a constituency defined by its countryside—a landscape managed and maintained by our farmers and food producers, who are the beating heart of our rural economy. We desperately need a national food and farming strategy that will deliver sustainable living for our farmers. Far from being cut, the farming budget must be significantly increased if conversations about food security are ever to be anything other than fine words.
As an environmentalist, I am delighted that we now have a Government who seem to understand the importance of tackling the climate crisis and who recognise the vital part that renewable energy will play in achieving net zero. Having spent a large part of my career in renewable energy, I will be urging the Government to go further and faster if we are to avoid the worst ravages of the climate emergency, which is already unfolding. The Liberal Democrats will continue to champion the need for action in this House.
On the subject of my party, I pay tribute to our party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). I and many of my colleagues owe our seats in no small part to his fantastic, if unorthodox, campaign. I must also pay tribute to another leader of the Liberal Democrats. My political journey began in 2015, with Nick Clegg’s resignation speech. He said—I summarise here—that in the face of the politics of identity, nationalism and “us versus them”, it has never been more important to keep the flame of liberalism alive. It was true then and it is true now.
I knew then that it was not enough to stand on the sidelines and watch the country that I love so much be eaten by the self-interest of those who seek power only for power’s sake or for self-enrichment. Sadly, over the summer we saw that there are those who would seek to use the misery of people who have come here seeking refuge to further their own aims. I mention that because it will come as no surprise that the Morellos are not originally from this island. The Morellos of Italy became the Morellos of Spain—with apologies to both countries for my pronunciation—before coming to Britain at the beginning of the 20th century. One of my forebears died fighting in world war one for the country that adopted him, and is buried in a Commonwealth war grave cemetery in northern France. My own father served in the Royal Navy.
Even more than Morellos, my family are Mazierskis. My maternal grandfather came here from Poland at the end of the second world war, fleeing another type of political tyranny. He arrived as a child, speaking no English. He became an engineer and set up a building company. His children became nurses, teachers, artists and architects. His grandchildren are doctors, civil servants, lecturers and environmentalists, and one of them stands here today as a Member of Parliament. In my experience, immigrants do not forget the debt they owe the country that offered them a future. We must not let hate win. We must champion hope. That is why it is more important than ever to fly the flag for liberalism, liberal values and a rules-based international order.
I would also like to mention my amazing wife. She is far, far cleverer than me and would make a far better politician. Without her, I certainly would not be here today, not just because of the love and support she has shown me, but because it was her suggestion that I run in the first place—something I find myself reminding her with increasing frequency.
Finally, I thank the voters of West Dorset for putting their faith in me. It is a huge honour to represent them, and I look forward to doing everything I can to deliver a better deal for West Dorset.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I think it would be a huge shame in the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate to put a time limit on speeches. Members can see how many are still standing, and I know that many would like to make their maiden speeches before we disappear on recess. Perhaps Members could think about restricting themselves to seven or eight minutes so that I can get everybody in this afternoon. I call Connor Rand to make his maiden speech.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden contribution in this debate. I pay tribute to the Members on both sides of the House who have made their maiden contributions, including the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), who gave us an illuminating insight into what we could hope to see in his constituency. I also pay tribute to those who knew Sir David Amess for their moving contributions.
I am extremely proud to be the first Labour Member of Parliament for Altrincham and Sale West, in no small part because of the brilliant team of local volunteers who worked on the campaign and the support of my wonderful friends and family. I also thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), who was born in my constituency and was such a valuable friend to me during the campaign.
At this early stage in my contribution, I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Lord Brady, who represented the people of Altrincham and Sale West for 27 years. I thank him for his service to his constituents and for his kind words to me following my election. I think one of my constituents summed it up best. While I was knocking on doors in Hale during the election campaign, a woman—and the whole House will be relieved to know that I will not attempt to impersonate her—said of Lord Brady, “The thing about Graham is that whether you agreed or disagreed with him, and frankly I usually disagreed with him, he was always unfailingly affable.” I hope to one day be described by my constituents in a similar fashion. Of course, as the result of a rather interesting few years for the Conservative party, he might well come to be remembered as one as the more consequential chairs of the 1922 committee. I am sure the new chair, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), is hoping for a slightly quieter few years. Judging by the friendly and collegial way in which that party’s leadership contest is shaping up, I have every confidence that that will be the case.
When I meet new Members from all sides of this House and tell them I am fortunate enough to represent a constituency as beautiful as Altrincham and Sale West, in many cases I get a nagging sense from them that my mere presence in this House, representing where I do, is symptomatic not just of the level of change at the last general election, but of a Labour party that is able to appeal to every part of our country and every section of society. However, the reality is that my constituency is extraordinarily diverse in almost every regard. Within easy reach of the city of Manchester, it is a place of business, thriving small and medium-sized enterprises and entrepreneurship—including the spectacular market in Altrincham—but Wythenshawe and Trafford general hospitals are also major employers. It is an area with tens of churches, four synagogues and the Altrincham and Hale Muslim Association, and it is where many from Hong Kong have chosen to start a new life away from tyranny and repression. Yes, it is a part of the world where many people are doing well for themselves and for their families, but it also has an estimated 3,000 children growing up in poverty.
What unites the constituency and makes it such an extraordinary place is that it has such a strong sense of community, participation, and everyone pitching in to play their part. I have seen that at Altrincham football club, a brilliant community club with amazing grassroots initiatives, and which in 2019 became the first team in England to wear a shirt inspired by the rainbow flag to show their support in the fight against homophobia. I have seen it from staff and volunteers at the Garrick Playhouse, who work tirelessly to put on a comprehensive series of plays and productions, and I have seen it at Trafford South foodbank, which works across the constituency to provide for people in need. It is able to do what it does thanks to the remarkably generous donations of local people. However, all too often, organisations such as that foodbank are having to go above and beyond in the most challenging of circumstances to stop people falling through the cracks, because as a country we have failed to provide people with the security in work that they need; we have failed to provide the economic stability and certainty that businesses need in order to invest; and we have failed to address the long-term challenges our country faces.
That is why Labour was elected: to fix what has become broken, and to offer hope and renewal. That is why the people of Altrincham and Sale West sent me here: to cut waiting times across our national health service, including at Wythenshawe and Trafford general; to clean up our badly polluted rivers and streams; and to make sure people can feel safe on our streets by tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. Having worked on a national campaign against the violence and abuse that shopworkers receive, I know how important it is that we clamp down on crime against public-facing workers, and I know that this Government will act. Having changed our party so that we could be given the extraordinary opportunity we have to change our country, that is the sort of tangible change to the lives of people in Altrincham and Sale West that we must achieve. I am looking forward to working to deliver that change in the years to come and showing how, even in difficult times, Government can still be a force for good. That is the very least that the people of Altrincham and Sale West, and of our country, expect and deserve.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), who gave a fantastic maiden speech. I join him in his kind words about his predecessor, who was indeed an incredibly affable man who served my party, this House and this country with diligence while he was a Member of Parliament. I know he will continue to do so now that he is in the other place.
It is also a pleasure to speak in the debate named after Sir David Amess. My only sadness is that the many new Members will not have the benefit of his wit and wisdom, unlike those of us who first came to this place earlier—in my case in 2017. I particularly welcome the new hon. Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur). I got to know her predecessor, Alan Whitehead, incredibly well when he was my shadow in the last Parliament and we spent hours and hours taking the Energy Bill through Committee. I completely agree that there was nothing he did not know about the energy brief—he was a giant in that field—and she does indeed have big shoes to fill. I cannot quite agree with her when she makes a comparison with Taylor Swift, so while she has a hard act to follow, I am sure she will “Shake It Off” in time.
As my new hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) said, there are indeed weeks in which decades happen. I can almost prove that point. The last time I addressed this House from the Back Benches was on 11 July 2022, when I spoke against my Government’s introduction of the energy profits levy. By the time I returned to address this House, I was on the Front Bench as a Minister, we had had two changes of Prime Minister and one new monarch, and I had gained a daughter. That is by way of saying to new Members that things happen fast here, so be prepared for that.
Yes, I spoke about the introduction of the energy profits levy back in 2022, and although my Front-Bench position precludes me from speaking about that measure from the Back Benches, I take this opportunity to beg Ministers in charge of the new taxation and licensing policy in the North sea to remember that people in my communities are very worried about their future in the oil and gas industry. As these changes are made, Ministers should remember that local people—because of their livelihoods—and indeed those in communities in many part of this country, are watching and waiting, and they are worried.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you agree that West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine is the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom, despite having heard so many Members say the same about their part of the world. People across the world saw it in its full glory two years ago this week, when, after the death of Her late Majesty the Queen at Balmoral in the constituency, my constituents and people across our region turned out in their thousands to line the roads along Royal Deeside. I do not think anybody will forget the scenes of the horses and tractors lined up by the side of the road, and of local people paying tribute to one of their own, as she left for the very last time. On that day, people around the world saw what Her late Majesty saw and what her son, His Majesty the King, continues to see: the majesty, magnificence and unspoilt beauty of north-east Scotland. That is one of the reasons why there is such concern and worry about the plans for new energy infrastructure across the countryside in the constituency that I am proud to represent.
Tourism is so important to my constituents, and indeed wider north-east Scotland, but the hospitality and hotel sectors have struggled. Visitor numbers are good, but the cost of doing business has increased markedly over the last few years. Energy prices, higher staff costs and the lack of workforce have all contributed to the difficult and challenging environment in which some of Scotland’s best hotels and restaurants continue to operate.
When we were in government, we took action to protect hospitality businesses. In last year’s autumn statement, we extended the 75% business rates relief for firms in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. That meant that £230 million extra would be sent to Scotland due to this policy area being devolved, but the Scottish Government did not pass that on to the hospitality industry in Scotland. Hospitality venues in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, and indeed in the rest of Scotland, suffered because of the mismanagement of the Scottish public finances and, sadly, because of the ignorance in the Scottish Government of how best to support that vital sector. I very much hope that the situation changes, and that any support for hospitality in the coming Budget will be passed on in full to the Scottish businesses affected.
Hospitality brings me on to another sector of vital importance not just to West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, but to the United Kingdom: whisky. On my regular visits to local distilleries such as Fettercairn and Royal Lochnagar, I have experienced at first hand the real quality produced by these world-recognised brands with world-class taste. Whisky is important not just to my constituency, but to the United Kingdom economy as a whole. It is our biggest food and drink export by a long way: 100 bottles of Scotch whisky are exported on average every second from the United Kingdom, with gross value added of £7.1 billion per annum, and it alone directly supports 66,000 jobs, so today I join the Scotch Whisky Association in calling for this sector, which is iconic and economically so important, to be championed and listened to by those at the heart of Government. Let us redouble our efforts to reduce remaining tariffs worldwide, and let us protect whisky by ensuring a fair advertising landscape. Let us introduce a duty freeze in the forthcoming Budget, so that this world-leading Scottish and British success story can grow still further.
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, as well as being the most beautiful constituency, the energy powerhouse of the UK and the home of the finest whiskies, is also the breadbasket of the country. From Cambus o’May cheese to the Aberdeenshire highland beef farmed near Banchory, and the farming of potatoes, cereals and malting barley across Laurencekirk and the Mearns, many of my constituents are directly or indirectly employed in the agriculture sector. It is the lifeblood that not only sustains our local rural economy but provides so much security in the national food supply chain, feeding our nation. My constituents are immensely proud of this, but it is not without its challenges. There is the challenge of persevering with producing and delivering food for this country, despite unpredictable weather and rising costs of energy and fertilizer. I echo the calls of the National Farmers Union Scotland for annual ringfenced funding to support Scottish farmers as they continue to deliver for our nation.
It has been a great privilege to speak in this debate, and now that I sit on the other side of the House, it is a daily inspiration to see Sir David’s coat of arms looking down on us. I know that he, like us, would be working as hard as possible to ensure that we Conservatives return to the other side of the House at the earliest available opportunity, in four or five years’ time.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
I congratulate everybody in the House who has made their maiden speech today. They have spoken so passionately about their constituencies that I wish to visit them all, although I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur) that I will come only if she promises to treat me to a fish-finger sandwich.
I am honoured to give my maiden speech today, and I do so in the mother of all Parliaments with the greatest humility. I will never forget that the people of Gillingham and Rainham have sent me, a Muslim woman, here and it is only with their authority and trust that I speak. It is a privilege that I will never take lightly, which is why I would also like to begin by paying tribute to Sir David Amess, who embodied everything it means to be a public servant; I have learned a lot about him in the Chamber today.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge my predecessor, Rehman Chishti, who served his constituents faithfully over many years. Rehman arrived in this country at six years of age not speaking a word of English, but with the support of a community and our schools and teachers, he was eventually called to the Bar and then elected as an MP. He should be proud of his achievements in Parliament, and I wish him well with whatever the future holds for him. His story could only really happen in the UK, and I know the feeling: it is the feeling that I could not make sense anywhere else. I could visit Kenya, where my mother was born, or Pakistan, where my father comes from, but the moment I uttered a single word or walked a few metres, anyone who would care to would know that I was not from there, because the only place I truly feel myself is my hometown. I am a child of Gillingham and Rainham, no matter how much a small minority might insist that I am not. I could say, “I’m a Gillingham girl, I know I am, I’m sure I am.” And now that I have said that, I can return to the Rainham end of the Priestfield stadium with my head held high.
It is that confidence that I want every child in my constituency to have, because opportunity is no good to a generation that feels so beaten down that they dare not look up. I want them to have confidence that they can set a course for their life and have the means to get there, or at least know how to make it possible. But that has to come from somewhere; it has to start with someone. For me, it was my grandparents, the first generation of my family to emigrate to the UK. My grandfather worked on the railways and my grandmother was a fruit picker. They made Gillingham and Rainham their home and taught me that nothing is easy, that things have to be earned, and that when we work together—as a family, as workers, as a collective—we achieve more. They were my first political role models. It is because of my parents that I am standing here today. My father never stopped believing in me, and he did not want me to be held back by the same things in life that had held him back. Before he sadly passed away in 2020, he made me promise to not stop until I had made the change I wanted to see. I wish he were here to witness this today, but I know that with my mother’s support—she is in the Gallery—I can do just that, not by myself, but together with all my colleagues, our movement and the people of Gillingham and Rainham, with whom I make common cause.
There is so much to build on. If the House has not already guessed, we are the home to the mighty Gillingham football club. League one will be lucky to have us when we are good and ready. We also have Medway maritime hospital, a pillar of our community, staffed by dedicated professionals who do an outstanding job under increasingly difficult circumstances.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether your privileges extend to a Disney+ subscription, but if they do, please ensure that you watch “Shōgun”, which is based on the life of Will Adams. He was born in Gillingham and was the first Englishman to navigate to Japan in 1598, and he later became a samurai. When we are not exporting military heroes, we are making them. Gillingham and Rainham has a proud military and naval history, sharing a former naval dockyard and the Royal Engineers with neighbouring constituencies.
We face our challenges. From speaking to residents over the years, I know that a story of decline and disillusionment has become all too familiar, after years of neglect and a lack of hope. The worst of it is that it is not unknown. It is not a new insight; this has been spoken of many times in this House and the other place. It is said, it is forgotten, and we move on. Over time, feeling hopeless is the only rational response left to the public. I hear it at first hand from countless residents, who are worried whether their children will have the same opportunities they had growing up, and whether our community will continue to thrive in the years to come.
Those concerns are not unique to Gillingham and Rainham, but are deeply felt by the people I represent. It is my duty to ensure that their voice is heard in this House and that their needs are met by our Government, so that we can not only rebuild trust in our politics, but once again proudly say that this country is a place where anyone, regardless of background, can succeed. That is why I welcome the Government’s pledge to improve children’s speaking skills as a helpful step to breaking down class barriers. It is those values that underpin my politics, and it is my experience that will drive my work as a Member of Parliament.
Having a place to call home should be a fundamental right. Working for more than a decade in the housing industry, and most recently for the homelessness charity St Mungo’s, has taught me that how someone accesses housing impacts everything, from their physical and mental health to their life chances. That is why I will always champion my constituents’ right to good-quality, genuinely affordable homes. That work was started in my constituency by the late alderman Paul Harriott, who also recognised that housing is more than just having a roof over your head.
I will work tirelessly to improve our local healthcare services. The pressures on our NHS are immense, and it is vital that we secure the necessary resources and support to ensure that everyone has access to the best possible healthcare. The regeneration of our high streets is a matter of great concern to my constituents, so I will advocate for policies that support small businesses, encourage investment and help to restore the vitality of our town centres, just like the Love Gillingham initiative that I proudly announced only last week.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the incredible sense of community in my constituency. Whether it is neighbours looking out for one another, volunteers working to support the most vulnerable or local groups coming together to tackle common challenges, it is clear that people care deeply about their community and each other. As their representative, I pledge to work in that same spirit of co-operation and compassion. I will listen to the people I serve, and I will fight for their interests in this House. The challenges we face are significant, but I am confident that together we can start to rebuild Gillingham and Rainham.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Danny Chambers to make his maiden speech.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. That was an interesting maiden speech; it is clear how passionate you are—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will get this right. The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) spoke passionately about her constituency and how hard she will work for her constituents. It is an absolute honour to speak in this David Amess Adjournment debate. We heard moving tributes from people who knew him. We aspire to be MPs who are even half as good as he was for his constituency.
Practising as a veterinary surgeon has been deeply rewarding. Despite the 3 am calvings, visiting colics in the middle of the night and euthanising much-loved family pets, it was the perfect job for someone who grew up on a farm and loved science at school. I was relieved when I got elected that my first job as an MP was still within my comfort zone: I was asked to judge the dog show at Meonstoke village fair.
As I knock on a lot of doors—all of us do—one of the most common questions I get asked is, “Is it true that vets can treat humans as well?” I always answer, “Yes, vets can treat humans, but once we’ve taken your temperature, people tend not to ask a second time.” [Laughter.]
Although being a vet is a fulfilling career, it is also stressful. It may surprise the House to learn that vets have a suicide rate that is about four times the national average. I have long been determined to do something about that. Along with one of my good friends, Sarah Brown, we set up a support group for veterinary professionals that now has more than 19,000 members. Unfortunately, my friend Sarah lost her battle with depression, so I took her place as a trustee of the charity Vetlife, which supports the mental health of the UK veterinary profession. Not only does Vetlife have a 24-hour helpline for people who are struggling, but we immediately refer anyone who is at crisis point with their mental health. I am sure the whole House is aware that, at the moment, a person who goes to their GP in crisis may have to wait months, even more than a year, to get the specialist healthcare they need. I am sure we all agree that is not good enough.
It is not only veterinary surgeons who are at high risk of mental health issues. Other groups need proactive support for their mental health, including military veterans, women in the 12 months after giving birth, farmers, the LGBT community and people struggling with debt. Living in poverty makes people vulnerable to the desperate cycle of payday loan companies and credit card debt, which not only puts strain on family relationships but saps the joy from life and contributes towards our mental health crisis.
My experience, which is probably shared by all Members when they knock on doors, is that one of the most common subjects brought up is the struggle of parents to access mental health care for children and teenagers whose education and social development was hugely disrupted by the pandemic. Parents are worried sick about that. I am proud that the Lib Dems have said for years that mental health should be treated with the same importance as physical health. We are heartened that the Government reaffirmed that in the King’s Speech.
The Winchester constituency has seen slight boundary changes, having incorporated some of the Meon Valley, so my constituents were served by two MPs in the last Parliament. I pay tribute to Steve Brine, who was also Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, and Flick Drummond. I thank them for all the hard work they did over the years for the people of my constituency.
Winchester was once one of the ancient capitals of England. It is steeped in history. King Alfred the Great famously defended the city from Viking attacks in the ninth century, fortifying Winchester and leading a series of successful campaigns. He eventually secured a decisive victory in the battle of Edington in 878, and that victory marked the beginning of the unification of England under his rule. The city is home to the magnificent Winchester cathedral, which has stood as the symbol of the city’s religious and cultural significance for over a millennium. We also have one of the oldest newspapers in the country, the Hampshire Chronicle, which is still very popular and very well read.
Although we are proud of our rich history, we are also a forward-looking community, keenly aware of our role in the world and our responsibility to the future. To that end, we are striving to become an official city of sanctuary for refugees, having welcomed so many from Ukraine and other areas of the world troubled by conflict. Organisations such as Winchester Action on Climate Crisis—WinACC—are also working tirelessly to ensure that Winchester plays our part in combating global climate change.
The River Itchen flows right through the heart of our city, and the River Meon through the Meon valley—[Interruption.] I must apologise; I seem to have contracted kennel cough—[Laughter.] These rare chalk streams support unique ecosystems so precious that the Itchen has been designated as a site of special scientific interest, and we hope the Meon will soon receive that same accreditation. Allowing sewage and other pollutants to be dumped in these rivers is nothing short of ecological vandalism.
Climate change, pandemics, antimicrobial resistance, and how we feed 8 billion people and give them energy sustainably—these are daunting challenges, but we must face them because they are existential threats to our civilisation. But they are also economic opportunities; the technology and expertise required to address them are opportunities for economic growth, and the UK has the potential to be a world leader in this area. No single country can address these issues alone, and to find lasting solutions, we need a united effort from Governments, research institutes, universities, scientists, engineers, businesses and tech start-ups worldwide. We have learned over the last few years that, whether dealing with pandemics or climate change, the human and economic costs are enormous when our political leaders ignore scientists and experts.
My upbringing and my state school education gave me the opportunity to have an enjoyable and fulfilling career, but I am also aware that I was privileged. I always had a roof over my head, I had a stable family life, I never went to school hungry and my mother, who is here today, is a former teacher and used to read to us every night—I vividly remember the day she quite angrily said, “I am not reading ‘Danny the Champion of the World’ to you one more time.” But many children today are not so fortunate, and the increasing number of children growing up in poverty lack the opportunities I had. Although these are complex issues, we can begin addressing them by providing free school meals to all children who are hungry to ensure that every child can reach their full potential. Had I gone to school hungry, it is very unlikely I would have become a veterinary surgeon, and even less likely that I would be standing here as a Member of Parliament.
I will miss treating animals on a daily basis, although some of my colleagues have said to me, “It is fantastic for animal welfare that you have been elected to Parliament, because it means you will be spending less time in the veterinary clinic.” But I think I am going to have a bigger impact on animal welfare here than I ever could in clinical practice. My goals include updating the outdated Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 to make it fit for the 21st century. We also need to address issues such as puppy smuggling, which are not only an animal welfare issue but a human health risk, bringing the risk of importing rabies, brucella canis and other diseases that affect the human population. I also want to support our British farmers in upholding our high animal welfare standards, and to ensure that those are not compromised in future trade deals. It is not only vets and farmers who are proud of our high animal welfare standards but the British public, and we must not compromise them.
I thank my team of volunteers, many of whom are here today, who worked so hard not only during the general election campaign but in the transition to setting up a constituency office. They have been fantastic. While we have been recruiting for permanent members of staff, they have done over 800 pieces of casework, supporting our local community.
I thank my family and my partner, Emma. I pay tribute to my father, who is no longer with us. Our family had the heartbreaking experience of caring for him as he declined due to dementia. I know there are many people in Winchester, Hampshire and throughout the country who are experiencing the same situation with their loved ones.
It is the honour of my life to serve as Winchester’s MP. I will continue to stand up and fight for our local NHS services and our local hospital services. I thank everyone who put their faith in me and my team. We will not let you down.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on his excellent speech. I note that he has a bit of a frog in his throat, but he made it well—it was fantastic. I was interested, in particular, to hear his views on “Danny the Champion of the World”. I was reminded of how quintessentially British it is to hear about fishfinger sandwiches from Southampton and Armitage Shanks from Lichfield, and to hear about Devon pasties from the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed). It is a tribute to all of us that our constituencies are such a rich tapestry of difference and diversity. It is in that tradition that I stand before you today.
I believe that David Amess would be proud of this Parliament and proud of the speeches given. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who spoke eloquently, with fond anecdotes, on the character, charm and wit of the former Member. I can say that my speech is not written on toilet paper. [Laughter.] However, I was possibly equally surprised to be elected to this Chamber as he was back in the 1980s. It is a privilege to be elected to represent the communities of Chatham, Aylesford, Snodland and the surrounding villages. We all do this not for awards or recognition, but simply because we all want to make our communities better, safer and fairer.
I would like to place on record my thanks to the House staff for the welcome and support they have given all new Members over the last few weeks, especially as there are so many of us this time: the Table Office, the Speaker’s Office, the Doorkeepers, security and, as a former teacher, a special thanks to the education support assistants who do such outstanding work on tours. Yesterday, I had the great pleasure of meeting a Mr O’Sullivan, who is shortly to depart the education centre to go into teaching. I wish him all the best in that pursuit.
Preparation for this speech has not been without trepidation, and I have had a significant amount of advice from Members, former Members, siblings, partners and former students alike. One piece of advice was to treat it like a wedding speech: tread carefully to keep both sides of the aisle happy and always remember to speak highly of your elders. That was until I was reminded that, as I am in my mid-40s, I am possibly one of those elders, given how the age differential has changed. Another piece of advice, from a former Member, was to always keeps the Whips happy.
Tristan Osborne
On that note, second only to Bridgend, Chatham and Aylesford is one of the most beautiful constituencies in the country. [Laughter.] Created in 1997 from the previous Rochester and Chatham, Mid Kent, and Tonbridge and Malling seats, we have a rich legacy of excellent and outspoken parliamentarians, including Dame Peggy Fenner, Andrew Rowe, Julian Critchley, Jonathan Shaw and the remarkable Dame Tracey Crouch. What can I say? Dame Tracey is well known for her warm personality and diligence. She is engaging, and her constituents spoke well of her on the doorstep and in the 14 years she represented the area. I am also reliably informed that, unlike me, she had a legendary involvement in the parliamentary football team. I am reliably informed, again, that her tackling skills were well known, and that no one ever tried to take the ball from her when she was in in full flight. On a serious note, she has done outstanding work on the football fan-led review, she led on anti-gambling legislation when she was in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and she has left a deeply inspiring legacy for young women in sport in particular. I salute her record and her fortitude.
My constituents embody aspiration and determination. Although I was raised in the city of Medway, I have been actively involved in Chatham since 2001. It is a dynamic and diverse area, with hard-working, direct and down-to-earth people. The constituency is truly beautiful, with stunning panoramic views from Blue Bell Hill over the weald of Kent. On a clear day one can see many other constituencies, including Tonbridge, Sevenoaks, Maidstone and Malling and Canterbury, and many walkers and hikers find entertainment along the historic Pilgrims’ Way. The seat also contains some of the earliest human settlement history, with the megalithic structures of Kit’s Coty harking back to neolithic times. It is identified with numerous artefacts of historical significance, although I must say to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) that there are—perhaps—no chalk figures of historic stature in my constituency.
The part of my constituency that will be most familiar to Members is Chatham, whose historic legacy is known across the world. Its significance as a commissioned dockyard has been recognised globally, and its long-standing naval tradition dates back to Henry VIII and the Tudor period. The area retained that naval link until the 1980s, when the dockyard was closed, and it still has that proud naval tradition. I am reliably informed that the Resolute desk in the Oval Office, in the heart of western democracy, came from HMS Resolute, which was constructed and supported in Chatham, and many of our finest naval traditions have come from that location.
Chatham and Aylesford does, however, face significant challenges. Many areas, particularly urban Chatham, experience poverty, and, according to figures from the House of Commons Library, 17% of children are living in poverty. Issues such as crime and antisocial behaviour have been exacerbated by cuts in neighbourhood policing and early intervention programmes. I am committed to working with all our communities to address those challenges., and it is on that note that I want to pay particular tribute to many of the charities and other organisations that serve my local community. They include the Arches project in Luton, the dementia awareness groups, Street Angels, Royal British Legion Industries and our Poppy Appeal volunteers, who go out every year to collect funds for veterans and our military community.
I believe that community wealth building should be central to our approach to government. By focusing on wealth creation, we can drive and support local businesses and revitalise our town centres. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) has done excellent work in that neighbouring seat to revitalise Gillingham town centre, and I will seek to replicate it, working closely with council leaders across Medway, Tonbridge and Malling and Kent county council to advance the agenda.
In recent weeks I have heard many inspiring speeches from new Members, but what unites us all is a shared ambition to effect positive change for our communities and our country. I am honoured to serve, and I pledge to work across party lines to ensure economic security and improvements in our public services—and I will do so in a friendly, open and approachable way. The Government must of course deal with the £22 billion in-year deficit, and we must work to secure our economic prosperity to ensure that all our people, especially our young people, have the skills that will give them a future. I am deeply honoured to represent the constituents of Chatham and Aylesford.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before Members make their contributions, they may wish to bear in mind that I will be calling the Front Benchers at 4.45 pm.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
It is a great honour to be called to speak in the Sir David Amess adjournment debate. Let me first refer Members to my registered interests before I make some points about my constituency.
There have been many maiden speeches this afternoon—the greatest tradition of the House—and I congratulate the new hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne). Following Dame Tracey Crouch is no mean feat—I have done that in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I have appeared on the media with the hon. Gentleman, and he will do very well for his constituents.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who talked about vets and about dementia. He spoke about some very personal issues in front of his family, which is to be applauded. All Members, including our new action man, my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), have made moving contributions. The new hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) is clearly a champion of carers, and he talked about disability. I have enjoyed listening to everyone’s speeches this afternoon.
Many of us are not new Members, but we are new to parts of our constituencies, and it is right that we gallop around our constituencies in the way that Sir David Amess did, so that you are happy with us, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to do that in the finest of his traditions. One thing I share with Sir David Amess is that I have owned a Westminster dog of the year; in fact, the reigning Westminster dog of the year. I have given back the trophy, and the battle will be back on—it is TJ’s trophy right now.
I am the first Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield. Parts of my constituency were previously in the Horsham constituency, which the right honourable Sir Jeremy Quin represented, and in the Lewes constituency, which Maria Caulfield represented. Both were assiduous Members of Parliament who were dedicated to causes and very effective. I feel the pressure of following in their footsteps in my constituency, which is very rural. It has parts of Lewes and Wealden, and 50% or thereabouts of the Mid Sussex district. I wish the new hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) well; we have already been working together on several issues. Today she raised the issue of hospice funding, which St Catherine’s hospice in Pease Pottage is particularly struggling with, as is St Peter & St James hospice in North Chailey.
If we are to talk about assisted dying, we also need to talk about dying well and living well, and I urge the Government to look at hospice funding in the wider discussion about the NHS that we have had today. Uckfield hospital needs further support and my local GP services, which are run by Modality, are struggling in Crawley Down, East Grinstead and parts of Burgess Hill, as they are elsewhere. Indeed, I have heard in the last few weeks that the Balcombe surgery needs further support. Our local GPs do a fabulous job, and it is important that we support them in the wider NHS.
Roads and potholes have been perennial issues in my inbox; I am sure that new Members have found the same. We have issues with traffic lights, queues and Royal Mail deliveries in Slaugham, Pease Pottage and Uckfield. These problems are getting on constituents’ nerves, so we need to tackle them.
There are some amazing local businesses in my constituency. Tim Haynes is a second-generation florist in Pease Pottage and serves his customers diligently. As in many communities, many of our businesses are small, rural and family-led, and they include farming. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said that fine words and fine foods are not the same when it comes to farming, and we must make sure that we back our farmers again this week.
I have correspondence in my inbox about education, health and care plans; SEND provision; and special school places. This is a very difficult area for many of my constituents, and we face increasing diagnoses and challenges. As the Government look to charge VAT on fees for independent schools, I ask that they consider the impact on children without EHCPs who are being supported in independent schools. A significant proportion of pupils in my constituency attend independent schools, and parents are very worried about the impact of any changes on their children. What happens going forward must be fair to all children.
Turning to some positives, I recently attended the Queen Victoria hospital and the planting of a maple tree to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Canadian wing and the work of the plastic surgeons in the town that doesn’t stare. I thank the team who welcomed me recently to the citizens advice bureau in Uckfield, which is a wonderful town. They work hard to support many rural residents in an area where poverty is not seen and noticed as it is in other areas.
Burgess Hill academy, Blackthorns community primary academy and Lindfield primary academy are having a particular issue with general annual grant pooling by the University of Brighton Academies Trust. Some 14 schools are part of that group, and those local schools are seeing an impact on their day-to-day budgets. I implore the Government and the trust to work with local MPs to make sure that the support that is being given for pupils actually lands in the laps of teachers and students. That worries me greatly.
Finally, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Nicholas Soames. He called me “Mimsey” and his constituent. He was supportive, bombastic, warm and strident. He always stuck up for commuters and for casework being of the highest order. We all seek to continue in his fine tradition of standing up for those who go to work, work hard and live in our constituencies. If we are lucky enough to be sent here, a legacy such as his—like that of Sir David—is one that we aspire to.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank all hon. Members for their wonderful maiden speeches, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson). I look forward to speaking to her about her career in the Prison Officers’ Association and the “68 is Too Late” campaign.
It is an honour to speak in the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate. The warmth and respect with which he is spoken about is a measure of the gentleman.
My contribution is neither light-hearted nor happy. The news that Grangemouth will stop refining oil in quarter 2 of 2025 is devastating. It is accurate to say that the mood music from the refinery owners has been pessimistic for some time, but even with the threat of closure that has been hanging over the refinery, today’s news is shocking. What is happening will be felt far beyond Grangemouth. It will reverberate around Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England—the areas of the UK that Grangemouth primarily services. Its closure will have an impact on all the constituencies there.
I will give a brief history. Some 100 years ago, Grangemouth was the perfect location for a refinery. There was an abundance of flat land, a bustling harbour and, crucially, an already skilled workforce that was experienced in shale refining. It was one of the first crude oil refineries in the UK. It is currently the primary supplier of aviation fuel for Scotland’s main airports and a major supplier of petrol and diesel ground fuels across the central belt of Scotland. It also provides power to the Forties oil pipeline, bringing oil and gas ashore from the North sea.
Although operations and procedures have changed over the century, a highly skilled local workforce remains a constant. I could detail the statistics about how the Grangemouth site contributes 4% of Scotland’s GDP and is a key piece of Scottish infrastructure, but while that is accurate and pertinent when talking about the refinery, I want to talk about the human side of the issue.
When the refinery was known locally as “the BP”, there were social clubs and gala events for families. Grangemouth was known as Scotland’s boom town. The refinery, and specifically the workers, created a community that was industrious and working class, where the jobs were dangerous, skilled and highly valued. The Grangemouth refinery provided apprenticeships to local people, and the possibility to gain the experience and world-class qualifications that provided the opportunity of forging a career, a platform for self-improvement, and social mobility.
For those of us who represent constituencies with social issues, which are often born out of industry leaving those communities, social mobility has become a negative journey, not a positive one.
The comparison with the miners of four decades ago is clear. And like the miners of the 1980s who kept Britain warm, the refinery workers of Grangemouth keep Britain moving. What happened to the miners cannot be the fate of Grangemouth refinery workers.
Over the past few months, the campaign to keep Grangemouth working has spread the message of extending the life of the refinery, investing in the workforce and making sure there is no gap that would see workers lose their jobs. I have stood in solidarity with the refinery workers, and I will continue to do so.
Unite the union has said that it does not accept that the future of the refinery
“should have been left to the whim and avarice of shareholders.”
I completely agree. Energy security is intrinsically linked to national security, and for both to be in the hands of a foreign Government and private capital is inherently wrong, not to mention utterly reckless. The primary ideal of the Keep Grangemouth Working campaign is to extend the life of the refinery so that a truly just transition can be achieved. That is what should happen, and nothing will convince me otherwise.
Oil will still be part of the energy mix for a while yet, and the refinery workers know that. They also know that oil will not last forever. They know that cleaner industries must come, and they tell me that they want to be part of a new green industrial revolution. They have so many of the skills that will be required for us to achieve net zero and make Britain a clean energy superpower, but if there is a gap between refining stopping next year and these new industries being ready, the truth is that the workforce will be gone.
Workers cannot hang around and wait, because mortgages need to be paid and families need to be fed. Jobs must be found or talent will leave. The impact on the local community and the local economy would be enormous. The shops, the pubs, the restaurants, the hotels, the cafés, the bed and breakfasts and the snack vans would all suffer if the refinery were to close.
As a Government, we must do everything we can. I welcome the steps that the Secretary of State and his team have taken with the announcement of £20 million of funding to support the community and its workers by investing in local energy projects to create new growth for Grangemouth.
I have previously spoken positively about Project Willow and the importance of it being a joint commitment between both Governments to determine what the industrial future of Grangemouth will be, because both the UK Government and the Scottish Government will need to work together. The new working relationship that this Labour Government have with the Scottish Government has already shown its worth.
I know how hard the Secretary of State has worked during the intensive discussions with the refinery owners to secure tailored support for the workers who are impacted and, along with his counterpart in the Scottish Government, to devise a plan that will help to secure Grangemouth’s industrial future and protect the workforce. I thank them both for showing what can be achieved when both Governments work together, but it is just a start.
This Labour Government have done more on this issue in eight weeks than the Conservative Government did in 14 years. Today’s news, although shocking, has been coming. Truthfully, Project Willow or the like should have been done and delivered years ago. The workers and the Grangemouth community need action that leads to us creating something truly transformative and world leading at Grangemouth. Sustainable aviation fuels, low-carbon hydrogen and clean e-fuels—let us not rule anything out of the equation for the Grangemouth site. But we must act quickly, because time is of the essence. If we are to have a truly just transition, one that looks after workers and their communities, we must move with purpose and speed on determining the industrial future of the Grangemouth site. And Grangemouth must continue refining until these new energies are ready.
There has been an environmental need for a green industrial revolution for a long time, and it has been discussed for ages, but now we see the social need for a transition to clean energy, and the need for that has been incredibly accelerated today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Helen Maguire to make her maiden speech.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Thank you for calling me to make my maiden speech, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on his contribution. It was interesting to hear about the challenges facing industry in his constituency.
It is with immense pride and honour that I stand here today to give my maiden speech as the first ever female and first ever Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Epsom and Ewell, which also includes the towns of Ashtead and Leatherhead. This moment is not just about my election victory, but part of a long journey of progress that started with brave women like Emily Wilding Davison, a suffragette who gave her life for the cause of women’s rights. In 1911, she famously hid within the walls of this very building, the Palace of Westminster, to declare it her residence on the night of the census. Just two years later, she made the ultimate sacrifice, losing her life at the Epsom Derby while campaigning for women’s suffrage.
It is remarkable that today, 101 years after her passing, we now have 263 women in this Parliament, more than ever before. That progress is a testament to her legacy and the relentless efforts of organisations such as 50:50 Parliament, whose support in getting me here I am personally grateful for. I am delighted that there is now progress towards establishing a women’s caucus in Parliament.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Lord Grayling, my predecessor, on his move to the other place, and to thank him for his 23 years of dedicated service to Epsom and Ewell. His service to the community is well recognised, and I look forward to building upon that work, while bringing fresh perspectives and new energy to our local and national challenges.
The community of Epsom and Ewell prides itself on strong local values, resilience, and on a rich sporting and creative history. It is home to the world-famous Epsom Derby. We have the University for the Creative Arts, Laine Theatre Arts and many sporting clubs, including three running clubs and two football clubs. It has several vibrant economic hubs, with many successful businesses, large and small. But it is the people who make my constituency special. Whether it is our small businesses, voluntary groups or the diverse families who have made the area their home, Epsom and Ewell represents the best of what a community can be when it works together.
Epsom and Ewell is a beautiful place, blessed with remarkable green spaces and historical significance. We are fortunate to have three sites of special scientific interest: Ashtead Common, Priest Hill and Stones Road pond. We also have beautiful green spaces, such as Horton and Nonsuch parks, Epsom Downs and the Surrey hills, an area of outstanding natural beauty.
One site that holds special meaning for many is Langley Vale, which was used to train over 8,000 soldiers during the first world war and where Lord Kitchener famously inspected the troops. Today, it stands as a centenary wood, a place of reflection with beautiful sculptures honouring our military past. As someone who proudly served in the Army, in the Royal Military Police, I am deeply moved by our community’s ties to the armed forces.
My own military experience includes serving in Iraq during Operation Telic IV in 2004, where I was responsible for retraining and mentoring the Iraqi police force in Maysan province. It was a volatile and dangerous region at that time and it was not an easy tour. We came under fire on a regular basis and it was made harder with the knowledge that, just a year before my arrival, six of my RMP colleagues were killed in Majar al-Kabir. The coroner found that they had been given inadequate radios and ammunition, so it was no surprise that we were given more ammo and weapons when I arrived. I want to ensure that our armed forces continue to have the right resources to stay safe in their duties as this Government conduct their spending review. I hope the Secretary of State for Defence will bear in mind the effect that cuts can have in the field.
Lord Darzi’s report about the NHS was published today, so it is apt that I share a personal experience that underscores my commitment to improving healthcare services in Epsom and Ewell. In 2007, my six-week-old son suddenly turned blue in front of me, while a health visitor was visiting. I called 999. It was a terrifying moment, and before I knew what was going on, my living room was packed with paramedics and there was equipment everywhere. I was told to pack a bag and shortly afterwards we arrived at A&E. The crash team was there and my baby boy was surrounded by 20 consultants trying to figure out what was wrong. I stood there looking on, helpless.
The doctors managed to stabilise my son and moved him to the amazing Evelina hospital, just over the river from Parliament, as they did not have the specialist equipment needed. He went into the paediatric intensive care unit. Every bit of his skin, even his head, was covered by some sort of patch or monitor to try to establish what was going on. The consultant informed us that he had bronchiolitis and that it would be touch and go that evening. Thankfully, my son survived the night and we spent over a week in intensive care, as the amazing doctors worked to save his life from bronchiolitis. I saw at first hand the critical importance of high-quality emergency care.
It is my mission to make sure that the residents of Epsom, Ewell, Ashtead and Leatherhead have access to the best possible healthcare. Our community was promised one of the 40 new hospitals. That commitment must be fulfilled. We are part of the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust. St Helier hospital is struggling, with crumbling facilities and overstretched staff. We have fewer hospital beds per capita than in many other nations. Ceilings are falling in and buildings are condemned. The need for a new hospital is urgent, and I look forward to discussing it with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in the coming weeks. The House will be pleased to know that my son is now a big, strong 16-year-old, challenging his parents as every teenager does.
Epsom and Ewell is home to two significant rivers: the Hogsmill, a relatively pristine chalk river whose beauty was immortalised by Sir John Everett Millais in his iconic painting “Ophelia”; and the River Mole, which is one of the most polluted in the country. Thames Water’s negligent handling of our water resources has led to more than 8,000 hours of sewage discharge into the River Mole in the first six months of this year alone. Thames Water is crippled by being billions in debt, and water bills keep rising. Executive bonuses are handed out as the sewage is pouring out. This mismanagement of our water is unacceptable. I call for greater regulation and accountability and for a sewage tax to protect our rivers and water infrastructure.
Epsom and Ewell has affluent areas, but we also face stark social inequalities. There are parts of my constituency in which food banks have become a lifeline for struggling families, and our local housing waiting list has grown to more than 1,300 households. Food banks are not the norm; they are a sign that society simply is not working. I am concerned that even more of my constituents will be using them this winter as they struggle without the winter fuel allowance. The stark contrast between wealth and deprivation is a reminder that we must do more to support those who are most in need. I am incredibly grateful for the work of the Good Company, the Leatherhead community hub, local faith organisations and all the volunteers and local charities who work tirelessly to provide for our community’s most vulnerable.
As the Member of Parliament for Epsom and Ewell—a constituency that stretches from Worcester Park and Stoneleigh in the north to Ashtead and Leatherhead, the gateway of the Surrey hills, in the south—I want our community to thrive economically, socially and environmentally. My constituency has inspired literary greats such as C. S. Lewis and Jane Austen. I believe that it can continue to be a place of innovation and inspiration.
I thank my parents for their support throughout the years. I thank my husband and three kids for their support and their leafleting prowess throughout my campaign. Most importantly, I thank my constituents for placing their trust in me. I am committed to repaying their trust with service, dedication and determination to make Epsom and Ewell a better place for everyone.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Kevin McKenna to make his maiden speech.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to address the House for my first speech, and for making time available for so many of us to make our first speech today. I particularly congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire): the story about her child in intensive care touched me very deeply, as an intensive care practitioner. I can see that she is going to be a fantastic advocate for our armed forces and for the things they need to serve the country well.
In passing, I must mention Lord Darzi’s report, which my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary presented to the House today—not because of the content of the report, but because in 2015 I was honoured to become a Darzi fellow. Lord Darzi set up his fellowship programme to bring clinicians like me, a nurse, into clinical leadership, to ensure that the NHS and the health system are led by clinicians. I am not sure that the plan was to get us all into the Houses of Parliament, but I am the first Darzi fellow here and I think there will be quite a few more.
I am honoured to speak in this debate in memory of Sir David Amess, whose constituency of Southend West can be seen from mine of Sittingbourne and Sheppey—we see the beautiful vista of Southend, which is now a city, across the Thames. Over the past few months, during the campaign and afterwards, there have been several times when I have looked over at Southend and taken a moment to reflect on the manner and the tragedy of Sir David’s death and what it means for all of us serving here in the House.
It is a great blessing of my constituency that, amid our busy, traffic-laden towns, we have these beautiful vistas down the Thames and the Medway estuary. We have broad, flat salt marshes meeting big skies—places that you can escape to and properly reflect on everything that matters in life. During the election campaign, I asked my constituents what they valued most in the constituency, and it was that proximity to nature that kept coming up. They mentioned the wide-open estuary waters of the Thames and Medway—several of my Medway colleagues are in their places today—the many sites of special scientific interest and the nature reserve at Elmley. Now that Members are spending time in London, they might want to pop down for a hot yoga weekend—it’s a whole thing.
However—so many Members have said something similar when describing their seat—that is only half the story. The other half is the still proudly industrial town of Sittingbourne. Its character and location challenge many people’s preconceptions of Kent. Sittingbourne’s twin on the Isle of Sheppey, Sheerness-on-Sea, has busy docks—docks that, hopefully, will become only busier as the opportunities for growth, construction and new green industries are realised by this Government. Sittingbourne and Sheppey is perfectly located to take advantage of all that development.
My job is not only to argue for our place in the rebuilding of Britain, but to ensure that my constituents see real social, economic, health and wellbeing benefits from the opportunities. The factors that led to the foundations of our towns being laid centuries ago fit the way that technological, industrial and transport strategies are all pointing now. Sittingbourne straddles the main road from Dover to London and is connected directly by water, road and rail to Sheerness docks on Sheppey. This is what made the Saxon kings of Kent grab the land and claim it as their terra regis. This is something that the residents of Milton Regis are very proud to remind me of—that it is a royal town in the middle of Sittingbourne.
It was those same routes that allowed the town of Queenborough to develop as a major port. Tucked behind Sheppey is the safe waterway—and major trading route—from London through to the continent and the rest of the world. Those routes are also what enabled Sittingbourne to develop a major brick-building industry in the 19th century. It produced more bricks and had more people working in it than the potteries in Staffordshire. Those bricks were largely used to build London. Many town houses in the 19th century, Buckingham Palace and many of the buildings on this parliamentary estate will have been built with the clay and bricks from Sittingbourne. Our water and transport gives us the opportunity to produce green energy and bring about greener ways of travelling. That will benefit Sittingbourne and Sheerness in the future. Peel Ports at Sheerness is a major importer of construction materials for the south of England. With investment to restore our rail freight links and an ambition to once again use our water routes, we can be at the heart of a green revolution.
But there is more to a place than land and water. A place is made by people. What will ensure that the people of my constituency get the benefits that they are crying out for as a result of growth and rebuilding is the strength of our local communities and the collective action that comes from grassroots organisations. As we move more services out of hospitals to the community and try to mend the broken sense of cohesion in our society, these community actors will be key. There are great organisations, including Seashells nursery in Sheerness, which holds true to the course taken by Sure Start centres, with their now proven benefits, although they are sadly under threat of closure, and Wiggles children’s nursery, which has partnered with Sheppey’s Range Rovers football club to create a multi-generational facility that will massively boost the health of the neighbourhood.
There are also people coming together, on the island and the mainland, to form progressive men’s mental health peer support groups, including Men-Talk.UK in Sheppey and Sittingbourne. A team of volunteers resurrected the Sittingbourne carnival this year after several years’ gap to ensure that its tradition of more than 130 years does not die, but instead will go from strength to strength. There is Swale food bank, and underpinning so many of the voluntary organisations in my constituency is Swale Community and Voluntary Services, which fosters lots of organisations, helping them to get started, get organising and help their communities.
Part of the reason for that depth of community co-operation is that my constituency faces the challenge of having some of the most deprived parts of Kent and the south-east. Unfortunately, a big driver for that is the very geography that otherwise brings in so many benefits and opportunities. As Sheppey is an island, with only one point in the west that connects to the rest of England, there are pockets of isolation, and when the two bridges go down, as sadly they have all too often of late, people cannot get off Sheppey to go to work or school, or on to Sheppey to deliver services in Sheppey’s hospitals, schools, docks and three prisons. All that impacts not just Sheppey but Sittingbourne and the surrounding villages.
Both my predecessors worked to overcome those entrenched challenges. I pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Gordon Henderson, who many here know well, for his work persuading his party when they were in power to invest in technical skills training on the island and expand Sheppey College. My Labour predecessor, Derek Wyatt, secured the funding for a permanent fixed bridge to the island, the Sheppey crossing, to overcome the problems of the old Kingsferry bridge, which is only a few metres away and has to be raised several times a day to let ships through, to link the paper mills and the docks. Both of them believed in the enormous potential of the area, but there is a lot more to do.
It is a professional habit of intensive care nurses that we are inveterate fiddlers and fixers. We like to help people, and we like to keep busy doing so. Now that I have swapped adjusting ventilator settings and syringe drivers for work in public policy, however, I need to find new ways to keep busy. I will keep working with people in Sittingbourne and Sheppey to bring them together, and will work collaboratively at trying to fix things for the better, but there is one thing in the constituency that I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not be fiddling with: the SS Richard Montgomery, a wrecked world war two cargo ship sunk just off Sheerness, which is packed with something like 1,400 tonnes of high explosives. Most experts feel that as long as the ship is not disturbed, the seawater will gradually inactivate those explosives, so if they are ever disturbed enough to trigger, any fireworks would be minor. However, there is a minority view that if something triggered all the explosives to go off at once, the resulting explosion would not just inundate the whole of Sittingbourne and Sheppey but send a 5-metre tsunami back up the Thames, all the way to central London, swamping the Palace of Westminster—giving us all very wet feet, and most of the MPs in the south-east and London an awful lot of extra casework.
Finally, I thank my constituents again for putting their faith in me; the campaigners and activists who helped me to get elected; my parents and siblings, who have always shown how proud they are of me; and most of all, my husband Lee, who I could not have got this far in life without, and who is a true partner to me in everything that we do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Manuela Perteghella to make her maiden speech.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I thank all hon. Members for their fine contributions, including my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna).
It is the greatest honour of my life to serve the people of Stratford-on-Avon. I am humbled to have been elected to represent the place that I call home, where I live and where I have raised my family, who are here today in the Public Gallery. I am proud to be the first Liberal MP for our constituency in over a century, and the first woman ever to be elected to this role. I extend my heartfelt thanks to the people of Stratford, Alcester, Studley, Shipston, Henley, Bidford and the many villages and hamlets that make up our beautiful constituency. I thank them for placing their trust in me. I promise to be their champion, and a strong and unwavering voice for everyone, fighting every day for the fair deal that they deserve.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Nadhim Zahawi, who was MP for Stratford-on-Avon for the last 14 years. During his political career he covered many important roles in the Cabinet, but I thank him in particular for his work as vaccines Minister during the covid pandemic. I also acknowledge the service of the late John Maples, who represented Stratford-upon-Avon with distinction from 1997 to 2010, before being elevated to the other place. He was both well liked and greatly admired. Although I am proud to be the first female MP for Stratford-upon-Avon, I am not the first to bring Italian heritage to the role. That distinction belongs to another of my predecessors, John Profumo, who beat me to it —although I plan on a much quieter stay in the history books.
My constituency is one of the most beautiful areas of our country, with luscious woodland such as the Heart of England forest, valleys lapped by rivers and brooks, and fertile farmland—a landscape special as only the Warwickshire countryside can be. My connection to my constituency is one of deep love. I love the stretches from Shipston-on-Stour and the rolling Cotswolds fringes in the south, to the Avon valley villages and Henley-in-Arden in the north, where the majestic forest of Arden once stood.
At the heart of my constituency lies the town of Stratford-upon-Avon, celebrated worldwide as the birthplace of the greatest playwright of all: William Shakespeare. Each year on William’s birthday, the town remembers and celebrates its most famous son, with civic dignitaries and local schoolchildren parading through the historic streets to lay flowers on his tomb in Holy Trinity church. I look forward to joining them next April.
What makes our constituency special above all is its people, who are resilient and community minded. Each town and village is blessed with warm-hearted volunteers helping in repair cafés, food banks, the community speed watch and flood action groups. There are outstanding places of learning, such as our local schools and colleges, the Shakespeare Institute of the University of Birmingham, and the University of Warwick’s innovation campus; national portfolio organisations such as the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust; as well as grassroots arts companies such as the Bear Pit Theatre and Escape Arts. Events such as the Shipston proms celebrate the wealth of musical talent. Most of all, we are a constituency of entrepreneurs and innovators, businesses and social enterprises.
Overlooked by Beaudesert castle—known locally as “the Mount”—the town of Henley-in-Arden has a timber-framed high street, which includes Henley’s most famous attraction, Henley Ice Cream, which is well worth a visit. Alcester is a town rich in community spirit that comes together each year for events such as the Alcester food festival. The town’s roots stretch back to Roman times, and its heritage is proudly preserved today in the Roman Alcester Museum. Just up the road from Alcester is Coughton Court, home of the Throckmorton family, who played a rather infamous role in the gunpowder plot of 1605. As the new MP for the area, I assure the House that I will not continue that local tradition.
My constituency also has some of the most beautiful waterways in the country. The Rivers Avon, Alne, Arrow and Stour, and our fantastic canal network, including the longest canal aqueduct in England—the Edstone aqueduct—are not only vital to our community’s natural and industrial heritage, but are central to our environmental responsibilities. Sadly, not enough has been done to tackle river pollution. I thank residents for joining citizens’ science projects to regularly test the water and collect much-needed data on the state of our rivers’ health, so that we can hold the Government and water companies to account.
As a rural constituency, we face many challenges: NHS dentistry deserts, long waiting times for mental health services, special educational needs and disabilities families battling for education provision, and fuel poverty. Many of my vulnerable constituents live in off-grid homes that are expensive to heat. The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, introduced by Sir David Amess, was important legislation that sought to eliminate fuel poverty. To further combat it, we need an emergency home insulation programme so that homes are safe, warm and cheap to heat.
As Shakespeare wrote:
“Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them.”
I stand here today not because I was born great, or because I sought greatness, but because the people of Stratford-upon-Avon have entrusted me with public service. Together, we can achieve greatness not for ourselves, but for our constituents and our country. With a new Parliament, we have a chance to strive for a fairer, greener and more inclusive future. The stage is set, and it is now time for us to play our part.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to wind up the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate for the Opposition. All of us who served in the House with Sir David remember him with enormous affection. We all remember his sense of humour and dedication to Southend with enormous fondness. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for opening the debate and for his words about Sir David, which I am sure all of us will remember for a long time to come.
We have had something like 25 speeches this afternoon. It will be difficult to touch on all of them in such a short time, but I will try to canter through some of the more memorable moments. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), a fellow south Londoner, spoke eloquently in his maiden speech. He clearly brings profound personal experience of caring to the House and we look forward to hearing a great deal more from him during his time with us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke with his customary passion about fire safety, and he made some extremely important points about the need to expedite the remedial work to the cladding on tall buildings, which we will be following carefully on both sides of the House. I congratulate him on his triumphant election, or acclamation, as Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee.
We had another fine maiden speech from the hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). I learned that her constituency is the setting for “The Wind in the Willows”, and we heard how she drew inspiration from her mother, a teacher, and her father, a police officer.
It was not exactly a maiden speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) —perhaps he gave one some time in the mists of the 19th century, I don’t know—but he recalled those who served in the second world war and drew the House’s attention to the importance of strengthening the independence of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which he had the distinction of chairing in the last Parliament.
We had another maiden speech from the hon. Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur). We heard that the Mayflower set sail from Southampton and it has a premier league team once again, but I hope that Crystal Palace, the premier league team in my borough of Croydon, secure victory whenever we meet. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) also spoke. I was told that he was the best man at the wedding of the hon. Member for Southampton Test—is that right?
Chris Philp
Well, there we are; we have some cross-party links already.
In her maiden speech, the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) touched on a lot of local issues, including a desire to deliver a local power plant. I am sure that all of us wish her good luck in that undertaking.
We had another maiden speech from the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), with a tribute to John Howell, his predecessor, who sadly suffered a stroke a few months ago. All of us wish him a speedy recovery, and I wish the new Member for Henley and Thame well in representing his beautiful consistency—not as beautiful as Croydon, but fairly beautiful none the less.
In another maiden speech, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) spoke about his experience working on serious crime and fraud, and paid tribute to the Bolton mountain rescue team. I am sure all of them have our good wishes. That was followed by the maiden speech—they were coming thick and fast—of my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed). I understand that he got married during the campaign. That is a pretty bold move, I must say. I am not quite sure where his honeymoon was held—“Darling, come with me to a constituency committee room while we do some telling.” Maybe that was a euphemism, I don’t know. Anyway, I hope his marriage got off to a good start. He is a braver man than I am.
The maiden speech from the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) included a tribute to our former colleague, Pauline Latham. The new Member spoke with great eloquence about the creative industries that are so important in that constituency. We heard quite a lot about local issues from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), including the local bus timetable in Coleshill and the importance of helping pensioners on the question of the winter fuel allowance, which we debated just a few days ago.
We had a maiden speech from the new hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson). I was going to say that he has some big footsteps to fill, but he has quite a big haircut to follow as well. We will see whether his locks are quite so luxuriant in 30 years’ time—there are some solutions available should they be necessary.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made another fine maiden speech, drawing attention to the gigantic carved image—the fertility symbol—of Cerne Abbas. I am sure he will be standing as proudly as the figure in that image.
The new hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) paid tribute to his predecessor, Sir Graham Brady, who was kept busy with the shenanigans on the Conservative side of the House over the past few years. Hopefully his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, will not be quite so occupied. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the Hong Kong population that his constituency is hosting, who are fleeing persecution by the Chinese Communist party. Of course, where people flee genuine persecution, this is a nation that welcomes them.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who has moved places in the Chamber just to confuse me—it is easily done. He drew attention to the importance of the Scotch whisky industry, which I am sure we all support enthusiastically, as well as the North sea and the oil and gas contained under it, and how important it is that we are able to use that oil and gas here in the United Kingdom.
In her maiden speech, the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) paid tribute to Rehman Chishti, and talked about opportunity and the great thing about this country: that people from all backgrounds can go on to achieve great things. That is one of the values that unites us across this House, and I look forward to working with her on that.
The new hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) is a vet, and in his maiden speech, he made a reference to taking the temperature of people. I was not quite sure what he was referring to, so I googled how vets take temperatures, and after seeing the images that Google threw up, I have to say that I will not be asking him to take my temperature any time soon. It would have to be a truly desperate circumstance to require that.
We heard a maiden speech from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), in which he paid tribute to Dame Tracey Crouch. Chatham is, of course, the home of the Chatham royal dockyard, which built the Royal Navy in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. That is a piece of history that I am sure she is very proud of.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) was also not making her maiden speech. She expressed support for local schools and referenced one of her predecessors, Sir Nicholas Soames, who stood up for Southern railway, a line that also runs through my constituency in Croydon. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to Sir Nicholas for the work they have done to champion commuters.
We heard a very important speech from the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who is in his place. The proposed closure of the Grangemouth refinery is an extremely serious matter, both for his constituents and for the country. That refinery represents 14% of our refining capacity, and I would like to see the Government do more to keep it open, because we certainly need it.
I am running out of time, so perhaps my opposite number on the Government Benches, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), can cover the remaining three speeches. As you have requested, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude by congratulating all those who have made maiden speeches today. It is clear that the future of this House is in safe hands with such eloquent speakers and such passionate advocates for their constituents. I wish everyone a pleasant conference recess and look forward to seeing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everybody else in October.
The Comptroller of His Majesty's Household (Chris Elmore)
This will be a good test of my ability to speak quickly as a Welshman.
It is fair to say that we have had a very robust and positive debate this afternoon, criss-crossing constituencies from the north of Scotland all the way to the south coast of England. Because I am indeed Welsh, and because the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) is from north Wales, we have had a good coverage of Great Britain one way or another—the only part of the United Kingdom that we are missing is Northern Ireland. We have heard about subjects from Christmas trees to Taylor Swift, and have had a wonderful tour of the rich industrial heritage of our country and heard how proud we all are as Members of Parliament to serve our constituents. The theme of the debate has been service: no matter which party we serve in this House, this debate is about trying to ensure not only that Sir David Amess’s legacy is kept, remembered and celebrated, but that all of us are in this place to work for our constituents every single day.
I pay tribute to all those Members who have made maiden speeches—it is eight years since mine, which feels like a lifetime ago—and I will try to canter very quickly through what were truly wonderful maiden speeches from right across the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for his courage in talking about his family. There is often nothing more difficult in this Chamber than talking about personal experience, and I really do hope that he becomes the advocate he wants to be for people who are disabled to ensure they get the very best care they need not just from this Government, but from people across our United Kingdom.
It must be said that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the new chairman of the ’22, will be hoping for a quieter period, and I hope he will be serving as the chair from opposition for a long period. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). I have had the privilege of knowing her and her wife for a number of years. I know what an advocate she will be for her constituents, and I know that she will also be a true champion for people who suffer with Alzheimer’s. I have been so privileged to work with her over the last few weeks as we start the work of a new Government. I say to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that we do take extreme seriously the point he raised about the Intelligence and Security Committee. I will of course ensure that this piece of work is concluded quickly, particularly now we have resolved the issues about Select Committees.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) that she must have had one of the most hard-working and diligent predecessors in this House. She was my first Chief Whip—I have never been more frightened before a meeting than going in to see Baroness Winterton as a new Member of Parliament. However, I know that my hon. Friend will be a true advocate for the city of Doncaster, and I know how hard she will work. I also say to the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) that he follows an extraordinary Member, to whom I send all my wishes for his recovery in the months and weeks ahead.
I had a number of meetings with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) during the time he was a parliamentary candidate, and he has been a really excellent MP to date. I know he will put Bolton on the map, as indeed will my two other colleagues from across the city. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for his service to our country, and I know what a strong advocate he will be. As a Sir Walter Raleigh nut—I am not sure that is even parliamentary language—I look forward to discussions with him about Sir Walter.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies), the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—I make no comment on hair—as well as to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) and for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), that I pay tribute to all of them for the positivity they have shown in advocating for their constituents and for the personal stories they have brought forward as Members of this House.
The reason for that canter is to enable me to pay tribute to the opening speech in this debate by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). On Sir David, I still vividly recall, when I became a father almost four years ago, that Sir David, whom I barely knew, quite literally cantered up the No Lobby because he had discovered I had become a father and he wanted to give me a note to tell me that there is no greater privilege—he was right obviously. It is a memory that has lived with me since his death and before. The man was a gentleman, a true parliamentarian and somebody whose memory we should always work to keep alive. I was so pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman’s stories, including the one that we did not know. I bet there are not many parliamentary candidates who have been adopted under a light—of any sort, I would have thought.
To conclude, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the other Deputy Speakers. As a Whip, it is a rare privilege to be able to speak, so I congratulate you on your election to the Deputy Speakership. I am reliably informed by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), that if 330 new Members all took 10 minutes each for their maidens, that would be 55 hours of maiden speeches. I say in all sincerity that we are all the better for it, because to learn about the rich history of our country is so important in celebrating what is best about this House. The key thing for all new Members to understand is that we do work across parties, we are all human and we all work together for the betterment of our constituents.
I pay tribute to all the staff of this House—civil servants, all our staff, our constituency teams, and those in Mr Speaker’s office—as we rise for the conference recess. I wish colleagues successful conferences—although, I think some might be a little more jubilant than others —and I look forward to seeing all Members when we return in October.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
UK Shared Prosperity Fund
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to hold my first Adjournment debate in this House. I sought this debate because I am conscious that the forthcoming Budget is rapidly approaching and I wanted to raise with Members and Ministers the issue of the cliff edge for funding of the UK shared prosperity fund. Any future funding of the UKSPF is of course a matter for the Chancellor, but I would like to use the debate today to discuss the merits of the fund, how we can learn from the experiences of implementing it over the past few years, particularly in local government, and the approach to local growth funds under the new Labour Government.
We know that the Government’s top mission is to boost economic growth across the UK. It is my firm belief that a new, improved version of the UKSPF could make an important contribution to that while also supporting local communities and boosting regeneration efforts. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), for his attendance today; I know that he cares strongly about local growth and supporting community cohesion, and I look forward to hearing his response at the debate’s conclusion.
The UKSPF was introduced as the domestic replacement for the European structural and investment fund after Brexit. The previous funding provided by the Conservative Government did not match the European structural and investment fund but did provide local authorities with some devolved funding to support local priorities, with particular emphasis on regeneration, business support and skills.
The UKSPF began in December 2022 and is due to end in March 2025. Although it is by no means perfect, I believe it has had a broadly positive impact and I would like to draw on my own experience as a former Medway council cabinet member responsible for distributing the UKSPF. Feedback from Whitehall to officials at the council has been that Medway council’s approach was considered best practice, and hence I am keen that the Minister hears about our experience. I know he is a big supporter of local government and evidence-based policy making, and no doubt he will wish to hear from other Members of this House who also have direct experience of the UKSPF.
In Medway, we used our UKSPF allocation to support local community groups, businesses and charities, which we considered best placed to recognise what their areas needed in order to thrive. Rather than a top-down approach, we asked communities what they needed and functioned as the facilitator to make things happen, using the UKSPF. The feedback we received was that this approach was empowering for local communities and brought people together. An SPF network was established that created a mutually supportive community that led in later years to joint bids for community projects.
The UKSPF’s potential to support broader regeneration efforts to revitalise our town centres is significant. In Medway, small pots of money delivered significant economic and social benefits. One of the ways I was particularly keen to use the UKSPF was to help our town centre forums host high street events, on the basis that this would bring in thousands of extra visitors and benefit local businesses.
A notable example of this is the Chatham Chinese new year festival, held earlier this year in what is now my constituency. I was the biggest such celebration in the UK outside London and led to an approximate 25% increase in footfall on Chatham High Street. The festival was free to attend and saw a parade, street food, a market, traditional dancers and martial arts masterclasses. The Chatham town centre forum partnered with the local Chinese association, the shopping centre, Medway Youth Council, and local schools and charities to deliver the event. Feedback from residents and vendors was unanimously supportive. Materials purchased using the UKSPF will enable the event to run for future years without further financial support from the council, so the UKSPF will leave a lasting impact. This is important because we want schemes like the UKSPF where possible to deliver longer-term benefits.
I will briefly turn to a few other ways that we used the UKSPF to support longer-term improvements in Medway. We offered small feasibility funds—pots of as little as £5,000—to help groups demonstrate that an idea would work. They could then use that proof of concept to go on to attract funding from other sources to make it happen. We helped community groups, such as the Chatham Intra Cultural Consortium, to transition into a charitable incorporated organisation, or CIO. Achieving that new structure means that it can bid for other sources of funding and is less reliant on financial support from the council. That means it can continue its incredibly important heritage work.
Helping groups to get on a more financially sustainable footing is particularly important in the context of years of constrained local government finance. We also used the UKSPF to provide grants to help businesses to grow by purchasing modern technology and equipment. For instance, a gift business specialising in handmade travel keepsakes was able to use the grant to invest in a new fibre laser machine, which significantly enhanced the business’s productivity and efficiency, allowing it to handle larger orders. We also funded net zero audits and green grants for local businesses that wanted to reduce their operating costs by making their premises more energy-efficient, and we helped them get those green certificates that are now needed to bid for many contracts.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree how important the SPF is to areas, including Truro and Falmouth in Cornwall, that lost their funding under the European regional development fund and the European structural fund when we came out of the EU under Brexit? Does she agree how fundamental it is that there is some sort of replacement fund for that?
Lauren Edwards
I absolutely agree, and I will be making the case for that replacement fund later. I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution.
In my constituency, more than 30 local businesses have so far been supported under these UKSPF-funded programmes to reduce their costs, to grow their business and to contribute to helping us reach net zero. We would not be able to do that without this replacement funding for the EU structural funds.
I am conscious that in this final funding year the focus of UKSPF spending is on people and skills. It will be important for Ministers and others to assess the impact that these projects have on helping economically inactive people into good-quality training and work. The examples I have given are just a snapshot of how local councils across the UK have used the UKSPF. Overall, I consider that the UKSPF has worked well in my constituency, and I understand that it has worked well in others too, which is great to hear. It has delivered the economic growth and regeneration aims that this new Government are committed to boosting further.
Despite those successes, there have been challenges with the UKSPF, and it is appropriate that we consider them now, as the existing funding cycle comes to a close. Broader feedback from local authorities to the Local Government Association has highlighted a number of issues. The first is short timescales from Whitehall. Local authorities were given just three months to develop UKSPF investment plans in collaboration with local stakeholders. We need to give people more time to get the right approach and to put more emphasis on long-term strategic planning. The LGA has proposed that any future version of the UKSPF considered by the Government should adopt a six to eight-year funding cycle, and I would certainly endorse that approach.
We also need to reflect on the impact of single-year funding. The annual funding allocation of the UKSPF often led to local authorities commissioning services for just 12 months in order to manage the financial risk. For some projects, that is perfectly appropriate, but for those local areas using the UKSPF for business or skills support, for example, it made it more difficult to address some of the longer-term issues and inequalities in our communities.
Another issue is central Government restrictions. The requirement that skills be addressed in year 3 was an unnecessary restriction. We should trust local authorities to collaborate with their local partners in order to address community needs without such restrictions. I also consider that there is scope to improve and streamline the UKSPF reporting process, which some feedback has indicated was overly bureaucratic. It is of course important that the Government receive assurance that funding has been spent appropriately and used effectively. A fine balance will need to be struck in future.
Finally, I am aware that there were some delays in getting money out the door to local authorities to fund agreed projects. It is important that that, too, is considered by the new Minister for any future approach to local growth funding.
I will return to the immediate challenge that we face: the expiration of funding to support the UKSPF at the end of March 2025. Without continued funding of some sort, the types of initiatives that I have highlighted will struggle to continue or be replicated. I am not aware of any existing funding that would help fill the gap. For longer-term services such as business support and employability programmes that rely on establishing trust and employing staff, the cliff edge is of particular concern. Providers are likely to see staff leave as contracts get closer to their end dates, putting at risk efforts to support businesses and help people get back into work and stay in good, stable employment.
For those reasons, I join with the LGA to urge the Minister to work with the Chancellor to include an additional one year of flexible revenue funding for the UKSPF in the forthcoming Budget. The LGA has suggested that such funding should equate to the value of year 3 of the UKSPF programme. I ask the Minister to consider that as part of his discussions with the Chancellor. Doing so would remove the immediate cliff edge and give Ministers time to consider what the new Government’s approach to local growth funds should be. As I have set out, I consider that longer term allocations are needed alongside a more flexible and lighter-touch national framework that supports even greater local decision making. That would also give time to assess the full outputs of the UKSPF and what improvements can be made for a future replacement fund.
I am pleased to say that the outcomes achieved by Medway council already exceed those set out in the original UKSPF investment plan submitted to Whitehall some years ago. That data, alongside data from lots of other local authorities, should be available to Ministers and could provide a valuable steer on what approaches proved successful and what did not work. I am really confident that by learning from the past and working in partnership with local government to deliver a more flexible, longer-term funding scheme, the new Government could provide a real boost to local economies and communities that goes beyond far beyond anything that we have seen in the current UKSPF funding cycle.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards). I am conscious that when I spoke in closing for the Government yesterday, my contribution lasted an unlikely 48 minutes. I am delighted—not least because my voice is a little on the cusp—that the rules of the House will prevent such a reoccurrence.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on the strength of the case she made. It is clear from what she has said just now and previously—I am similarly grateful for the question she asked me at oral questions last week—how strongly she feels about the UK shared prosperity fund as well as the work she did in Medway and the impact she made with the fund. There is clearly an awful lot to learn from the Medway example, and I look forward to doing that when we meet again shortly after the conference recess.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) for securing this really important debate. Scotland has been a beneficiary of the shared prosperity fund to the tune of £212 million since 2022, over £70 million of which has come to my home city of Glasgow. Does the Minister agree that that is a demonstration of the Union dividend, which Scotland and the nations and regions of the United Kingdom enjoy by being part of this Union? Does he further agree that the shared prosperity fund is an important vehicle for bringing equity to the regions and nations of the United Kingdom?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The United Kingdom Government are ambitious for growth across all of the United Kingdom. Ours is a four-nations commitment, and we look forward to working closely with colleagues in Scotland, in all strands of local growth funding, to ensure that people across Scotland —and in Wales and Northern Ireland—get the benefits of growth and that dividend of which he speaks. On the particular point about the UK shared prosperity fund, I agree on its effectiveness and will talk about its future, as I know colleagues are keen for me to do.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I too thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) for introducing this important debate. Councils across the country, including in Derbyshire, have faced appalling cuts over the last decade, and the UKSPF has been one of the few points of light in what has been a very dark decade for local authorities. I warmly welcome the new Government’s commitment to offer councils a three-year funding settlement, but can I encourage the Minister to lobby the Treasury to see what more it can do for local authorities, because the important services they provide are on the cusp of being inaccessible to people?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the health of local government. Like many colleagues, I am a veteran of local government, and I am very conscious of the pressures it is under. As we design a new model for local growth, I am also conscious that local authorities will be at the heart of making it effective. If they do not have the capacity because of those pressures, that will be a limiting factor on our success, and I am very mindful of that.
I have seen at first hand the good work that the UKSPF has done in my constituency, and I appreciate why there is such interest in its future. It has helped to support organisations that are addressing unemployment and providing training, such as the Bestwood Partnership and Evolve, which have made a huge difference to our community. It has also backed community projects such as the Kimberley community garden, allowing its members to redevelop their site and continue important community outreach work. So I understand very strongly why there is such interest in the fund.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood said, future funding is a matter for the Chancellor and the Budget—of course, we have the ongoing spending review, and the budget on 30 October. I appreciate the frustration that comes with that answer, but I am afraid that that is where we are at the moment. However, that does not prevent me from addressing a number of the points that my hon. Friend made.
It is one of the beauties of the electoral cycle and of our democracy that a change election brings in colleagues with a lot of different experiences. My hon. Friend talked about the impact that the £3.3 million from the UKSPF has had in Medway and about what she did to design the work involved, and I am keen to learn from that. It is good to hear how the funding has supported growth in high streets and towns, increasing footfall, supporting local businesses and regeneration in the town centres of Chatham, Rainham and Gillingham, and addressing local challenges and, crucially, opportunities alongside community leaders. It has also supported projects such as Emerge Advocacy, which supports young people struggling with their mental health, and Mutual Aid Road Reps, which was formed during the covid pandemic to combat loneliness and isolation. Those hugely significant projects reach people who are often the hardest to reach, and the UKSPF has backed them.
Similarly, and very attractively, as my hon. Friend said, the fund has made sure that there have been great events in Medway, such as the Chinese new year festival, Easter celebrations, heritage awareness events and the Intra Lateral arts festival. There are lots of great things, and the model in Medway shows that putting local people in charge and letting them set local priorities yields great results, including a significant increase in town centre footfall and a greater sense of community. When my hon. Friend says Medway is a model, there is a lot of evidence for that, and I look forward to hearing about it.
Jayne Kirkham
My query is about the current version of the shared prosperity fund. Some of the capital projects going on at the moment are time-limited to the end of March. Some will not be finished by then, but local authorities are rushing to complete them and spending more money because they are worried that some of it—the current money, not the future money—could be clawed back. Will the Minister confirm that that will not be an issue with those existing projects and that that money will not be clawed back, so those projects can be completed?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that intervention. As my hon. Friend knows, I have inherited 15, 16 or 17 strands of local growth funding, all at different stages, with the decisions made, in many cases, many years ago. We are trying to make the most sense of them and get the best value out of them. With regard to the projects she mentions, I encourage my hon. Friend to help her local projects to engage with my officials, so that they can give clarity on precisely what the timelines are in the context of what may well be discussed as part of the Budget. I am very happy to work with her to make sure that that happens.
Turning to some of the challenges to the UKSPF mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood, we have to start with the future of the programme. Local authorities, right hon. and hon. Members, and organisations across the country that deliver projects have rightly been seeking clarity on what comes next. My mailbag is very full, and we are giving the matter full consideration. We recognise the hard work undertaken—it is important that that is stated from the Dispatch Box—and we recognise the challenges that time poses. Organisations traditionally funded in annual cycles constantly have to put hard-working members of staff on 90-day redundancy notices. That puts pressure on people who then perhaps seek other work, because it does not suit them and their life—and why would it? We understand that those cliff edges are not a good thing. They are at the forefront of our minds as we think about the future.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood on securing this debate and thank her for doing so. This is such an important moment. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) about the importance of the UK shared prosperity fund for his area. I was really glad to welcome the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), to my constituency during the general election campaign, where she saw the need for that funding. Fife has benefited greatly from more than £13 million from the fund in recent years. In my constituency, that includes projects such as Step On, which is run by LinkLiving with Raith Rovers Community Foundation. It provides targeted help for young people to improve their mental health.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind Members that interventions must be short.
Melanie Ward
It also helps employability and, crucially, access to work. Does the Minister agree that such cross-UK funding is hugely important for areas like mine, where inequality is an issue?
Alex Norris
I am very grateful for that intervention. I think I can probably speak for most colleagues when I say that the general election was, in many regards, quite a tricky one this time, but one of the few sources of joy was my right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister’s battle bus, which seemed to reach admirable distances up and down the country, including to Fife. I know, from having spoken to her, how much she enjoyed that visit. The model my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) mentions is a great example of the impact being made on people’s lives across Fife and in many different parts of the UK. We are very mindful of that.
I want to address the challenges mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood. She started with timescales. Certainly, the tiny run-in in year one is not an example of good practice, and is something we would always seek to avoid. I do not think that the Government of the day thought it was a good idea, but I think they rather found themselves a victim of circumstance. We absolutely hear that point.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Local Government Association’s desire for a six to eight-year funding window. Again, I understand that very well. I have to say that that is quite challenging. Governments generally budget on a three-year cycle and often decisions are made on a one-year cycle. We have talked about wanting to give more certainty and a longer time period. I cannot commit to six to eight years, but I can commit to that principle. She mentioned the impact of single-year funding, and as I said, we very much understand that.
On my hon. Friend’s point about central restrictions and monitoring, that is one of the points on which the new Government intend to diverge from the old one. My view is that we need to give communities up and down the UK the tools and resources to use their expertise to improve their community within the framework set by the Prime Minister and his missions for the country. They are the experts in this case, not Ministers. We want a lighter touch on monitoring, and we want to be less directive on what the funding is for. UKSPF is actually a very good example of that, relative to other local growth funding, but I hear some of the challenges on that. They are important design challenges that I think we can engineer out as part of any future local growth funding programming.
Our model of local growth is reflected in the conversations we have had with local authorities and communities up and down the country. We know there is a desire to move to a more allocative settlement, with fewer beauty parades and a stronger focus on deprivation and need. We know there is a real desire for a lighter touch on monitoring, which can become a cottage industry in itself, and that is our view, too. Growth is at the heart of the things that will shape our future and growth. With local growth funding, the clue will be in the name. We want to ensure that the projects chosen by local communities drive growth.
Of course, we must see the fiscal picture in the context of the inheritance left by the last Government. This morning my hon. Friend penned an article on a well-known Labour-leaning blog, and what I took from that was the mutual desire of this Government and local government to reset the relationship to make it a better partnership, and to drive better outcomes. That will, I think, lead us to a more positive place. If local authorities are in the room and fully engaged, they may be able to use their creativity to combine funds with other funding streams, so that the money can go further. The shared prosperity fund has been a good model, but we will make changes, particularly in relation to short-term timescales and reducing some of the burdens. I have mentioned the importance of resetting the relationship with local government. Notwithstanding what we will be discussing on 30 October, those principles will guide everything we do to promote local growth.
We, as a Government, are committed to growth across the United Kingdom. We were elected on a manifesto that stressed the need to adopt a partnership approach with local authorities and an intention to stabilise the funding system, and we are going to do that. We are working closely with local authorities, stakeholders, the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd and the Northern Ireland Executive and will continue to do so, to ensure that there is a smooth transition to a new funding regime. I look forward to visiting Northern Ireland on Monday to talk further to colleagues who are interested in the UKSPF.
My hon. Friends are rightly seeking certainty. I know that they want that as soon as possible, and we have at least a bit of a pathway towards it, because, as always, important announcements will be made in the Budget statement and the ongoing spending review will shape the future. We hear the strong messages that my hon. Friends have conveyed. It has been brilliant to hear about the excellent work done in Medway and in other parts of the country, and I am keen to work with colleagues as we go forward to shape local growth funding.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(3 months, 1 week 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
Short-term Lets: Regulation
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the regulation of short-term lets.
It is an honour and a genuine privilege to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. The issue of short-term lets is an acute one for my Cities of London and Westminster constituents, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise it today and to discuss it with colleagues from across the House and across the country, and I look forward to the discussion with the Minister.
We need to improve the regulation of short-term lets in this country, from constituencies such as mine in central London to Truro and Falmouth in Cornwall, East Thanet in Kent, Morecambe in the north-west, and in cities like York—represented so ably by my hon. Friends today—where the demand for short-term accommodation is so high and the housing crisis so acute. Every place has its story to tell—I look forward to hearing them this afternoon—about how short-term lets are changing communities, sometimes for the better, but rarely in a way that is without challenges. We can see from the range of places represented that any solution has to be a national framework with power in local communities to decide on certain elements.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Scarborough and Whitby are understandably popular destinations for holidays and short breaks, but the impact of short-term holiday lets is forcing people out of the towns. Today there are only seven homes available to rent on Rightmove in the Whitby area, while there are 300 properties on short-term let platforms. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to move at pace to introduce licensing and new planning powers for councils?
Rachel Blake
I agree, and the work that my hon. Friend has done to research the impact on the private rented sector is really helpful. I hope that we will continue that work together.
If I may relate this debate to wider business in the House, it is incredibly welcome to be conducting this debate the day after the introduction of the Renters’ Rights Bill. I warmly welcome the Minister here, and I congratulate her and the wider team on the speed with which they have brought forward legislation that will improve the lives of millions of people.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She highlighted the Renters’ Rights Bill, which is a welcome piece of legislation. We want to give security to renters. Is it not right that as well as security for renters, we should also have security and high safety standards for tenants in short-term lets, and people who actually pay their business rates and VAT as part of their operation?
Rachel Blake
I am glad that my hon. Friend raises that issue, which is twofold. First, it is about a level playing field with other types of business. Secondly, it is about safety for the consumer. I hope that we will have a chance to explore those issues.
There are 27,798 private renters in the Cities of London and Westminster, all of whom will be better off thanks to this Government. The Renters’ Rights Bill demonstrates that the Government are taking the housing crisis seriously, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other colleagues on it as it makes progress through the House.
I think we would largely agree that platforms like Airbnb are not inherently a bad thing. I imagine that many in this room use Airbnb or similar services when we go on holiday, but we cannot deny that this has changed from being a peer-to-peer marketplace to something much broader. What started out as a way to make additional income from a spare room has become a significant cause of the decline in the number of homes available for local residents.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate, which is crucial to the Cornish hospitality industry and housing landscape. Does she agree that while there is a need to establish a truly level playing field, for different kinds of holiday accommodation, including furnished holiday lets, we need to ensure that we support those local bona fide holiday businesses to continue to operate, lest we risk them flooding on to the market as more institutionalised Airbnbs or, even worse, second homes that are not well utilised?
Rachel Blake
I agree about the issue of the different types of places and different types of tourism and holiday accommodation. The experience in the centre of London is driven by technology. Previously, the ability to let out a room or even a whole home was much less, but in areas that have longer-standing tourist let economies—such as my hon. Friend’s area and those of other colleagues—we have found that there are different challenges. I believe that those can be discussed through the progression of the regulation of the sector. I thank him for raising that important topic.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that this is about the politics of justice, not the politics of envy? It is not just an issue of the taxation of furnished lets. There has been an industrial movement of properties—second homes—going from being registered for council tax to being registered for business rates, and people then apply for small business rate relief and pay nothing at all. Against that, we do not get the investment in affordable homes for local people. In Cornwall alone, £500 million of taxpayers’ money has gone into the pockets of holiday let providers, while those specifically created, for planning reasons, with planning restrictions are outside that—
Rachel Blake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention and for elaborating on that point. I definitely believe in the politics of justice over the politics of envy. Technology has industrialised this sector, so we need to come up with a policy framework that reflects the scale of the changed situation.
Having large numbers of whole short-term lets in relatively small geographical areas, and on an increasingly commercial basis, as we have discussed, hollows out communities. It causes waste management issues and gives rise to concerns about community safety, and it depresses the availability of homes in the private rented sector.
I will discuss the impact on housing supply and then come on to the environmental impacts. One of the issues with this topic is that in some areas, there is a lack of concrete data, at least in part because of the lack of regulation. That means that much of the information comes from the experience of housing teams in local authorities and what data can be scraped from the relevant platforms. According to detailed work by Westminster city council, around 13,000 properties are listed as available for short-term let in Westminster. Over 20% of the housing stock in the west end ward are short-term lets and, at the time of the census, 30,000 properties in Westminster had no full-time residents. We have that information only because of the hard work of Westminster council’s environmental health officers and others.
One in every 85 homes in the capital is available for short-term let on some basis for an undetermined number of nights each year. That is a problem in itself. As Claire Colomb, professor of urban studies and planning at University College London, noted:
“London is one of the least regulated European cities”
when it comes to short-term lets. Even Airbnb has been calling for a registration system for years, and the Short Term Accommodation Association agrees with the need for a national administered registration scheme.
Allowing short-term lets to proliferate without regulation is a potential challenge to growth. That may sound counterintuitive, but the variety of accommodation options in the tourism industry means that they are not on a level playing field, as we have discussed. Hotels, traditional bed and breakfasts, and hostels have to abide by safety regulations, which short-term lets, for example, simply do not.
Where we do not lack statistics, though, is in housing need. The latest homelessness figures show the highest ever number of families in temporary accommodation in London: 65,280. In March this year, over 3,000 households were in temporary accommodation in Westminster alone. I am sure that that is borne out in the inboxes of all Members here.
Every day I hear from a new family struggling to stay on an even keel after they have had to move to temporary accommodation away from school and their support networks. Just this week, I heard from a mother who has been moved to Dagenham, over 12 miles from her daughter’s school, where she also works as a teaching assistant. She is realistic about how long they are likely to be in temporary accommodation and knows the state of the London private rented market, so to prevent her son from having to commute for four hours a day and to try to make sure that he has friends locally, she would like to move him to a school in Dagenham, but without childcare support that means giving up her job. Families across London and across the country have to make that kind of decision every day, and it is not good enough. It is creating incredible pressure on our wider system and local authority finances due to the rising costs of supporting households in temporary accommodation—London councils estimate the cost to be £90 million every month—and it is all because there are simply not enough affordable homes for people.
Many of these pressures are directly attributable to the failures of the last 14 years, whether it is austerity eating into the resilience of our public services or the failure to reform the planning system to give local places more control over what is happening in their communities. In government, Labour banned the long-term use of bed and breakfasts for homeless provision, and between 2005 and 2010 the number of households in temporary accommodation halved. The national affordable homes programme got Britain building between 2008 and 2011, and the Mayor of London has started building the highest number of council homes since the 1970s. Even in opposition, Labour MPs such as Karen Buck, the former Member for Westminster North—parts of which are now in my constituency—improved housing standards through the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018.
The proliferation of short-term lets of whole homes is making the availability of private rented homes much worse. Of course, London is a proudly international city, and we need to make sure that flexible accommodation options are available for visitors, but we will remain a thriving international city only if we ensure that sufficient housing is available for Londoners. Whole homes rented out consistently as short-term lets—again, I am not talking about residents who go on holiday and list their homes while they are away—are making it much more difficult for communities to stick together.
I was contacted by a constituent, Jayne, who summarised the situation well when she wrote that
“when I first moved here twenty-five years ago, I had neighbours. Now I am concerned about the security of our building because of the constant turnover of strangers”.
In strong communities, such as the ones that we all represent and the neighbourhoods of the Cities of London and Westminster, neighbours are the ones who watch our kids when we go for a job interview and who help us to book a GP appointment. It is these communities that are at risk if we do not take action now to regulate short-term lets. As a proud Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament, I believe that the answer lies in community power, creating local assets and businesses that are owned—in the realest sense of the word—by the people who use and rely on them. What would it look like if, instead of a tourism sector that stretches the resilience of communities, we built one that created opportunities?
As well as hollowing out communities, there are environmental challenges in the growth of short-term lets in the Cities of London and Westminster. Waste management and noise are consistent issues. There is almost no way for councils to enforce against them, not least because they do not have access to the resources to do that, so any policy on enforcement action comes at the cost of council tax payers, rather than those creating the problems in the first instance. That is one of the consequences of an under-regulated market.
Local authority environmental services teams are working tirelessly on these issues, but they can enforce against only those they actually catch red-handed in breach of the rules. That makes it very challenging for short-term lets, as the visitor is gone in a matter of days, and it is difficult to establish a responsible and accountable person for those listings. That is why a registration scheme needs to ensure that there is not only a unique property reference number, but a single point of contact responsible for the property. Frequently, the noise from short-term let flats is intolerably loud at very unsocial hours and unbearable for long-term residents, and it should be avoidable.
The lack of clear and consistent regulation means that enforcement capability sits with organisations and individuals who are not incentivised to enforce, while those who want to enforce are often those without the resources. A private landlord whose tenant is using their property as a short-term let is not incentivised to enforce against a breach of lease—although they might choose to—unless it is causing them any direct inconvenience. They would rather avoid reletting the property. The same goes for freeholders whose leaseholders are sub-letting on a short-term basis, whereas resident management organisations and the council, which of course want to enforce wherever possible, lack either the resources or legal recourse.
However, there are solutions. I believe that we must create a compulsory registration scheme that captures each individual property, using a unique property reference number; ensure that platforms are sharing data, as part of that scheme, on the number of nights for which each property, identified by its unique property reference number, is listed on their sites; ensure that the registration fee is reasonable and proportionate so as not to drive out the small or individual hosts in the market; ensure that where whole-home accommodation is consistently being let out on a short-term basis, there are in place commercial measures, including a named, verified and accountable individual, gas safety certificates, commercial waste contracts where necessary, and appropriate insurance; and give local authorities the power to prosecute those accountable individuals for antisocial and illegal activity, such as fly-tipping. I simply do not believe that that would be overly onerous.
Proposals to manage short-term lets through the planning system are welcome in theory, but the proposals by the previous Government were not suitable for this context. These proposals were a new use class and associated permitted development rights. A new use class for short-term lets not used as a sole or main home is not problematic in theory. The issue comes with the proposal to automatically reclassify existing dedicated short-term lets into this use class without planning permission. This, as the Local Government Association has pointed out, would be at odds with the premise and purpose of creating a new use class for short-term lets, and would give local authorities no say in their location, size and quality.
There are practical solutions to all these challenges. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, when she, along with colleagues from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, considers this issue, to ensure that there is a robust national registration scheme, with data input from the platforms, as I mentioned, and that applications for short-term lets that exceed 90 days per year are dealt with under the normal planning application process for a change of use, rather than our automatically entrenching the current unsustainable situation. Local authorities must have enough resources—probably from revenue raised from the registration scheme—to enforce the rules.
Those suggestions learn the lessons of attempts to regulate short-term lets in other major cities, where they have benefited from the data and information available. I firmly believe that we should use all the powers at our disposal to address the housing crisis. Although I know that dealing with short-term lets is just a small part of solving the problem in places such as mine, in the Cities of London and Westminster, it could improve people’s lives, strengthen our communities and at least ease the desperate need for housing in the private rented sector, so today I urge the Minister to prioritise this. I would be grateful if she outlined a timeline for Government action on bringing forward a national registration scheme and considering and consulting on the future regulation of short-term lets through the planning system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I remind Members that anyone wishing to speak needs to bob. I have to impose a four-minute time limit from the outset, as this debate is oversubscribed. You can all sit down until I have finished. I call Anna Sabine.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
In my fairly rural constituency, many owners of short-term lets have been in touch with me this week because they are worried that this debate will focus particularly on the challenges in major cities and tourist towns and not take into account local rural economies that often rely on some element of short-term lets to survive. I should say that many of the people who have contacted me are also very happy to see the sector further regulated, so they are not anti that. Does the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) agree that there is a balance to be struck between regulating short-term lets and supporting the importance of what they bring, particularly to rural economies?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on an outstanding presentation of all the issues that we have been wrestling with for so long. I spent six months on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill fighting for the licensing of short-term holiday lets. We only managed to achieve a registration scheme and a consultation on a change in use class. As my hon. Friend said, that would grandfather the rights of existing short-term holiday lets, locking in the inequity that we already see in our communities.
I have around 2,000 short-term holiday lets in my own constituency and I know the challenges that they bring as housing demand outstrips supply. As a result we have a serious housing crisis, not least where we have clusters and people lack access particularly to family homes. Short-term holiday lets break up communities and distort the normal community life that we have come to expect.
We need a Bill—I have one I prepared earlier, which I presented to the House in 2022; I believe it still stands today. I will talk the Minister through my Bill, which has a licensing scheme rather than a registration scheme for the conversion of domestic properties into short-term holiday lets in exchange for a fee, differentiated of course if somebody lets out a single room in their own property.
Local authorities could issue fines or remove licences if conduct was criminal or if antisocial behaviour continued in the home. Also, a licensing scheme would ensure proper standards in the homes, with environmental controls, health and safety standards and electric and gas checks. That would bring short-term lets level with the traditional B&B sector so that there was no inequality there. It would also restrict the number of days that they can operate. Local authorities would be able to determine the standards within which they practised, giving them control in local communities.
The Bill was drawn from best practice across the world where schemes have already been tried, tested and tweaked, so we know that it would operate well. It would improve safety, the environment and communities. The licence would be renewed every three years to balance the administrative burdens with the need for inspection. It would be self-funding, with no extra cost to local authorities. Every short-term holiday let would have a named person who could be contacted and who would be liable for the management of the property. Also, the licence would say how many people could stay at the property so that there was not an overcrowding problem.
We know that as Friday night comes and the wheelie trolleys go down the streets, neighbourhoods are in fear because they know the parties are about to arrive. Well, we can get on top of that and also the criminality. These places have been used as pop-up brothels, for child exploitation and as drug dens. By ensuring that a proper scheme was in place, we could get on top of that, too. It would help the industry, landlords, visitors, and most of all communities and would regenerate our housing for the purpose for which it was built.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on calling this debate. Many of us in this House were eager to have it, so we are glad that she secured it. I am also glad that she referred to examples of short-term lets from beyond her constituency of Cities of London and Westminster because it would be a real error to see short-term lets only from the perspective of the sorts of properties that are available in the area outside this Palace in which we speak today.
I urge the Minister and civil servants who might be listening not to draw entirely on examples of the challenges that London boroughs experience around short-term lets. They would be welcome to come at any time to Devon and the Honiton and Sidmouth constituency that I represent to see the fantastic tourist businesses that exist before they consider regulation of the sector.
We must beware of having a one-size-fits-all policy that might fit very well here in London but that does not fit nearly so well in our rural areas and coastal towns and villages, which are quite depopulated. It was only yesterday that there was a debate in this Chamber on the depopulation of rural areas, and such depopulation is what is at stake here.
We know from the Professional Association of Self Caterers UK that traditional self-catering businesses could be subject to some of the new rules that are being introduced after the spring Budget, which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Member talked about stripping away parts of the furnished holiday let regulation system to create what he thought would be a level playing field. However, I can assure you, Ms Harris, and others that there will not be a level playing field, because there is no level playing field between those traditional holiday lets—the self-catering businesses that are already so excellent—and some of the fly-by-night Airbnb properties that are put on the market for overnight rent but taken off long-term lets. They are neither available to long-term renters nor being marketed to the same standards that we have come to expect of traditional self-catering properties.
This issue is crucial for the economy of Devon. I have with me a report from the Devon Housing Commission, which has been examining the shortage of housing stock in the county. It says that the “traditional” holiday let sector is at risk of losing £779 million of income. That sector encompasses not just those people who let their farmsteads or perhaps their heritage houses; it also includes the food and drink sector and the entertainment and tourist sectors, which depend on holiday makers.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the proposal for a registration scheme and the efforts to try to make more housing available for those seeking long-term lets. However, we also need to be careful. In particular, I urge that we pause the furnished holiday let regime that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced in the spring.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mrs Harris, to serve under your chairship.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this debate. My constituency is very different from hers, but they are both worthy of consideration when discussing short-term lets. Morecambe and Lunesdale is a constituency with a thriving urban and rural tourism economy. From the stunning landscapes of the Lune valley to the beautiful coastlines of Morecambe Bay to the wild beauty of the Yorkshire Dales National Park, we are blessed with an array of attractions.
Visitors to our constituency contribute to the local economy, support small businesses, and help to maintain the vitality of our towns and villages. Short-term lets, such as holiday rentals, play an important role in enabling this tourism and provide much-needed accommodation options. They also support local businesses, such as shops, restaurants and activity providers.
However, although we recognise that contribution, we must also acknowledge that the rapid growth in this sector is causing unintended and harmful consequences. Residents in areas such as Silverdale, Arnside, Sedbergh and Dent are seeing the effects of too many properties being taken out of long-term residential use and converted into holiday lets. The balance between supporting tourism and ensuring housing availability for local people is becoming harder to maintain. In Morecambe, we will soon welcome Eden Project Morecambe. As a responsible constituency MP, I am trying to look forward to see what risks, as well as benefits, that project might bring. One of the key risks is the potential impact of short-term lets on the local housing market. Already, some of the worst casework in my inbox is due to a shortage of housing.
That is why I believe that a licensing system for short-term lets that is fair, takes a balanced approach and works for both tourists and residents is right. Regulations would ensure that properties met safety standards, were used responsibly and did not unduly harm the local housing market.
I stress that I do not want to limit residents’ ability to occasionally rent out a room, or exchange their home in a bid to get an affordable holiday. For Morecambe and Lunesdale, a balanced approach is crucial. Our local economy benefits greatly from tourism, and short-term lets are a key part of that success, but we must ensure that it does not come at the expense of local residents who are struggling to find a home or find stability in their community. Yesterday, I spoke about the number of young people leaving our rural areas, and short-term lets are contributing to the problem of depopulation.
We must look at the broader infrastructure challenges that come with an increase in short-term lets. I know some will say that regulating short-term lets would harm our rural economy, but I disagree: I believe that thoughtful, locally tailored regulation will strengthen it and help the existing businesses that pay business rates and meet safety standards.
Morecambe and Lunesdale is a place where tourism and community life go hand in hand. Short-term lets play a role in supporting that, but they must be properly regulated to ensure that local people are not harmed. Our policy must strike the right balance, and I look forward to working with Members from across the House, the local authority and tourism organisations to ensure that.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this debate.
My constituency is made up of three towns that symbolise English seaside holidays: for more than two centuries, people of all classes have visited Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate to take the fresh sea air and enjoy our marvellous beaches and amazing microclimate. Where and how people stay has changed over the years. As boarding houses, holiday camps and large hotels have declined, short-term holiday lets have opened up the chance for many to take a short trip to the coast; but that is not without its drawbacks for many in our community.
Hotels and places offering bed and breakfast are regulated and licensed, which ensures good standards of safety and environmental health for customers, and means that the services the council needs to provide for such establishments can be planned for. Appropriate business rates also mean that the services can be provided. None of that happens with unregulated short-term holiday lets, facilitated by platforms optimistically set up as part of the sharing economy. Instead, as the popularity of British holidays and short breaks has risen, not least since the pandemic and Brexit, so have property prices in places such as East Thanet, as people buy homes as a second place for them to stay at weekends and then rent them out when they are not there. Data compiled by VisitEngland suggests that there has been a 75% increase in short-term holiday lets since 2019: more than 2,000 properties are available for short-term let this year.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend and I both represent beautiful coastal constituencies. Does she agree that we must get the balance right between the contribution that short-term holiday lets make to the tourism and hospitality economies in our constituencies and the need for affordable homes for locals, to address the acute housing crisis that both our constituencies face?
Ms Billington
I could have not said it better myself.
The large increase in short-term holiday lets has left whole streets dark and empty for months on end as the days shorten, with perhaps a small glimmer of light and activity over Christmas and new year. One of my constituents said in an email only today:
“We don’t have any neighbours: they are all Airbnbs…Our lives are being hugely impacted by huge parties each weekend!”
The problem affects the community in many ways. How can primary school places be planned for when family homes do not hold families? How can the council prepare for waste collection and disposal from effectively commercial premises when it does not know where they are or when they are occupied? How do the police deal with the increase in antisocial behaviour that follows from the proliferation of party flats when they are not licensed or regulated? How does a whole community deal with spiralling property prices, driven by an increased appetite to make money from homes rather than live in them?
If Members search on Zoopla or Rightmove for rental prices in Thanet, they will find 140 flats and houses available for less than £1,000 a month. Then if they search Airbnb for Margate, Ramsgate, Broadstairs or equivalent places to stay, they will find more than 750 short-term lets next spring for £100 or more a night. There can be no doubt that such a mismatch is helping to drive house price inflation, rent inflation and the shortage of housing availability in Thanet where, during the summer months, a flat can be rented out as a short-term holiday let for potentially three times or more the rent it would fetch as a home for someone.
We are a seaside community made up of holiday resorts. We are proud of our heritage and know that it will and should be part of our economic future. Yet the beauty and attraction of the place that people come to visit needs to be underpinned by a strong community, with decent services and affordable homes for those who live there all year round. There must be a balance.
I am confident in my advocacy for regulation, not just because of the concerns raised by residents but because voices within the industry in my community also see the impact of rising house prices and stretched public services on their families and employees. The Minister should be in no doubt: East Thanet is ready for regulation and licensing to support our holiday industry and our community. I only urge that the package of measures really is designed with communities like ours, not imposed on them. Ideas on how to license, introduce and enforce standards, plan services and facilitate a process that works for those who offer the service, as well as those who use it, should be taken on board from those who are already living with the consequences of an unbridled market with few, if any, checks or balances.
We know we are not alone in Thanet. Many of my colleagues along the Labour Benches also represent coastal communities. This debate shows that the unregulated nature of the market is blighting a host of communities where people rightly go to enjoy themselves and contribute to the local economy. I urge the Minister to consider how the package of powers and tools can support our coastal communities in particular to thrive.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this debate and giving the subject the attention it deserves. We obviously share a border, but we also share an office in this place that, with its high ceilings and windows, comfortable sofas and views of Whitehall, I am sure would fetch a very high price if it were a short-term let. I hope we can agree that we will not be doing that in our period of sharing an office.
When I was knocking on doors during the general election campaign, the issue of short-term let regulation united constituents in South Kensington, North Kensington, Bayswater and Lancaster Gate. That was due to the current effective free-for-all with weak rules that are barely enforced, leading to issues that had very real and personal consequences for them and their families. It was not just the antisocial behaviour, noise and associated crime, but the violations of building insurance, mansion block rules and tenancy agreements, which had very real impacts on service charges and their day-to-day living in flats. I therefore agree with many of the speakers in the debate that there must be a middle ground where we can find sensible regulation that allows a destination like Kensington and Bayswater to continue to welcome millions of tourists from around the world, but with a system that can also help tackle our housing crisis.
To give hon. Members a sense of the scale of the problem, I share councils—Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster—and it is estimated that more than 5% of properties in both those council areas have been listed as short-term lets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, the latest estimate in Westminster is 13,000. It is therefore important that any proposed changes related to change of use do not lock in those numbers, and that we sequence the reforms correctly.
There are some things that work and I praise the councils that, with limited tools, have been able to take some steps on enforcement, especially in Westminster. Kensington and Chelsea agreed a deal with Airbnb that would share data around some council blocks, so that leaseholders and council tenants in those blocks who might be in breach of their tenancy could be investigated. However, that also struck me as unfair when we have 40% of our residents in the private rental sector, where there is very little regulation.
As for solutions, I join others in calling for the Government to consider a licensing scheme, while thinking carefully about some of the lessons already learned. For example, the 90-day rule is totally unenforceable. With multiple platforms listing properties, and very small and limited—even non-existent—resources in local authorities to enforce the rule, we must ensure that fees are paid into the system to help cover the enforcement cost for local authorities, so that the cost is proportionate. We must also ensure that each property—not just each host—is registered, because individual properties have different consequences. This is an important part of tackling our housing crisis. I am delighted with the Renters’ Rights Bill, introduced yesterday, and I believe that if we also brought in a complementary package of reforms, it could make a real difference for constituencies such as mine.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
This debate was called by a London Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake). I am grateful to her, but I am happy that so many Members from across the country are here too. I wanted to make sure that our voice from Cornwall, where this is a really big issue, was heard very loudly. We have been running a “first homes, not second homes” campaign for a number of years.
Cornwall is the local authority with the largest supply of short-term lets outside London. There are around 24,300 properties in Cornwall, which is up 30% on 2019, while there are about 27,000 houses on the social housing waiting list—hon. Members can see the balance there. Statistics from the council tax base tell us that there are probably about 13,000 second homes registered in Cornwall. That is nearly 5% of the total housing stock, which is nearly five times higher than the average across England. Plus, we have roughly only 10,000 council houses and 22,900 housing association homes in Cornwall. We have 800 families in emergency or temporary accommodation. Lots of families have been evicted under section 21—a situation that will hopefully improve, now that the Bill has been introduced. Businesses struggle to get key workers. The private rented sector has all but collapsed in Cornwall, to be honest.
The taxpayer has lost about £20 million per year, as a result of the loophole allowing second homes to be registered as holiday lets for business purposes: they pay neither council tax nor business rates. During covid, approximately £170 million went to properties that were registered as business lets, with £100 million of that going out of Cornwall, which shows the ownership of the properties.
We have done an awful lot of work on this, and I suggest that the Minister should consider a toolkit of measures to deal with some of the issues. First, lots of people have talked about a licensing scheme obliging owners of short-term lets, including Airbnbs, to register them for a fee for three years, which seems like a sensible amount of time. We would then know how many there were and where, and could push for fire and safety checks to be mandatory. It would be a similar scheme to the licensing of houses in multiple occupation, which currently only applies to homes registered for five or more people; it would seem sensible to increase the scope of HMO licensing as well.
Secondly, we want the business rates/council tax loophole closed. It should not be possible to pay no council tax or business rates on a property; it is just not fair. Thirdly, Cornwall council has already voted to double the council tax on empty second homes, and has actually asked the Government if it can triple it. Given that the council is Conservative-run, and that this decision was agreed cross-party unanimously, it shows how severe the problem has become in Cornwall. If we were to implement that, every time the council tax was doubled it would raise £25 million.
Finally, we should create a planning use class for short-term or holiday lets, so that homeowners need to actively apply for permission for the change from “lived in” to “holidayed in”—flipping the default that the Conservatives suggested. Those are the four measures I would like to see in the toolkit, which could be given to local authorities or could form part of the devolution package.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
My constituency includes parts of the Lake District national park and I have been a councillor for the town of Keswick for a number of years, so this has been a big issue for me. It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talk about the number of holiday lets in her constituency, which I think she said was 2,000. The CA12 postcode, which comprises Keswick and the surrounding villages, has 1,000 holiday lets. The impact on a micro level is part of the issue. There will be people in some councils around the country who will listen to this debate and think, “What are they talking about?”, but others will know exactly what we are talking about and recognise the problems that it is causing for our people.
I have followed this debate for a few years, and I appreciate the toolkit approach, but my worry is that that is throwing everything at it. We have to remember that some of our tourism economies are now quite reliant on this accommodation. We have even seen some traditional holiday accommodation, such as bed and breakfasts and guest houses, move away because people prefer self-catering options. For me, the question is how we remove the bubble, which is causing so much harm, without destroying our tourism economy. We need to look at the range of options and evaluate them by asking what we would really gain from them and what damage they would cause.
I want to start with tax, which is a funny one. Some people have the idea—I have never bought into it—that if we throw taxes at people, eventually there will be a new equilibrium and all of a sudden we will hit a sweet spot where we have the right number of holiday lets and everyone is happy. Even if we were to achieve that in the Cities of London and Westminster or in Cornwall, it might not work in my area. I do not believe the tax system is designed in a way that will allow us to manage this problem. I appreciate the arguments about fairness and what is just, and whether it is right that, every time a property turns from a residential property to a holiday let property, the tax burden of the parish precept has to be put on the neighbours, because of the way that calculation is done. I get that parts of the tax system are unfair, but I still do not think it is the answer to our problem.
There is also the registration system. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for bringing this issue to Westminster Hall. I used to be a Labour activist in her constituency and I remember it being talked about on the doorstep, but Westminster has a key thing that some other areas do not: the 90-day rule. It also has many people living in leasehold properties who are forbidden by their leases from offering short-term lets. The real issue in Westminster is the cat-and-mouse game whereby the leasehold block management companies chase people to try to prove that photographs on Airbnb are of the inside of their flat. Neighbours make complaints, but often enforcement is not possible. I can see the power of a registration scheme for enforcement by those companies and by councils. We have seen this problem on the Churchill Gardens estate, with chocolates on the pillows —the works.
I can see why a registration system would work in London, but there is a big flaw in it. In my area, it would only allow us to do one thing: count how many short-term lets there are. I do not need to count them to know the damage they are causing. What we really need is caps. Some people say, “Well, use the planning option,” but that would see permission given in perpetuity under permitted development rights. It would be a disaster for my community if the 1,000 holiday lets were made permanent in that way.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central suggested a licensing scheme, and I think that is the way forward. That would allow us to build in caps. Importantly, whereas the planning system is under-resourced, does not have the funds and is front-loaded because people only pay for planning applications at the beginning, under a licensing scheme, owners would have to pay on an annual basis.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake). I think I got the name of her constituency right; I come from Cornwall, so I do not know exactly how the boundaries cut in this part of the world. In my part of the world, as the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) explained, hundreds of families are still being evicted to make way for yet more holiday lets, because that is the way the tax system and what I will call the economic advantage system work in a place like ours. I will come to the tax system, which the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) referred to.
We need to address issues of social justice. As I said earlier, this not the politics of envy; it is the politics of justice. I know that we have all been heavily lobbied by those who are concerned about changes in the rules for furnished holiday lets, but we are not being lobbied by the people who are being made homeless as a result of the evictions that are taking place to create even more of those holiday lets.
The late, great Paul Flynn used to say that it is the role of a Member of Parliament to seek out the silent voices, and I believe that is what we should be doing. We should be looking at the issues of social justice and not only listening to the loudest voices in the room. We also need to distinguish between properties that are given specific planning permission that provides for holiday lettings with restricted occupancy and those that would otherwise be used, or have been used, for permanent occupancy. That point has been addressed in the debate already, but I wanted to emphasise it.
I am very much in support of carrying on in the direction of a registration scheme. I also support the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth on widening the requirements for a C5 change of use class order so that specific planning permission is required for any non-permanent occupancy of a property, not just holiday lets. That is really important, because otherwise we will have all sorts of flipping going on in the system.
The problem we have is that since the Conservative Government introduced the opportunity for second home owners to flip them in order to apply for business rates, and then apply for small business rates relief and pay nothing at all, billions of pounds have gone into the pockets of very wealthy property investors when we should be spending that money for local people. It is simply unfair that the poor are penalised through council tax for allegedly underusing their council house, but the rich are being rewarded for underusing their property investment vehicle. I would be surprised if a Government who say that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden do not address that issue or the issue of social justice. In Cornwall, £500 million of taxpayers’ money has gone into the pockets of holiday home owners since 2012, and that is simply unacceptable. I hope that we can address those issues by having not only a stronger planning policy but justice in the tax system.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this important debate, and I also thank her for making the distinction between homeowners who sometimes rent out their property when they are on holiday and the commercialised industry that has developed. There is a clear distinction between the two, and I thank her for raising it.
Short-term holiday lets have a role to play in boosting the local economy in holiday and city destinations, as has been mentioned by Members already. Until recently, I was the vice-chair of the VisitWindsor partnership, and I saw for myself the benefits that short-term holiday lets can bring to a town, particularly during events such as the funeral of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the coronation of King Charles III.
In the 19th century, my constituency of Maidenhead, aided by the advent of the railways, became a popular holiday destination and was known as the jewel of the Thames. Today, it is not necessarily the go-to place for a weekend away, but we still have a number of short-term lets, which are not for holidays but instead support UK and global headquarters based in the town. They provide flexible accommodation for employees and visitors who come to the constituency, spend a few nights in a short-term holiday let and use our local facilities, such as the fantastic restaurants and businesses that we have. That is really welcome, but there is too much of a good thing.
The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead council is one of many up and down the country that is facing rising housing costs, as it is battling to build both affordable housing, and temporary accommodation for people who find themselves homeless—some of whom have been evicted from properties that have made their way to being short-term holiday lets, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) discussed. Some people are being forced to uproot their lives, take their children out of school and give up their jobs to move elsewhere in the country. It is devastating for everyone involved.
We have heard how councils could play a role in what the future looks like, but we have seen local authorities being asked to do more and more with less and less, which has plunged some into financial crisis. In rural areas, the growth of short-term holiday lets is undermining our communities. Key local services such as bus routes, shops and post offices are closing down. The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) mentioned being told, “We don’t have any neighbours.” No Member can fail to be moved by that statement. When we hear something like that, I think everyone is clear that something needs to change.
The Liberal Democrats have long argued for local authorities to be given more powers, backed up by proper funding, to control second homes and short-term holiday lets in their area. We would allow local authorities to increase council tax by up to 500% where a home is bought as a second home, and bring in a stamp duty surcharge for overseas residents purchasing properties. In that way, owners who profit handsomely from the tourism business would be forced to pay back into their local communities.
During consideration of the Renters (Reform) Bill, the Liberal Democrats argued for a six-month moratorium on the marketing of a property as a holiday let if it had been repossessed by the landlord on no-fault grounds. Local authorities are key to this, because they know what is right for their area. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) spoke earlier about a thoughtful, tailored, local approach, which we would welcome.
We are calling for a separate planning class for short-term holiday lets, requiring owners to apply for a change of use and allowing local authorities to set their own numbers.
Mr Reynolds
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. We need to make sure that what we do is backed up by funding so that local authorities are able to enforce the changes that are needed. I would not want to see local authorities having changes forced upon them without the finances and manpower to carry them out. We have seen so many cases recently where local authorities have a duty to do something but not the finance or manpower to do it.
We recognise that local authority housing teams have been hollowed out. Local authorities need the support to be able to enforce whatever decisions are made. I am hopeful that the Minister can tell us the Government’s thoughts about that. I think asking local authorities to put time and work into these changes, with the necessary finance and manpower, will be a worthwhile investment, because it is about time we turned the tide that we have seen engulfing our communities for so long.
I repeat that we need to draw a distinction with respect to people who have gone about this business in good faith. We do not want to penalise them, or people who have inherited a property and become second home owners by default. We all know that short-term holiday lets are growing in an uncontrollable manner. That is the thing that we really need to stop, especially where big business is involved, because it can rip out the heart of our communities. Our proposals would give control back to local authorities and communities, because that is where, as Liberal Democrats, we always believe that power should lie.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake). It is good to see her following in the footsteps of her predecessor, who secured a number of debates and made many contributions on the impact this issue has on that constituency and others. May I also commend the work that London councils have done on behalf of local authorities in the capital to highlight the impact of this issue and bring forward constructive policy suggestions?
There is a high degree of commitment to cross-party working on this issue. As we have heard, it has an impact on constituencies across the country, not just here in the capital, and it was much debated in the last Parliament, particularly during the era of the covid pandemic. We saw many of our constituents who wished to go on holiday or needed to travel for work unable to use hotels, and they therefore made the best possible use of providers such as Airbnb to secure accommodation that met the covid regulations in place at the time.
Many of us worked on the assumption that post-covid there would be a return to the market as we had seen it before, which clearly has not been the case. At the same time, longer-term changes, driven partly by Government but also by wider issues in the market, have seen reducing profit margins for those in the buy-to-let market and people facing higher costs for the standards of the buildings that they maintain. They have also seen the introduction of significantly increased checks on tenants as a result of the need to crack down on unlawful lettings and market changes more generally, as the big players such as Airbnb and Booking.com have sought to create a greater supply of this type of accommodation for commercial reasons.
Clearly, the regulations introduced in 2015—particularly in the capital, with the 90-day limit and the requirement that somebody had to be paying residential council tax on accommodation for it to be let, as well as ensuring that the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) would not be able to let out his parliamentary office should he wish to do so—are examples of measures taken by Government with a view to ensuring that this market played a positive role in local communities. However, as has been highlighted by many Members, significant issues clearly remain despite those measures and that high degree of cross-party consensus.
As with many things, I put it to the Minister that there will be an opportunity in the Government’s review of the planning system to consider points about the use classes that would apply to property, in particular to introduce requirements around planning consent being sought for those properties that could create a nuisance because of their proximity to other types of residential development, and to ensure that powers that may be enforced are available to local authorities through the planning system.
Markus Campbell-Savours
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that planning authorities can barely wash their own faces, let alone take over the enforcement of thousands of holiday lets? Does he not think that that could be a huge challenge, which could perhaps be better funded through taking money directly from the holiday let operators?
David Simmonds
I started my political career as the chairman of a planning committee in London, and I am very aware of the challenges faced by planning authorities—not just in the capital, but elsewhere.
The design of the system around enforcement is clearly intended to ensure that it is financially self-sustaining; we have seen some examples of that with local authorities, including those that have entered into contracts with the private sector specifically to ensure higher levels of enforcement funded by fines and charges levied against those abusing the system. Not all local authorities have reached the stage where they are prepared to undertake that work, but clearly both the available market in providers and the powers and freedoms that local authorities have enable them to do that if they feel that it is an appropriate and proportionate solution to the level of challenges and concerns that they face in their local community.
We know that the current situation reflects a long-standing determination on the part of Governments of all parties to ensure that there is an increase in the accommodation available. Measures such as Rent a Room tax relief, which was introduced many years ago, were intended to ensure that there was a greater supply of flexible accommodation, so we need to ensure that we strike the right balance in this market.
I finish with some observations about the context of the housing market in which this debate is taking place. The UK has the most intensively used housing stock of any major developed country in the world. We have very few derelict or empty properties, so given the level of demand in comparison with other major economies, it is clearly important that we ensure as far as possible that accommodation is available to those who need it.
An element of that will be short-term lets, which play an important role in the economy, but with many people looking to secure longer-term and permanent housing that clearly needs to be a high priority. In taking forward their planning reforms, I urge the Government to consider the fact that there are already an additional 1.4 million new homes in England with planning consent already granted by our local authorities. Priority should be given to ensuring that those consents are fulfilled and those homes are built, rather than prioritising, for example, the deregulation of the green belt.
I also want to bring something else to the attention of those present. In some respects the previous Government’s record deserves criticism, but on measures for net additional dwellings and new homes per calendar year—both major measures on housebuilding—development under the previous Government hit record levels; in fact, in recent years it hit the long-term record for as long as the statistics have been gathered. Indeed, during the last Parliament, a net additional 1 million new homes were built in England alone, in fulfilment of the manifesto commitment.
Many hon. Members have highlighted lots of issues that need to be dealt with effectively. I would encourage the Government to consider how, through their review of the planning system, those issues can effectively be brought forward. They should also consider how existing measures that have been highlighted, such as enforcement powers and the means of recouping costs, which are already available and used widely by some local authorities, could be put into action more swiftly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I start off by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing today’s important debate and highlighting the concerns of her constituency. I have an interest to declare: she is one of my oldest friends. I am proud to see her in her place, making her first speech in Westminster Hall.
I am grateful to Members from across the House for their contributions. They have raised extremely important issues and concerns about the impact of short-term lets on their constituencies. They have highlighted the serious challenges that such lets pose in a diverse range of constituencies, in cities such as London and in rural and coastal communities. They have also highlighted the need for action, but in a way that is appropriate for the different kinds of areas and challenges they face.
Contributions have also highlighted a wider point about housing and housing affordability, a major issue for our country. I hope this debate provides an opportunity for us as a new Government to take on board the many ideas, thoughts and insights that colleagues have shared. If we want to get this agenda right, it is important for us to have an ongoing dialogue.
The key concerns highlighted are around safety, waste management, antisocial behaviour, cost of housing and communities being displaced. That should not take away from the fact that we all recognise the important contribution that short-term lets can make to local economies, but they have to be done in a way that is appropriate and does not cause harm in local communities. The pressures cannot be properly understood without taking into account the impacts of such issues.
I recognise the frustrations that many communities feel, where there is an excessive concentration of the properties under focus and particularly in places where there is an acute lack of affordable housing for local people. I also recognise that short-term lets can cause other concerns for local people, including the hollowing out of communities and antisocial behaviour.
Andrew George
The Minister mentioned the contribution that self-catering short-term lets make to local economies. Hotels, purpose-built short-term chalets and so on also make an important contribution to local economies and often operate at a disadvantage relative to the many individual short-term lets that are operating below the VAT threshold and that in other respects are avoiding making their contribution to the local community or, indeed, national taxation.
Rushanara Ali
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. This is why this debate is so important: we must make sure that we address the issues and challenges being raised. The new Government are taking stock and considering a full suite of options for the regulation of short-term lets before we make policy decisions, but I have heard clearly from hon. Members about the issues and challenges they face in their constituencies. We need to ensure that the response is proportionate and appropriate, reflects the different kinds of issues affecting different constituencies, and avoids unintended consequences. The actions we take must properly address those issues.
In England, the average house price is more than eight times annual earnings, and affordability issues are even more acute in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. The average monthly private rent in London increased by 9.7% last year, and is more than one and a half times higher than the average monthly rent in England. Although it is true that London remains one of the country’s least affordable areas, we are in the middle of a housing crisis right across the country. Years of low house building across all tenures, combined with rising interest rates, have resulted in too few genuinely affordable homes. The issue has been exacerbated in London, coastal towns in places such as Cornwall and areas such as the Lake district by the proliferation of short-term lets and second homes, as hon. Members have highlighted. That is why we want to go further by giving local authorities tools to tackle short-term lets where they are an issue.
The lack of robust data about short-term lets, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned, means that local areas often struggle to define the true extent of the problem and are unable to effectively manage the impacts. Although this data is not perfect, in 2022 a call for evidence suggested that there are about 257,000 short-term lets in England, about 43,400 of which are in London. I know my hon. Friend is keen to have better data about short-term lets in her constituency, and I am happy to hear that she and a number of other hon. Members support the short-term lets regulation scheme. We are committed to introducing the register, which will be an essential tool in enabling local authorities and central Government to access relevant data on short-term lets.
Markus Campbell-Savours
Does my hon. Friend recognise the issues with the registration scheme, which the previous Government described in their consultation as “light touch”? It will not meet the needs of areas such as mine, where we do not have the additional legal powers available in places such as London.
Rushanara Ali
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is important that we look at what can be done as part of that exercise. He will appreciate the point I made about the new Government needing to take stock of what is working, where the good examples are and what we can draw on. The register is part of that, and I look forward to ensuring that colleagues’ insights and contributions are taken into account.
Rachael Maskell
Will my hon. Friend take a look at my Bill, which proposes a licensing scheme but allows local authorities to determine some of the parameters necessary to control the number of short-term lets in their local area, including control zones, so that we do not see a real expansion of such lets in precious places such as York?
Rushanara Ali
I thank my hon. Friend for the offer on the Bill that she prepared earlier, and I know that officials listening to this debate will consider the range of suggestions and proposals that colleagues are making today.
We know that many local authorities are eager for the registration scheme to be operational as soon as possible. We share this view and officials are currently working at pace to operationalise the scheme. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is now in the initial phase of a digital development process for the register, which will allow us to test and refine the possible options for design and delivery of the scheme. We will factor into that process the points made today and will update the House in due course.
As hon. Members have highlighted, London is unique in England in having certain powers regarding short-term lets. Since 2015, primary legislation has provided that homes in London that are liable for council tax may be let for temporary sleeping accommodation for up to 90 nights in a calendar year. Planning permission is required to let for more than that. However, as has already been pointed out today, in practice local authorities in London report that this limit is difficult to apply and enforce, due to a lack of data on addresses, ownership and the number of nights that properties are let for, and because of limited enforcement capacity. Points were well made in this debate about other parts of the country that do not have the London scheme.
We recognise that more needs to be done to ensure that authorities in London have the tools they need to enforce the limit. As we design the short-term lets register and consider future policy, we will keep in mind the uniqueness of each area of our country and in particular the interactions with the existing legislation that applies to London.
I recognise that the current taxation of short-term lets can be seen to incentivise such use. The Government have confirmed that we will abolish the furnished holiday lettings tax regime from April 2025, which will remove the tax advantages that landlords offering short-term holiday lets have over those providing standard residential properties.
At the end of July, the Government took concrete steps to abolish the regime by publishing draft legislation, which includes transitional arrangements to help landlords to adjust to the change. Councils will also be able to charge a council tax premium of up to 100% on second homes from April 2025. It is for councils themselves to decide whether to charge such a premium in their area.
Jayne Kirkham
I have just one small point to make about the furnished holiday letting scheme. There are some properties in Cornwall for which there are planning restrictions that say they can only be holiday lets and nothing else can be done with the property, because it may be on the same premises as the first property. I just want the Government to be aware of that when the regulations are developed.
Rushanara Ali
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution.
Where a short-term let does not meet the relevant lettings criteria, it will usually be considered a second home and will be liable for council tax, including the council tax premium where councils have introduced it. However, we recognise that this may not go far enough towards ensuring that all short-term lets are properly contributing to the local tax system, as the premium will not impact those short-term lets that are eligible for business rates. We will continue to keep the tax treatment of short-term lets under review and will consider what more is needed to achieve our aims.
Short-term lets are just a part of the housing challenge in our country, which is why we are determined to address the issue of affordability and to do what is necessary to get Britain building again.
Andrew George
I thank the Minister for giving way one more time. On the point that the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) made earlier about small business rate relief, could the Minister please make sure that some very strong representations are made by her Department to the Treasury with regard to this issue, because the system is being abused at present? When it was first introduced, it was intended to protect village shops and similar businesses; it was not intended to feather-bed property investors.
Rushanara Ali
Again, those are really important points that will need to be factored in as we develop these policies. The hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot make commitments today, but we are at the beginning of this Government. We are very keen to make sure we get the policies right. I thank him for the intervention.
Richard Foord
The Minister makes a good point about how she and the Government are setting out on a new term and looking at these things for the first time. But the furnished holiday letting regime is set to change in April 2025, so will she consider a pause and looking at that again, given that there has not been any assessment by the Office for Budget Responsibility of what effect it might have?
Rushanara Ali
I am going to make some progress, but perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman on his specific point.
I return to the point about short-term lets and the wider housing challenge. Through decisive action, this Government will reform the planning system, because we need to increase the building supply. We have our commitment to building 1.5 million homes over the next five years. We will deliver the biggest boost to affordable and social housing in a generation and establishing a generation of new towns. By doing that, we are improving security for millions of people and unlocking essential economic growth—the growth the country needs. The chronic shortage that the country is facing means that owning a home is a distant reality for many. We are committed to achieving a more balanced distribution of homes by directing them to where they are most required, in areas where they are not affordable. Increased supply will help to moderate house prices over the long term, provide for population growth, and improve quality and choice.
We have introduced the Renters Rights’ Bill, which will end no-fault evictions, and we will lay legislation to further reform the leasehold system. We will open up the dream of home ownership to more people by introducing a permanent, comprehensive mortgage guarantee, and give first-time buyers their first chance to buy new homes. We will publish a long-term housing strategy, which will set out our vision for a housing market that works for all and provides long-term certainty for the market.
In closing, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster for securing this important debate and for her excellent contribution. I thank hon. Members for their contributions on this issue and assure them that we are very much aware of their concerns. We cannot let short-term lets undermine the availability of affordable housing for people to buy and rent. What is more, we are committed to rebuilding our country by taking the steps needed to fix the foundations of the economy and to ensure that everyone has a place to call home. This agenda is really important. It is vital that we respond appropriately, taking into account the insights that many Members have shared today, and I look forward to working with colleagues across parties. I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member on securing this very important debate.
Rachel Blake
It has been a real honour to hear the stories of different places across our country. It has been a real privilege to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris; to be joined by my immediate neighbour and very old friend the Minister, who represents Bethnal Green and Stepney, and by other immediate neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi); and to hear contributions from Members who represent Devon, Kent, Lancashire, Cornwall, Leicestershire, Yorkshire, Sussex and Cumbria. We have been transported to the beautiful landscapes of Morecambe and the lakes, but we have also heard about some of the damage that short-term lets are doing to our communities and how challenging it is to take the action that we need.
I have particularly reflected on the following themes: the risks of depopulation and badly managed tourism, what is happening to the market and the challenges of enforcement in such a complex environment. This debate has clarified how important a localist, devolved approach will be. We have heard compelling and thoughtful contributions on the differences between the self-catered holiday let sector and traditional bed and breakfasts and hostels, and the risks there are to depopulation and otherwise thriving tourism industries if we get this wrong. We heard about the scale of the market impact, properties where rents could be as much as three times lower than the income from short-term lets, and just what that is doing to distort local housing markets.
I am struck by the challenge of effective enforcement and the fact that we have such a complex environment in which private landlords are unable to take action on their tenants. The urgent need for leasehold reform means we can get clarity and ensure we take action by delivering on the Renters’ Rights Bill. I am heartened that we can move forward on this issue. Hearing the Government’s commitment to make progress with a registration scheme is encouraging.
We need to think more about a licensing scheme. I shared some details about a unique property reference number and the importance of making sure that we have data available. I also welcome the idea of a toolkit. I foresee an opportunity with the devolution Bill and the publication of the national planning policy framework to make real progress on this issue to protect all our communities and contribute to tackling the long-term homelessness crisis in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the regulation of short-term lets.
New Housing: Environmental Standards
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members to bob if they wish to speak so that I can see who wants to speak. Some people have written in—I have a list here. Please be patient if I get names wrong, because everybody’s face is new. I will try very hard to get it right.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered environmental standards for new housing.
I thank the Minister and all colleagues here for attending. This is the first time I have led a Westminster Hall debate, so please bear with me if I get the procedures wrong. We have lots of time today, so I welcome interventions and hope we can have a useful debate and conversation on this vital topic.
I want to begin by saying that I recognise that there have been some warm words from the Government on this topic. I look forward to hearing more detail from the Minister today. I called for this debate because, although I have heard one or two warm words in the last two and a bit months, I have not heard any detail. In fact, I have been concerned about hearing nothing specific whatsoever in the Secretary of State’s speeches that I have listened to. The Government have made major commitments on building new housing and it is crucial to consider what type of housing, so I wish to start by outlining three reasons why I think this is a really important debate to have.
First, it is absolutely topical. The Government, as we have heard on numerous occasions—indeed, just five minutes ago in the previous debate—have committed to building 1.5 million new houses over the next five years, but what sort of homes will they be? In the Green party we specify that we need to think about the right homes in the right place at the right price. Today I want to talk about what “right homes” means, because it is not just about quantity; it is also about quality and the need to think long term when new homes are built.
The Climate Change Committee did a report on the UK’s housing stock in 2019. It estimated that in 2050 80% of houses in this country will be houses that are already built, so we clearly have a massive job to do when we think about environmental standards and retrofitting the buildings that we already have. However, I am concerned to discuss the 20% of houses that will be new, because the worst possible outcome could be that we build lots and lots of new houses but to poor standards, thus requiring the retrofitting of those houses, too, so let us focus on new build homes.
The second reason why the debate is important is the scale of the issue relating to houses. Our built environment controls or influences roughly half of UK environmental impacts. Domestic housing accounted for more than a quarter of energy use in the UK in the last year for which we have statistics. Heating accounts for the largest single share of emissions from buildings. The fabric of buildings is crucial in controlling the impact of the housing and broader building sector on the natural environment and climate.
Thirdly, this topic is crucial because we have a massive win-win-win opportunity here. This is not just about reducing carbon emissions from housing, which is certainly very important and I will come on to that later. It is also about ensuring that new homes are warm, affordable to heat and not mouldy but great for people to live in. Just this week in the Chamber there was a debate about how people can stay warm in winter. We need to make sure that all new homes are built to the highest possible standards so that we do not have people shivering in their homes and choosing between heating and eating. Of course, this is a fantastic opportunity to give the economy a great big boost, creating thousands of high-skilled jobs. If we get this right, it will be a fantastic opportunity for economic renewal. We know that investing up front is much cheaper than having to retrofit later, so let us do this right from the start.
I wrote to the Minister for Housing and Planning before the recess about the timing of the release of the future homes standard, which has been in the works for quite some time now—we were consulting on it back in 2019-20, and again in 2023-24. In his response to me, the Minister said that the Government will release it in due course. If he is able to do so, I would love the Minister to provide some clarification on the timetable for publication of the standard; it is supposed to start implementation next year, which is only three and a half months away, so time is of the essence. Of course, it is vital that the policy is right, and not just fast, but, as we have had so many years to develop it, I would hope that it could be published ASAP.
This is not a new topic. One of the helpful briefings I read in preparation for this debate, from the House of Commons Library, which I recommend to everyone—it produces fantastic materials—reminded me that in 2006, the then Labour Government said that they would amend the building regulations to require all new homes to have net zero carbon emissions by 2016. Of course, that policy was scrapped by the Conservatives in 2015, but we are now eight years on from the point at which Labour previously thought that all new homes should be net zero carbon. This is the moment for the new Labour Government to fulfil that promise and put in place regulations to ensure that ambition will actually come to pass—better late than never.
I will speak today about five key aspects of environmental standards for new housing: maximising energy efficiency; minimising embodied carbon; maximising on-site energy generation, particularly rooftop solar; maximising biodiversity in the construction of new homes; and maximising resilience against things like flooding and overheating, which will become more and more important as time goes by and climate change becomes a reality that hits us ever harder.
The first aspect is maximising energy efficiency. To meet the Government’s own carbon targets, almost all buildings will need to fully decarbonise. It is not just me who says that—it was in the Government’s heat and buildings strategy back in 2021. That is what the future homes standard was supposed to ensure. However, the version of the future homes standard that is being consulted on is looking at a 75% improvement on 2013 levels by 2030, which is neither good enough nor strong enough. We need to get to all homes being net zero carbon as soon as possible.
I do not expect the Government to introduce measures whereby every single building has to be built to that standard in 2025, but the industry needs a glide path. We need the Government to set that strategy to provide a framework within which the industry can sort out supply chain issues, both in terms of materials and, crucially, through upskilling, so that we are building zero carbon houses, not ones that are just a bit more efficient than the previous ones. The previous Conservative Government were very pleased to talk at length—I wanted to say “to bang on”—about the fact that more houses are reaching EPC C standard than 15 years ago, and that is indeed true. However, virtually no houses are reaching EPC A or B; that figure has increased from 1% to 3% of houses over the past 15 years. Almost no new houses are being built to those really high standards, which is what we need. Of course, there are major problems with energy performance certificates and the standards assessment procedure that underpins them—I am not pretending that that does not need review, and I commend the moves that are being made in that direction. However, we need to recognise that, flawed as it might be as a metric, it is telling us something really quite serious and worrying, which is that housing quality is not increasing at anywhere close to the rate that it needs to.
Key to reducing energy demand is fabric-first design. That needs to be absolutely integral to the future homes standard. It is deeply concerning that the previous Government claimed that the 2021 changes to building regulations were sufficient, and refused to tighten them any further. It is utterly wrong-headed. In making buildings more energy-efficient, fabric-first must be central. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister that fabric-first will be core to the future homes standard.
I also ask the Minister to lift the restriction placed by the previous Government on local authorities setting higher standards for house building in their areas. I do not think that local authorities setting piecemeal higher standards is the way we will get to a decarbonised housing sector, but we should not hold them back from going further and faster while we wait for Government to show the necessary leadership on a national level. We have too much piecemeal policy on this, both between local authorities and between the four nations of the UK. We need to ensure that we are united in a race to the top for standards, not a race to the bottom.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate and the Minister for being here to respond. I second the hon. Lady’s point about the standards set by local authorities. I represent part of West Oxfordshire district council, where the Salt Cross development was brought forth. It was challenged by the developers because the local authority sought to set forth a net zero standard. The developers were unsuccessful in their appeal, but in a very obliging step, the previous Government issued a written ministerial statement in December 2023 clarifying that no local authority could have the power to set net zero standards. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be very helpful if the Minister confirmed that this Government intend to issue a new written ministerial statement to make it more possible, until such time as we have new standards, for local authorities to pursue net zero targets in their planning permissions?
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before I call the hon. Lady to resume her speech, this is probably a good opportunity to remind hon. Members that we are all on a learning curve, and interventions should be short and to the point. We do not have a lot of Members here, so it will not be difficult for you to catch my eye if you want to make a speech yourself.
Ellie Chowns
Thank you, Mr Stringer, and I will compensate by being very brief in my response to the intervention by saying that I agree absolutely.
I have talked about the need to maximise energy efficiency. Let me move on to my second point: the need to minimise embodied carbon. In the future homes standard, we have some discussion of minimising operational carbon emissions. There is concern here not just from me. Back in 2022, in its report on the sustainability of the built environment, the Environmental Audit Committee expressed real concern that
“policy has focused entirely on operational emissions”,
and that it does not require the embodied carbon cost of construction to be assessed or controlled in any way. The Royal Institute of British Architects is deeply concerned about this, as are others.
In their response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report, the previous Government recognised that embodied carbon can account for a very significant proportion of a building’s whole-life carbon emissions. They agreed that a standardised method was needed, and said that they would consult on embodied carbon. In a consultation from November 2023 to March 2024 on the future homes standard, the Government said that embodied carbon was outside the scope of consultation on the future homes standard, but that they would consult on it separately.
Does the Minister agree that embodied carbon needs to be part of the future homes standard? We cannot talk only about operational and not embodied carbon. It has been left behind—effectively the poor relation—in the need to assess the carbon impact of new house building. This urgently needs to be rectified. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments and, I hope, assurance that as much attention will be paid to embodied carbon as to operational carbon, because it is so significant in the whole-life carbon costs of any new housing.
I move on to my third point: maximising on-site energy generation. I have brought up this topic—the need to ensure that all new homes have solar panels—once or twice in the House already since I have been here. I would be delighted to be known as Mrs Solar Panel by the end of this Parliament. I would be even more delighted if, by the end of this year, we had the regulations necessary to ensure that every roof of a new home had solar panels on it because, frankly, that is what is colloquially known as a no-brainer.
Solar panels are one of the things that residents brought up with me time and again on the doorstep. Constituents of all sorts of political background and none said to me things like, “Why are we still building houses and not putting solar panels on the roofs?” It is something with which people have a real, visceral connection. They see new houses going up around them that do not have solar panels on the roofs, and they know that we need to sort out energy generation. Let’s ensure that we maximise use of these wonderful surfaces that are already there. This is a classic example of where it would be much cheaper to put that technology in place at the point of construction, rather than retrofitting it afterwards. I cannot help but conclude that it has not been done so far only because developers are resisting anything that might increase their costs.
Developers are concerned only with the construction costs; we as lawmakers and as a Government should be concerned with the long-term social, public and environmental costs. Of course, this sort of investment pays for itself many times over during the lifetime of the technology. I warmly invite the Minister to confirm that his Government will bring forward measures to put solar panels on roofs as default, either within the future homes standard, the planning and infrastructure Bill or another appropriate legislative mechanism.
My fourth point is about maximising biodiversity. In the words of the 2021 Dasgupta review,
“Our economies, livelihoods and well-being all depend on our most precious asset: Nature.”
This Government have talked a great deal about growth. Unfortunately, the way we currently measure growth does not take account of the costs of the destruction of the natural assets we have. There have been some welcome moves towards recognition of the need to take account of impacts on biodiversity during construction, with the introduction of biodiversity net gain and so on, but so much more could be done. We could specify having bird and bat boxes for the 1.5 million new houses—wouldn’t it be wonderful to have 1.5 million new bird and bat boxes for the creatures with whom we share this beautiful natural environment? Ponds are good for drainage and for wildlife. Let us take into account lighting design and how light pollution impacts nature if we are building these 1.5 million new houses. We could specify hedgehog highways—little holes cut in fences so that hedgehogs can get from one garden to the next—as well as bee-friendly plants, green roofs and walls, trees, hedges and so on.
We have a real opportunity. People are rightly concerned about the effects on the natural environment of the construction of lots of new homes. We certainly need new homes constructed—they should be affordable and accessible to the people who really need them—but let’s not make it an either/or. Let’s not plaster the country with tarmac in some places while keeping less and less space free for nature. Let’s ensure that whatever new housing we are building recognises that we can also create space for nature to live alongside us and to thrive in those areas, too.
A classic example, and a personal favourite, is swift bricks. For just £30, we could put in place a swift brick in every new house to ensure that these beautiful creatures, whose populations have sadly declined by 60% over the past 30 years, can thrive again. I am not just saying this because both my sons grew up playing for Ledbury Swifts football club, meaning that these birds have a special place in my heart; they should have a special place in all our hearts. Let’s make sure that every new house has a swift brick.
My fifth point is on maximising resilience. We must face up to the fact that the climate crisis means that some extremes of weather will be baked in. We must recognise that adaptation has to be part of what we do, as well as mitigation of the climate impact.
I have seen that very personally. I represent North Herefordshire, and in early 2020 Herefordshire was affected by the worst floods that we have had in 400 years of records. Last winter, we had the wettest 18 months on record in the UK. Such events have major impacts on people’s homes, and we have to take them into account when we build new homes. So, please, may we ensure that the future homes standard and the regulations that go alongside it recognise the reality of the need to be more resilient with issues such as flooding and overheating?
Overheating does not occur much in my constituency, but it is certainly an issue in urban constituencies. Former office blocks are converted into housing through permitted development, but often that entails terrible conditions for the people who end up living in those places. Personally, I think that that should not be allowed to happen. Overheating is a significant issue in such buildings. Let us ensure that overheating and flooding are recognised in resilience planning in new housing.
Finally, water scarcity and efficiency—it is not just energy that we need to use efficiently, but water. That was the topic of my doctorate, although not in this country. Let us ensure that we use these pure resources as carefully and efficiently as possible. Again, that needs to be built in, baked in, right at the start of building new houses.
I have a present for the Minister to take away. A few years ago, in Herefordshire, we developed a thing called “Herefordshire Future Homes”, in which we assessed a whole range of building standards, because of the bewildering array of initiatives in place. The industry is now coalescing around the net zero housing standard, which is good news, but we also looked at things such as water efficiency, biodiversity and so on. I will give this document to the Minister after the debate to feed into his work.
Let me remind the Minister what the Government could and should do. They could ensure that all new homes had ultra-high levels of energy efficiency and were built to an EPC A standard right now, with a glide path through to net zero housing standards as soon as possible. Let us resist the pressure from developers to water down the standards, and let us give local authorities the freedom they need to put in place higher standards initially. Let us incorporate embodied carbon in the future homes standard, and set regulations for whole-life carbon limits aligned with the industry’s building standard of net zero carbon.
I have not mentioned this much, but waste and recycling in construction is a core and enormous part of our waste economy. There are significant opportunities for a more circular economy approach. Let us also specify that all new homes should have solar panels on top and swift bricks everywhere. Let us ensure that all new homes are climate change-resilient.
Now is such an important opportunity for the Government to show leadership. As I said at the beginning of the debate, I confess to being somewhat frustrated that they have not taken the opportunity of their major, high-attention speeches on planning and infrastructure—nothing whatever about building quality. There is an opportunity to rectify that, and I would love to hear not only the Minister’s response, but even more, the Secretary of State integrating building quality into everything that she says about building new houses going forward. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) for securing this important debate.
To start my remarks, I will reflect on why this is such an important topic for discussion. Clearly the major consideration, and one of the biggest threats facing us, is climate change and the need to decarbonise, but the beauty of improving environmental standards for new housing is in the many other benefits besides. Investing in insulation, heat pumps and solar-panel fitments for new homes would create jobs and stimulate supply chains, with the subsequent benefit of making it far easier to develop the capability to retrofit existing homes.
A significant benefit of such a policy of getting it right would accrue to those on lower incomes, insulating them not just from the cold, but from energy and fuel market price fluctuations and the global effects on those prices. Dare I suggest that had we been building new homes to good environmental standards for the past 15 years, the Government would perhaps have avoided the winter fuel allowance backlash that is dominating my constituency postbag. This is a great example of a policy that benefits not only the planet, but people and the economy. Many people feel that climate change is an abstract topic, something that is preached at them, and we need to consider more policies that achieve that holy trinity of benefit for planet, people and economy.
Many of my constituents are very frustrated on this topic, similarly to those of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. They feel that there have been years of wasted opportunities to get new homes right, from design through to build. More energy-efficient homes is a rare example of a near universally popular policy. Unlike 20 mph speed limits, low traffic neighbourhoods or, dare I say, vegan sausage rolls, there are no culture wars to be had here.
I read that the logic of the last Conservative Government, in delaying solar panel mandates for new homes, was optimism about a fully decarbonised electricity grid, which was indeed too much optimism. We also need to work quickly to create a new electricity grid with good storage capability, so that we can capitalise on surpluses of locally generated solar and wind power.
My constituency has seen some of the fastest housing growth in the country, with 8,000 new houses built between 2011 and 2021, at Didcot Great Western Park, Wantage Kingsgrove, Wallingford Highcroft and Grove Wellington Gate, among others. My constituents are baffled by the fact that these houses have been built—and continue to be built—without solar panels, heat pumps or similar. Another development under construction at the moment, Valley Park near Didcot, of more than 4,000 homes, will also not be so equipped. That is despite the efforts of our Lib Dem-led Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire district councils, who have done what they can within the current rules to promote positive environmental measures. They do not have the powers to compel developers to meet net zero requirements as part of the scrutiny of planning applications. That also needs to change, all the more so if there is going to be further delay in implementing national environmental standards and effective requirements.
We need to make climate change action meaningful and beneficial for people. Designing new homes to the right standards has the potential to have universal appeal, and rather than solar panels’ only being accessible to those on high incomes, it could benefit people across income ranges. Investing in solar, heat pumps and insulation will make that difference, and stimulate the economy. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, we also need to think about designs that will keep our homes cool in the hotter weather expected in the future.
If we do not create the homes of the future now, there is a risk that we will need to retrofit the homes built now in only a decade or two’s time, at much greater expense, in order to reach our net zero targets. We cannot wait any longer. I hope the new Government will treat the issue with the urgency it deserves, to help planet, people and economy.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I move to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Zöe Franklin.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) for bringing forward this important debate, and for her extensive speech, which was full of sensible suggestions and thoughts. I thank the Minister for his attendance.
Heating our homes is one of the most pressing issues facing the UK right now. The cost of living crisis has sped up the urgent need to improve the environmental standards of our homes to keep people warm and stop people having to choose between heating and eating.
For far too long, households across Britain have been forced to make impossible choices: heating their homes or putting food on the table. It is a disgrace that in one of the world’s wealthiest nations, millions are living in cold, damp homes that are too expensive to heat and are harmful to their health. Developers are not meeting the environmental standards we need for a sustainable future. That is unacceptable.
The Liberal Democrat manifesto said that all new homes need to be zero-carbon and fitted with solar panels. That rooftop revolution would make use of the vast dead space on roofs across the country, generating clean energy right where it is needed. Yet developers continue to submit plans that ignore these opportunities, and homeowners are the ones who pay the price. In my own constituency of Guildford, a developer recently submitted plans for news homes, without including heat pumps. That is bonkers. We know that there will be no new gas boilers in newly built homes after 2025, so why are developers continuing to insist on submitting plans with gas boilers?
All new homes will require alternative heating systems such as heat pumps. By allowing developers to cut corners today, we are passing the costs of upgrading homes on to future homeowners, who then face the high costs of retrofitting—not to mention the ongoing burden of high energy bills.
Developers need to take responsibility, and this House must put the onus on them to do so. Developers are putting homeowners in the position of having to foot the bill for improvements that should have been made when the buildings were first built. Building for the future is not an option; it should be a requirement. We need to incentivise developers to act now, but we must also back up those incentives with strong legislation to ensure that new homes meet zero-carbon standards.
This about more than just the build cost; we need to consider the lifetime cost of these homes. How efficient are they for homeowners over time? For example, a house might be cheaper for the developer if it is built to lower standards, but if it is inefficient, the homeowner is left paying high energy bills for years. Making improvements at the building stage—for example, installing solar panels and domestic energy storage, and ensuring that the home has proper insultation—means that the fear of opening energy bills becomes a thing of the past.
The Liberal Democrats have shared our plan for a fairer deal on new homes and heating. We want homes that do not make people sick, where heating bills are not thought of with fear, and we want every new home to be built to the highest environmental standards. We have two key policies that we encourage the Minister, and his colleagues in the Labour Government, to consider seriously. The first is our 10-year energy upgrade programme, which will begin with free insulation and heat pumps for those on low incomes, and then ensure that every new home is built to zero-carbon standards. We, as Members of this House, know that local authorities play an integral role in our society, so let us give them the power to deliver that, ensuring that it is rolled out efficiently and where it is needed most. Councillors and local residents understand local need, so if there is local need, let Parliament make it work for local residents.
That raises the question of why we are discussing this, when it should have been sorted out many years ago. Conservative failure in government has left households high and dry during a cost of living crisis. Families are struggling to pay their bills, and, instead of support, they are met with rising energy costs and poor-quality housing. Britain’s “warm homes” infrastructure has dry rot, and this plan will cut it out.
The evidence is clear: UK homes are among the least energy-efficient in Europe, with some of the oldest housing stock on the continent. Nearly 40% of our homes were built before 1946, compared to 21% in Italy and just 11% in Spain. Many of our homes are expensive to heat, and inefficient at that. This is not just a financial burden or an environmental issue; it is a public health crisis. The NHS spends an estimated £1.4 billion every year treating illnesses related to living in cold or damp homes, with wider societal costs reaching a staggering £15.4 billion. By upgrading homes with free insulation for low-income households, we can ensure that no one must choose between a warm house and a full stomach. By installing heat pumps and making homes zero-carbon, we will not only reduce emissions but make our homes greener, fairer and more affordable to live in.
The second idea that we encourage Labour colleagues to get behind is getting landlords to upgrade the energy efficiency of their properties. We would require landlords to upgrade it to EPC C or above by 2028, because British tenants are living in housing that is making them ill. It is unacceptable that 35% of fuel-poor households are in the private rented sector, where more than 1 million people struggle with fuel poverty, and an ever-increasing number of private renters live with dangerous mould and damp. I am ashamed to say that that is also causing children to die each year. Inaction from the previous Conservative Government has left people trapped in homes that are harmful and costly to heat. It is appalling that last year, more than 8,000 new homes were built in England with an EPC rating below band C. That cannot be allowed to continue, and I strongly advise the Government to remember the promises they made on it while electioneering earlier this year.
Our plans for landlords are a fair and green message: under Liberal Democrat proposals, Parliament would be able to ensure that children and vulnerable families did not have to suffer because of poor housing standards. We want legislation that requires landlords to upgrade properties to EPC grade C or above, and we want homes to be built with higher EPC ratings from the start. Let me be clear: these measures are about not just improving homes, but restoring dignity and health to those who live in them. Alongside these proposals, we want social tariffs, and we need to decouple electricity prices from wholesale gas. We need to address the fact that we are building homes that do not meet environmental standards that look to the future instead of the past.
We have a cost of living crisis and a climate emergency, and we need to invest in a future where homes are energy-efficient, affordable to heat and zero carbon. Given that the Government intend to remove winter fuel payments to pensioners, it is all the more pertinent that we insulate people’s homes from the very start to prevent them from struggling with their bills and to prevent elderly people from freezing during the winter. If we had insulated homes when they were built, as we are advocating, perhaps we would not have needed this debate. We should ensure that everyone’s home is warm. These changes would make a real difference to people’s lives by lowering energy costs, improving public health and tackling the climate crisis head-on.
It is time we delivered homes fit for the future and homes for the heatless, supporting those who are struggling to make ends meet. It is time, through our environmental standards for the building of new homes, to make our isles greener, fairer and thriving for everyone. I emphasise that, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, we must think about the long-term cost of the homes that we build, not the cost of building them today.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) on securing this debate, and I congratulate other Members on their contributions. The issues raised in the debate have helped to illustrate the complexities inherent in housing environmental standards. We know that the UK has probably—or certainly among—the oldest housing stock of any developed country, and we know about the complexity of housing tenure in the United Kingdom. Freeholder-owned buildings that are often occupied by a combination of leaseholders and tenants continue to be a challenge to Governments of all parties, when it comes to introducing the required updates and retrofits. In the context of housing development—1.4 million units of new housing already have planning consent in the United Kingdom—developers’ feedback on, for example, the cost of solar panels as a barrier to bringing forward new housing remains an active part of the debate.
Governments of all parties have made strenuous efforts over the years to improve the quality of housing, including several aspects of its environmental impact. The 2018 update to energy performance certificates, with a view to setting a deadline of 2025 for all rental properties placed on the market to meet a certain minimum standard, was an example of a Government intervention that aimed to raise standards. Some of the challenges for which the housing retrofit and building sectors have advocated have led Governments to feel that it was necessary to think again. No issue illustrates the complexities more clearly than the point that has been made about nutrient neutrality, something for which decision-making is essentially delegated to a third party under legislation that goes back to the mid-2000s. Central Government’s desire to minimise the environmental impact of development on surface water and waterways has led to significant delays in the delivery of new housing projects. I was going to quote the former leader of South Norfolk council—previously in the Public Gallery—who, in his capacity as a councillor, challenged the impact that that was having on the ability of local authorities to deliver new housing through the planning process, because of the delays in getting decisions made and permissions agreed. As the local authority bringing forward housing, if a site is not viable because of its environmental impact, it is clearly necessary then to be able to make a decision to move forward with other sites. It is clear that the planning process does not always support that decision making.
It is also noteworthy that the Innovate UK study, which looked at the real-world emissions of properties versus the intended emissions and those expected from the design estimates, identified that emissions were on average between two and three times higher than those that would have been expected from the design. I appreciate that Ministers in the new Government, like Ministers in previous Governments, face the challenge that we can do things that sound brilliant in theory, only to discover that how they operate in the real world does not meet the aspirations we all strive for.
I know the hon. Member for North Herefordshire previously served as a Member of the European Parliament. It is worth referring to the recent decision, outlined in a written ministerial statement, that from this period the intended deadline by which all building materials had to meet UK standards updated in 2018 would be set aside, and that products that met the CE standard would instead remain able to be sold into the UK market for an indefinite period. That may be an issue for fire standards; because the European Union standards on fire performance were last updated in 2015, they form part of that regulation, whereas the UK standards were updated in 2018.
Those standards also draw on a wide range of different studies and regulations in respect of performance, from damp resistance to energy efficiency. Again, it would be helpful for the Minister to set out for the benefit of Members present his expectation that those standards will meet the aspirations set out in the 2018 update of UK standards—I have confidence that that will be the case. Then we can be confident that the products sold into the UK market will meet the energy efficiency aspirations that Members have set out, and ensure that those products and materials contribute towards creating high-quality homes that fulfil the important expectations of warmth, absence of damp and the accessibility of fresh air that have been set out.
The national planning policy framework updates in prospect afford a further opportunity to consider how those requirements can be better enshrined in planning law. I appreciate that Ministers have a difficult challenge: the national planning policy framework has something like 19 chapters of detailed guidance. Each local authority is then required to put together its local plan, following public examination, in detailed conformity with each of those 19 chapters. The impact of that, its interaction with local environmental impacts such as surface water runoff, and any requirements for the design and nature of the materials used, in conformity with established local practices, all combine to create a significant challenge.
If the aspirations set out by Members are to be seen in practice, we must make it as straightforward as possible for local authorities to exercise their community leadership role. Rather than having to go through lengthy and expensive processes to demonstrate in planning law that that conformity is present, we must ensure that the standards can be implemented as quickly as possible.
I know the Minister, and other Members who have been in office for some time, will be aware that past Government initiatives, such as those around green homes, although sensible in principle in seeking to make Government funding for retrofit available to households as quickly as possible, have led to significant challenges in their administration. That is especially true where, for example, a business that has been licensed and approved to carry out the retrofit of those initiatives then loses that licence between the time when it has done work on a constituent’s home and the point when the invoice is paid.
The rules and regulations around that area need to ensure that it is as straightforward as possible for all constituents to make the right choice in buying a home, knowing that it meets the highest possible environmental standards, or in deciding to invest in their home in a way that will genuinely reduce running costs and improve the quality of the insulation. In practice, that must fulfil the aspirations the Government set out in allocating the funding.
Finally, it is a source of pride that under Governments of all parties, the UK has seen the biggest per capita carbon reduction from its residents—our constituents —since the carbon reduction target was first brought forward in the 1990s. It is very good that we have managed to achieve that. We have done it through a variety of measures, not just in the housing sector, but, given the significant part that emissions from the housing sector play in our carbon emissions, there is a clear opportunity for the environmental standards that have been thoroughly aired in this debate to play a significant role in how we address this challenge in future.
I can undertake that the Opposition will work constructively over this Parliament, where we can see the opportunity, with Government and other parties to support the implementation of standards and measures that will help to deliver that agenda.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
It is pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer.
I am grateful for the opportunity to close this important debate on environmental standards for new housing on behalf of the Government. I start by adding my congratulations to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) on securing this debate and on the way she led it. I thought her speech was a real tour de force. I could not really believe that it was the first debate she has led in this place, because she spoke with admirable clarity and power. I have to say that is not how I remember speaking in my first Westminster Hall debate seven years ago. In the spirit of the clarity with which she spoke, I will seek to address the points she raised in turn.
I also want to mention the contribution from the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), with its thoughtful and well-pitched tone about the importance of bringing people with us, so that people see this as a good and positive thing in their life and are partners in the process, rather than net zero being something that happens to them. That is really important for us, as leaders in our own communities, and for the country.
We are mindful of the fact that the homes we build today will shape the environmental landscape for generations to come. The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) talked about not putting burdens on future generations. The choices we make shape the built environment that our children will inherit. It is with that long-term perspective that the Government remain steadfast in the commitment to achieving net zero by 2050. The energy efficiency of our buildings and the standards we set to drive that efficiency are instrumental in realising that goal.
Of course, we are acting in the context of an inherited housing crisis and our banner commitment, made during the election, to build 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament. Again, ensuring that those homes meet the needs of homeowners and contribute positively to the environment is not a luxury: high environmental standards are a necessity. Those two goals must not be seen as being in competition, but rather as mutually supportive, because the decarbonisation of new buildings is a vital part of net zero efforts.
From homes to offices, the UK’s built environment is responsible for about 30% of our greenhouse gas emissions. By improving energy efficiency and moving to cleaner sources of heat, we can reduce those emissions now and in the future and, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage said, create warmer, healthier homes, protecting future generations from the impacts of climate change. But there are very real consequences of rising energy costs in the here and now, and the job of Government is to find the balance between getting those homes built, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said, and doing so in a way that is realisable. In many ways, that is our challenge.
I turn to the five points the hon. Member for North Herefordshire raised. First, with regard to future homes and building standards, we are clear in our commitment to introduce new standards next year that will set homes and buildings on a path away from the use of volatile fossil fuels. Those homes will be future-proofed, with low-carbon heating and high levels of building fabric standards, which I know she is interested in. That will ensure that they do not require retrofitting to become zero carbon as the electricity grid continues to decarbonise, which speaks again to the point made by the hon. Member for Guildford.
The previous Government published a consultation in December, which closed in March. We are a new Government—I hate to say it, but it is true—and have been going for only a little more than two months, so we are looking at that very carefully. In her written question to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety and her contribution today, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire stressed the need for a response and was keen to know when it will be. I am afraid I have to tell her that it will be in due course. We are talking to the industry and the public, and we want to ensure the standards we set are ambitious and achievable.
The hon. Lady mentioned local authorities, and I can give her clarity on that point. Plan makers’ powers have not been restricted. The Planning and Energy Act 2008 allows plan makers to set energy efficiency standards at a local level that go beyond national building regulation standards, but that must be done in a way that is consistent with national policy. That is the balance that local decision makers will have to strike, but they have that ability.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the written ministerial statement and said that she wants clarity about its future. I am afraid that it is currently subject to judicial review, and as a result I cannot say very much about it at this time.
Calum Miller
I am grateful to the Minister for addressing my comments and those of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns). On local authorities’ powers, will he consider issuing a new written ministerial statement in advance of the new housing standards to clarify the one published on 13 December 2023 by the previous Government, which threw some of the efforts by local authorities to raise standards into disarray?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that question. I cannot make that commitment to the hon. Member today. I hope the assurance I have given has demonstrated that there is a pretty clear landing zone for local authorities, but it must work within national standards. I also make the point, as others have, that the future homes standard consultation has come to a close, and we are consulting on the national planning policy framework. So there are some moving plates in the current setting of standards and we must be mindful of them.
The second point that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made was about embodied carbon. As we make progress on solar panels, heat pumps and all the other ways to reduce operational carbon emissions, we will see emissions fall in buildings, and therefore embodied carbon will make up proportionally more of a building’s whole-life carbon emissions. We are committed to understanding the scale of the challenge as part of our broader efforts to decarbonise the construction sector. It is vital that we encourage industry to reduce embodied carbon by choosing lower-carbon, but still high-quality, materials. That requires a fundamental shift in design and construction, and that is why we are pushing so hard to encourage the adoption of more efficient design practices that minimise waste, which the hon. Member for Guildford mentioned, and make better use of low-carbon materials such as timber. There are some very exciting new technologies in that space. Where it is safe to do so, higher-carbon materials will be gradually replaced along the way.
The third point that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made was about solar panels, and this is where we may slightly differ. The Government’s judgment is that we should set targets with regard to performance—what is the energy performance of the new home? Solar panels may well be part of that, but for some buildings they will not be suitable. As a result, if the choice is primarily solar, we miss out on a whole array of innovations that can help those homes reduce their carbon footprint, and there is a risk to cost-effectiveness. As I say, we are goal-oriented, rather than method-oriented.
The hon. Lady mentioned biodiversity net gain. We should recognise and build on the work that the previous Government did in this space. We see this—I think they did too—as a real opportunity as we address our urgent housing needs. We owe it to future generations to ensure that development leaves the natural environment in a measurably better state than it was. That is now mandatory for new applications for developments: all new developments, with limited exceptions, will be required to deliver at least 10% measurable net gain. The hon. Lady spoke about 1.5 million bird and bat boxes, but I would not want to be quite as prescriptive as that. We expect to see net gain, whether through the creation or enhancement of habitats on or off site, or through the purchase of registered biodiversity units on the new open market. We are working very hard with the sector to make sure that it realises those brilliant opportunities.
Let me turn to the hon. Lady’s fifth point, which was on resilience and water. As the Minister for local resilience, among a number of things, that was of particular interest to me. Immediately prior to the debate, I took part in the inaugural meeting of the flood resilience taskforce, which seeks to bring together partners to reduce the number and the impact of floods. I know from having dealt with constituents that having your house flooded is one of the very worst things that can happen to you, short of losing your life or losing a loved one, because you live with the impact of it for so long.
We have a responsibility to make sure that development does not contribute to greater flooding, and the planning system is at the heart of that. We must ensure that development is in areas at the lowest risk of flooding and that it uses sustainable drainage systems to mimic natural systems and to slow the flow of surface waters. The current consultation on proposed reforms to the NPPF is seeking views, and we would be interested to hear from colleagues on that. It is a big opportunity.
The hon. Lady also mentioned water. Safeguarding the water supply is crucial to meeting our climate obligations. As we undertake consultations, we are actively looking at options relating to water efficiency in planning and building regulations. We are developing guidance on water-positive and net zero water developments and on how to integrate water efficiency into energy efficiency and retrofit programmes.
To make a quick point about the NPPF, the planning system is critical to delivering sustainable development that aligns with climate goals. Our NPPF reform marks an important milestone in that journey. Our consultation is seeking views on how planning policy can better support the industry to adapt. We hope to get that feedback, and we will consider any and all contributions.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, made a point about product standards to me for the fourth time in the past 24 hours. I can give him clarity that nothing in that statement from 2 September is about the reduction of standards—far from it. I reiterate the commitment I made yesterday that the Minister for building safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), will write to him with further detail.
While building the homes this country needs to tackle the housing crisis, we will ensure that our climate change commitments are met. We will set high energy-efficiency standards, ensure water efficiency, secure biodiversity net gain and deliver flood-resilient developments as we lay the foundations of a sustainable future. We will ensure that everyone has access to a decent, warm and affordable home. That will be one of the standards by which this Parliament is measured and one of the ways in which our adherence to the manifesto on which we were elected is measured, too. We are actively doing that work. I am grateful to colleagues who want us to go further and faster, and that pressure is welcome. I look forward to working with all colleagues as we go along that journey.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister for his response and all colleagues for their very constructive contributions. I heard a lot of common ground from Liberal Democrat colleagues, and I welcome that. Indeed, there was an offer from my Conservative colleague, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), to work constructively wherever common ground can be found, so let us look for that, shall we?
The Minister made a point on goal orientation versus activity orientation. I reassure him firmly that I am focused on outcomes and performance, not on performativity. That is compatible with a view that all new houses should have solar panels on the roof as a default. There may indeed be one or two cases where it is not appropriate, but it is not an either/or. He seemed to suggest that if we put solar panels on, we might miss out on insulation—I am paraphrasing slightly—but we ought to be doing both/and. It is about doing everything that we can to ensure that homes are as energy efficient as possible and, indeed, that they generate as much of their own energy as possible. Let us get all those i’s dotted and t’s crossed in the forthcoming future homes standards.
On being goal-oriented, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned—though he did not use these exact words—post-occupancy evaluation. That is crucial. There is no use setting standards if we do not enforce them and evaluate whether a building has achieved them. I know that many in the sector are quite frustrated that developers may say they are building something to a certain standard, but unless it is evaluated according to how it operates in real life, we will not know. There is an urgent need for an independent inspectorate to make sure that buildings are performing as designed.
I will finish by reiterating a point that came out in my initial speech and in other contributions: this is about thinking for the long term, and it is about the triple win that I talked about. This is not just about environmental protection, vital though that is to tackle the climate and nature crises. It is about making sure that every new home built is a warm home, so that every person who moves into those homes can keep warm and healthy at an affordable cost—at the least cost possible. This is a social goal.
It is also about recognising the opportunity that this sort of economic renewal policy offers the Government in order to achieve their goals of generating good jobs and so forth, and to strengthen the UK’s position in these crucial sectors. With the green new deal and the economic transformation that we need to see globally, let us take the opportunity and be at the forefront of this, using the Government’s excellent ambitions to build new homes as a chance to kick-start the industries of the future, including construction. There are fantastic entities, such as the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering in Herefordshire with its centre for innovation in timber technology, which the Minister just referenced.
There are lots of opportunities for innovation, so let us grab them with both hands. Let us build the homes that people deserve in this country and fix the problem of environmental standards for new housing having been too low for too long. This is the opportunity to change that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered environmental standards for new housing.
Written Statements
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Procurement Act 2023
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
The Procurement Act 2023 aims to create a simpler and more transparent regime for public sector procurement that will deliver better value for money, and reduce costs for business and the public sector. This Government will use this legal framework to deliver greater value for money and improved social value, which will help raise standards, drive economic growth and open up public procurement to new entrants such as small businesses and social enterprises.
Under the Act, the previous Administration published a national procurement policy statement to which contracting authorities will have to have regard. But this statement does not meet the challenge of applying the full potential of public procurement to deliver value for money, economic growth, and social value. I have therefore taken the decision to begin the vital work of producing a new national procurement policy statement that clearly sets out this Government’s priorities for public procurement in support of our missions.
It is crucial that the new regime in the Procurement Act goes live with a bold and ambitious statement that drives delivery of the Government’s missions, and therefore I am proposing a short delay to the commencement of the Act to February 2025 so this work can be completed. I am confident that the extra time to prepare will allow for a more seamless transition, ensuring a smoother and more effective implementation process for both contracting authorities and suppliers.
Letters to withdraw the previous Administration’s statement will be issued to both Houses shortly and the Government intend to make regulations to set a new date for the commencement of the Procurement Act 2023 of 24 February 2025.
I have also written to the relevant Ministers in the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Executive seeking their agreement to the new date and assuring them of my commitment to working together in implementing the Procurement Act.
[HCWS90]
Fiscal Risks and Sustainability Report
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
This Government’s No. 1 mission is to grow the economy. Sustainable public finances support the stability necessary for a successful economy; the stability that allows a family to buy their own home, for a business to thrive and for a Government to invest in public services. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s fiscal risks and sustainability report (CP 1142) laid today and based on the previous Government’s spring Budget policies, shows the substantial longer-term challenges to the sustainability of the public finances.
As set out in the public spending audit (CP 1133) laid in July, the previous Government left a challenging fiscal inheritance, with a projected overspend of £22 billion. This Government have already taken action to begin fixing the foundations, including £5.5 billion in public spending savings for 2024-25. Further difficult decisions will be needed at the autumn Budget across spending, welfare and tax in order to meet the fiscal rules and to support sustainable economic growth. This is the responsible thing to do to fix the foundations of our economy and bring back economic stability.
Sustained economic growth is the only route to the improved prosperity that the UK needs. Had the UK grown at the average rate of other OECD economies over the last 13 years, the economy would have been over £140 billion larger and this could have brought in an additional £58 billion in tax revenues in the last year alone. Growth is therefore this Government’s defining mission, and one pillar underpinning this mission is stability. Economic stability will allow us to grow the economy, maintain sustainable public finances, and keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible.
Economic stability requires respecting the institutions that are guarantors of our stability and we have already demonstrated our commitment to strengthening independent institutions, including the OBR. In July, I announced the most significant set of changes to our fiscal framework since the inception of the OBR. This included introducing the Budget Responsibility Act, ensuring that any major future fiscal announcements will be subject to an independent assessment by the OBR, as well as confirming that spending reviews will take place every two years with a minimum duration of three years in order to improve value for money and the planning of public expenditure, and to provide greater budgetary certainty. The Government are also committed to robust fiscal rules that will ensure the public finances are always managed responsibly.
The FRS— fiscal risks and sustainability report—builds on previous years’ analysis, examining the risks posed to the public finances by climate change damage, health spending and debt sustainability. The OBR’s analysis shows that the UK will face significant costs from climate-related damage, even in a scenario where the UK and the rest of the world continue with current mitigation commitments. The costs would be more severe if these commitments are not met, which is why one of the Government’s missions is to make the UK a clean energy superpower. The Government have already acted to remove the de-facto ban on onshore wind, approve three major solar projects and significantly increase the budget for the sixth contracts for difference round. The Government will work with the private sector through the newly founded Great British Energy, capitalised with £8.3 billion. Preparing for the future also means adapting to the effects of climate change. Without action, flooding, coastal erosion and other climate hazards will pose greater risks to lives, livelihoods and people’s wellbeing. The Government will explore how to further strengthen our approach to developing the country’s resilience to climate change, working to improve resilience and preparation across central Government, local authorities, local communities, and emergency services.
The FRS sets out that rising health spending is forecast to be the single most important driver of public debt increasing over the next 50 years. It also shows that a healthier population brings economic and fiscal benefits. The health mission will ensure that we build an NHS fit for the future that is there when people need it, with fewer lives lost to the biggest health-related killers, in a fairer Britain where everyone lives well for longer.
The final chapter of the report assesses the UK’s debt sustainability. Public debt is projected to reach 274% of GDP in 2073-74, based on a number of long-term spending pressures and the previous Government’s policies remaining unchanged. However, boosting the productive potential of the economy can help to reduce this rise in debt, with the OBR’s analysis showing that every 0.1% increase in annual productivity growth would reduce the increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio by 25 percentage points. A full one percentage point increase in annual productivity growth to 2.5%, equivalent to a return to pre-financial crisis rates of productivity growth, could keep debt below 100% of GDP throughout the next 50 years. This underlines the importance of tackling the UK’s weak productivity performance through the Government’s growth mission. Since the launch of the growth mission in July, the Government have wasted no time in making progress and have already announced several growth-enhancing policies, guided by the principles of stability, investment and reform.
Economic shocks have been the most significant driver of rising debt in recent years. Through the spending review process, the Government will take forward work on a number of priority themes, including a greater focus on long-termism and prevention, to improve the resilience of the economy to future shocks.
The FRS highlights the challenging fiscal outlook faced by this and future Governments, and underlines the importance of growth and stability. I am grateful to the staff of the OBR for the work and expertise that has gone into this report, which fulfils the body’s obligations in the “Charter for Budget Responsibility” to examine and report on the sustainability of, and risks to, the public finances. The Government will respond to the FRS in the spring.
[HCWS95]
AUKUS Strategic Partnership
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
AUKUS is a groundbreaking strategic defence and security partnership, and a clear demonstration of our long-term commitment to supporting the security and stability of the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. Given an increasingly unpredictable, interconnected landscape, with a war in Europe and rising tensions in the middle east, partnerships with our closest allies are vital to deterring our adversaries and maintaining that strategic advantage. The following statement is to update the House on AUKUS developments since this Government were elected.
Built on decades of integration, sharing and co-operation on defence and technology between our three nations, it is particularly significant that we secured landmark export control changes to benefit AUKUS partners last month. This marks a historic breakthrough in defence trade collaboration between AUKUS nations that will streamline future co-operation, create jobs and boost growth.
On 16 August 2024, the Government published the UK’s AUKUS nations open general licence. Combined with a new exemption to the US international traffic in arms regulations for the UK and Australia, alongside further national exemptions for the UK and US in Australia’s export control framework, this is a milestone moment in deepening the potential of our tri-nation partnership. Taken together, these changes will significantly ease our licencing requirements for the export and sharing of certain defence products within and between the UK, US and Australia, including advanced capabilities, technical data, and defence services.
These groundbreaking reforms will facilitate faster and more efficient collaboration between our scientists, engineers, and defence industries. These changes alone will support up to £500 million in UK defence exports each year, generating billions of dollars of trade across all three nations—improving access to international trade with our closest allies, while driving economic growth in communities across the UK.
We can also report further progress in delivering on the ambitious pathway to support Australia’s acquisition of a conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability.
On 5 August 2024, AUKUS partners signed a trilateral agreement on co-operation related to naval nuclear propulsion. This is a significant step that will facilitate the sharing of submarine naval nuclear propulsion information between partners as well as enabling the future transfer of material and equipment to Australia for the safe and secure construction, operation and sustainment of this important capability. The agreement was laid in Parliament on 2 September 2024, as part of the UK ratification process; it is undergoing similar processes in the US and Australia.
This agreement reaffirms and is consistent with partners’ respective non-proliferation commitments. Our co-operation will continue to be undertaken in a way that is fully consistent with our international obligations and sets the highest non-proliferation standard while protecting classified and controlled information, material and equipment.
As part of our and the US’s support to Australia, AUKUS partners commenced the submarine tendered maintenance period at HMAS Stirling in Australia on 23 August 2024. This represents another important advance for the partnership, with Australian personnel, supported by a US submarine tender and observed by Royal Navy officers, participating for the first time in the maintenance of a nuclear-powered submarine, to ensure Australia are on track to operate, maintain and regulate their future conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine capability.
AUKUS is making significant progress. As AUKUS is a long-term strategic partnership, it is appropriate that this Government consider how best to deliver on the UK’s considerable ambition for AUKUS and to maximise the benefits of this national endeavour.
To capitalise on the full suite of economic and security benefits of AUKUS, Sir Stephen Lovegrove has been appointed as the UK Government’s AUKUS adviser, to assess UK progress against AUKUS goals. Sir Stephen has invaluable experience, having served as permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence and as national security adviser at the time of the AUKUS announcement in September 2021.
The AUKUS report will be completed rapidly and will set out any existing barriers to success, alongside areas of opportunity the UK could be taking advantage of, ensuring defence and economic benefits are properly considered. Sir Stephen’s findings will be presented to the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor, with the report’s conclusions reflected in the broader strategic defence review already under way.
AUKUS is the most significant defence, security, and diplomatic arrangement the UK has entered in the past 60 years. This Government are fully committed to this national endeavour, working with partners, stakeholders and industry to achieve the maximum economic and security benefits possible, while upholding stability, peace, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.
[HCWS92]
Exercise of Powers over the Office for Nuclear Regulation
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
My noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has today made the following statement:
Later today, the annual report to Parliament setting out the use of the Secretary of State’s powers exercised in respect of the Office for Nuclear Regulation during the year will be published. This is in accordance with section 108(1) of the Energy Act 2013.
[HCWS88]
Grangemouth Oil Refinery: Jobs
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
It is deeply disappointing to learn that Petroineos has confirmed its previous decision to close the oil refining operation at Grangemouth. All of my thoughts are with the workers and their families and the wider Grangemouth community. The site will now convert to an import terminal, which will continue to provide a secure and flexible fuel supply for Scotland.
The Government will stand with the workforce in these difficult times. That is why we are announcing a package of investment to help the workforce find good, alternative jobs, invest in the community and deliver a viable industrial future for the Grangemouth site, with potential for future support from the national wealth fund.
Since taking office, I have taken joint action with the Scottish Government to urgently engage with the company and its shareholders, leaving no stone unturned to find a viable long-term future for the site. As it is clear that there is no viable commercial future for the current refinery operations, the UK and Scottish Governments have today announced a package that seeks to chart a new future for Grangemouth. This includes:
£100 million package for Falkirk and Grangemouth, including £20 million in joint funding from the UK and Scottish Governments announced today, on top of £80 million in joint funding from the two Governments for the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal. This funding will support the community and its workers, investing in local energy projects to create new opportunities for growth in the region.
Investment in the site’s long-term future. The £1.5 million joint-funded Project Willow study has identified a shortlist of three credible options to begin building a new long-term industry at the refinery site, including low-carbon hydrogen, clean efuels and sustainable aviation fuels. We will work with the community to seek a commercially viable proposition, with the potential for future support from the national wealth fund.
Immediate career support for workers. The UK and Scottish Governments will provide tailored support that will help affected workers in finding new employment—and Grangemouth will be among the first areas that the new office for clean energy jobs will work with to help deliver a just transition.
Alongside the Scottish Government, I will also be holding an extraordinary meeting of the Grangemouth Future Industry Board today to discuss next steps with local industry leaders, Falkirk council, and trade bodies and unions.
[HCWS96]
Hong Kong: Six-monthly Report
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
The latest six-monthly report on the implementation of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong was published today and is attached. It covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2024. The report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. A copy is also available on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/six-monthly-report-on-hong-kong-january-to-june-2024.
I commend the report to the House.
The attachment can be viewed online at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-09-12/HCWS94.
[HCWS94]
Food and Drink: Advertising Restrictions
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I wish to update the House on the Government’s progress on delivering our manifesto commitment to implement restrictions on junk food advertising on TV and online.
The country wants to see our broken NHS fixed. Our health mission makes it clear that this requires a prevention revolution, tackling the drivers of preventable illness and reducing demand on health services. One of these pressures is the childhood obesity crisis, setting up children for an unhealthy life and generating yet greater pressures on the NHS. More than one in five children in England are overweight or living with obesity by the time they start primary school, and this rises to more than one third by the time they leave. We want to tackle the problem head-on, and that includes implementing the restrictions on junk food advertising on TV and online without further delay. We will introduce a 9 pm watershed on TV advertising, and a total ban on paid-for online advertising. These restrictions will help protect children from being exposed to advertising of less healthy food and drinks, which evidence shows influences their dietary preferences from a young age.
I am today confirming that we have published the Government’s response to the 2022 consultation on the draft secondary legislation. This is a key milestone that confirms the definitions for the products, businesses and services in scope of the restrictions. This provides the clarity that businesses have been calling for and will support them to prepare for the restrictions coming into force across the UK on 1 October 2025.
As part of our response, we will clarify how the regulations will apply to internet protocol television, which delivers television live over the internet. Our proposal is to make it clear in the regulations that IPTV services regulated by Ofcom will be subject to the broadcast 9 pm watershed in the same way as other TV and Ofcom-regulated on-demand programme services. This requires clarification within the secondary legislation and, in line with our statutory duty to consult, we are launching a targeted consultation, which is open for four weeks from today.
These steps mean we can move forward to laying the final legislation and publishing guidance. I will provide a further update to the House when the secondary legislation is laid to implement the advertising restrictions on 1 October 2025.
The Government’s response to the 2022 consultation and the IPTV consultation have been published on gov.uk.
[HCWS93]
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The Government have today introduced the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill to the House of Commons.
The Government would like to pay tribute to the 22 victims of the horrific Manchester Arena attack in 2017, and to Figen Murray, mother of one of the victims, Martyn Hett. Her campaigning has been crucial in driving this Bill forward.
Against the backdrop of an increasingly complex, evolving and enduring threat picture, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill will deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to “strengthen the security of public events and venues”.
The Bill seeks to improve protective security and organisational preparedness across the UK. It will require those responsible for certain premises and events to take steps to mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack and reduce harm in the event of a terrorist attack occurring. In addition to this, certain larger premises and events must also take additional steps to reduce the vulnerability of the premises to terrorist attacks.
Through the Bill, qualifying premises and events should be better prepared and ready to respond in the event of a terrorist attack.
Bill development
This Government have reflected on the scrutiny provided throughout the Bill’s development. As well as the extensive engagement that has taken place with security partners, business and victims’ groups including Figen Murray and the Martyn’s law campaign team, the Survivors Against Terror, as well as parliamentarians.
That is why important changes have been made to the Bill to ensure that we can both achieve public protection outcomes and ensure there are no undue burdens on businesses and other organisations:
We have raised the standard tier threshold from 100 to 200, to create a more appropriate scope of the duty;
The “reasonably practicable” standard of requirements, now applicable in both tiers, is designed to allow procedures and measures to be tailored to the specific circumstances of a premises or event. This will enable duty holders to take into consideration what is within their control and the resources they have available to them, as well as what is suitable and appropriate for their premises or event; and
We have removed the requirements for a specific, prescribed form of training and the completion of a mandatory standard terrorism evaluation form—in recognition that a one size fits all approach is not appropriate and could be onerous.
We are confident these changes ensure the Bill is more appropriate whilst still delivering on its core aim of enhancing public safety.
Bill proposals
Scope
A person will be subject to the main requirements of the Bill if they are responsible for a qualifying premises or events.
A person who has control of premises in connection with their relevant schedule 1 use is responsible for qualifying premises. For example, the operator of an arena or governing body of a school will be responsible for fulfilling the requirements of the Bill at their respective premises.
A person who will have control of the premises at which an event is to be held in connection with their use for the event will be responsible for a qualifying event.
Control over premises has been utilised in other regulatory regimes, such as fire safety.
Standard duty premises
The Bill establishes a tiered approach linked to the activity that takes place at premises or an event and the number of individuals it is reasonable to expect may be present on the premises at the same time.
Persons responsible for a standard duty premises, i.e. qualifying premises where it is reasonable to expect that between 200 and 799 individuals may be present at the same time, will be required to:
Notify the regulator of their premises; and
Put in place appropriate and reasonably practicable public protection procedures, as set out in clause 5 of the Bill.
These procedures are to be followed by people working at the premises if an act of terrorism was to occur at the premises or in the immediate vicinity, which may be expected to reduce the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals. This includes ensuring there are procedures in place to provide information to individuals on the premises and to evacuate, invacuate or lockdown the premises.
The requirements for standard duty premises are focused on simple, low-cost activities surrounding policies and procedures, which are to be followed by staff in the event of terrorist attack or suspected terrorist attack occurring. The aim of these requirements is to improve staff preparedness and responses. There is no requirement to put in place physical measures in this tier. Furthermore, the reasonably practicable element will enable standard duty premises to tailor their approach to the resources they have available.
Enhanced duty premises and qualifying events
“Enhanced duty premises” and “qualifying events” are premises or events where it is reasonable to expect that 800 or more individuals may be present on the premises or attend the event at the same time. In addition to the same procedures as standard duty premises, persons responsible for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events will be required to:
Notify the regulator of their premises/event;
Put in place appropriate and reasonably practicable public protection measures that could be expected to reduce both the vulnerability of the premises or event to an act of terrorism occurring at the location, and the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals if an attack was to occur there or nearby. For example, an enhanced duty premises will be required, insofar as reasonably practicable, to implement measures relating to the monitoring of the premises and their immediate vicinity;
Document the public protection procedures and measures in place, or proposed to put in place, and provide this document to the regulator. This document should include an assessment as to how those procedures and measures may be expected to reduce, so far as is reasonably practicable, vulnerability and risk of harm.
Where the responsible person for an enhanced duty premises or qualifying event is not an individual, they must appoint an individual as a designated senior individual with responsibility for ensuring that the relevant requirements are met.
Special categorisations and exemptions
There will be some limited exclusions and exemptions from the Bill’s requirements, in particular where premises are already subject to existing requirements to consider and mitigate threats that achieve comparable security outcomes.
All places of worship will be placed into the standard tier where there are 200 or more individuals present at the same time—even if that number is 800 or greater. The Government consider it is appropriate that such places of worship take forward the standard duty procedures. However, places of worship are different to other premises in scope, in being readily accessible and welcoming to all, without the same commercial drivers as other premises, usually having no restrictions on entry, or staff routinely present. The Government recognise this, and will continue its work with faith communities to respect the unique nature of places of worship and how they operate, whilst considering how we can support them to reduce their vulnerability to terrorism and hate crime. This includes developing measures to better mitigate threats through local police engagement and Government-funded work programmes.
Primary, secondary and further education establishments have been placed within the standard tier even if their capacity is greater than 800 individuals. Existing safety and safeguarding requirements at these establishments mean they have a range of appropriate security procedures and access controls measures in place.
However, premises belonging to higher education institutions (e.g. universities) could be in either tier, depending on the number of individuals that can reasonably be expected on the relevant premises. This is because they are, in the main, more freely accessible and so should be subject to the full requirements of the Bill.
The regulator
The Bill establishes a regulator to oversee and enforce compliance of the Bill’s requirements. This regulator will operate as a new function of the Security Industry Authority.
As an arm’s length body, the Security Industry Authority is operationally independent of the Home Office whilst being accountable to Home Office Ministers. Because the Security Industry Authority is an existing Home Office public safety regulator, we assess that this is the most appropriate way to deliver this critical function. Utilising an existing arm’s length body also follows the Cabinet Office guidance and precedent set across Government for establishing new regulators. With its years of experience in inspection and enforcement around public safety at venues, alongside the work it already does with our security partners to promote best practice around counter terrorism protective security.
Sanctions and enforcement
Compliance with the Bill’s requirements will be overseen by the Security Industry Authority. The core principle of the regulator’s activity will be to support, advise and guide those responsible for premises and events in meeting the requirements of this legislation. Due to the severity of the risk posed by terrorism, it is important that the Security Industry Authority has the necessary tools to investigate suspected non-compliance and, where it is found, remedy serious or persistent non-compliance.
To that end, the Security Industry Authority will have powers to issue a range of civil sanctions such as monetary penalties. Due to the seriousness of some actions and in line with other regimes, the Bill also includes a limited number of underpinning criminal offences—for example, it will be a criminal offence to impersonate an inspector.
The Security Industry Authority must set any penalty at an amount that is reasonable and proportionate and take into account a range of factors including—but not limited to—an organisation’s ability to pay.
The Bill also makes amendments to the Licensing Act 2003 and the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to protect premises plans from being used for the purposes of terrorism.
Dedicated guidance and support will be provided for duty holders to ensure that those in scope have the required information on what to do and how best to do it.
Next steps
We believe it is now time that this cross-party commitment to improve the safety and security of venues in the wake of the Manchester Arena attack is delivered without further delay. The public rightly deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events and we see it as reasonable that, in many locations, they should take appropriate, reasonably practicable steps to protect staff and the public from the horrific impacts and effects of terrorism.
I look forward to engaging with Members in Parliament on this important piece of legislation. I will be holding a drop-in session in due course, should they wish to learn more about the Bill, and would be happy to answer any of their questions. Details will be provided shortly.
The Bill and accompanying documents will be available online here https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3765 and further information, including factsheets on the key elements of the Bill, will be available on gov.uk here www.gov.uk/government/collections/terrorism-protection-of-premises-bill-2024.
[HCWS98]
Data and Digital Infrastructure: Security and Resilience
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
The security and resilience of the UK’s data and digital infrastructure are of central importance to the Government’s strategic objectives. This statement provides two updates on the Government’s approach to safeguarding connectivity and the foundations of the digital economy.
Designating UK data infrastructure as critical national infrastructure
Data infrastructure—the physical data centres and cloud infrastructure which provide the foundations of the digital economy—faces significant risks and challenges that threaten the day-to-day lives of citizens and other critical infrastructure in the UK. We are today taking a significant step to meet these challenges by designating UK data infrastructure as critical national infrastructure, putting our digital foundations in the same category as energy and water.
Data infrastructure underpins essential services that are critical to the UK economy and our way of life and will only become more vital as technologies like AI require greater data centre and cloud capacity. The data it contains is highly valuable, and as such attracts security threats from cyber and physical attacks. Data centres are also vulnerable to the effects of climate change, which is increasing the risk of environmental hazards like flooding, heatwaves, and other extreme weather that can disrupt operations and result in a compromise or loss of crucial services.
Although the sector already has high standards, CNI designation enables better mitigation of risks the sector faces through an improvement to the Government’s visibility and engagement with the data centre and cloud service industry. It signals the Government’s intention to better partner with the UK’s data infrastructure sector to work together to mitigate these. We will also explore further how to ensure the right conditions are in place to drive necessary capacity expansion to support economic growth and innovation.
As the Department responsible for monitoring, protecting and enhancing the security and resilience of data infrastructure, the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology will be working to better understand industry operators’ existing risk mitigations and identify areas for Government support. Data infrastructure will be managed under existing cross-Government CNI structures led by the Cabinet Office, as a sub-sector of communications. We will work closely in a joined-up approach with internal colleagues, other Government Departments and their respective CNI sectors, such as energy and water, contributing to cross-sector work and planning.
I am confident that these measures, taken together and implemented in close consultation with industry, will provide a high level of security and resilience for this increasingly critical infrastructure, giving confidence to the public and investors, and supporting the growth of the UK economy.
Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council report
In addition, I want to thank the independent Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council, who will today publish a new report setting out recommendations to Government on telecoms diversification policy.
A healthy and diverse supply chain for the technology that goes into our telecoms networks is essential for resilience—ensuring that UK network operators can deliver good, reliable connectivity for all. Concentration of that supply chain into a very small number of companies means the UK network is more vulnerable to disruption and means that outages, when they occur, may have greater impact. It is important that we take action to address this, working closely with international partners and allies.
I will review the Council’s recommendations carefully and will provide a Government response and update to this House on our efforts to maintain secure telecoms networks, supported by a healthy, diverse supply chain. I value the ongoing collaboration of the technology vendors and UK operators that have been engaging productively with Government on this matter.
A copy of the report will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
I look forward to continuing work to strengthen, secure and expand our data and digital infrastructure, working with stakeholders across the economy and international partners.
[HCWS89]
Bus Retrofit Performance Report
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)
Today, I am providing an update regarding the retrofitting of buses with selective catalytic reduction—SCR—technology to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides.
Through a series of trials between 2013 and 2015, the previous Government explored the potential of reducing emissions or improving fuel economy in older buses and other large vehicles through a range of retrofit technologies. Retrofitting SCR technology was found to be the most effective in reducing the levels of NOx emitted from older buses. Allowing for some variation based on the Euro standard of the retrofitted bus, the reduction of NOx using SCR technology in trials averaged around 90%.
The clean vehicle retrofit accreditation scheme—CVRAS—was launched in 2017 to accredit retrofit technologies that could reduce NOx emissions from buses to close to Euro VI levels. Between 2017 and 2019, £64 million was allocated to the clean bus technology fund for bus upgrades and retrofits. A further £31 million was provided to local authorities in the Government’s NO2 programme. Approximately 9,000 buses in England have been retrofitted with CVRAS-accredited SCR technology.
In 2021, the Government were made aware of new evidence from Scotland suggesting that real-world emission reductions from retrofitted buses were lower than expected. In 2022, a roadside monitoring campaign was commissioned to measure NOx emissions from retrofitted buses in three areas in England, which reported in early 2023. The findings were similar to those in Scotland. Government funding for bus retrofits was paused in April 2023 while further research was carried out to understand the causes of poor performance and assess the scope for improvement.
The research was overseen by the Department for Transport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chief scientific advisers, assisted by an external independent expert group. Today I have placed the bus retrofit performance report, containing the findings of this research, in the Libraries of both Houses. The performance report was commissioned by the Government and finalised in November 2023. In the interest of transparency, I am releasing the report today.
The report concludes that the real-world performance of bus retrofit SCR technology is highly variable, achieving 80% to 90% NOx reductions in some cases, but having a minimal effect in others. There is an average 11% reduction in NOx emissions overall from retrofitted buses, compared with non-retrofitted Euro V buses, which is significantly lower than the 80% reduction anticipated.
The research shows that a number of contributing factors can lead to poor performance, including the incorrect functioning of retrofit systems, the condition of bus engines and low catalyst operating temperatures. Based on these findings, I am announcing today a permanent end to further Government funding for retrofit and the closure of the clean vehicle retrofit accreditation scheme to further accreditations.
Moving forward, we will work with bus operators and retrofit suppliers to encourage a step change in the monitoring and maintenance of retrofit systems to get the best possible performance from the retrofitted buses currently in service. This will include ensuring that buses are providing live data showing retrofit performance, so that operators and depots can prioritise and target essential maintenance on the poorest-performing buses. Providing this data will be a condition of the buses remaining on the list of CVRAS-accredited vehicles.
Air pollution is the biggest environmental threat to human health, and this Government recognise the need to take preventive public health measures to tackle the biggest killers and support people to live longer, healthier lives. We will continue to work closely with the relevant local authorities to identify alternative measures to deliver compliance with legal NO2 limits in the shortest possible time.
[HCWS97]
London Luton Airport Development Consent Order: Decision Extension
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)
This statement confirms that it has been necessary to extend the deadline for the decision for the London Luton airport development consent order under the Planning Act 2008.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, a decision must be made within 3 months of receipt of the examining authority’s report unless the power under section 107(3) to extend the deadline is exercised and a statement is made to Parliament announcing the new deadline.
The examining authority’s report on the London Luton airport development consent order application was received on 10 May 2024. The current deadline for a decision is 4 October 2024, having been extended from 10 August 2024 to 4 October 2024 by way of written ministerial statement dated 24 May 2024 available at https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-05-24/hcws506
The deadline for the decision is to be further extended to 3 January 2025—an extension of 3 months. The reason for the extension is to enable the applicant further time to provide requested information, and for that information to be considered, including by interested parties, before the final determination of the application.
The decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the decision on whether to give development consent for the above application.
[HCWS91]
Grand Committee
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
The Grand Committee is now in session.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, opens this debate, I would like to highlight the one-minute speaking time limit for contributions, other than for the noble Baroness or the Minister. I appreciate that this is tight and that many noble Lords will have more to say. It is indeed a reflection of the popularity of the topic. I respectfully ask that all contributions are limited to one minute maximum to protect the time for the Minister’s response.
Public Libraries
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sanderson of Welton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to publish a new strategy for public libraries.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to open today’s debate, first proposed by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. It really is a pleasure to see so many noble Lords, which shows how valued libraries are by so many of us and it does mean contributions will be frustratingly short. As a first question, I wonder: given the clear interest, might the usual channels discuss making time available during this Session for a longer debate on libraries?
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
On to the main business and, even with today’s time limitations, I am sure that we will hear about the many different ways in which libraries can alter the course of people’s lives so, rather than mention that here, I shall just mention the thing that I find so magical about libraries. And that is the fact that, no matter who you are or where you are from, you can walk into any library in the country and ask for help. In return, you will be asked for precisely nothing. There will be no charge and you will never be asked to justify yourself; you will simply be welcomed in. There is no other institution today, be it public or private, which can say the same.
That is something worth preserving so I was delighted, at the request of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, to carry out an independent review of public libraries which would inform a new strategy. The review made eight recommendations, designed to address four clear challenges. I am afraid that I cannot claim any great discoveries here, for they are the exact same challenges that libraries have faced for decades.
I will list them briefly. First, there is a lack of recognition across government—national and local—of the extent of the work that libraries do. Secondly, there is a lack of awareness among the wider public of what the library offers, which partly explains the inconsistency whereby libraries are viewed with great affection—as we can see—and there is a fierce desire to protect them, but this does not always translate into people making proper use of them. Thirdly, there is a lack of comprehensive data on our libraries which has worsened over time. Finally, we need a better sense of what the Government want to see from our libraries. On that final point, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether they are still planning to go ahead with the strategy and, if so, in what timeframe. In the hope that she says yes, I shall highlight some of the recommendations from the review.
The first was the creation of a Libraries Minister, which was enacted by the previous Government. This sent an important signal not just to the sector but to other government departments, where the work of libraries is not always recognised despite it contributing so much to so many different departmental priorities.
Secondly, and crucially, is the creation of a national data hub, similar to that created for the leisure industry, which would capture all the data held by library services. Currently, some data is provided manually, but by only some local authorities. This means that we are lacking even the most basic national overview on library provision—and I do mean basic: opening hours, books borrowed, services used et cetera. This is not helpful to libraries nor, frankly, to government. As I said, we are talking about the most basic data. With a data hub, the dataset would be richer and, if built in the right way, could be used alongside the local government and British Library platforms to provide a more targeted, modern and agile service. In time, it could also help evaluate how libraries contribute to national agendas, which is essential if we want our libraries to thrive.
This will depend on local authorities sharing their data. Crucially, the Local Government Association supports the initiative, and Arts Council England has begun work, with input from DCMS, Libraries Connected, the British Library and CILIP. However, it can be realised only with the support of national government, so can the Minister confirm, either today or in writing, that her department is looking seriously at this? If it is considering other ways of addressing the data black hole, I ask that it plan to consult the sector on the different options, and that these options include a data hub, as this could be as transformative as the national rollout of library wifi a decade ago.
Thirdly, I wish to highlight the ambition to make every child a library member. This has been looked at before but has always run into problems with data protection. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Reading Agency, but that is not why I mention the results of their three-year, cross-authority summer reading challenge pilot, which included the trialling of universal membership to schoolchildren.
Working with libraries and other local authority services, including schools and HAF programmes, the pilot delivered automatic membership in many areas of the country, which was GDPR compliant and reached many disadvantaged children. It created tens of thousands of new library members; the children with automatic membership read more books than in comparator groups; and book issues remained consistently higher across the year for children provided with a library card. Because of the nature of the challenge, it also introduced many new parents and caregivers to the library. This is a significant step forward, with the potential to provide huge benefits to the children and families in most need, so I ask the Minister to look at this, too.
Finally, I wish to mention the creation of a “front door” for those wishing to engage with public libraries. The governance of libraries is like spaghetti junction. DCMS is the policy lead; MHCLG has responsibility for funding; ACE is the development agency; and Libraries Connected, CILIP and ASCEL all support the sector and, alongside the LGA, provide co-ordination and partnership working. It is ferociously complicated.
Although those involved do a fantastic job, it can be difficult for outside organisations to know where to go in the first instance. Many people agree that libraries need more national, big-scale programmes delivered locally, but this will rely on building new, ambitious partnerships across the public and private sectors. The British Library could play a really important convening role in this, as happens in some European countries, since it has stature and reach across the whole of the UK and internationally; indeed, it has already successfully delivered such a programme with its Business & IP Centre network, which provides start-up support and has helped to create more than 18,000 businesses.
When talking about the British Library, we should bear in mind the recent cyberattack—this rightly remains its foremost priority—but the Government could still provide some small, proportionate, extra resource for the British Library to take on the work of building a consensus about what a future front door could look like. Will the Minister look at this and, perhaps, the other recommendations in the review, which reflect the views of the sector after many months of consultation? I take just a moment to thank the officials behind the Minister, who were incredibly helpful in that work.
Finally, I was delighted to see that, in 2011, the current Secretary of State initiated a Westminster Hall debate on the future of libraries. She spoke passionately about the value of libraries in her own constituency and, more generally, she raised the financial pressures that libraries were then under. It is true to say that the pressure is severe—it would be wrong to open this debate without acknowledging that—but I would also say that, during the course of the review and despite the difficult circumstances, it was notable that, where councils valued their libraries and placed them firmly on the assets side, rather than the liability side, of the balance sheet, library services had been protected and improved.
The recommendations in the review purposely did not place further burdens on local authorities. Instead, they focused on improving the infrastructure in ways that could help our libraries to flourish now and into the future. So I hope that the Government are planning to continue with the new strategy and, if so, that the Minister will find at least some of these suggestions useful.
That gives us back a minute and a half.
Baroness Rebuck (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, for her comprehensive review and recommendations, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for commissioning it. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests in the register.
The BBC reported recently that public libraries are in crisis: 800 have closed in nine years; funding has halved, leaving many with reduced opening times; books have been cut by a quarter; and there are fewer computer terminals. However, there are still brilliant libraries busy with rhyme time for babies, homework clubs, employment support, access to local services and cultural activities. This could be the norm. There is no shortage of ideas in this sector, but now is the opportunity for delivery.
The review recommends an awareness campaign, but who would make it work, given that there is no single lead in government to bring policy and funding together? It also recommends a Libraries Minister, while a forthcoming Fabian arts paper suggests adding community digital responsibility, as research shows that 45% of families with children are digitally excluded. The Fabians also ask the BBC to consider local radio, news and community broadcast hubs from libraries to reach a new generation.
Most libraries are run on modest sums, but libraries urgently need a multi-year commitment of funding to plan ahead in the face of local authority funding crises. According to the Reading Agency, low literacy costs us £80 billion a year; as we have heard, its successful universal library membership trial should be rolled out. With a mission-led Government, we can be bold and transformative. My key ask of the Minister is that libraries, prime for action as they are, become central to the mission on breaking down barriers to opportunities; this should join up decision-making, funding and delivery to ensure that libraries guarantee inspiration and opportunities for all.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, let me just say that I will be less indulgent with future contributions.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, standing as the second person in this “Just a Minute” challenge, I am very much a product of the equivalent of the Reading Agency’s summer reading challenge, but from many years ago—I was doing it at a Carnegie library when I was at primary school. We did not do many things when I was a child. We did not go on holiday, so what did I do over the summer? I went to the library. I was so empowered and enriched by those library facilities that I have always remembered how important it was.
That library has now closed; it is going to become a café. While café society is important, one thing you will find in continental Europe, particularly in France, is that if you go to a small town there will be a library; if you go to a larger town, it will be a médiathèque. Libraries are so important for encouraging children to read and for digital inclusion. For equalities purposes, please support libraries. Let us have that national strategy.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I feel as though I am in the BBC; I shall need a red light for this one-minute cue.
Public libraries are gardens of earthly delights, especially in less advantaged areas, where they are the seedbed for young writers of the future, where children can travel abroad and beyond without moving and where the elderly can source comfort and friendship. They are, in short, indispensable. Cicero maintained that all you need in life is a garden and a library.
Libraries, like the arts, are just too easy a target when the going gets tough. I urge the Government to encourage the self-help groups of volunteers who have had such success in places such as Camden—the Keats library, for example—by supporting them and making their contribution to society easier to achieve. It is not “instead of”; it is “as well as”.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, if we are to stop the decline in the number of rural libraries, we urgently need something that many of us have been calling for for a long time, which is an integrated rural strategy with a commitment to rural sustainability. There is huge, mainly untapped potential in the countryside to use existing community buildings as hubs and provide many services such as access to computers and the internet—vitally important—banking services, basic dispensing, post offices and, of course, libraries. They could be sited in our rural schools or sometimes in underused village halls or even church buildings. We have managed to do that in some places; we can do it more. We need to find ways to make this vital service work economically. Will the Minister commit to supporting this radical rethink about rural services?
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
The proposed multiyear funding settlements for local authorities from the Government are most welcome. They should enable councils to make more strategic plans for services.
The Senedd’s Local Government and Housing Committee considered how libraries and leisure facilities could continue to be funded, and it published a report in July 2023. It was of no surprise to me, as a former leader of a city council, that the report concluded that,
“councils have found it challenging to maintain their existing local … services”,
after such a sustained period of austerity and diminishing budgets. It discovered that many councils sought to deliver those services differently, such as by contracting the management to not-for-profit social enterprises, as I did when I established our leisure company, Newport Live.
I urge my noble friend to ask her department to review that report from the Welsh Government and see what areas of congruence can be brought to bear on ensuring stability of future library provision by the UK Government.
Lord Mendoza (Con)
At Historic England, we use the benefit of our wonderful libraries as the cornerstone of many of our regeneration efforts around the country, in incredible places such as Tyldesley in Wigan, Redruth and North Shields. The library is the place that, once regenerated and restored, brings back life, footfall, vitality and economic growth to places. Yes, DCMS superintends the library system, but it has to use the rather woolly requirement of
“a comprehensive and efficient library service”
specified in the Act. At the same time, the paymasters are the MHCLG and local authorities. It is too dispersed and means that there is no political will or leadership to make sure that the library sector does not decline further.
We have a great moment: the Secretary of State for Culture and the Minister for Arts are both accomplished authors. Perhaps that would help get some enthusiasm back towards our sector, so I say no more reviews—they are done—and let us move ahead with the strategy.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, libraries are a physical manifestation of an intellectual community. They are places that gather knowledge and manifestations of the human condition. They should be at the heart of any community.
They can give cohesion, open windows into new worlds and ideas and bring together young and old from all backgrounds. As an MP, I used to hold my advice surgeries in three local libraries. The fourth ward did not have a library; it was also the most socially divided ward. People could come and see their MP, but no one knew that this is what they were doing in the library.
In developing their strategy, I urge the Government never to forget the social, community-enhancing function of a library.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, we sadly cannot do justice today to the many important recommendations in the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, because Back-Bench contributions are restricted to just 60 seconds.
Were there time, I would have spoken about the more than 180 public libraries that have been closed or handed to volunteers since 2016, and the fact that the most deprived communities—the very areas that need them the most—are four times more likely to lose their library than those in more affluent areas. I would have spoken about the lack of recognition across both local and central government of the value and impact of public libraries, and I would have spoken about the major impact of the summer reading challenge, where libraries work with public health teams and education or children’s services in areas of disadvantage or low literacy.
I urge my noble friend the Minister to add her influential voice to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, in demanding that we have a proper debate—which today’s debate cannot be—on public libraries in the very near future.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on a thorough, comprehensive and enjoyable review. Time is short, but the number of colleagues keen to speak is heartening, as the subject of libraries has not previously had the attention it deserved. A recent search of Hansard revealed the word “sausages” appeared more frequently than “libraries”.
The benefits of reading for children cannot be underestimated, particularly so for disadvantaged children. It is why I would like to highlight the Libraries for Primaries campaign by the National Literacy Trust, whose aim is to ensure that every primary school has a library with properly equipped shelves and fully trained staff. This ambitious project has been sponsored by private philanthropy. I ask the Minister to consider if the Government would commit to providing the outstanding investment as part of a matched funding scheme—it would yield such a great return. As the inimitable Dr Seuss said,
“The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go”.
What better way to level the playing field while raising school standards.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, libraries are not only welcoming havens and refuges for people of all ages, but much more, as other noble Lords have said. Nearly 800 have closed since 2010 and many more are likely to do so, as local councils’ budgets shrink. But at what cost? The cost will be the loss of free books to poor families, children and the elderly, loss of IT access to the elderly and poor, loss of a warm, accessible facility to local communities and loss of local advice.
An investment strategy is very much needed, and the University of East Anglia has provided a means of valuing library services, which I hope could be looked at as part of assessing a strategy. It ascribes £3.4 billion of value to national library services. I hope this report may be helpful. Libraries change lives and must stay at the heart of our communities, where they belong.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I was a Cumbria county councillor for 10 years, until last year. We never closed the library, but we greatly reduced opening times and greatly limited the supply of new books and materials as a way of balancing the books. The general solution to this is of course local government finance reform, but there is no point in arguing about that today.
If I was the Minister, I would do two things. First, I would set up a non-departmental public body to bring together best practice of the people in the field who understand how we can modernise libraries and integrate them, and use that as a consultancy for the whole sector, run from the Government. Secondly, I would establish a fund to which people could make bids for imaginative modernisation proposals.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
I have sat on the board of the British Library. Partnership with the wider ecology of UK librarianship is in its founding legislation and in its future strategy, Knowledge Matters. As my noble friend Lady Sanderson said, the library already plays a convening role with the Business & IP Centre, the living knowledge network of local public libraries and the national libraries of Scotland and Wales, and with LibraryOn, which could act as a digital front door but falls between DCMS and Arts Council remits.
As the British Library continues to recover from a devastating cyberattack, this remains its priority, and any expansion of a strategic sectoral role has to be scoped and resourced in this context. None the less, the British Library stands ready to work alongside the department and public library authorities to support the ongoing strategic development of the sector. I, too, look forward to a longer libraries debate, not least when a strategy is published.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, perhaps it is understandable in the face of library closures to plead defensively their case as community assets, but as we listen to the long list of services libraries are said to provide for the elderly, the lonely, victims of domestic abuse and bullying, et cetera, I worry that this moves their focus away from their core and vital role as the repository of books made accessible to the public. Once libraries are rebranded as glorified community hubs, there is a danger that books are sidelined. This can create a confusion of purpose and allows all sorts of faddish political activism to move in on libraries.
There is a lesson from Wales, where I am from. There, libraries have become embroiled in an unsavoury culture wars dispute. Only recently, Welsh libraries hit the headlines as staff were being sent on training courses in critical whiteness studies and told to eradicate racism from the libraries by 2030. Once books are deprioritised, we can even have forms of censorship, with libraries advised to decolonise their collections from the libraries sector and its own professional association targeting “lawful but awful” problematic books. My plea: put books centre stage in any libraries strategy.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the most pressing problem facing libraries is the paucity of council funding. The Guardian reports that 180 UK libraries have been closed or handed over to volunteers since 2016, and having a new Government does not necessarily mean things are now getting better; they are continuing to deteriorate. This needs to be addressed quickly, not least because once premises are reduced or buildings lost, it becomes difficult to reverse. Isobel Hunter of Libraries Connected says:
“libraries are hit hardest in the very areas that need them”.
Secondly, there is the huge but underrated importance of librarians, yet the loss of 2,000 library jobs since 2016. Louis Coiffait-Gunn of CILIP says:
“There is a worrying trend of de-professionalising the public library workforce … a volunteer’s role should only ever be to augment professional and trained staff, they can’t replace them without a negative impact on service”.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, I was delighted to read my noble friend Lady Sanderson’s report and of her commitment to books remaining, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, at the centre of our library network across the United Kingdom. We all know how important it is to low-income families, who would not otherwise have access to books, that books are available. I think about one in 10 low-income households in this country have no books in the house at all. That is something that only libraries, not Amazon, can deal with properly. That is why I was delighted with the work of BookTrust, which is working with 90% of the libraries across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, ensuring that those low-income families have access to books, storytelling and a habit that will change children’s lives.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, many of us will be aware of the work of Zadie Smith, who attributes much of her success to the time she spent in Willesden public library in her somewhat less privileged younger days. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty: wonderful though volunteers are, every library should have the service of a fully qualified librarian.
In this country, it is required that every prison has a library; it is not required that every school has a library, and it should be. I thoroughly endorse the recommendation of a library laureate—I would suggest Zadie Smith or Michael Rosen, but I am sure there are other good candidates—to advocate for school libraries as well as public libraries to ensure reading for pleasure among all our young people.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, cost is a major factor, so let me fast-forward to the need to adapt and share more data. Merging back-office functions is critical, so spare capacity can be used to expand front-line activities, creating a strong focus on co-ownership within communities. Local authorities have a major part to play in creating a more joined-up working environment, sharing vital resources with, say, health providers and other outlets—post offices and Jobcentre Plus are two organisations that may be interested in coming on-site. An ambitious new root-and-branch strategy is urgently required, incorporating a full consultation with all stakeholders, to focus on the possibilities of collocation. Libraries must connect in some way, shape or form and must flourish. I thank my noble friend Lady Sanderson and my noble friend Lord Parkinson for commissioning it.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, I have time only to ask the Minister what she can recommend we do for the Catterick, Richmond and Colburn Community Libraries—the acronym is CRACL—which are a charitable trust, of which I am patron. They are mainly run by amazing volunteers, who put in more than 634 hours last year, although that is a wild underestimation of the actual hours worked. How do we strengthen that volunteer network? Also, North Yorkshire Council is responsible only for the books, roofs and walls of the building; CRACL is responsible for all the maintenance, heating, boilers et cetera. This year, heating alone will cost £18,000 and much-needed new windows will cost £30,000. This is unsustainable for a charity. A far better understanding of the importance of libraries to our communities is desperately needed.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Sanderson has done a cracking job with a fantastic report. I offer five thoughts on libraries.
First, libraries have always been funded by local government; they have never been funded by central government. There was a massive row in the 19th century, when Parliament brought in a law to allow local government to raise money on the rates to pay for libraries. Knowledge was then considered a dangerous thing for what was then the working man.
Secondly, libraries are no longer just about books; they are community hubs. They are about access to local government services, access to computers, safe spaces and homework clubs. As such, there is no one-size-fits-all model; it could be a public/private partnership or it could be a charitable trust. Local government—this is one area where it has a degree of autonomy—should set up library services as it thinks fit.
Thirdly, statistics about libraries closing are completely misleading. Sometimes it is good to close a library that is hugely expensive to maintain, particularly if it means you can extend opening hours in other libraries.
Fourthly, libraries come under the Arts Council—it was something I did when I was the Libraries Minister—but they should actually be part of the department of local government. They are a local government service; they are not actually a cultural service, which is ironic considering that the DCMS used to be called the Office of Arts and Libraries.
Finally, I offer one free policy for the Government, which is to double the public lending right. That would cost very little money, but it would allow the authors mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck, to live the lifestyle to which they are now accustomed. It would earn massive plaudits from the authorial community.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, mobile libraries serve as a lifeline for some of society’s most vulnerable and isolated individuals—those living in rural areas, with disabilities or facing other significant challenges—yet these critical services are increasingly at risk. In 2010, England had 94 “open” mobile libraries; by 2023, that number had dropped to just 66 operated by local authorities, 19 run by community volunteers and 12 had closed entirely. This decline represents a troubling trend that demands urgent attention.
Mobile libraries are far more than providers of books; they act as two-way gateways to essential services such as the NHS and digital health literacy. However, there is insufficient co-ordination between government departments, missing an opportunity to fully leverage libraries’ potential. A more “mission-based” approach, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, has said, could break down these silos, enabling mobile and static libraries to support outcomes such as employment, social cohesion and digital literacy.
As the UK Government develop their new library strategy, it is essential to prioritise investment in these vital services to better connect individuals with resources and to strengthen the fabric of our communities.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, this has proved an extremely helpful debate. Public libraries are central to levelling up. Levelling up is not just about places; it is about people and their opportunities in life, which are enhanced by access to learning, to discovery and to opportunity.
As we have heard, you do not need money to enter a public library. You can stay as long as you like. You can read, learn, attend events, use computers, get help, get advice and do research. Libraries are safe spaces. They are also warm. Libraries encourage the volunteering, both of time and of expertise, by individuals to help others. Libraries lie at the heart of strong neighbourhoods. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government understand that libraries can and should be a bedrock of strong communities.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad that we are having this debate. When I was a Minister, I was asked about all things DCMS but never about libraries. I am glad that we are able to put that right today with this, the first Question for Short Debate of this Parliament; the show of strength that we have had today is an illustration of how timely and needed it is.
Of course, this debate follows the “Today” programme, which talked about libraries every day of last week; this included the author Lee Child speaking powerfully about the importance of libraries in his native city of Birmingham, which are, sadly, under threat. This year, we mark the 60th anniversary of the 1964 Act—a legislative legacy of the short-lived Alec Douglas-Home Government—which provides the statutory responsibility in government.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sanderson both for opening our debate today and for her review, with its excellent recommendations. I commissioned her to do it because I wanted us to be ambitious about libraries, particularly in the changed circumstances in which we find ourselves in terms of people’s patterns of living and working after the pandemic. My noble friend made eight excellent recommendations, some of which have already been taken forward, but the election intervened before the rest could be accomplished. So I echo her call on the Minister to make sure that they are taken forward and that a library strategy is published; I also underline the non-partisan nature of my noble friend’s work, which was informed by the views of the sector and cross-party people in local government through the LGA.
As my noble friend said, data is hugely important. Will the Minister commit to a data hub, as my noble friend asked? Data is especially important for widening access. In its excellent summer reading challenge, the Reading Agency has pointed the way forward for local authorities such as the London Borough of Newham, which has not been thwarted by GDPR from providing automatic enrolment and a library card for every schoolchild—it is the gateway to so many other things in life. Will the Minister speak to the Department for Education and local government to make sure that GDPR does not get in the way of making sure that other children have this opportunity?
Finally, I was proud to be the first official Libraries Minister—a recommendation from my noble friend Lady Sanderson. I hope not to be the last. It is not just a bauble; it is an important hook so that you can have meetings with Ministers across government, as well as with organisations such as the Social Mobility Commission, to make sure that all of government is delivering for libraries. I was pleased to see Sir Chris Bryant, the new Minister, say in the foreword to the annual report from the department how proud he is to be the Minister responsible for this. He is a published author, as others have said. However, as Richard Ovenden, the Bodley’s Librarian, said on the “Today” programme last week, the Minister has many other ministerial responsibilities—more than we can list in this limited debate. So will the Government reinstate the post of Libraries Minister in a ministerial title? Will they also take forward and build on the work of the libraries improvement fund, which provided more than £20 million to more than 95 projects in the previous Parliament, helping libraries across the land to adapt, to be innovative and to deliver for local people?
I am very glad that we are having this debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton, on leading the debate. Noble Lords will agree, I am sure, that she really demonstrated her commitment to public libraries through her independent review and her considered conclusions and recommendations, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading over the Recess.
I recognise the commitment to public libraries from the previous Lords Minister—the first Minister for Libraries—the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. He managed to sum up quite a lot of issues in his short speech. It is almost impossible to deal with this issue in a minute, and I commend noble Lords on managing to do so. It is also quite difficult to write and scribble down notes on things that you want to reply to; I hope to get through everybody in terms of responding to at least one issue raised by each noble Lord, but I may have to come back to noble Lords afterwards.
Like many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, going to the library was a regular and much-loved event during my childhood. I later relied on large-print books from the library when I was recovering from encephalitis as a teenager and was unable to focus on standard font size. My childhood love of books no doubt influenced my decision to undertake a PhD in Scandinavian literature, which remains one of the most enjoyable but probably least useful things I have done.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, noted the role of local government in library provision. The Government recognise the financial pressures facing local authorities after 14 years of Conservative cuts to local authorities. We are committed to giving stability back to council funding, but you cannot have cuts of this scale to local government finances without having a seismic impact on services, including public library service provision; we should take it as a whole. However, despite this, local authorities continue to invest in this vital cultural asset. Some £673 million was spent by upper-tier local authorities in England on their library services in 2022-23.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, referred to library closures over the last decade or so. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, cited the figure 800. I will comment on the need for accurate data in due course, but I understand from officials that they believe it to be more accurate that around 276 static libraries have permanently closed in England since 2010 and have not been relocated or replaced. I am not underestimating the impact that closure has; as a new Minister being briefed on this subject, I found even the figure 276 quite shocking.
My noble friend Lord Watson cited the BBC report that libraries are most likely to have closed in deprived areas. We have not seen the BBC analysis behind that story, and I would welcome the opportunity to review the data. I welcome the specific example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, of the threat to the library in her area.
The Question posed by this debate relates to a new library strategy, and I heard the strength of feeling in the debate around this. I understand it was a commitment of the previous Government, which was informed by the noble Baroness’s review. I will feed back the strength of feeling around that.
It was noted that the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, Sir Chris Bryant, covers libraries as part of his brief. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, noted that he has quite a lot of responsibility, but I take this opportunity to reassure noble Lords that he is also a passionate advocate of libraries, which he recently described as “cultural diamonds”. He said:
“They enable readers’ imaginations to sparkle, they support thousands of local groups, they provide advice to businesses and charities, enabling them to flourish, they give individuals who might otherwise be lonely or cold a space to open up. We lose them at our peril”.
I agree that we lose them at our peril. The Minister will engage with library sector organisations and leaders in the coming months to discuss the challenges in the sector and reflect on priority policy areas and how best to support the sector going forward.
I will feed back the proposal from my noble friend Lady Rebuck that libraries should be central to the opportunities mission, as well as the point made by my noble friend Lady Wilcox about the Welsh report to the Minister, and my noble friend Lord Liddle’s point about potential innovation.
Public libraries are a vital public resource, helping to inspire, educate and entertain people of all ages and backgrounds. The range of outcomes they help to achieve is substantial and varied. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, said, there is also a lack of awareness of what libraries provide, including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, said, MPs’ surgeries. However, I note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who argued that libraries should stick to their core purpose—which highlights that there is no unanimous view on this point.
Libraries are open to everyone at no cost; they are one of the last non-transactional spaces in our communities. The celebration of books and promotion of literacy will always be at the heart of public library services, but public libraries also need to be responsive to the needs of their local communities and deliver the right mix of services to meet local needs and priorities.
In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, when we are celebrating libraries, we should also thank and celebrate the many volunteers and community groups. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, highlighted, volunteer-led services cannot and should not replace professional provision and cannot replicate it to the same extent.
There has been a decline in library visitor numbers and the figures are quite stark. I was quite shocked by the fall in the numbers, but it is important to reflect that some people access library services in different ways and through different means than by walking through the door. We need more robust, meaningful and consistent data in order for councils to make sound decisions on their library provision and to respond quickly to the needs of users. Having been briefed on the issue, I think it is quite clear that there is an issue around the data, as highlighted by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson. DCMS has been working with Arts Council England and public library stakeholders with the aim of strengthening the data collected on library use and engagement. This should support both local and national government to identify trends in user needs and advocate more effectively for the power of public libraries.
Libraries are an inclusive venue and a trusted resource in communities. Recent Ipsos veracity index research shows that librarians were considered the third most trusted profession, behind nurses and aeroplane pilots. I was not sure why they were behind aeroplane pilots, but that is probably because we have to have that faith.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked whether the Government would commit to an integrated rural strategy. The previous Government highlighted the vital role public libraries play in sustaining community networks in rural areas, to offer a range of activities and support services to meet local needs and bring people together. DCMS will continue to work with the Local Government Association, Arts Council England and Libraries Connected to ensure best practice on rural libraries.
Libraries help give people the skills and knowledge they need to succeed through books and by tackling the digital divide, enabling digitally inclusive communities and supporting people by providing free wifi access, hosting and organising local cultural activities and working on collocating with other local authority services and agencies such as citizens advice and the post office. Libraries are crucial partners in providing vital support to families and developing children’s language development, reading skills and confidence from early years onwards. DfE research shows that reading for pleasure grows self-confidence, strengthens community participation and improves knowledge and understanding of other cultures.
The noble Lord, Lord McInnes, highlighted the lack of books in many low-income households, and the issue of school libraries was raised by my noble friend Lady Blower. I will ensure that my noble friend the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, gets a copy of the debate to pick up the points raised around education that pertain to her brief. I am also happy to raise the point of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, around school libraries.
There are excellent examples of libraries working in partnership with others to deliver reading and literacy initiatives specifically aimed at children and young people, including the Reading Agency’s summer reading challenge and the BookTrust’s—
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
With her excellent points, will the noble Baroness very briefly allow me to invite her to visit the Wiener Holocaust Library, a much better place for the Holocaust memorial learning centre than Victoria Tower Gardens?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I hear what the noble Baroness said and will refer it to my private office in relation to her request.
I have a few more points, and I will try to keep within my time to respect the fact that everyone else managed to keep within a minute. I will talk about the Government’s role in supporting public libraries. As the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, highlighted, the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to superintend and promote the improvement of public library provision in England.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, said, the Secretary of State is also passionate about libraries. She has a statutory power to intervene, by way of a local inquiry, if she considers that a local authority is not providing a comprehensive and efficient library service. If a complaint is received, Ministers will carefully consider whether further action is needed. I have not covered a number of points—are noble Lords happy for me to continue?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I have another minute and a half or so. I have heard noble Lords’ request for more time to discuss libraries going forward. It was helpful that the Chief Whip was here in the chair at the beginning and heard that.
I have covered the fact that the Secretary of State has a statutory power to intervene. DCMS monitors proposals by library authorities to make changes to their library service provision. Conversation with councils enables discussion of proposed changes to service provision and insights into local delivery. So far this year, the department has engaged, either in person or virtually, with 31 local authorities.
I will cover a couple more points that were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, asked whether DCMS will address the data black holes in libraries. I believe I have covered that, but we are keen to make sure that there is more robust, meaningful and consistent data so that councils can make sound decisions.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the British Library attack. DCMS remains in close discussion with it about the ongoing impact of the cyberattack. DCMS hugely values the British Library’s contribution to the library landscape, not just in this country but internationally, where it is a huge asset.
A library is not a stand-alone service, as highlighted by the range of points raised. It supports other public services to achieve outcomes vital for individuals, communities and the nation to flourish. The Government fully recognise the importance of libraries. They recognise the pressures facing public libraries and the important services they provide to local communities. The Government are committed to giving stability back to local councils so that services such as public libraries that they are responsible for can best meet the needs of those communities.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
As we have so much time left in the debate, I will make a quick point following on from the excellent intervention by my noble friend Lady Bottomley—I do not know why noble Lords opposite were so grumpy about that. I remind the Minister that the one policy that central government has complete control of is the public lending right. I would be interested to hear whether she will communicate with the Libraries Minister about the opportunity to review it, because the budget has been frozen for many years.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will make the noble Lord’s point to the Libraries Minister.
Africa: Commercial Opportunities and Exports
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Popat
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to (1) raise awareness among United Kingdom businesses of commercial opportunities in African markets, and (2) support United Kingdom exports to Africa.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, I declare my recent interest, having served as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Uganda, Rwanda and the DRC until the election. I am glad to have secured this debate.
Despite some progress, there is still a long way to go to change the narrative on Africa. Our exports to Africa were more than 30% not long ago; today, they are less than 3%. We need to see Africa not as a charity but as a place of opportunity. Politicians and diplomats believe in soft power and diplomacy; coming from a business background, I believe in hard cash.
Despite what some may say, the UK has much to offer the world in many countries, particularly in Africa, as a key trading partner. We still face a significant challenge with our balance of trade. In 2023, our trade deficit was £33 billion—a trend that has persisted for the past four decades. This means we do not have enough exports to pay for imports. The Prime Minister’s long-term goal must be to fix the UK’s current account deficit.
We need access to foreign markets, particularly in Africa. Several car manufacturers have already left the UK due to significant challenges in sourcing batteries, which are critical to electric vehicle production. The uncertainty in supply chains has made the UK less competitive. The shortage of essential materials such as cobalt, much of which come from the DRC, has further strained the UK’s car manufacturers. If we do not secure reliable supply chains for these materials, we will see a further exodus in the car industry. The UK missed the boat in the first wave of electric battery revolution, so we now need to catch up. India, the US, China and Russia all have regular African summits to work on how they can embrace the opportunities that exist. It is a great shame that the last African summit had to be cancelled; I hope that the new Government will put it back on the agenda.
When I first joined the House of Lords, I set up a committee to see what we could do to help our SMEs to export more. Given the vital role that SMEs play in our economy, it is crucial that we support their growth and global expansion efforts. SMEs accounted for 61% of UK employment in 2022, yet only 10% of them export, compared to 30% for the Germans. History teaches us that, if we neglect our own industries, we are at the mercy of global rivals. I welcome the export champions scheme and the King’s award for exports—I declare my interest as somebody who was on the judging panel—and, most importantly, I welcome the UK Export Finance business plan for the next five years, which gives priority to supporting SMEs. Access to finance equals access to growth.
As someone who was born in Africa, I must admit a bias, but I firmly believe that, post Brexit, building stronger trade and diplomatic ties with Africa should be Britain’s top priority in terms of securing our nation’s prosperity. By establishing a programme of trade envoys in 2016—I am glad that many ex-envoys are speaking here today—we recognised the need to restore our old trading relationship and forge new ones. The UK must build on its historic ties, particularly with Commonwealth countries in Africa. We need action on the ground. “Global Britain” is a powerful concept, but it must be more than a slogan; it requires meaningful engagement with emerging markets. The trade envoy programme was a valuable initiative that opened doors for UK companies to export and invest more: we were the marketeers and sales-people for UK plc.
As a former trade envoy to Uganda, Rwanda and the DRC, I want to share some personal experiences to illustrate the impact of the trade envoy programme. I took the Arsenal football team to Rwanda—despite being a Tottenham supporter—and that was worth £30 million a year. The Rwandan Government have doubled their tourism. We supported the sale of two Airbus aircraft to RwandAir with finance from UK Export Finance, and flights now operate seven days a week between our two great countries—London to Kigali. We used to fly to most African cities. British Airways has stopped flying to places such as Entebbe, Dar es Salaam, Lusaka, Blantyre and Freetown. We need to engage with them and build bridges with those African cities.
In January this year, I spearheaded the first ever UK-Rwanda business forum in Kigali, which brought together over 900 delegates from more than 40 countries. We are in discussions about a major development project in Rwanda to build accommodation for 11,000 students and a 600-bed hospital, financed by UK Export Finance.
In Uganda, we are nearing the completion of an international airport worth £280 million—a contract given to a British company. We have facilitated the sale of two Airbus aircraft to the Ugandan Government, and we will soon see direct flights between London and Entebbe. The Gridworks project—which I saw yesterday—in partnership with BII is worth more than £1 billion over the next five years.
The DRC is a country that not many of us talk about in government, but it has enormous potential and can become the beating heart of Africa. It is one of the wealthiest countries globally in terms of natural resources, with $30 trillion-worth of minerals, including 70% of the world’s cobalt. Other nations such as China, India and the US, and the EU, have already signed deals with the DRC, while we are still working on a memorandum of understanding. We must expedite this process; I urge the Minister to look into this as a matter of urgency.
In April, I led a large trade delegation of 26 companies to the DRC, resulting in significant agreements. The DRC Government signed three agreements with UK companies, including a £142 million deal with Westminster Group for airport security and a $215 million agricultural public/private partnership. Global Gases Group also signed a $100 million MoU to invest in medical oxygen and LPG.
I have been working with UK Export Finance to encourage it to review its approach to the DRC, noting the clear demand for its services. In the meantime, I have supported a private investor, Gemcorp, in making up to £500 million available for projects in the DRC. I am glad that its Finance Minister was here in this very building to sign that deal. The Congolese have a clear will and are anxious to work with the UK. The President has been here three times in the past six years, which shows how anxious they are to work and trade with us.
Africa is changing, and I hope we can wake up to what Africa is today. We need to move away from thinking we know best and feeling we need to step in to help. We do not want Africa to be on the menu; we would rather see it at the table with us. When Africa prospers, we prosper.
To conclude, I want to share a story. Three young men started a business delivering parcels door to door in an old Plymouth Duster with unmatched doors. They were Adrian Dalsey, Larry Hillblom and Robert Lynn. Those surnames made a company called DHL. Fast forward 55 years, DHL now has 250 proprietary planes, 32,000 vehicles, 550,000 employees and a presence in almost every country on the earth. Its revenue for 2019 was a whopping €65 billion. The moral of the story is: never give up; we can make it happen. I urge the Minister to make it happen and to show the political will to trade and invest in Africa.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Popat, for initiating this timely debate. He indicated the opportunities but also the shortcomings that have preceded it. UK trade with Africa, like aid, has fallen sharply in recent years. It was 4% of UK trade in 2012-13 and fell to under 3% in 2022. In the last full year, trade was £10.3 billion, which was actually a reduction of 7.1% on the previous year, so things have been moving in the wrong direction.
I will make a link with the fact that aid has been drastically cut. I appreciate that we are focusing on trade, but the two are linked, because the relationships grow together. The cut in aid has had a very disruptive effect on our relationships with Africa. I am glad the previous Government started to restore the balance and I hope the new Government will follow that through and help us to cement new relationships. The cancellation of the UK investment summit was disappointing, particularly at a time when the World Bank was making a very big engagement with Africa.
The House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee, of which I am currently a member, produced a report on Africa in 2020, which said:
“Successive governments have said that Africa should be given a higher priority across Whitehall, but have failed to make this a reality in the face of competing demands”.
The incoming Government have made a similar pledge, but how will it be different this time? It would be good to hear from the Minister.
There is a growing call from indebted countries for debt relief, which is related, because that would release funds that could be invested in the infrastructure that makes the business climate more conducive and more favourable. Can the Minister say anything about the Government’s intentions to negotiate debt relief, given that the UK underpins a substantial proportion of private investment to developing countries?
BII is investing in Africa, and I have noted recent announcements relating to the deep-water ports in Banana in the DRC, small business finance in Nigeria and sustainable energy generally. These are all worth while and are designed to open the way for more trade, but they are pretty small compared with the scale that will be required.
An interesting report from Malaria No More made the point that tackling malaria will have an economic benefit. One of the problems with Africa is that not only do countries there sometimes not have the skills but too many people are sick too often to be able to be productive workers, so tackling illness and disease and promoting good health is good economic policy as well.
Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Popat, has highlighted, not enough UK businesses seem to be interested enough in investing in Africa. Nobody denies that it is a challenging place to invest, but that is not a reason for moving out. For example, Africa has a huge need for pharmaceuticals. The UK is a major producer of pharmaceuticals. Why are we not investing more to help Africa, in partnership, produce pharmaceuticals and create a skills base for its own environment?
While our relationships were being disrupted, Russia and China moved in in a big way. They offer substantial sums of money with no questions asked, subvert democracy, sustain dictatorships and deal with minerals for their own benefit, while we stand back, relatively speaking, and do not engage.
This is a moment where we have to reset and not just talk the talk but walk the walk. I go right back to Tony Blair’s Africa commission, which produced a wonderful and inspiring report, but we still have not delivered on its vision. I hope the new Government recognise that trade, investment and diplomacy can go together, and when they do everybody will be better off.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Popat on securing this timely debate. He spoke in a way that reflected his experience and passion.
Even though there is much more to be done, I greatly welcome the real focus in the past few years on driving forward our trade activity abroad. The importance of Africa commercially in this has indeed been recognised, particularly by other countries, I would add, even by one of our European neighbours, Germany. We also learned during Covid the importance of critical minerals and the need to expand supply sources. Africa can play a huge part in this.
However, I will refer to the developing countries trading scheme, which was announced in 2023 and is, regrettably, so unknown. It is worth noting its breadth of ambition. DCTS cuts tariffs, removing and simplifying trade conditions for 65 developing countries. As I have heard many times from our African friends, access to markets abroad can be cumbersome. Would the Minister look into how well DCTS is working in practice and consider whether it warrants modification?
What has been very helpful is the way that access to information about British goods and services has hugely improved. Information generally, or in specific commercial areas, is all online, with quick responses and advice. Additionally, access to UK export finance is now comprehensively available for purchasing British goods and services, either in this country or abroad. I hope this will continue and indeed expand.
I pay tribute to our embassies and high commissions in Africa for facilitating all of this so well. However, the number of individuals devoted to trade promotion in our embassies and the budget allocated is frankly anaemic compared to that of our competitors. I applaud the links established relatively recently between the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Business and Trade. Over the years, our sale of military equipment has not been seen sufficiently through a commercial prism. In practice, military sales can underpin bilateral relationships to the overall benefit of our industry and commerce. I am so pleased about the reappointment of my noble friend Lord Lancaster, who has done so much in this sphere and who should be strongly supported.
It has been my immense pleasure to be the Prime Minister’s trade envoy in Algeria, the largest country in Africa and one with which we have an excellent relationship. One of the challenges all over Africa is the rapidly growing population. Algeria, like many other countries, has suffered a youth brain drain in the past. But a dramatic change is under way: with our encouragement, President Tebboune has led a radical reform process to attract investment, promote foreign trade and move away from dependency on hydrocarbons. Now growing rapidly, a new generation of Algerians is staying and opening up the deployment of technology, starting new projects and drawing foreign investment. That of course includes many British household name companies.
I was the governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy for nine years. It was a privilege each summer to get to know Africa and its vast potential. To conclude, I hope that the voluntary role of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys will continue. At minimum, it offers a high level of continuity and commitment as we open up new business and investment relationships in the astonishing African continent.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Popat, on initiating this timely debate. It is early days for this Government, but we have been told that they are coming up with a plan for Africa, and that is something we will look out for closely. It was disappointing that we had to cancel the trade and investment summit before the general election was announced. I hope this new Government will reinstate that as soon as is practicable.
I will divide my limited remarks between two things: the politics and the economics of Africa, addressing the issue of how British SMEs and others can take advantage of the African market. We have inevitably had much discussion already about China and Russia. The noble Lord, Lord Popat, is right: Africa is changing, and so are the Chinese in the way they are handling it. They have seen the results of the indebtedness they have created. The tax rises in Kenya, which resulted in riots over the summer, were in large part a response to the £8 billion-worth of Chinese loans that the country is obliged to repay.
President Xi, at his recent summit in Beijing last week, has now pledged £50 billion in new funding for African nations. That is on top of China’s existing £182 billion of loans to the continent. The Chinese are beginning to do Africa differently: they are talking much more about soft power and educational and military exchanges. We should be aware of that.
There is also the Wagner Group. Since Yevgeny Prigozhin died, it has become an arm of the Russian state, and it continues to be a destabilising factor in Libya, where it is propping up Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, and in other countries such as the Central African Republic, Mali, Sudan, Mozambique, Chad and Burkina Faso. Those are the two large powers we are dealing with.
So how should the UK address its relationship with Africa, and how can we push our companies to do trade there? I declare my interest in the register as the deputy chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council. It would be good if the Government could announce who the Commonwealth Minister will be; perhaps they have already, but I have not noticed if so.
We have ramped up our efforts in Africa big time. We now have offices in Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya and Cameroon. There are 21 Commonwealth countries in Africa, with a combined GDP of more than $1 trillion and a combined population of around 650 million people—that is about 40% of Africa’s entire population —so Commonwealth Africa presents a real opportunity and an open market for British businesses. The Commonwealth’s next Secretary-General—some of us are going out to Samoa next month—will be African. There are three African candidates, meaning that the SG will take an increased interest in the continent. What a wonderful opportunity for the UK to get on the front foot.
I highlight one opportunity for British companies in Africa. One of our key supporters in Kenya, under the inspired leadership of James Mwangi, is the Equity Bank. It has come up with an astonishing Africa recovery and resilience plan, which would industrialise the whole of east Africa and other parts. It addresses everything from climate change to education and infrastructure, with plenty of opportunities for British companies to take advantage of it. I would be happy to pledge to make it available to the Government because it is, I think, something that could do amazing things for our British companies.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Popat, on his determination over some time to get this debate, as well as on his support for Africa and his obvious love of it. I personally thank him for his support when I became a trade envoy to Ghana nearly three years ago. His understanding of that role was crucial and his words about how it might be continued by the next Government—that is, the current Government—were important.
Ghana’s position makes it the gateway to west Africa. Having the African Continental Free Trade Area in Accra has made it a hugely important country. Of course, we have a large Ghanaian diaspora in this country. We need to remember that the diasporas of all the Commonwealth countries in this country are an important source of information, which we want in order to ensure that our trade continues.
I just want to highlight one thing. I was in Ghana when it was announced that the Africa investment conference was not going to happen. It was an extreme disappointment; indeed, there was anger among many businesses that had worked hard and were really looking forward to it because it had been so successful. I hope that the Labour Government will continue with it.
I have a question for the Minister. Are there any reasons why, in terms of future trading, we are not considering increasing our interaction and focus on trade with Somaliland? Although it regrettably remains internationally an unrecognised state by African standards, it has a stable political system and an impressive economic performance. It is part of the volatile region surrounding it, clearly, but it has had a functioning democracy since its self-declared independence in 1991, and it has held multiple peace elections. If we are serious about rewarding and supporting democratic governance and the rule of law in Africa through trade partnerships, Somaliland should be able to attract British business and investors—with support from His Majesty’s Government, of course. The UK has historical ties to Somaliland, too, as it was once a British protectorate.
I am concerned—a noble Lord said that many businesses are perhaps slightly concerned about investing in Africa. I make the point that absolutely crucial to everything happening in Africa is the whole question of justice and the rule of law. We cannot ignore that when we are talking about trade and development. As we have seen in so many countries—obviously, I refer to my interest in Zimbabwe—once the rule of law breaks down, it makes such a difference if businesses and individuals cannot rely on the courts and the law to support them as they grow. That really does make a difference in terms of whether they want to invest, and we have seen that in Zimbabwe.
As a country, we have to be more careful when we look at aid. Sometimes there has been too comfortable and cosy a relationship between UK development professionals and the tyrants—perhaps sometimes unknown to them as tyrants—who use British aid and trade as a means for entrenching their kleptocracy. For example, I do not understand why Crossrail International and Transport for London have announced that they are going to work and invest to improve railway connectivity in Zimbabwe and southern Africa.
We have to stop treating Africa in patronising way which sometimes implies that it warrants different rules and standards from the rest of the world. We have to get rid of the colonial guilt which so often leads to continued support for neocorrupt regions and to aid not getting to the needy but being siphoned off by the already rich. We should get away from the idea that Africa depends on our generosity to put our hands ever deeper into our pockets and to continue to do the same old things. Africa is a strong, vibrant region and, with our support, we can see not just our trade and investment to Africa increase but Africa investing in the United Kingdom.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the president of the Institute for Free Trade. I will begin where the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, finished. We need to see Africa as an opportunity rather than an obligation. There is often a perception lag in international affairs. If someone is my sort of age, they will have grown up with images of Africa on the news—always either a civil war or an appeal. On some deep level, we think of children with swollen bellies and flies crawling across them.
Africa’s growth rate this century has outstripped almost every other continent, and the figures that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and my noble friend Lord Popat are all the more extraordinary when we think of the two-way links between this country and that vast and beautiful continent. I cannot be the only person who has experience of wandering around Lagos, bumping into someone and starting to chat, and their saying, “I’m from Peckham”, or, in Accra, “I’m from Stratford”. A lot of people are moving both ways, and that should create exactly the channels for commerce that a wise country exploits.
When I was Accra, I visited the headquarters of the African Continental Free Trade Area, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred. It is a small, young organisation and there is an awful lot for it to do, but there was an unequivocal belief in the power of commerce and the dismantling of barriers as an instrument of poverty alleviation and social justice which you do not hear in Washington or Brussels, and certainly not in Beijing. The question is: do we still believe in those things here, in the country of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Cobden and Bright? Do we still believe in these opportunities?
I put this in the form of one specific question, which I have raised before in the Chamber and will put to the Minister. It is the question of Moroccan tomatoes. It may seem trivial, but for precisely that reason it stands for a great deal of our attitudes. To give a bit of context, this country imports 80% of its tomatoes and our single biggest supplier is the Kingdom of Morocco. When we left the European Union, we inherited a tariff and quota regime that had been designed to protect largely Spanish but also, to a degree, Italian, Portuguese and French tomato growers from international competition.
Even from a protectionist point of view, whom do we think we are protecting in this country? Yes, we have a short tomato season; the Isle of Wight used to be in my constituency when I was a Euro MP. It runs roughly from June to September and even then, we still have to import. The Moroccan growing season runs from October to April, so even from the most dunderheaded Trumpy or Corbynite protectionist point of view, whom do we imagine we are protecting from those crimson globes coming from north Africa?
I had this argument many times as a former member of the Board of Trade, and on more than one occasion with my noble friend Lord Benyon when he was the Minister. I admit that we would sometimes prearrange it: I would say, “Do you mind if I ask you about Morocco?” He would say, “Yes, please do, because I want to get it in Hansard. My officials keep telling me that they’re on the point of removing this ridiculous measure. Why are we imposing tariffs and quotas when we had a shortage of tomatoes in this country last year?” So the little play would be acted out: I would say, “Will my noble friend confirm that we are doing this?”, and he would say, “Yes, and I reassure my noble friend that I’ve got the assurance of officials that it will happen”. As of this morning, when I checked, those quotas and tariffs are still in place.
I have a very high regard for the new Business and Trade Minister. I am sure I will say disobliging things about some of his Cabinet colleagues over the next few years but, so far, Jonathan Reynolds has not put a foot wrong in what he has done on the Swiss trade agreement and on the CPTPP, or in what he has said about trade more widely. As a test case, will the Minister please see whether we can repeal this utterly self-defeating measure, not as a favour to our friends in Morocco but as a favour to ourselves that will incidentally also help the great continent of Africa?
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, following that great tour de force, your Lordships can safely go back to sleep again. I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Popat on and thanking him for securing this important debate and introducing it so comprehensively. No one is more qualified to lead our discussion than him. I record my admiration for his outstanding work in his role as a trade envoy.
I declare my interest as director of a company that works in Africa, particularly in Uganda. I have therefore seen at first hand the respect with which my noble friend is held in the Government in Entebbe. From the President down, it is almost impossible to meet any Minister or anyone of influence in the business community who does not know my noble friend. More than that, he is ferocious at promoting UK businesses to gain access to whomever they need in Uganda, with charm and determination. He is now doing the same thing in Rwanda, where there is a great appetite to do business with UK companies, and he is doing his best to help open up the DRC to UK businesses. I recognise, having worked in the DRC some years ago, both the vast potential, as my noble friend said, and the difficulties of working in that country. Let us all hope that situation continues to improve.
I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the Government’s position on trade envoys, which all noble Lords have mentioned. I believe I am right in saying that the post was invented by the previous Government, and they have been a great success. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that the new Government will continue them and that they will not make the mistake of reappointing trade envoys on a party-political basis. Trade envoys are not political, and we want the best man or woman for the job, regardless of political affiliation.
Some 70% of the population of Africa is below 25 years of age, so it is a growing market. In just 40 years, it will become home to more people than India and China combined. Some 24 countries in Africa are anglophone, and around 16 have common law legal systems. Having run a business in China for 10 years, I cannot emphasise enough to your Lordships how important this is. In China, where the courts do not really work—and, if they do, no European company can access them—legal agreements are simply not enforceable and are, frankly, not worth the paper they are written on. In African countries, where the law is loosely based on English law, it is a different matter. A lawyer in Kampala can speak on the telephone to a lawyer here in the UK to discuss the detail of a legal agreement, speaking not only in English but in the same legal language. For UK businesses, the advantages of language and legal systems are significant, and we should do all we can to advertise them because this is not widely recognised.
Although we are always told that we should hang our heads in shame as a former colonial power, my experience is that British business is welcome and encouraged throughout Africa. It is almost impossible to know which opportunities are best. Infrastructure is one, of course: across Africa, they need roads, hospitals, schools and houses. Financial services have huge potential and there is much need for UK banks and insurance. There is a growing market for virtually every sort of retail product noble Lords could imagine—and, of course, sport. The UK Premier League has more fans in Africa than in the UK.
I am delighted to say that the various embassies and high commissions throughout Africa have, as my noble friend Lord Risby said, become much more commercially focused and give first class advice to people trying to enter those markets. That is not well known in the UK, and the Government would do well to make more of this, both marketing it—telling people about it—and encouraging it. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will repeat the Africa investment summit, which virtually every noble Lord mentioned? It was such a success, and everybody regrets so much the one that was cancelled.
In closing, I make a final, slightly more controversial, point. The previous Government supported the trophy hunting Bill, which was in both parties’ manifestos at the election. I realise that our elected colleagues lose all sense of reason when animal issues come up, but Governments need to be a bit more adult. The ban on trophy hunting is, apart from anything else, a measure restricting trade from six of the most important southern African countries. It makes no economic difference to us but it implies criticism of friends and allies in Africa of the sort that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned: people who have taken deep offence at the high-handed way in which colleagues here in the UK have addressed this matter in both Houses. Poor behaviour like this has caused and is causing a serious rift between people and Governments who are friends and with whom we should be developing stronger commercial links, not insulting them in a way that borders on racist. I hope that the Minister will take that back to colleagues.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Popat, for securing this debate. I was the trade envoy to Angola and Zambia from 2016 to 2020 and worked alongside him; he was extremely helpful to me. Like others, I emphasise that the trade envoy system is very worth while. Can the Minister confirm—he is nodding—that it will continue, as the noble Lord, Lord Popat, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others asked?
I note that it was the colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Swire, the noble Lord, Lord Marland, who came up with the idea of trade envoys, using his business acumen to see where the gaps were; it has certainly paid off. Many important trading partners rarely get ministerial visits, so trade envoys help to give consistency and continuity. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Popat, about the work that he did. As a former trade envoy to Angola, I can say that we brought the first UK Export Finance support to the third-largest economy in Africa, in hydro, agriculture and health.
We have heard how we in the United Kingdom have gone backwards in relation to Africa. African GDP has grown by more than 20% in the past decade but UK exports to Africa have halved during this period. We were seen as a route into the EU, of course, but that has now gone. China is way ahead of us. The noble Lord, Lord Swire, is absolutely right about the changes in attitude and relationship from China—as was the case in Latin America, where the Chinese found that they did not have social buy-in if they continued with some of the practices that we then saw in Africa.
The Middle Eastern countries—Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar in particular—are engaging with their sovereign wealth funds. The US and the EU, the world’s largest economy and the world’s largest economic bloc, are there. In 2020, the UK held an Africa trade summit; it was not as well attended as similar ones in the EU, although it was successful. There was due to be a summit this year but that has been postponed indefinitely. We were told that this is because there were too many elections this year, although that was known when the date was chosen, and because it clashed with other events; that was also known.
We have a new Government so, potentially, a reset. Again, the Minister appears to be nodding in relation to another summit. As we have heard, the opportunities in Africa, with its growing middle class, are vast. By 2050, this is where one-quarter of the world’s population is likely to be—young people. We should have certain advantages: the English language; our legal system, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned; the City of London; UK Export Finance; and our universities. It is vital that we attract students here and build future relationships.
There is huge potential in Africa for renewables and for countries to leapfrog the West, as happened with mobile money. As others have mentioned, the critical minerals that we need for new industries are there in abundance. We must become more resilient and less reliant on China for those. We need a far-strengthened trade team to look after this matter in Africa; I declare my interest here as a board member of Pensana, which is developing a rare earth mine.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, as the new Africa Minister, chose to make his first visit in his official capacity to Angola. The US and the EU are involved in the development of the Lobito corridor, a rail link between the DRC, Zambia and Angola and out to the west of Africa and the coast of Angola. We need to be there too.
There is much potential in Africa in the digital economy, as mobile banking has made clear. Health monitoring and treatment and insurance, as well as other financial products, are developing fast. Can I therefore urge the Government, as they develop their overall industrial strategy, to see the opportunities in Africa? This needs to be more than warm words or relying on long-distant past relationships. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. Like everybody else, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Popat, on instigating this debate. We have had a pantheon of speakers of phenomenal quality. Many of them seem to be trade envoys hoping to keep their jobs under the new Government but the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was absolutely right: this is an essential programme that I, as Investment Minister, found incredibly useful and powerful. I recommend it and would like to hear from the Minister his comments on the continuation of that essential process, which allows senior parliamentarians from all parties to connect with key countries that otherwise do not get the attention they deserve.
In my view, coming from the last two years in what is now the Department for Business and Trade, Africa—both sub-Saharan Africa and the northern part of that great continent—is playing such a major role in the future of this nation as a trading and economic partner. The potential is phenomenal. If we combine that with the historic and cultural ties, which are so significant, we are one of the largest investors in Africa. I think that, on a corporate basis, we remain the largest—although, as we have heard from all noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Hannan and Lord Popat, there is a continuing decline of our fundamental export and import trade. This is not just a “nice to have” and a new market; frankly, it is vital if we are to expand our economy. What is so frustrating is that the opportunities are so ripe; they are there for us to take advantage of them.
The first thing I draw attention to is the decline in actual activity. In my view, that can be attributed to the lack of government presence in Africa; the noble Lord, Lord Risby, mentioned the extraordinary paucity of our activity. We have fewer consulates across Africa compared to most of our competitors: China has 65 diplomatic missions while France has 68, but we have only 38 diplomatic missions. I do not know whether any noble Lords have recently read Rory Stewart’s memoir, where he laments exactly this—the sheer lack of people on the ground in terms of hard power and, most importantly, soft power.
I mean my questions for the Minister in the nicest possible way and not to be confrontational. I can see some of my former officials and colleagues sitting behind him; I am sure that they would agree with me. What plans do this Government have to increase our on-the-ground presence, especially in relation to Department for Business and Trade staff in Africa? These are complex and fragmented markets. The opportunities are there and other countries are stealing a mark on us.
The other point I turn to concerns our inherited advantages. We have talked about our history. For me, the history is very positive when it comes to doing trade—not just in terms of trade but in sport, as we have heard from many of my noble friends today. Some 130 million Africans speak English, with 21 countries having English as their official language and 19 being members of the Commonwealth. I pay tribute here to the noble Lord, Lord Swire, and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Marland—sadly, he is not in his usual place—regarding the importance of promoting the Commonwealth in principle in Africa.
Given this, what are we doing to encourage the promulgation of the Commonwealth? What are we doing to encourage countries such as Morocco, which, apart from being able to provide us with delicious tomatoes at tariff-free rates, will also at some point in the near future—if we can get this to work—possibly provide 4.5% to 5% of our electricity through the extraordinary projects that we are working on, with solar power being delivered to the UK? These countries want to join the Commonwealth. They want to leave other spheres of influence and join ours, so what are the Government doing to encourage that? Can the Minister continue to commit to funding for our Commonwealth organisations, which are so important?
My next point, which is to do with strategic issues relating to other countries’ activities in a more forward-footed way, follows on from that. I say this with no great prejudice but, as I understand it, China has built more than 100 ports, 100,000 kilometres of roads and 10,000 kilometres of railways. Frankly, how many ports, miles of railway and miles of road has Britain built or instigated in that great continent? Why are we standing by idle when others are moving so fast? Again, this is not just a “nice to have” or simply about helping our exporters; there are geostrategic imperatives here that I would impress upon the Government.
I come to my conclusion. We had a very successful UK-Africa summit, with 27 deals worth billions of pounds. It was extremely frustrating for me and, I know, for many of my colleagues in the department when the Africa summit was cancelled this year. I am certainly sorry about that, but that does not mean that this idea should not be taken up by this new Government. I would like to hear from the Minister what plans they have for a renewed push in Africa, renewed funding when it comes to the Department for Business and Trade, an extra additional effort and funding when it comes to promulgating our Commonwealth country brethren, and ensuring that we put in place, as rapidly as possible, plans for an African investment summit.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question for short debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Popat, on securing it. I take this opportunity to thank each and every noble Lord who spoke in the debate.
I express my sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Popat, for introducing this debate. As everyone has mentioned, he was such an enthusiastic and engaged Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Uganda, Rwanda, and the DRC. I also thank all the other former trade envoys, including the noble Lord, Lord Risby, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Northover, for all the work they have done.
I will address the whole issue of trade envoys. We are considering how a reshaped trade envoy programme could align with the department’s priorities. Decisions will be taken. We need to look at what worked, what did not work so well and what can be improved on. We will take our time and I hope that an announcement will be made in due course.
I will also address the issue of China and Russia before I carry on. I have 12 minutes, so I will try to cover as many questions as possible. If I cannot, I promise I will write to every noble Lord who has asked questions. Yes, we all know that China, Russia and Iran—perhaps also India and the UAE—are advancing and investing in Africa. Africa is a competitive region. All nations want a piece of the cake that is Africa, and we know that China is probably one of the largest investors, but I believe that UK companies have a distinct competitive advantage. Many noble Lords have spoken about a common language and the rule of law. We have things that China does not have. We need to build on that and promote it. UK mining firms are doing very well in Africa in critical minerals and the department is supporting them. So yes, we acknowledge that China, Russia, India and the UAE are there, but we also have to promote British firms in Africa.
The formation of this new Government presents a real opportunity for us to reset and repair our relationship with the global South. In that context, it is my pleasure to speak about our work in Africa. As noble Lords will know, within five weeks of taking up his post my noble friend Lord Collins, the Minister for Africa, visited Rwanda, Angola and the DRC. He has seen what is working there. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s single mission is economic growth, so we are aware of the challenges ahead of us and will consider Africa as an important market as part of our strategy.
Many noble Lords mentioned the fact that Africa’s natural resources are unparalleled, with 30% of the world’s minerals, including vital transition minerals, 60% of the world’s unused arable land and 13 million square kilometres of maritime economic zones. These are potential opportunities for British companies and we will not forget that. But more important than that are the people. There are 1.5 million people from the African diaspora in the United Kingdom and 2 million to 2.5 million UK citizens in Africa. We should use the people-to-people exchanges and develop this strength.
Many noble Lords have mentioned our links with the Commonwealth. Yes, we have to build on that link. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for his work with the Commonwealth Business Council. There are many areas where we can work with that organisation in this respect.
Many noble Lords mentioned that, by 2050, Africa’s population will have reached 2.5 billion people—that is a quarter of the entire planet; it is more than China and India—with a very young average population age of 24. So, against the backdrop of an ageing worldwide population, the youth of Africa will become increasingly important for global prosperity. We should not forget that.
British companies are already making significant investments in Africa. The UK is the third-largest investor by investment stock in Africa, ahead of China, with investment worth £45 billion on the continent. Our exports to Africa have declined in previous years, as noble Lords have mentioned, but, in the past year or so, they have grown by 1.7%, with the current price at something like £22 billion. Let us build on that. The past is the past.
We recognise the potential of FDI businesses’ investment into the UK from African companies. We are keen to partner with these firms and seek growth opportunities in the UK and Africa.
We have talked about various preferential terms. I think that the UK has one of the most generous preferential trade policies with Africa of any country. We provide preferential trade access to more than 50 countries in Africa through our world-leading developing countries trading scheme, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Risby. We will monitor how that scheme is working.
I turn to our development focus on the economic partnership agreements that we have in sub-Saharan Africa and our various association agreements in north Africa. Through our bilateral trade agreements, we are removing barriers for UK and African business. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, we want to import not only tomatoes but okra and eggplants—and let us not forget watermelon. I am a fan of hot peppers; I want more hot peppers. Our agriculture review with Morocco was started under the last Government and we want to look at it and see how we can take it forward; it is a continuing work in progress. Yes, we would like to see more of this coming into the country.
Every speaker mentioned the African summit. Sadly, we had to postpone it, because of the election and some clashes in the international calendar, but the UK is committed to deepening connections with African countries, listening to all of our African partners and putting trade and growth at the heart of our partnerships. We will work closely with South Africa next year under its G20 presidency; we will make further announcements on that in due course.
The UK strongly supports the African Continental Free Trade Area agreement. We were proud to be the first non-African country to sign an MoU with the AfCFTA secretariat in September 2021. There is an intention to work more in that region. Our ambition now is to build on the momentum.
The department has a network of sector and country experts in 18 countries, supported by trade policy and market access specialists. They work together with our FCDO missions. The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, mentioned developing our diplomatic missions and so on. Yes, these will form part of our strategy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned Somaliland. We are going to continue to keep it under review and look, across all of Africa, to develop trade projects where there are major buyers.
I know that I am running out of time, so I shall quickly conclude and perhaps answer some of noble Lords’ questions.
We are seeking to further growth here at home by facilitating trade contacts between African buyers and UK firms spanning our financial and professional services, agriculture, and renewable energy and mining, and at the same time to support UK business investment in critical mineral projects.
We are throwing our full support behind projects that translate into better infrastructure, education and healthcare. An example in healthcare is our work with the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority, where we have funded technical assistance to clear a backlog in registering new medicines and medical devices. The result is more medicines reaching providers in South Africa and, one hopes, the continent and a £62 million export win for a UK company. That is a really good story to tell.
Since 2020, UK Export Finance has provided more than £5.5 billion of support for UK exporters, comprising guarantees, loans and insurance. Just last year, UKEF closed its largest sovereign transaction with sub-Saharan Africa, arranging finance through a guarantee on a loan of €415 million to deliver critical infrastructure in Benguela province in Angola to protect the region against future flooding.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned international development and foreign debt. I have a note somewhere on debt relief, so I shall write to him.
What I mentioned earlier is not exhaustive, but it shows the breadth and depth of work being undertaken to drive up trade between the UK and Africa—work that has been accelerated as part of this Government’s mission to go for growth at every opportunity. We look forward to working further with every single noble Lord as we make this vision a reality.
The Clock has started flashing. If I have not answered any questions from noble Lords, I shall endeavour to write to each and every one of them.
To return to debt relief, this will form part of the Government’s thinking as we develop our plan for Africa.
Wild Atlantic Salmon
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect wild Atlantic salmon populations.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to talk about the future of this wonderful fish, the Atlantic salmon. I declare some interests: my family have a week timeshare on the Tay and, as Secretary of State, I set up a task force to look at the future of the salmon, under Lord Nickson, who produced an excellent report, most of the recommendations of which have yet to be implemented more than 25 years later.
I have fished for salmon in both the United Kingdom and Iceland for some 27 years and, during that period, there has been what can only be described as a catastrophic decline in the numbers of salmon. Indeed, the United Nations has now decided that the Atlantic salmon is an endangered species, putting it in the same category as mountain gorillas, rhinos and lots of other animals. I suggest that, if people realised how threatened it is, this would be a much bigger issue of public debate. It is just unanswerable that urgent intervention is now required to save this fish.
What does that mean? Personally, I think it means that no wild fish should ever be killed. It means that we have to tackle the predators of salmon: the fish-eating birds and the seals. When I was Secretary of State, the Canadians had an interesting programme where they fired contraceptive darts to reduce the population, which also helps the seal population if it becomes excessive, which it is.
The most important thing is that we need cold, clean water. I very much welcome the Minister’s efforts to ensure that the water companies and their directors could find themselves in jail for continuing to pollute our rivers in the way they do. It is essential that the habitat is as clean as possible: although this is a strong fish, it is very sensitive.
We also need to think carefully about the sensitive use of hatcheries. We need to work out what we are doing here. Are we interested in creating ranching for people to catch fish, or are we interested in having conservation of this important animal? I believe the emphasis should be on the latter, not the former.
We need to understand more carefully what is going on at sea. Why do the return rates continue to fall? We need to have action on identifying those rates and what can be done about this.
The most important thing is tackling salmon farming, getting it out of open cages in the sea and on to the land—some people are already beginning to experiment with that. I remember my great friend, the late Orri Vigfússon, who did so much to save the salmon, talking to me about these possibilities more than a decade ago. We need to get on with that. I do not normally promote books, but I recommend The New Fish—noble Lords can find it on Amazon. I promise that, if they read that book, which details what is going on with salmon farming, they will never eat farmed salmon again.
This is a story of chemicals being poured on fish in order to deal with their lice, of the excessive use of antibiotics, of stock losses of as much as a quarter, and of fish being eaten alive. They market this product as Scottish salmon, but it is no more Scottish than anything else. It is actually a Norwegian salmon that has been created by genetic engineering to grow quickly in order to meet the needs of production. As such, if it escapes into the wild, it does huge damage to salmon populations. Recently in Iceland there was an escape from a salmon farm, and 1% of the population turned up to protest at the Icelandic parliament because of the damaging effects. Frogmen were employed in the rivers more than 100 kilometres away from the escape point in order to spearhead the salmon before they bred with the domestic salmon—the unique river salmon —with huge and damaging consequences.
The fact is that the previous Government, whom I blame for this, did so little to engage with the devolved Administrations to make sure that we regulate this industry, which is a filthy, polluting activity that is doing enormous damage, and not just to salmon. We find lobsters and crabs with their shells half eaten away because of the consequences of the chemicals used to cope with the lice on the salmon.
There is not much time, and I want to leave time for others, but my message is this: the salmon is in danger of disappearing altogether. I do not want my grandchildren to be unable to fish for salmon or see a leaping salmon in Scotland. It is iconic—an important creature that has been in Scotland since the ice age and in southern rivers such as the Test and the Itchen since before the age ice, for millions of years. These fish are important, and it is high time that people looked at what is going on under the water and took some action to rescue this great and wonderful creature.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, for introducing this popular debate. I declare my interest as owning a property with my sister in Dumfries and Galloway in south-west Scotland. My sister is a keen fisher, and my interest is in seeing a healthy population of wild salmon in the upper Cree tributary, which, along with the Annan, Nith, Bladnoch and Luce, flows ultimately into the Solway Firth.
My contribution today is informed by many years of support from and conversations with Mr Jamie Ribbens, senior fisheries biologist at the Galloway Fisheries Trust, a charity set up to monitor environmental conditions and encourage good practice to restore river health. I also have regular conversations with Forestry and Land Scotland’s environment office at Newton Stewart.
These five river systems still support Atlantic salmon and brown trout, unlike most areas of south-west Scotland. Of the 11 upland lochs studied, six are now fishless. Most of the tributaries are designated as special areas of conservation—SAC—and come under the jurisdiction of SEPA, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
Peatlands are common within many of the acidified areas in Galloway, and their importance cannot be overemphasised for carbon storage, given the urgency of combating climate change. They also carry out several other ecological services, including water purification, improved climate resilience, flood control and acting as unique habitats for flora and fauna. The degradation of many peat bogs has occurred from large-scale commercial planting of Sitka spruce, with resultant drainage. It is important that new planting schemes are not allowed in deep peat—they still are—with commensurate drainage. Impacted areas need to have a faster rollout of riparian trees, using hardwoods to produce sufficient shade, and to have peatlands restored to help water quality. The Riverwoods initiative needs greater uptake.
Climate change impacts are the major threat to salmon. High water temperatures are already a problem and will only get worse. Oh dear, I had not realised the time—I had better skip straight to a conclusion.
While this specific area and context are subject to the Scottish Government, I imagine that the problems will be more widespread. I ask my noble friend the Minister to challenge and encourage SEPA, Forestry and Land Scotland, and the Scottish Government to do more to restore peatlands, especially where they are so important for water quality, natural flood management and water flows. Healthy peatlands are vital for healthy salmon.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, in the debate instituted by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, some 21 years ago, I drew attention to the hatchery at Dinnet on the Scottish Dee. Its fry and parr were planted out in the middle and upper tributaries. Three years after that debate, the hatchery closed down because there had been no discernible improvement in adult fish returning to the Dee after their cycle at sea. In 2022, the River Dee stocking review concluded that, when released into the natural environment, hatchery-reared salmon survived and reproduced so poorly that it was better for the captured broodstock to breed naturally. It is a question of genetics.
Recently on the Dee, a 20-year programme, Save the Spring, was launched with a budget of £20 million to restore the upper river catchment—the heartland of its spring salmon. It is a two-pronged strategy for both habitat and fish repopulation. The ambition is for 1 million native trees, half of which have now been planted. If you travel down Glen Clunie, near Braemar, you will see the bogs and woodland being restored to reduce water temperatures; to control the flow; to provide salmon with shelter and protection from predation; and to diversify the in-stream habitat and invertebrate food. Work will soon begin on other feeder burns.
The second prong brings fish to the restored river. Wild smolts are to be captured and grown to adulthood and reproductive maturity in a marine environment at Stirling University. Kelts will be captured and reconditioned, and both will be returned to spawn on their genetic redds. In the 45 years that I have fished the Dee, salmon stocks have reduced by 80%. Save the Spring gives great hope for posterity. Will the Minister support that project and extend its principle to other salmon rivers in the United Kingdom?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, I start by putting on record my congratulations to the Minister on her appointment. I wish her all the best in navigating her way through an interesting, diverse and sometimes thorny portfolio. I declare my interests, as set out in the register, as the owner of two salmon rivers in Scotland and as a past chairman of the Atlantic Salmon Trust.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for raising this important issue. It is regrettable that we have so little time, both individually and collectively, to explore it. To add a little context to this debate, I will offer a few statistics to help noble Lords visualise the extent of the demise of wild Atlantic salmon. In 1800, the population of wild Atlantic salmon was estimated at 100 million. By 1950, this number had dropped to approximately 10 million—a reduction of 90%. Today, the population sits at around 2.5 million, so, in statistical terms, we have lost 97.5% of the population in a little over 200 years. For a species that has been swimming in our rivers and oceans for more than 6 million years, that is a truly terrible result. They are now classified as endangered, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that they are on the brink of extinction.
Depressingly, the cause of this disaster is almost entirely man-made. There are, however, many ways in which the fortunes of this incredible pioneer, traveller and survivor could be reversed. Today, we will hear from many noble Lords about some of the key ways to improve salmon numbers. Essentially, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned, there are only two things that salmon need: cold water and clean water. I totally endorse my noble friend’s comments on salmon farming. I encourage all Members of this House to refrain from eating the smoked salmon on the menus here and instead to look at smoked trout, which is a much healthier and kinder alternative to smoked salmon.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made the case. I have six questions. Can I have a detailed response to each, following departmental consideration?
First, on global warming and its effect on fish stocks, will the UK meet the legal target of slashing CO2 emissions by 2035 and support the work of the Missing Salmon Alliance?
On young salmon survival following drought, flooding and deprivation, will new agricultural schemes include options for targeting river protection and streams to help fish and biodiversity?
On habitat, fish need cover and stable gravel for eggs, and the protection of habitat with cover helps water management. The Environment Agency, Natural England and the Rivers Trust are doing their best but need better support. Can they be funded for greater habitat protection?
On predation, over the years we have witnessed a massive decline in the salmon population, much of it due to predation. Artificial barriers and weirs all obstruct migration, with salmon facing extinction. How about a review of the law that overly protects piscine predators?
River pollution is gravely damaging salmon populations through sewage and run-off. Nutrient enrichment, watercourses and ecosystems in general need incentivised investment strategies. Can the Government help in that area?
Finally, I caught my first salmon some 68 years ago on the Derwent, which was once England’s best salmon river. There is a problem at the Yearl weir, at Workington. It is causing massive losses of juvenile salmon that are migrating and of returning adults. Can it be removed urgently? It is killing the river.
I need to apologise to those outside who hoped for a longer contribution from me. The debate has proved immensely popular. That is the reason for the time constraints.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Forsyth on securing this debate. I declare an interest: I caught my first salmon on the River Lochy, in 1971, and have been fortunate enough to fish rivers across the British Isles since then.
There is overwhelming evidence of the damage that has been done by fish farms. If one looks at the contrast between east and west Scottish rivers, one finds that the west ones have suffered much more. Norway is a compelling case as well. The clincher for me is the River Lochy. About 15 years ago, the farms in Loch Linnhe were fallowed for a year. The following season, the grilse catch went up by four times. I find that evidence pretty compelling. Action is needed, and I support the noble Lord 100% on that.
On seals, is it not interesting that, when there were substantial commercial netting stations on most of the big rivers and along the east and north coasts of Scotland, the commercial fishermen were allowed to cull seals on a selective basis? They did it very effectively. I suggest that, when seals come up-river—there is evidence that they come up-river and do a lot of damage to stocks in rivers, way upstream from the tidal reaches—the river managers and bailiffs should be able to get a licence to kill them.
Those two areas are within our control. I urge the Minister to take further action; I know she is committed to this incredibly important conservation subject. Something that is not so much in our control is netting on the high seas. I suggest to the Minister that there is a huge amount of informal, anecdotal evidence that a great deal of interceptory netting is taking place by international vessels on the high seas. We need more evidence to drill down and find out what is happening. There should then be an international task force, made up of the north Atlantic salmon countries, to try to grip this issue. I hope the Minister will take note and take action.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, the River Wye is dying. High levels of phosphates led to an algal bloom over 140 miles of the river in 2020. Chicken farms along the River Wye—the poultry capital of the UK, which houses 20 million chickens at any time—contribute to eutrophication, algal blooms and the suffocation of Atlantic salmon. The total salmon caught in the Wye numbered some 1,200 in 2017. This year’s salmon fishing season is shaping up to be an absolute disaster, with numbers predicted to be closer to 100 in the whole river.
Intensive farming and sewage pollution have caused these algal blooms, which deprive aquatic wildlife of oxygen. I call on the Government to take immediate action by banning construction of new intensive livestock production units in the Wye catchment; introducing and funding manure management plans, so that chicken litter produced by these intensive poultry units can be processed and removed from the Wye catchment, where a significant phosphate surplus exists within the region’s soils; providing additional funding, either by grant aid, increased licence fees or other “polluter pays” sources of revenue; conducting inspections of all intensive poultry units to ensure that they adhere to the provisions set out in their plans; and protecting all watercourses within the Wye catchment by appropriate river buffers, to provide a nature-based separation zone between all agricultural activities and running water.
This April, the Government’s response was a start but it did not go far enough to restore the river to its full health or sufficiently amend the damage done to the Atlantic salmon population and aquatic life in general—no wonder the Green Party won Sir Bill Wiggin’s North Herefordshire seat in this year’s general election. The public are increasingly voting for action and change in the Wye valley. The Government need to take note and act sustainably, in the interests of the well-being of the people and the aquatic ecosystems in that stunning countryside. I say to the Government: please provide the River Wye with a life-support system now.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I start by reminding the Committee of my interests as chairman of the Fleet District Salmon Fishery Board and director and trustee of the Galloway Fisheries Trust. On that note, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his kind reference to the excellent work carried out by our rather brilliant team in Dumfries and Galloway. I also own a stretch of the Water of Fleet, and am a keen fisherman.
We have heard many reasons for the decline in salmon numbers. I will add to that its close cousin, the rather undervalued sea trout. In just two minutes, I am going to touch on just one of those reasons, which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has already alluded to. It has been a particular issue in the rivers of south-west Scotland but could become a problem for other rivers if the lessons are not learned. I am talking about the impact of large-scale conifer plantation.
The catchments of many of the rivers of Galloway were planted with extensive areas of Sitka spruce in the 1960s and 1970s, which has caused the acidification of the rivers and lochs, and especially the burns in which the fish spawn. The impact has been dramatic. In the 1960s, the annual sea trout catch on the Water of Fleet was almost 1,200 fish; now, in a good year, it might be 35. Salmon numbers were over 80 a year; I am now lucky if I catch one or two.
The good news is that the damage seems to be reversible. If the trees are removed, together, importantly, with work to restore the underlying peat, acidity does reduce. After a lot of work by various agencies, we are beginning at last to see trout return to some burns and breeding, and finding salmon fry in places where they were previously not able to survive.
My plea to the Government is to consider very carefully before promoting large-scale conifer plantations, especially on peatland, and to ensure that when trees previously planted in the wrong places are felled, they are not replanted and that regeneration is then controlled. Trees are good, but only when they are the right trees in the right places.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, the statistics given by my noble friend Lord Douglas-Miller are horrifying. We are now at the point where every fish needs protection. There are a number of issues here and I want to focus on just one, which is by-catch.
Regrettably, this iconic fish is currently not listed on the ICES working group on by-catch of protected species road map. We know that some salmon are caught in commercial fisheries and that there is risk of potential significant damage, but because of the lack of by-catch monitoring for salmon, it is difficult to quantify the actual damage being done and how significant it is. However, it is known that most by-catch comes from pelagic and gill-net fisheries. Sadly, to date there been no attempt to quantify the by-catch of wild salmon by these fisheries.
This Government, working with the devolved Administrations, must push as a matter of urgency the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, ICES and the regional fisheries management organisations, first, to access fishing effort data from pelagic fisheries and gill nets provided at fine temporal and spatial scales; secondly, to increase monitoring at sea and onshore, with specific requirements for minimum data collection; and, thirdly, to recognise the importance of different species. These can be difficult to identify, especially when a specimen may be a small, immature salmon crushed in among hundreds of tonnes of a target species. To address this, environmental DNA data collection should be mandatory to improve the detection of salmon in by-catch and expand our understanding of their migratory pathways.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that one of my children owns a stretch of a small salmon river in south-west Scotland, where I have fished all my life.
In the very short time available, I want simply to suggest to the Minister that, in informing herself about this dangerous situation with the Atlantic salmon, she might care to visit, or at least find out about, an organic salmon farm in Ireland which I visited this summer. It is extraordinary. Anybody who watched the “Panorama” programme on salmon farming a few years ago will never again eat any farmed Scottish salmon. However, that organic farm in Ireland is truly admirable. It does not have a lice problem. The salmon are not so packed in the cages as in Scotland, where they are like battery chickens. There is virtually no use of antibiotics or other chemicals. The seabed under the cages is regularly inspected and never resembles the state of the seabed under the salmon farms on the west coast of Scotland.
So there is an alternative to the sort of salmon farming which takes place on the west coast. I do not know whether the Minister can apply any influence over the Scottish Government, but the industry should be more regulated. At the very least, the use of antibiotics in it should be strictly controlled.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Salmon and Trout Association and the GWCT, and I am in my 50th year of fishing on the River Deveron.
In around 1580, salmon was so prolific on English rivers that apprentices’ indentures on my family’s estate specified that they should be fed salmon on only five days a week. Where on earth have we got to from there?
I shall make just a couple of points. First, the demise of the sand-eel population is nothing short of drastic and affects both salmon and sea trout and a wide range of seabirds, in particular the puffin. What is being done and what is the Government’s policy to protect sand-eel populations? Will they do everything they can to enhance sand-eel stocks and not use them as a bargaining chip in their undoubted efforts to curry favour with the EU?
Secondly, the issue of gill nets in estuaries is of major importance. The buying out of commercial netting has had a considerable beneficial effect on a number of rivers. Salmon and sea trout often swim at a lower depth than the three metres mentioned with regard to gill nets. This should be taken into account when dealing with gill nets.
What is the Government’s policy towards the control of seals, which predate heavily on salmon and sea trout in both coastal waters and estuaries?
Finally—this is the quickest speech I have ever made in my life—is the Minister aware of the excellent research carried out over the past 50 years on the River Frome by the GWCT?
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean on bringing this much-needed debate. I declare my interests as a member of the Endsleigh Fishing Club, which is the largest riparian owner of the River Tamar, and that my brothers-in-law are owners of stretches of the Rivers Laggan and Sorn in Islay.
Governments of all colours have not done enough to protect this wonderful species, which has in the past graced our rivers in abundance. Others have spoken of the damage caused by the open cage fish farming industry, which clearly needs much stricter regulation and must be required to adhere to much higher standards. This has particularly affected salmon runs in Scotland, but salmon runs in English rivers have completely collapsed too. There are, as far as I know, no salmon farms in England, so there are other causes of the steep decline in the salmon population. For example, seven salmon have been caught to date on the Tamar this year. That compares with 146 in 2010.
There has also been an explosion in the populations of seals, beavers and predatory seabirds, especially cormorants. It is ridiculous that river-keepers are given licences to shoot only two or three birds, when they should be allowed to shoot as many as they can.
A major cause of the decline of salmon in many rivers is the very large by-catch of salmon and sea trout taken by the burgeoning inshore fisheries. This is a huge problem on the River Tamar and other south-western rivers.
In 2007, my fellow directors of the Endsleigh Fishing Club on the Tamar, aware of the successful reintroduction of salmon to the north Tyne, hired Peter Gray, the legendary former manager of the Kielder hatchery, to reopen the Endsleigh hatchery. Unfortunately, the Environment Agency was determined to ensure that the experiment would fail by adopting a very unco-operative approach, preventing Mr Gray using the same methods that it had permitted at Kielder. The money we had invested in reopening the hatchery was wasted. Can the Minister tell us whether the EA still maintains the ambivalent attitude to hatcheries that it did in those days?
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, for 40 years I represented in the Commons a constituency which had almost every kind of salmon fishing: the net and coble fishery in the Tweed, a regulated drift-net fishery at sea, T-net fisheries off the Coquet, a fixed-engine fishery and, of course, the highly prized rod fishery in the Tweed and the Till, which brings much income to the hospitality and retail trades. Everybody participating in each of these fisheries thought that if all the others were abolished, there would not be a problem any more with runs of salmon, so a great deal of effort and quite a bit of private sector money have been invested in buyouts to end the rod-catch fishery, which itself is largely catch and return these days.
However, that has not solved the problems, which means that Ministers must address many of the issues which have been raised in the course of this debate. These include the malign effects of the salmon farming industry; the effect of predators, especially seals; the loss of spawning habitats, or the quality of habitats; river water quality more generally; and changing sea conditions, including sea temperature, which brings us to the big issue of global warming.
I do not believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, indicated, that we should put an end to killing of any wild salmon. Wild salmon is a delicacy. The way to conserve salmon does not require the complete abolition of all forms of regulated harvesting, but unless we attend to the issues that I and other noble Lords have referred to there will not be enough salmon to justify continuing that activity.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interest as set out in the register of owning fishing rights on six salmon rivers in the UK. We should all be embarrassed that the IUCN has classified the wild Atlantic salmon as endangered in the UK, and the causes are manmade. This is an indicator flashing red about the health of our ecosystem, on land and sea.
I urge the Minister to address the points raised today. In particular, what pressure and action will the Government bring to bear on salmon farms, given these are on Scottish Crown Estate property? What research is being done to understand pelagic fishery by-catch impact and drive protective action? Could salmon be reclassified from fresh water to marine to require proper by-catch recording at sea?
What work is being done to return water to river systems from historic extraction rights, as well as removing manmade obstacles from the beds of rivers, as we have seen SEPA do successfully in Scotland? What would this Government consider appropriate to limit predation on salmon throughout its life cycle?
Can the Minister reassure us that she will investigate ways to accelerate riparian planting? The Atlantic salmon evolved with extensive tree protection on every river, and much of this has been removed. Can we put it back please?
What role can the Atlantic salmon play in defining nature recovery, given its totemic status and ease of measurement? Could the water industry be incentivised to invest more in habitat as part of its catchment management? Finally, will the Government continue to support investment in farms to limit effluent?
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for securing this debate and to all noble Lords who have spoken. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Douglas-Miller for his exceptional leadership of the Atlantic Salmon Trust and for the important work he did as Defra Minister in this House. This debate emphasises that the Government must lead in repairing the damage done to the Atlantic salmon. The breeding cycle and the number of eggs it spawns mean that it is not too late. If this Government are serious about nature recovery, the Atlantic salmon would be only too happy to oblige within a short timeframe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question on wild Atlantic salmon. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for raising this important matter, and all noble Lords for their speedy contributions—it is a shame that we did not have longer. As the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, the noble Lord, Lord Douglas-Miller, did a lot to draw attention to this while he was the Minister, and I thank him for his work because not enough attention has been paid to it in the past.
I acknowledge the importance of wild north Atlantic salmon, a protected and iconic species. Young salmon undergo a complex transformation so that they can leave our rivers and migrate thousands of kilometres to feed in cold north Atlantic waters. These salmon spend at least a year in the Atlantic before returning to our rivers to spawn. But, as we have heard, over the last 30 to 40 years there has been a significant and ongoing decline in salmon stocks, not only in UK rivers but across much of the north Atlantic. We have heard some very frightening figures for the rapidity of that decline.
Historically, there has been a strong tradition of commercial and recreational salmon fishing right across the United Kingdom, bringing in tens of millions of pounds annually. Now, there is only limited commercial salmon fishing in Scotland, and recreational salmon fishers operate largely on a catch-and-release basis to protect the remaining stocks, as we have heard.
The pressures facing Atlantic salmon are serious. They are wide ranging and often difficult to manage. As we have heard, they include fishing, climate change, habitat degradation, invasive species, disease and genetic introgression, to name just a few of the challenges facing the industry. Without increased conservation efforts, there is a real risk that we will see our remaining wild salmon stocks drop further—the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was clear on this in his introduction. As other noble Lords have said, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red-list criteria, Atlantic salmon are now endangered in Great Britain and near threatened globally.
Due to the Atlantic salmon’s huge geographic range, it is vital that we work with international partners to protect this species. The 1984 convention for the conservation of salmon in the north Atlantic put an end to almost all fishing for Atlantic salmon over 12 nautical miles from shore and established the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization—NASCO —of which the UK is a member. Measures agreed by NASCO have resulted in significant further reductions in fishing effort and have driven improvements in salmon management more broadly.
Having said this, stocks are still not recovering, so the Government welcome NASCO’s recently published strategy and action plan, which aims to prioritise and drive actions necessary to slow the decline of wild Atlantic salmon populations and demonstrate that restoration is possible. The target for this is within the next 10 years. NASCO will now focus on increasing our understanding of the pressures on salmon; on developing best practice around the management of salmon habitat, aquaculture, stocking and fisheries management; and on increasing collaboration and accountability for the delivery of salmon protection work.
Our domestic situation and approach echo the international picture. But, before delving into this, I should clarify that, although Defra leads on our international salmon work, domestic salmon policy is a devolved matter where it happens in Scotland, as we have heard. Between 2014 and 2020, commercial salmon netting was banned in Northern Ireland, Wales and England, and, in 2016, a prohibition on retaining any salmon caught in coastal waters was introduced in Scotland.
Recreational catch and release rates are between 89% and 96% across the UK. This has been achieved through a combination of voluntary and mandatory measures. Despite this, most recent stock assessments continue to show a downward trend, with the majority of the UK’s salmon rivers having unsustainably low salmon populations.
I am fortunate to live alongside a river myself. The River Marron is a salmonid river, so I have personally seen what is happening and am aware of the stark reality of the situation. However, there are ways we can improve things and there is some hope. For example, a few years ago on our land, a weir was removed from our river to aid the passage of salmon. There are other examples where removing barriers to free up the passage of Atlantic salmon has assisted an increase in salmon numbers, such as on the Derbyshire Derwent, Yorkshire Don, River Calder, River Dee and River Tweed, but clearly, we need to do more. We need to build on this to restore stocks on more salmon rivers. It is too early to confirm specific actions in England, but we have committed to clean up Britain’s rivers and to speed up nature’s recovery. I want to ensure that salmon and other migratory fish see the greatest possible benefit from these commitments.
I will now address some of the specific points raised by noble Lords today. Farmed fish and their welfare was clearly central to the debate, and we want to see the highest standards of animal welfare. Of course, the welfare of farmed animals in Scotland is a devolved matter for the Scottish Government to address, but I consider this to be a matter that we also need to take seriously as a Government. I will be writing to Mairi Gougeon to ask her to set out clearly what protections are in place, the levels of mortality, sea lice and antibiotic use, as well as the number of escapees—how many salmon are getting out of these farms—so that we have a clearer picture of the situation in Scotland. I am also looking to arrange meetings with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations and will discuss this, among other matters.
My noble friend Lord Grantchester talked about the importance of healthy peatlands. This of course is also devolved in Scotland, but we think that healthy peatlands are incredibly important for restoring nature and improving salmon stocks. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, talked about the Sitka spruce. Again, in Dumfries and Galloway that is a devolved matter, but I think we need to see an end to forestry monoculture. I have discussed this with Forestry England, and I know that is the approach that it is taking.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, talked about moving to more sustainable salmon farming and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, talked about the organic farm that he had seen in Ireland. I am aware that AquaCultured Seafood Limited is seeking to build the UK’s first commercial land-based salmon farm in Grimsby. Land-based salmon farming does not put additional pressure on wild salmon populations in the way that open-net salmon farming does, because the fish are then isolated from that environment. As a Government, we are encouraging sustainable innovation in the salmon farming sector to increase our environmental standards. I would be very happy to look at a visit to an organic salmon farm and I thank him for suggesting that.
Predation was raised by a number of noble Lords: the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth, Lord Thomas and Lord Bellingham. Given the poor status of salmon stocks predation may, under certain conditions, have significant impacts—we are aware of that. It is slightly nuanced, in the sense that the predators are often protected themselves, so we need to be careful about how and when such predators can be managed, but it is something we are very aware of.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned the Save the Spring project. To be honest, I did not know much about it, so if the noble Lord would like to send me some more information about it I would be really interested to take a look. Likewise, the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, mentioned the project on the River Frome. My daughter has just moved to Frome, so this is something I should take an interest in.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lords, Lord Bellingham and Lord Roborough, talked about by-catch and netting of salmon. This could well be a contributing factor to declining wild salmon populations, so we are actively working with NASCO to understand this risk better. Following this year’s annual meeting, at the UK’s request and with agreement from other parties, NASCO has submitted a request to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to include salmon on its by-catch monitoring list in order to help us better understand the scale of the issue and inform any mitigations.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. It is not just by-catch that is of concern but international vessels that are fishing using sonar deliberately and specifically for salmon. They may be wiping out whole shoals of fish at one time.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. I thank him for reminding me of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, also talked about the impact of barriers. Between 2019 and 2023, the Environment Agency and its partner organisations mitigated 58 barriers on England’s salmon rivers. Following that, the Environment Agency is conducting a review of further barriers to fish passage and intends to make recommendations on what government support is required to further move this on. We will consider that in due course.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talked about hatcheries and stocking. NASCO has this year reviewed and updated its stocking guidance to further clarify the risks associated with stocking practices and appropriate mitigations. This is something else that the Environment Agency is reviewing.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised the issue of the River Wye, which is an issue that we fully recognise. Natural Resources Wales and the Environment Agency are working with a number of different agencies and organisations. I am sure he is very aware of this, but I would be very happy to work with him to move forward with this issue, if he has input that he can bring.
The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, mentioned sand-eels. I am afraid I will have to write to him on that matter.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours asked some detailed and specific questions. With the limited time I have—I have only a few seconds left—I will have to respond to him in detail in writing.
To conclude, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for securing this important debate. I assure all noble Lords that I am committed to taking action in this area.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I think we still have some time, so can I just pick the noble Baroness up on the point she made about predators and how some of them are protected? That is indeed the case, but it is because they are protected that the populations have grown so strongly. It makes them a great threat to this fish, which is an endangered species.
I will also pick up the point that she made about devolved matters. Now that this has been designated as an endangered species, and with the Government’s international treaty obligations to deal with that issue, surely it is incumbent on her and her department to bring the devolved nations together, as she indicated she was prepared to do, to work out a plan so that the United Kingdom’s international responsibilities in respect of protecting and maintaining biodiversity are met.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord just made some really important points. I am extremely keen to do joined-up work with the devolved Administrations because that is the way we move forward, particularly on issues such as this. As I said, I will write to the relevant Minister in the Scottish Parliament to look for a meeting. If we are to make progress on these kinds of issues, we have to work together. It is the only way we will move forward.
Arrangement of Business
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, opens the next debate, I wish to highlight the three-minute speaking time limit for contributions other than those from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the Minister. I appreciate this is tight and many noble Lords will have more to say, which is a reflection of the importance of the topic, but I respectfully ask that all contributions are limited to that maximum time to protect the time for the Minister’s response. I thank noble Lords.
Children: Impact of International Conflict
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the impact of international conflict on children, and (2) the recommendations proposed by Save the Children in its report Stop the War on Children: Let Children Live in Peace, published in December 2023.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, today one in every five children lives in or is fleeing from conflict zones. They face greater risks than at any time in the last two decades. From Gaza to Sudan, Yemen to the Democratic Republic of Congo, children find themselves caught up in violence that is not of their making. They risk being killed, maimed, raped and recruited into armed forces. They are often denied the most basic humanitarian aid and medical care. We have witnessed the bombing of schools and hospitals on a scale unseen in decades—a clear violation of international humanitarian law.
Every year, the United Nations publishes its annual report on children and armed conflict, meticulously documenting the grave violations committed against children. Drawing on the UN’s research, Save the Children compiles its own report, Stop the War on Children, which analyses the most dangerous conflicts for children. Its latest publication was at the end of last year and is perhaps now a little out of date, but the most recent UN report, published in June this year, provides an updated and stark picture of where in the world children are suffering the most today. The UN reports a 21% increase in grave violations against children, with the highest numbers recorded in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the DRC, Myanmar, Somalia, Nigeria and Sudan. Today, I shall refer briefly to Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine.
The suffering of those caught up in the Gaza-Israel conflict has dominated media reports since the appalling killing and kidnapping of Israeli citizens by Hamas last October. Virginia Gamba, the special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for children and armed conflict, stated in June this year:
“The parties to the conflict in Gaza are doing irreparable harm to children”.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the IDF are all named in this year’s UN report as perpetrators of heinous acts. The UK’s deputy ambassador to the UN in New York, James Kariuki, said in the Security Council just last month:
“Gaza has become the deadliest place in the world to be a child”.
For those children who survive these horrors, the impact on their mental health is beyond comprehension. In March, Save the Children International quoted the remark of Dalia, a mother in Gaza, who said:
“Our children have already lived through different wars. They already lacked resilience and now it’s very difficult to cope. The children are scared, angry and can’t stop crying … This is too much for adults to cope with, let alone children”.
I turn now to the conflict in Sudan, which has persisted for over a year and escalated into one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. It is reported that nearly 16,000 people have been killed—some say the number is vastly higher—and 14 million children are in desperate need of support to overcome the impacts of this conflict. Abduction, killing, maiming, sexual violence, recruitment and abuse: these are the daily risks faced by children in Sudan. They have witnessed their homes, hospitals, playgrounds and schools bombed, looted and occupied. They have lost loved ones. They have been subjected to unspeakable violence. Denied access to basic necessities such as food, shelter and healthcare, they are at risk of harm from hunger, disease and a severe lack of medical care.
The blocking of humanitarian access and the sheer danger involved in any attempt to deliver aid have already led to a famine being declared in parts of the country, with over 25 million people now facing severe acute food insecurity—in common parlance, that really means near famine. Can the Minister update us today on the progress made on the agreement reached by the ALPS group last month that the Adre border would be opened to humanitarian aid convoys?
Turning to Ukraine, we find a similarly harrowing situation. More than 14.6 million people require humanitarian assistance; of those, 2.9 million are children whose physical safety, mental health and education are threatened every day. The recent escalation in fighting led to a nearly 40% increase in child casualties in the first half of this year alone, bringing the total number killed to over 600 and those injured to over 1,500. It is estimated that up to 20,000 unaccompanied and separated children from Ukraine are currently held within the Russian Federation. Can the Minister say whether the UK Government will exert diplomatic pressure to establish an independent mechanism for the return of those children, ensuring their safe and timely reunification with their legal guardians?
Today, I have had time to touch on only three of the 25 countries highlighted in this year’s UN report. Each conflict is of course unique, yet somehow the suffering of children is a common thread that binds those tragedies together. Save the Children’s Stop the War on Children report offers several recommendations that the UK Government should heed if they wish to protect children who are living in conflict zones. Will the Minister give a commitment today that the Government will act on those recommendations; for example, to uphold the standards of conduct in conflict; to hold perpetrators to account; to support children’s resilience and recovery; to protect both humanitarian access and work; and crucially, to listen to the children themselves?
The Government have the opportunity to embrace these principles as they design and publish the UK’s first-ever child and armed conflict strategy. The FCDO began the initial stages of this strategy under the Conservative Government. Will the Minister commit today to this vital work continuing? I look forward to hearing the views of colleagues today and hearing from the Minister what steps the Government will take to address these important issues. We have little time for debates on such matters; children may have even less time in their lives.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for securing this debate, for her excellent and informed opening remarks and for her service as a parliamentarian and a Minister. If I may, in anticipation of the next speaker, I want also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, for his service. He is admired, respected and trusted by all and, for more than a decade, has been our best diplomat.
I start with the obvious: this Question is not one that should excite partisan disagreement. The situation for children in conflict is, by almost any objective metric, worsening. Since 2021, one in five children are living in a conflict zone, as we have heard—a 2.8% increase. Save the Children reports a 13% increase in grave violations against children since 2021, with 76 now each day. Most concerningly, we have seen an increase of 20% in the number of children recruited by armed forces and militias.
These figures are indicative at best. There are obvious inherent challenges in reporting and verification, which makes it likely that the figures, while the best available, do not adequately reflect reality. Indeed, the United Nations has conceded that, in far too many instances, age disaggregation does not form part of the statistical methodology. In November, the UN published a discussion paper that sought to disentangle the three-cornered relationship between climate change, conflict and the erosion of children’s rights. It quotes the Secretary-General’s special representative on violence against children:
“The cumulative shocks of the climate crisis are exacerbating pre-existing crises … and … aggravating the risk factors … such as poverty, economic and social inequalities, food insecurity and forced displacement”.
Of course, Russian aggression against Ukraine and the ongoing horrors in Gaza monopolise public attention, but many of the conflicts where children are most acutely affected are happening away from the gaze of the public—at least, that of the western public. Conflicts in Somalia, Ethiopia, Myanmar and Mozambique have seen observable interaction between climate change, the fracturing of food security, conflict and the recruitment of children to militia groups.
However, although climate change and the consequent climate-related stressors exacerbate the effects of conflict, many of the patterns of behaviour that lead to violations of children’s rights are dismally familiar. It was as long ago as 1996 when the UN mandate on children and armed conflict was created. It was 1999 when Resolution 1261 was passed, prioritising the protection, welfare and rights of children and efforts to promote peace and security. Since then, a further 12 resolutions designed to strengthen child protection in this area have been passed. Supranational efforts are limited in what they can achieve; it is at the national level that responsibility for the prevention of violence against children must begin.
In the cross-party spirit of today’s proceedings, I commend both the previous Government, for committing to developing a new strategy specifically aimed at helping children in conflict, and the new Government, for pledging in the King’s Speech to continue that work. I look forward to joining colleagues across your Lordships’ House to ensure that that work is concluded as soon as possible and brought forward for our consideration.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this important debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Anelay and align myself with the remarks made about her service in this area, both in this House and in the previous Government. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for his kind remarks.
Children matter; our debate is testimony to that. In 2023, 450 million children—one-sixth of the population of children across the globe—were impacted by conflict around the world. Some 50% of all displaced people around the globe are children. These are not mere numbers but real lives and real people; they are the children who will build the world of tomorrow. Conflicts are raging. Children are dying, suffering and being maimed. The psychological impacts are immeasurable. Gaza, Syria, Ukraine, Iraq, the DRC—the list continues. Children are being killed, schools are being targeted, young children are being recruited as child soldiers and given guns to kill, not books to learn; they are indoctrinated and brainwashed to commit the most abhorrent of crimes.
In the brief time I have today, I will focus on sexual violence in conflict. I have been truly honoured to lead the UK’s efforts in tackling this scourge on humanity over the past seven years. It involves evil and inhumane acts of rape, torture and human trafficking. I have witnessed such actions, from Iraq and the DRC to Bosnia and Myanmar, and seen the deep, irreparable scars that go way beyond the abhorrent acts of violence and stay with the victims.
The UNFPA reports that one-fifth of refugees, including IDPs, fall victim to sexual violence. Yet the courage and testimonies of the survivors and the children born of rape have inspired us. They not only survive but show us all the depths of their human resilience—I have experienced this directly, as have others—to fight back, as the report says. I join in my noble friend’s calls: I hope that the Government will take forward the recommendations of this excellent report.
The previous Government launched the Murad code, inspired by and in partnership with the incredible survivor, Nadia Murad, to protect survivor testimony. They committed to tackling stigma through the declaration of humanity; mobile courts for accountability; the establishment of the International Alliance on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict; and mechanisms to ensure, as the Save the Children report says, that perpetrators are held to account. I was honoured to lead those discussions; my noble friend also played a part in the set-up of the office of the under-secretary-general focused on children in armed conflict. Yet here we are, in 2024, with the children raped, tortured and trafficked in conflicts past still awaiting justice, their pains and anxieties compounded by what we all see on a daily basis: children being killed and tortured. We witness the 20,000 children abducted from Ukraine and live cases such as that of the four year-old girl I met in the DRC; she had been raped seven times but was being helped by the incredible Nobel laureate, Dr Mukwege.
I have a final word on children. The conflicts that the world sees not only have an impact on the children in those zones but leave deep impressions on the children of our own nation. As a father of three, I know that. It is my youngest, Faris, who has reminded me of this. Through his words of innocence—inspired by that most precious of commodities, hope—his hand-painted Ukrainian flag in 2022 and his more recent plea on seeing the daily devastation in Gaza, he has given me the same consistent, poignant message: “Daddy, please do all you can to save the children. Don’t let them die”.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, we cannot talk of children and war without referring to Gaza and Sudan, although we should add Afghanistan, Myanmar, Ukraine and other crises. What is happening is obscene and we cannot ignore the slaughter and depravation before our eyes. No matter the diplomatic obstacles or the longer-term geopolitical outcomes, we will continue to have blood on our hands until we successfully push, with our combined strength, for lasting ceasefires. But, in the meantime, we would do well to consider how best we can focus on both immediate and crucial longer-term priorities.
Education is the magic bullet for development. Conflict deprives millions of children of an education and heralds a bleak future. Some of the more egregious effects include: an increase in terrorist groupings; the recruitment of ever-younger children as soldiers; increased local and regional violence; early and forced marriage of girls; increased sale of children for economic and sexual exploitation; enforced slavery; and the loss of hope.
The coming together of groups motivated to learn does not have to be formal or necessarily taught in purpose-built schools. In Afghanistan newly set-up cluster classes, or secret education, in five provinces involve qualified teachers moving quietly from area to area and providing high-level tuition in private houses. Many thousands of girls have already enrolled, including the children of some Taliban commanders. It would not be impossible to set up similar schemes in other countries torn apart by conflict. Mobile education would rapidly reach many more children than any grand plans to rebuild infrastructure.
Afghanistan’s crisis is relatively muted compared to Gaza, Sudan or Myanmar. Although there are undoubtedly severe food shortages, most Afghans are not starving. However, this is not the case in either Gaza or Sudan. What sort of a world are we living in where children die in their thousands for want of basic food? What pressures are we bringing to bear on our Governments?
The Save the Children UN report suggests actions and, of these, humanitarian relief is surely the most urgent. Is it too much to hope that a large consortium of UN and other relief agencies, together with a phalanx of democratic nations and government representatives, can insist on limited but safe routes for regular and adequate deliveries of food and medicaments? Can the international community muster its strength and political willingness to end the carnage in Gaza and the immense human catastrophe emerging in Sudan? I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for initiating this debate.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for arranging this important debate at a time when it is absolutely vital that this is discussed, not only here but in other parts of the world. I declare my interest as an adviser and ambassador for the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, and other organisations around the institute.
Allow me to take the House back 28 years to when the UN commissioned Graça Machel, Mozambique’s first post-independence Minister for Education and a staunch advocate for children’s rights, to conduct a landmark investigation into the impact of war on children. The findings, presented in what we now call the Machel report of 1996, vividly depicted the brutal reality of children in conflict zones. It reminds us of the truth that we must never forget: children are the primary victims of war, and their protection should be central to the international human rights and peacebuilding agendas. The report has a clarion call for urgent action.
In the years that followed, many of Machel’s recommendations were adopted with determination, including the appointment of a special representative for children in armed conflict. But despite these efforts, as Save the Children’s work has highlighted, the situation for children has deteriorated significantly. Today, an alarming 468 million children are living in conflict areas and zones, double the number in 1990. The number of grave violations against children has almost tripled since 2010.
I wish to focus on one of the most horrendous of these violations: conflict-related sexual violence against children. Save the Children’s 2021 report, Weapon of War: Sexual Violence Against Children in Conflict, revealed that in 2019 31% of children lived in conflict-affected countries where at least one armed group committed sexual violence. This number is likely to increase with the rise in global violence. In 1990, 8.5 million children lived within 50 kilometres of sexual violence cases, but by 2019, this figure had skyrocketed to 72 million. Armed groups are deliberately targeting children with sexual violence to terrorise, intimidate and achieve political or military objectives, including ethnic displacement and humiliation. This is a catastrophic violation of children’s rights and a threat to entire communities and the world.
The implications of sexual violence against children extend far beyond the immediate trauma. Those children face lifelong consequences including health challenges, disruption to education and social fragmentation. As they grow into adults, they will carry the scars of their experiences. We must not underestimate the impact this will have on their capacity to rebuild. Given this, and that we are a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and UN Security Council Resolution 1612, what steps are being taken by the Government to ensure accountability for crimes against children in armed conflict, both on the international stage and within national frameworks?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Anelay for tabling this debate and Save the Children, both for its work in highlighting the cost of war on children and for its programming work, which deals with many of the issues that we are speaking about. As we have heard, children are, sadly, the most vulnerable victims in conflict. The latest report brings that into sharp focus. Not only do they suffer from the immediate effects of violence, displacement and trauma but we know that these experiences leave lasting scars, both physical and psychological.
I want to highlight three issues in the time we have today, which I hope the Minister can address in his response. The first is the importance of continued access to education. Of course, that is a very difficult challenge in conflict zones, but we know that it is imperative to give children hope for their future. However, as we see in the report, for many, even a simple act of going to school is fraught with danger. The report highlights that attacks on schools increased by 74% last year. In Sudan, we hear of schools turning into military outposts. In Gaza, children are tragically killed when airstrikes hit their schools. Of course, in Afghanistan, we see the tragedy of girls denied access to any education at all.
The UK’s support for the Safe Schools Declaration is critical, but we must also push for its full implementation. That means more investment in education in crisis settings and more support for child protection systems. Educating children in conflict can sometimes feel like an impossible task but the FCDO supports excellent organisations, such as Education Cannot Wait, which make a difference. I hope that support will continue.
The second issue is child marriage, which the report highlights as a growing crisis. We hear that in conflict settings girls are 20% more likely to be married as children. For many families, sadly, child marriage can be seen as a form of protection or economic survival in the face of conflict, but it only perpetuates the cycle of poverty and violence. Again, the UK has done some excellent work in this area with organisations such as Girls Not Brides, UNICEF and many others. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this will continue to be a focus for the FCDO.
The final issue is one which I know is close to the Minister’s heart, nutrition. Children living in conflict zones are twice as likely to be malnourished as those in stable areas. As we are tragically seeing in Sudan and elsewhere, war, exacerbated by climate change, is worsening malnutrition in children. Adaptable and resilient nutrition programmes are needed to mitigate further harm to health, through mechanisms such as the Child Nutrition Fund and others.
There is much more to cover in this report, including the important issues that other noble Lords have mentioned of holding perpetrators to account and the terrible sexual violence against children. The report makes a number of sensible, reasonable and achievable recommendations that my noble friend set out. I hope that the Minister will address all those which are relevant to the UK, as well as giving the reassurance we need on a continued commitment to the new strategy on children in conflict that other noble Lords have mentioned.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, all of us are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for initiating such an important and timely debate. The House will discuss Sudan tomorrow, but, with some 11 million people displaced, 19 million children out of school and the catastrophic spread of famine throughout Sudan, the noble Baroness was of course right to raise it, as others have.
Globally, there is a growing trend of targeting children during conflict and atrocity crimes, whether to kill, injure, abduct or abuse them, or to turn them into child soldiers, imposing unimaginable suffering on the lives of countless children. International law is clear that such targeting of children is a crime—however, too often, a low-level response and impunity send a different message.
Although I will focus my brief remarks on children abducted during Putin’s war in Ukraine, can the Minister update us on both the plight of the over 2,600 missing Yazidi women and children—some of whose families I met during a visit to northern Iraq and who were alluded to in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon—and the plight of Leah Sharibu, the 14 year-old Nigerian girl abducted by Boko Haram, raped, forcibly converted and still held by jihadists? I have raised her case since she was abducted six years ago.
Russia’s crimes in Ukraine are from the same stable and they are having a devastating impact on children. Some have died and others are injured, as Putin’s regime has targeted schools, children’s hospitals and family homes—war crimes leading to the displacement of millions of children. In addition, thousands have been abducted, forcibly exiled to Russia and subject to expedited adoptions. This had its origins in 2014 in Crimea, when Russia perversely called their trains used to transport children “trains of hope”. We know from the testimonies of rescued children that they have been subjected to indoctrination, told to become Russian and seen their Ukrainian identity destroyed.
In response, in March 2023, the ICC’s pre-trial chamber issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Mrs Maria Lvova-Belova, the Commissioner for Children’s Rights, citing their responsibility for the war crimes of unlawful deportation of population and of unlawful transfer of population—both refer to children—from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, in prejudice of Ukrainian children.
On 20 August, Save Ukraine and Bring Kids Back UA helped 12 more Ukrainian children and their families to leave temporary accommodation. The number of Ukrainian children who returned from Russia and the temporarily occupied territories has reached 466, but many more remain in Russia, and it must be our priority to get them out and reunite them with their families. I hope that the Minister can tell us what we have been doing to assist the ICC in those efforts.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, our modern weapons of war do not discriminate between the young and the old when they are used, such is their destructive power. Children in conflict zones are always the first victims of war, and those who survive are left traumatised. Witnessing extreme violence, losing a family member or being separated from loved ones can cause anxiety and other mental disorders. The psychological impact on them can be enormous and can last a lifetime.
Childhood is the happiest time of our lives, and we often wish we could return to it. Those who live in a refugee camp or a conflict zone never experience their childhood. They cannot regularly attend school and do not have a proper social structure or grow up with the necessary skills and knowledge to contribute to their society.
They often live in poverty and sometimes suffer from malnutrition, chronic stresses and diseases. In some cases, they are forced to fight in regular armies and killed. Some children become victims of sexual exploitation and are faced with stigmatisation and exclusion from their communities.
It is no good just talking about these problems—there are lots more than I have highlighted here—we must also find solutions. We must implement some sort of joint international programme to improve the lot of these children. For instance, there must be counselling for traumatised children to cope with the psychological effects of war. We must set up a programme to trace children and reunite them with their families and, in cases of child soldiers, a programme to reinstate them into society by incorporating peace into their curriculum to promote conflict resolution, tolerance and social cohesion.
To do all these things we need international co-operation on a large scale. The international community must adopt a comprehensive, co-ordinated approach to mitigate the damage done to children. We need some form of long-term humanitarian initiative, with legal protection for the well-being of children in conflict, along with a diplomatic effort to prevent conflicts and resolve existing ones, with an early warning system to detect potential conflict and take preventive action to reduce the risk to children. We should involve youths in such peacebuilding activities, empowering them to be the agents for change. We must create platforms for children to share their stories and participate in the decision-making process. We must advocate for a global movement of children’s rights and for the specific needs of children in conflict in international agreements.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this debate. I thank my noble friend for introducing it and for speaking with so much clarity and empathy. I also thank Save the Children for all the work that it does to shine a light on the issues children face around the world. I will not repeat what has been said but try to build on it. If I may say so, I expect that the next Save the Children report might find that 2023 was the year with the highest record of human rights violations against children, because children have somehow come to be regarded as legitimate targets and mere collateral damage.
Earlier this year, I met Victoria Rose, the lead consultant for plastic surgery trauma reconstruction at Guy’s and St Thomas’, who has done several placements in Gaza. Last week, having just returned from her latest placement, she said that 80% of the patients she had treated were children suffering life-altering wounds. She described doctors reusing medical supplies and operating without anaesthetics—on adults but also on children.
In November last year, Project Pure Hope was established by a number of NHS organisations and partners as a humanitarian, multifaith initiative to bring severely injured and sick children from Gaza and Israel for specialist medical care. A team of highly impressive doctors came together, fundraised and created partnerships, hoping to help severely injured children. I asked the previous Government to support this initiative by approving emergency medical visas for critically injured children who have been affected by life-altering explosive injuries and have been assessed by experts in the United Kingdom who recommend that they are transferred to the UK for specialist medical input that cannot be delivered in the medical hospital in the region. Unfortunately, support for these children—a limited number of children, for a limited period—was not forthcoming. I raised this again in July with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in the debate on foreign affairs and defence, and got no answer.
We have extended help and support to the sick children of Ukraine, and rightly so; we ought to be proud of that. However, we seem to have decided not to provide specialist support for the children of Gaza. Other countries, such as the UAE, Italy and the USA, have taken a different approach. I acknowledge and welcome UK humanitarian support for the people of Gaza and support for hospitals in the region, but we know that certain needs cannot be met and certain wounds cannot be healed in the best regional hospitals; they need specialist care here. I therefore have just one question for the Minister: will UK policy change?
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for securing this important debate. I note that we have a number of recent former Ministers speaking today, including the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who are still very much committed to the defence of children; they are not walking away.
It is vital that the UN and Save the Children publish these terrible reports. The UN has defined ways in which children come to harm in war, terming these the six grave violations. They include killing and maiming; recruitment as child soldiers; and sexual violence, which is clearly increasingly being used as a weapon of war, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, noted. Save the Children reported that almost 500 million children—or one in six—were living in a conflict zone in 2022. Africa was the continent with the highest number of conflict-affected children, whereas the Middle East had the highest proportion of children living in conflict zones.
Last year, the previous Government committed in their White Paper to a new strategy on children in conflict. The new Government have pledged to continue this, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, noted. The latest Save the Children report predates much of what has been happening in Gaza and Sudan recently but it also reports that, since the latest military escalation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel, the scale of crimes and grave violations against children has been appalling; the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and others noted this. In 2023, there were 136 grave violations against Israeli children and almost 8,000 against Palestinian children. As we know, many children have been killed and maimed. There have been hundreds of attacks on hospitals and schools—not least yesterday’s, condemned by the UN Secretary-General—as well as the denial of humanitarian access to protection, health, food and shelter. Thousands of children are missing, presumed dead under the rubble or at heightened risk of disease.
There will be a debate on Sudan tomorrow in the Lords. Save the Children notes that Sudan has the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world. Those who attended the briefing with the Minister yesterday were deeply shocked.
Then there is Ukraine. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, noted, children have been killed and maimed, abducted into Russia and subjected to the social disruption of their families; men have been left in Ukraine while other relatives are displaced, destroying the society. These are bleak and terrible stories, and we have heard others this afternoon. We all wish the Government well as they seek to address these issues through their aid programmes, through their engagement internationally and by making sure that the UK respects international law without fear or favour.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to his new role. We faced each other across the Chamber on a lot of important pieces of legislation in previous Parliaments; I was personally delightedly to see his hard work in the opposition trenches rewarded with such a vital role. Hopefully, in these jobs, we will agree with each other a lot more than we did on some of the more contentious pieces of legislation.
I pay tribute both to my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns, for securing this vital debate, and, of course, to my noble friend Lord Ahmad, who did such a fantastic job of championing these issues while a Minister at the FCDO. It is appropriate that I am following them in this debate because I also followed them in ministerial jobs. When I first joined the Government, I followed my noble friend Lord Ahmad into transport, while my time in the Brexit trenches at DExEU were entirely the fault of my noble friend Lady Anelay, who had stepped down from the role; I followed her as a Minister of State in that department. Continuing that theme, my noble friend Lady Sugg followed me into transport as well. It underlines the importance of the issues that have been highlighted that so many ex-Ministers have chosen to come along to today’s debate and contribute.
There is not really a great deal that I can add to some of the excellent contribution we have heard today. I, too, read this Save the Children report with great interest—and not a small amount of despair as well. Many great contributions have been made today. I could have quoted everybody who spoke, I think; let me just say that I agreed with them. I highlight a few points. My noble friend Lady Anelay made an important point about the importance of holding perpetrators to account. My noble friend Lord Ahmad and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, spoke movingly about the devastating effects of conflict, in particular sexual violence against women and girls. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, highlighted some important points, as he so often does. He mentioned in particular the appalling abuses taking place in Ukraine at the moment; we all, I think, pray for the day when President Putin is hauled before the International Criminal Court to account for his appalling treatment of children in Ukraine.
As the report says, the numbers are massive: 468 million children were living in conflict zones in 2022 and that number, sadly, is growing steadily. I suspect that, two years later, those numbers are even higher. It comes as no surprise that Africa is the continent with the highest number of children affected by conflict—in DRC, Mali, Burkina Faso, Nigeria and Somalia—but they are also affected, of course, in other parts of the world, such as Syria, Ukraine and Yemen. We can now add Gaza and Sudan, which is the subject of a debate we will have tomorrow.
I was pleased to hear a number of noble Lords highlight in the debate on the King’s Speech that the new Government are taking forward some of the excellent work done in the FCDO previously by my noble friend Lord Ahmad and his ministerial colleagues. In the November 2023 White Paper, the previous Government committed to developing a new strategy on children in conflict. Andrew Mitchell, the then FCDO Minister of State, highlighted its importance and how this marked a step change in our commitment to the protection of children affected by conflict. In January this year, he said that officials had indeed begun work on that strategy. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how that work is progressing. I am sure he will be looking forward to progressing it, particularly the commitment to deliver annual ministerial-level round tables with children who have been affected by armed conflicts.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I remind the noble Lord that the time limit is three minutes.
Lord Callanan (Con)
There are of course no easy solutions to this enduring tragic issue, but we, as an Opposition, certainly want to do all we can to assist the Minister and the Government to take forward this important work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for securing this important debate. I commend her consistent engagement with the children and armed conflict mandate since her tenure as a Foreign Office Minister of State, and her tireless work as the former Prime Minister’s special representative for preventing sexual violence in conflict. I also thank all noble Lords for engaging, and I will attempt to answer their questions.
We have of course been reminded that, last year, grave violations against children in conflict rose by 21% compared to the year before. These numbers, while horrifying in themselves, cannot possibly convey the depths of pain and misery that so many children experience. It is unacceptable, and this Government are determined to stand up for the rights of children.
A number of noble Lords asked about the children in conflict strategy. We are currently reviewing the 2023 international development White Paper’s commitment to deliver a children in conflict strategy. I certainly undertake to update the House as soon as possible, as noble Lords have asked.
I particularly reference and acknowledge the efforts of the noble Baroness and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. They spearheaded vital work on tackling conflict-related sexual violence during their tenures as the Prime Minister’s special representative for preventing sexual violence in conflict—PSVI—and I welcome their determination to engage with all sides of this House on that vital work. We will continue with that work, committed to PSVI and to ending the scourge of conflict-related sexual violence. There is currently a review of the Government’s envoys, and I hope that the position of the PSVI envoy will be finalised pretty soon.
In her opening contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, focused on the appalling suffering of children in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine. The impact and consequences of conflict on children go far beyond injury and damage, as we have heard. In Gaza, even the most basic needs of children, whether it is food, clean water, shelter or healthcare, are largely unmet, and thousands of children are suffering acute malnutrition —the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, highlighted this.
We have been clear with Israel that it must allow consistent access for aid workers to reach children and their families. Alongside our allies, we have repeatedly raised with the Israeli Government our concerns regarding the situation in Gaza. I will continue to engage on that during my visit to the UN General Assembly later this month.
I refer noble Lords to the Statement made in the Commons by the Foreign Secretary on 2 September about the resulting implications for the UK’s arms export licences to Israel. The UK trebled its aid commitment to the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the last financial year. This Government will maintain significant funding for this financial year. Last month, Minister Dodds announced a further £6 million in funding for UNICEF to support vulnerable families with life-saving water, healthcare and treatment for malnourished children. Fundamentally, as we know, the best and only way to ensure the protection of children in Gaza is an immediate and permanent ceasefire. We support fully the ongoing mediation efforts of the US, Egypt and Qatar to reach agreement. We call on all parties urgently to agree a deal.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, we will have a full debate tomorrow on the humanitarian situation in Sudan, so I shall not attempt to cover everything, but the situation is dire, and we need to move the issue up the global agenda. I am certainly determined to do that. The impact on Sudan’s children is horrific, with an estimated 23 million children exposed to violence, abuse and exploitation. We have provided £97 million of ODA to Sudan this financial year, which is vital. We have also supported UNICEF, which has provided treatment for 42,000 malnourished children—again, an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg.
On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about opening the Adre crossing, things are getting through. I am not in a position to say just how much, for obvious reasons, but we are making progress and I hope to give a fuller report tomorrow. However, it is not enough. We need to get more through.
I want also to address the horrors taking place in Ukraine at the hands of Russia. UNICEF estimates that 2,000 Ukrainian children have been killed since the conflict began—an average of two per day. As Ukrainian children returned to school this month, Russia continued to launch major air strikes across civilian areas in Ukraine.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the Yazidis. We are certainly continuing to provide support. We have given £300,000 to the directorate of survivors and we will continue to support its work in terms of the survivors law. We have also made representations to the Nigerian Government about the person whom he mentioned.
I turn to Save the Children’s report and the five main recommendations that noble Lords have raised. The first recommendation is to uphold standards of conduct in conflict. We are clear that the rights of children affected by conflict require special protection and should be respected without distinction. We have endorsed and implemented two declarations which can help uphold universal standards. These are designed to protect schools—I shall come back to the point on education raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg—universities and civilians by limiting the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. We will continue to encourage other states to do the same.
On the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, we are giving funding to the ICRC to ensure proper access to education. We will certainly monitor that to ensure that we can continue with that work. These are on top of the international instruments that we have endorsed and implemented to protect children from being recruited and used in armed conflict, something with which I was involved with the APPG a couple of years ago.
In the second recommendation, the UK is urged to hold perpetrators of harm to children to account. A number of noble Lords have raised this point. We have been a staunch supporter of the UN Children and Armed Conflict mandate since its inception in 1996. Over the last decade, we have provided nearly £2 million to the Office of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict. At the UN Security Council, the UK plays a key role in ensuring accountability for perpetrators of grave violations.
Thirdly, the report underscores the importance of supporting the resilience and recovery of children impacted by conflict. The Government are taking multiple steps to fulfil this recommendation. In the Middle East, the contribution to UNICEF’s work in Gaza now totals over £18 million. It includes essential mental health and psycho-social support for children and their caregivers. In Africa, we are ensuring that survivors of sexual violence in the DRC can access healthcare, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, access to education and proper nutrition. I visited the DRC and I know the impact there; it is horrific. In Europe, we supported Ukraine’s ambitious commitment to Better Care, increasing access to family-based care for children. This includes a comprehensive plan, as noble Lords have raised, to bring back and reintegrate Ukrainian children who were illegally deported to Russia. We have continued to support its task force to bring children back, and we are of course a member of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children and will continue to support that vital work.
The fourth recommendation relates to the protection of humanitarian access. As Minister Dodds also said, the Government will work in genuine partnership across the world to protect aid workers so they can support those in need. Given that children under five living in protracted conflict zones are more likely to die from unsafe drinking water than violence, this is again absolutely an important issue, including support for nutrition.
The final recommendation highlights the importance of meaningful and safe engagement with children. Children have a right to have a say in the decisions that impact their lives. Earlier this year, with NGO partners from the Foreign Office, we invited four courageous girls from South Sudan, Ukraine, the West Bank and the DRC to share their experience. We also convened a meeting at the UN Security Council, enabling Myanmar’s children to articulate the sort of future they want and deserve. They certainly require that strong of a voice.
In conclusion, the Government are grateful for Save the Children’s work in protecting the most vulnerable children; we certainly thank it for its insightful report. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, raised a question with me to which I am not in a position to give her an answer. I certainly will do, but unfortunately, I cannot do that this afternoon, so she may be disappointed once again.
However, this has been a really important debate. It is a one-hour debate, but the important thing is that we continue to raise this issue on a consistent basis, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
House of Lords
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Booth-Smith
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Baroness May of Maidenhead
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Electronic Media: False Information
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, the Online Safety Act will be our key tool in combating online misinformation and disinformation. It sets out a regulatory framework to tackle misinformation and disinformation where they constitute illegal content or harmful content to children. In addition, we are educating and empowering users through our work on media literacy, to increase society’s resilience to misinformation and disinformation. Officials are also regularly engaged with major platforms about disinformation activity, emerging risks and platform responses.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, the threat posed by electronic media manifests itself in at least two ways. As we saw during the recent riots, electronic media was used to spread lies and misinformation about refugees and asylum seekers, and urged people to use violence. It is also being used to try to undermine our democracy, again through lies and misinformation. Does the Minister agree that our electronic media poses a threat to both our democracy and our social cohesion? Is she satisfied that the Government have enough powers to deal with these threats, bearing in mind that we probably will need effective international co-operation?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we must protect the UK’s democratic integrity. Our Defending Democracy Taskforce safeguards our democratic institutions and processes from threats, including misinformation and disinformation. Sharing best practice and strategic insights with international partners helps industry and Government to protect our democracy from media threats. Under the Online Safety Act, companies must act against illegal content, including the incitement of violence, hate speech and state-backed disinformation, and remove it. Where hateful content or misinformation and disinformation are prohibited in the largest platforms’ terms of service, they must remove it.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, false information is as likely to be spread through online platforms with smaller numbers of users as those with many users. We have heard about the role of Telegram in spreading disinformation about this summer’s disorder, as well as the terrible suicide forums. I was very pleased to see the Secretary of State’s letter to Ofcom this week on “small but risky” online services. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue of platform categorisation, given the amendment I proposed to the then Online Safety Bill, which this House passed in July 2023?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, of course I am very happy to meet the noble Baroness to discuss this further, and I pay tribute to the work she has done on this issue in the past. On “small but risky” services, as she knows, the Secretary of State has written to Melanie Dawes, the CEO of Ofcom, and a very detailed reply was received today from Ofcom. We are still absorbing everything that it is proposing, but it is clear that it is taking this issue very seriously. That will give us the focus for our discussion when we meet.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, we have seen the first charge under the Online Safety Act’s false communications offence. To facilitate further prosecutions for false communications, can the Minister support statutory guidance to further define the term “non-trivial psychological harm” on a likely audience caused by disinformation?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, all this information will be detailed in the Ofcom guidance to be published in due course. This includes not only illegal harms but all the other issues under the category that the noble Viscount mentioned, all of which will be covered by the Ofcom codes to be published in due course.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, part of the challenge of addressing the proliferation of misinformation is the large volume of accounts created solely to spread information that is not verifiable and is fake. Often, these accounts are bots, as we call them. Have the Government considered introducing mandatory verification of identity on social media, so that platforms know the identity of all their users without removing their anonymity?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an interesting point. This will depend very much on the terms of service of those individual platforms, the whole basis of which, as she knows, is to provide that anonymity. We would need a much more detailed discussion about them and about whether individuals should be identified. However, she is right that the proliferation of bots is a dangerous issue, and we need to be aware of it, not only in the UK but in state-sponsored attacks on our democracy.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that tech billionaires are richer, more powerful and sometimes more arrogant than whole countries? With hindsight, fawning before them at Bletchley Park was not a good idea for any British Government. Will the Foreign Office explore treaty-making to examine the kind of future co-operation that my noble friend Lady Kennedy suggested?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have engagement with the large platforms at every level, including of course on the aspects of business and trade to which they contribute. I reassure my noble friend that, however big those companies are, they must comply with UK laws. We will ensure, throughout the rollout of the Online Safety Act, that everybody, however big and rich the individual, must comply with the Act.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is not the reality that there has been a huge shift of global power in favour of the giant electronic platforms? I see that, for instance, the French have gone so far as to arrest the chairman of one of the biggest platforms in the world. Is that the kind of remedy that we will consider here?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I reiterate to the noble Lord that we have very high expectations of companies that have access to the British economy and society. If they do not adhere to the law or act in any way that contributes positively to our society, we will be increasingly assertive in our response, including by making full use of the powers brought in by the Online Safety Act. They are not above the law, and we will monitor their activities carefully.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Minister acknowledge that there is some concern that the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” are being weaponised to justify partisan censorship, although free speech is vital for democracy. Can she comment on the seeming immunity for some misinformation? An example is when high-profile anti-hate NGOs terrified local communities by announcing that 100 far-right protests were planned. When they did not materialise, the NGOs admitted that it was probably a hoax, but they were congratulated because it led to positive “stand up to racism” headlines. It seems like double standards.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Where people are instigating violence, hatred, misogyny and so on, we will take action against them, however we define it. This is a very difficult area, because we have to balance free speech with the regulations we will introduce, but people have to comply with the law.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I will follow on from the questions on international co-operation raised by my noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lady Chakrabarti. By chance it was only on Monday that I chaired a meeting in Edinburgh of the Council of Europe Sub-Committee on Media and Information Society. We discussed fake news and all the aspects raised today. Can the Minister make sure that her department is in close touch with the Council of Europe in Strasburg and that there is co-operation between its 46 member countries?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My noble friend makes the important point that international co-operation is absolutely vital. We continue to talk to all our friends across the globe, exchanging information and making sure that best practice arises from those discussions.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, research by Vodafone found that algorithms are pushing content to boys related to misogyny and violence following innocent and unrelated searches. Can the Minister say whether the Government are looking into how these algorithms have been used not only to push misinformation and disinformation but to push people towards and reinforce more extreme views?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, deepfakes and other forms of manipulated media are captured by the Online Safety Act where they constitute illegal content or harmful content to children in scope of the regulatory framework. Under the Act, all companies will be forced to take action against illegal content online, including illegal misinformation and disinformation, and they will be required to remove in-scope content. These duties will also apply to in-scope AI-generated content and AI-powered features.
Rural Crime: NFU Mutual Report
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of NFU Mutual’s Rural Crime Report 2024, published on 1 August.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I begin by thanking the National Farmers’ Union Mutual for its report. Rural crime can have a devastating effect on, and consequences for, countryside communities and the agricultural sector. That is why the Government are committed to reducing crime in rural areas. Under our proposed reforms, rural communities will be safeguarded, with tougher measures to clamp down on anti-social behaviour and strengthen neighbourhood policing, as well as stronger measures to prevent farm theft and fly-tipping.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his reply. I was pleased, back in April, to see that Sir Keir Starmer, before he became Prime Minister, announced a rural crime strategy. What we now need is implementation. Would the Minister commit, at local area level, to talk to police and crime commissioners and chief constables to set up dedicated rural crime teams, which forces such as Thames Valley have done very successfully and which are making a real impact? At a national level, will the Government commit to having a cross-departmental approach involving the National Crime Agency, Defra and the Home Office to address the scourge of rural crime?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question. I hope he will be aware that there is a National Rural Crime Unit in place, which has been funded for a three-year period, looking at support and co-ordination of police and crime commissioners and rural forces. We want to look at that to see how I can work with that as a Minister. He is right that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister has examined the issue of a rural crime strategy. We need to work with partners such as Defra on issues such as sheep worrying, and ensure that we co-ordinate the Government’s approach. I will certainly do that and will be happy to take advice and support from the right reverend Prelate in due course to help develop and inform that strategy.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, when studying the NFU report, would my noble friend also have a look at the report of the all-party group on metal theft? It has not yet been reconstituted, but in the last Parliament it produced a report that showed that metal theft costs the UK economy around £1.5 billion each year and is conducted, in the main, by organised crime groups. Many of these crimes take place in rural areas and, of course, lead from churches is a particularly popular target. Would my noble friend agree that this a report that needs to be studied, and would he meet the members of the all-party group?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. He may not know that I served on the Metal Theft (Prevention) Bill Committee in Opposition in 2013. We pressed that very strongly. In co-operation with the then Government, we reduced metal theft by 50% over that period. More legislation and security allowed thefts to be tracked down through scrapyards and known routes of criminal activity. It was a really effective piece of cross-party legislation: we amended it in Opposition, the Government accepted it and improvements were made. Of course I will happily meet with him. There is downward pressure and there will continue to be downward pressure, but if he and his all-party group have suggestions, we will happily look at them and consider them.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will understand that it is not just crimes of acquisition and anti-social behaviour that affect rural areas. They are also affected by fraud offences. Does the Minister have any idea when Section 199 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which provides for an offence of failure to prevent fraud offences, will be implemented? It cannot be implemented under the Act until six months after the publication of Home Office guidance. We have been waiting for the Home Office guidance. Does the Minister have any idea at what stage the consideration of that guidance is within the Home Office?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned gentleman. I have been tasked by both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to be the Minister responsible for fraud. This week, I met with officials and I will be meeting with stakeholders. We have a potential examination of a future fraud strategy based on the work of the previous Government. The points that the noble and learned Lord makes are a part of our reflection on that strategy. I will certainly go away and inform myself of what happened under the previous Government in relation to that delay, and how I can expedite this as a matter of some urgency.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I served with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, on the APPG on metal theft. From the evidence we gathered, it was clear that metal theft is widespread in rural areas. Whatever the picture was when the Minister was last involved in 2013, I think when he returns to the subject he will see that it remains pernicious, widespread and extensive. We are all clear what some of the targets are: church roofs, which have a deadly impact on the villages affected; and, relatively recently, the theft of literally kilometres of copper cable from both the telecoms and rail networks. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, these crimes are committed by organised criminal gangs and, from the evidence we took, frankly there is no cause to think that the police are operating effectively to counter these organised criminal groups.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The metal theft issue is extremely serious. It is something that the previous Government, with Opposition support, tried to address and reduced by some 50%— but 50% is still there and we need to look at how we can take action on that. He is absolutely right that organised criminal gangs are very often behind this. There has been action from the National Rural Crime Unit and police forces to try to make arrests from those organised criminal gangs. Again, we need to have intelligence-led policing, co-ordination of PCCs feeding in intelligence and a national crime strategy that looks at how we can tackle that still further. That will be on the agenda of the Home Office and I hope that, when I am held to account by the noble Lord in due course, I will have made progress on reducing the 50% still further.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister commit to working with the police to deliver the specialist training that officers in rural areas need, which has much broader implications for organised crime? For example, there have been two welcome prosecutions for hare coursing—which the right reverend Prelate did so much work on—as a result of the last Government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Apparently, the criminals have refined their defences and are carrying on with this deplorable activity, which also facilitates considerable illegal, illicit gambling and, no doubt, many other activities necessary for organised crime, such as money laundering.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Organised crime gangs are muscling in on this in a serious way. It is absolutely vital that the police—through the National Rural Crime Unit, the Home Office generally, the Serious Fraud Office and the National Crime Agency—look at how organised crime gangs are operating. Last year, the cost of rural crime increased by 4.3% to £52.8 million, and that quad bike and terrain vehicle crime increased by 9%. These crimes are often led by organised crime groups, who use organised crime to disperse material. They need to face long jail sentences. They need to be caught and put before the courts and action needs to be taken. That needs co-ordination and I assure the noble Lord that we will do that.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I was on the Met Police authority for 12 long years of its existence. In that time, I asked many times for a category of rural crime to be on crime reports. I was told this week that that still does not exist and if you cannot count it, it is very difficult to know what resources to throw at it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are a number of aspects to rural crime. What we do count, and what the National Farmers’ Union counted in its report, are things such as the cost of GPS theft, vehicle theft, equipment theft, the number of farm animals killed each year and the number of respondents who thought rural crime was increasing. We have statistics on that. We also have statistics on a range of matters such as the number of instances of badger baiting, hare coursing and other types of wildlife crime, such as dog fighting, that occurs in rural areas. There are obviously continual problems with shoplifting, burglary and theft in rural area, just as there is in towns and cities, but there are specific areas that we can measure and examine. Through the National Rural Crime Unit, we can begin to co-ordinate activity to reduce the instances of that and ensure that people are arrested, put before the courts, sentenced and ultimately jailed.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, given—as we have already heard from the Minister—the very special challenges and additional costs faced by councils and police forces in rural areas, does the Minister believe that it is fair that, currently, they get less funding per head than urban areas? What plans do the Government have to introduce a funding formula that is fair to rural communities.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are issues on funding, for local authorities and police. We are only just getting back to the stage when I was last Police Minister in 2009-10, with the investment and figures we had then. That is something we need to look at and I will take that back and talk to colleagues in the department of local government as well. I would like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, if possible.
Erasmus+
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to negotiate the United Kingdom rejoining the Erasmus+ Programme.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have not proposed any plans for rejoining the Erasmus+ programme. However, we will work to reset the relationship with our European friends, strengthen ties, secure a broad-based security pact and tackle barriers to trade. We will look forwards, not backwards, by improving our trade and investment relationship with the EU while recognising that there will be no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree, nevertheless, that if the Prime Minister wishes to reset our relationship with Europe, there would be nothing more germane to this project than rejoining Erasmus+ and enabling the cultural exchange which, through its reciprocity, is at the heart of that programme—an essential element that the Turing scheme lacks? The EU Commission says that it is open to discussion. We have done this for research by rejoining Horizon; we now need to do the same for education but, most of all, for widening the opportunities in Europe for our young people.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Prime Minister and the Government are working hard to reset our relationship with our European friends. The Prime Minister hosted the EPC at Blenheim Palace, where he was able to engage with all our European friends, and he has recently visited Germany, France and Ireland to progress that positive bilateral work. I think the noble Earl slightly underestimates the impact of the Turing scheme, which has enabled considerable numbers of young people to go overseas to work and study. The Government support it and will want to think about how we can develop it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I understand that one of the objections to rejoining Erasmus+ is the imbalance between the flow of students coming into Britain and those going out. Would it not be sensible, given the crisis in modern language learning and teaching in English schools, to link the negotiations to rejoin Erasmus with a deliberate scheme to improve the learning and teaching of French, Spanish, German and Italian in British schools, and to encourage British students to go across to those countries and develop fluency in those languages? That would help the British economy and our relationship with other countries and would have a whole host of other benefits.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about the significance of languages. I am not sure that we are presently in a position to advise or inform in detail on the UK’s negotiating strategy. But, notwithstanding that, he is of course right about the significance of languages. That is why in the department we have, for example, a very good scheme for language assistants, which enables people from the UK to travel overseas to work as language assistants and those from overseas to come to the UK. It has been successful in helping to promote language learning. We are also very committed to ensuring that the great benefits that come for younger people from being able to take part in school trips, for example, are also facilitated despite the additional barriers that have been put in place by our decision to leave the EU.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, following on from the last question, will the Minister acknowledge that it has been shown that the reciprocal element of Erasmus made a positive contribution to the supply chain of modern language teachers in our schools? Given the critical shortage of qualified language teachers—second only to maths, according to the DfE’s own figures—does she agree that rejoining Erasmus would be a sensible move and that it would help the Government achieve their stated aim of recruiting more teachers for shortage subjects?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As the noble Baroness identified, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, there was a considerable asymmetry in the Erasmus+ scheme. Of course, I accept that there is considerable benefit from welcoming students, teachers and others from overseas into the UK. That is why the Government have given a much warmer welcome to international students into our higher education institutions than was the case with the previous Government. Erasmus is not the only way in which we can help support language learning. That is why, as I outlined to the noble Lord, the English language assistants programme, which is delivered by the DfE and the British Council, makes an important contribution to enabling paid teaching placements overseas for UK residents to improve their language skills, as well as placements in the UK for non-UK residents to assist with teaching, for example, French, Spanish, Mandarin, German and Italian. All of those—I accept the noble Baroness’s point—are important in our schools and further education institutions.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, next year, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement is due for review. It is essential that we consult and acknowledge the views of young people about their aspirations for our international relationships. Will the Government explore the needs and aspirations of young people and future generations ahead of the trade and co-operation review?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point about the aspirations of young people for our relationships internationally, and particularly with our former EU colleagues. The Paymaster-General, who is also the Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations, is leading the reset of the UK-EU relationship in the negotiations that the noble Baroness outlines. I will pass on to him her concern that young people are involved in the preparations and the process of that negotiation so that their aspirations can be met by the negotiations that the Government will undertake and the review of the trade and co-operation agreement.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the last Government introduced the Turing scheme with three very clear principles in mind: first, to make sure that disadvantaged pupils and students had greater opportunities to access it; secondly, to give the scheme a truly global focus; and, thirdly, to ensure value for money for taxpayers. I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure the House that she agrees with those principles and set out how she plans to build on the success of the scheme so far, and indeed give us a clear assurance that the Government plan to continue with the scheme.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the objectives of the Turing scheme but she will also be reassured by the results that we have seen this year. For example, we have seen an increase in the proportion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds taking part in the scheme—60% compared with 51% last year. We have also seen a broadening of the possibilities for those who take part in the scheme. Whereas five out of 10 of the most popular destinations under the Turing scheme are within the EU, the other five are outwith the EU, so it is widening the opportunities for young people and those looking to both work and study. The Government have committed £110 million of funding for this academic year, and we will certainly review the success of this scheme and, in the context of the spending review, think carefully about its future.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, while the Minister is reviewing the Turing scheme, I wonder whether it would be worth reviewing at the same time the success of the Taith scheme in Wales. It sits alongside the Turing scheme and is given to Welsh schoolchildren, and is a better approximation of the Erasmus+ programme.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Earl will be pleased to hear that in preparation for answering this question I have been able to learn about the success of the Taith scheme. I will certainly want to build on the relationships that we have across the devolved Administrations in thinking about the most effective way to secure what the Foreign Secretary has been very clear about: we need to do more to champion ties between our people and culture across the European Union. We will learn from all the good experiences and schemes that exist across the whole of the UK.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the initial Question was very much about Erasmus and the importance of rejoining. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes—a trio of Smiths is speaking—talked about taking on board the views of young people. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to look at ways of strengthening the opportunities for young people to live and work in Europe? Erasmus provided fantastic opportunities for British students but also helped British soft power, because we had students from other European countries coming here. The long-term benefits of that are profound. Do the Government have a vision that we should be rebuilding relations in that sort of way?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I can reassure the noble Baroness that the resetting of our relationship with our European friends has been very clearly identified by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary as being about trade and security but also about building on our ties of friendship and ensuring that opportunities will exist through school trips and our welcoming of international students into the UK. This Government have very much improved the welcome to international students after the very unwelcoming approach that the last Government took, as well as developing the Turing scheme in the way that I have outlined.
Ukraine: Military Support
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to accelerate and intensify military support for Ukraine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, UK support for Ukraine is ironclad, and that is why we are stepping up military aid to Ukraine. We are ramping up and speeding up delivery of military support for Ukraine. On Friday, the Defence Secretary announced that the UK would provide Ukraine with 650 lightweight multi-role missiles. Operation Interflex, which has trained 45,000 Ukrainian troops, will extend through 2025. Additionally, yesterday he confirmed that military support announced in April is on track for delivery.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
I thank the Minister for that Answer. The commitment to accelerate and intensify aid is very clear, but so is the growing fear of unintended consequences, particularly escalation, mission creep and the language of nuclear conflict. This has been mirrored in the last few days by the delivery of long-range ballistic missiles from Iran to Russia. What are the Government doing in considering further sanctions against Iran? In doing so, are we in partnership with our major partners such as Germany and France?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate mentions escalation and mission creep. I point out that this war could end very quickly—today—with a decision by the Russians to withdraw their troops. On Iran, we and international partners have been clear that we would take new and significant measures against Iran if the transfers took place. We and our E3 partners, France and Germany, are therefore cancelling bilateral arrangements with Iran, which will restrict Iran’s air services into the UK and Europe. Together with the US, we are co-ordinating sanctions against Iranian and Russian individuals and organisations.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Can my noble friend confirm that the extra funding being provided is not going to come from our already depleted defence budget?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I invite my noble friend to read the National Audit Office report, which was very complimentary about the work that has been done and the support that has been provided for Ukraine. I am sure that he will agree that the defence of Ukraine against Russian aggression is the defence of Europe, yes, but of the UK also.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord West, it is right that we should be supporting Ukraine, and the Minister’s answer was right—the National Audit Office has complimented the UK on the support we have given. However, replenishing our stockpiles will cost significantly more. Therefore, to reiterate the noble Lord’s question, will His Majesty’s Government commit to replenishing those stockpiles and ensuring that the support for Ukraine is not at the expense of training British soldiers, sailors and aviators? The defence of Ukraine matters—and so does the defence of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the defence of Ukraine is the defence of the United Kingdom. For two and a half years, Ukrainians have bravely and fiercely defended themselves against Russia’s full-scale invasion. Putin’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity began with the illegal annexation of Crimea 10 years ago. He did not stop there, and he will not stop until he leaves Ukraine. On the issue of funding, which the noble Baroness is right to raise, she will know that a strategic defence review is under way. Her comments are noted as part of that, but it would be wrong of me to pre-empt it. My noble friend Lord Robertson will be providing information at the appropriate time that will help answer her question.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, several months ago, President Macron said that Europe must do whatever is necessary to ensure that Russia does not succeed in Ukraine, irrespective of political decisions in America. What evidence is there of that aspiration being given any substance—or is the security of Europe to rest upon the whim of the American electorate?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think that it is helpful to speculate on the US election at this time, but I commit to the noble and gallant Lord and to the House that our support for Ukraine, regardless of what may or may not happen in the American election, is ironclad and unwavering.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. It is about finding balance. The Minister mentioned Op Interflex, which is undoubtedly a great success, having trained 45,000 Ukrainian troops. However, she will also have seen the National Audit Office report published on Tuesday, which said that as a result of Op Interflex, we are now struggling to train our own troops. While it would be unreasonable to ask her to prioritise, may I seek her reassurance, given the funding issues in defence, that she will make sure that suitable funding is available to train our own troops?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, our troops will receive all the training they need. We are generally very satisfied with the NAO report—it is very good and worth reading in full, as I know the noble Lord will. I assure him that our troops will get everything they need to ensure that they are trained for whatever they may need to do.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate referred to the delivery of long-range weapons from Iran. Surely, this is the moment to remove the restrictions on the Storm Shadow missile and allow the Ukrainians to use it on Russian soil. It was rumoured in the papers yesterday that this has been agreed. Can the Minister confirm that we will go ahead and allow the Ukrainians to do that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As I said last week, the situation has not changed. The noble Lord will understand that we are having close conversations with the Ukrainians about their needs and objectives and how we might support them in achieving those. He will also note that Prime Minister Starmer is meeting President Biden on Friday, and I am sure the issues around Ukraine will be raised at that meeting.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said. She will know that yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said in Kyiv that the delivery of Iranian missiles changes the terms of the debate. Pressing further on what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has said, can she expand on that? Also, given that North Korea has sent 16,500 containers of Soviet weapons for use in Ukraine, what are we doing about raising this issue with the Security Council, since both are in breach of the Security Council’s resolutions on arms embargoes?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not going to say anything more about Storm Shadow today—noble Lords will understand that it would be a gift to President Putin were I to do so. However, I note what the noble Lord has said, and he is right to draw attention to the conversations in Kyiv yesterday. It is our intention to support Ukraine in achieving its objectives. We are closely engaged with Ukraine on what those objectives are and how we may be best continue to support them.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome and support every word of the Minister in answering this Question. Iran is not just fuelling Russia in this conflict; it is behind all the conflicts in the Middle East and it organises attacks in Europe and the UK. Can the Minister update the House on when the Government will proscribe the IRGC, which was a commitment made in their recent election manifesto?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not have an update on timing, but I will ask questions about that and get back to the noble Lord. I do not know when that will happen, but I note his concern and he is right to raise it.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine must be stopped and Russian troops must withdraw or be driven completely from Ukrainian territory. We must all agree on that. Will the Minister confirm to the House what engagement the Government have had with the Government of Ukraine and other international partners, following the recent drone strikes in Russia? Will she clarify that the Government’s strategic defence review is in no way clogging up the essential supply chain of munitions to support the defence of the Ukrainian nation?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
In no way at all is the strategic defence review clogging up our support for Ukraine. I have outlined some of the ways in which we are ensuring that that support is forthcoming, including our commitment
“for as long as it takes”.
These are the words of the Prime Minister.
On our engagement with Ukraine, the noble Lord should know that one of the first phone calls that Prime Minister Starmer made upon his election was to President Zelensky. One of the first visits that Defence Secretary John Healey made was to Odesa. Our engagement is regular, deep and proving fruitful. The Foreign Secretary was in Kyiv yesterday and the Prime Minister will be talking to President Biden about Ukraine on Friday.
Education (Assemblies) Bill [HL]
Thursday 12th September 2024
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Education (Assemblies) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Education (Assemblies) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL]
Thursday 12th September 2024
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
Patrick Finucane Murder
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the murder of Patrick Finucane, made in another place yesterday by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
“Patrick Finucane was a human rights lawyer. On 12 February 1989, he was brutally murdered in his home in north Belfast by the 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 honourable Member for Belfast North. 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 establish 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 an unprecedented apology from this Dispatch Box to the Finucane family on behalf of the British Government, citing the
‘shocking levels of state collusion’—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/12; col. 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—first in the agreement with the Irish Government, and then to this House—to establish an inquiry into the death of Mr Finucane 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 Inquiries 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”.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her position and wish her well, but I must say—this is no reflection on her—that Northern Ireland would be better served in this House with a full-time departmental Minister.
The shooting dead of Patrick Finucane at home in front of his family in February 1989 by members of the loyalist terror group the Ulster Defence Association was a heinous act. Like all terrorist atrocities committed during the Troubles, whether loyalist or republican, there could never be any justification for it.
As the Statement makes clear, since 1989 there have been a number of investigations and reviews into the killing of Patrick Finucane—most recently the review by the late Sir Desmond de Silva QC, established by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in 2011, which reported in December 2012. Sir Desmond, who had full access to the Finucane archive and all relevant state papers, concluded in 2012 that while there was no “over-arching State conspiracy”, there were shocking levels of state collusion.
The Statement acknowledges the unprecedented apology from my noble friend, which I helped to draft, and the Opposition stand by every word of that apology. Any state collusion was, and is, always wrong and should always be condemned, and those responsible should, wherever possible, always face the full force of the law.
The de Silva review sought to establish the facts of what happened in a far shorter timescale than could ever have been achieved by a lengthy and costly public inquiry. I maintain that the review, delivered on time and on budget, was a thorough, substantial piece of work that put far more information into the public domain about the Finucane killing than had ever been made available before. Despite that, as the noble Baroness made clear, after a series of legal challenges the Supreme Court ruled in February 2019 that the de Silva review, along with all previous investigations, was not fully Article 2 compliant, for the reasons the noble Baroness set out in the Statement.
It is worth pointing out that the 2019 judgment did not conclude that a public inquiry was required to remedy the Article 2 deficiency, let alone order such an inquiry. Rather, it said at paragraph 153 that:
“It is for the state to decide … what form of investigation, if indeed any is now feasible, is required in order to meet that requirement”.
Following further court challenges by the Finucane family, and deadlines set by the Court of Appeal in Belfast, the new Government announced yesterday that they will now establish a public inquiry under the terms of the Inquiries Act—something that, as the Statement points out, had previously been rejected by the Finucane family.
Although we respect the Government’s decision in this case, we believe it to be a mistaken decision and one that, I fear, is likely to be a case of “Grant in haste and repent at leisure”. In our view, a better and more appropriate way forward would have been to refer the case to the newly established Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, ICRIR. This body is now staffed and operational, since 1 May, under the distinguished leadership of the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan KC, who revealed on Monday that the commission has already considered 85 applications, with eight of them now at the information recovery stage.
For all the controversy surrounding the passage of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, and despite the new Government’s pledge to “repeal and replace” the Act, they have now committed to keeping the ICRIR, the establishment of which forms the vast bulk of the Act. Indeed, in the Statement the Secretary of State expressed his confidence in Sir Declan Morgan and the ability of the ICRIR
“to find answers for survivors and families”.
In February this year the High Court found the ICRIR to be capable of conducting effective Article 2-compliant investigations and to be sufficiently independent of government. The Statement acknowledges that the commission has similar powers to compel and secure the disclosure of relevant documents by state bodies to those available to any public inquiry. The commission is able to hold hearings in public under an enhanced inquisitorial process and has the powers to compel witnesses—the main deficiency identified by the court in the de Silva review.
In light of all this, can the noble Baroness set out precisely what a public inquiry can achieve that the ICRIR cannot? Why set up an entirely new process, with all the time and cost involved in that, when we have a body in place that could begin straightaway and deliver the same outcomes?
On timings, can the noble Baroness give any indication of when the Government expect to appoint a judge to chair the inquiry, when we are likely to see the agreed terms of reference, and when the inquiry will begin formal proceedings?
The Secretary of State expressed the expectation that, given previous reviews and investigations, costs can be contained. Does the noble Baroness not agree that, given the thoroughness with which we expect public inquiries to be conducted, and mindful of the history of such inquiries in Northern Ireland, this might turn out to be something of a triumph of hope over expectation? What is the Government’s estimate of the time and the cost?
The Government’s main argument in favour of a public inquiry in this case appears to be its “unique circumstances”, the promises that were made at Weston Park in 2001 and those of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, in the other place in 2004. Can the noble Baroness set out what precisely are the unique circumstances of this case that set it apart from other atrocities carried out during the Troubles and that merit different treatment? Have the Government considered the impact of this decision on other victims and survivors of the Troubles? Can she confirm that the challenge to the previous Government’s decision not to proceed with a public inquiry, on the basis that this had been promised by another Government years before, was dismissed by the Supreme Court in February 2019? Can she also say how many other demands for public inquiries the Government are currently considering?
Finally, I welcome the acknowledgement in the Statement of the role of the security forces, the vast majority of whom, as the noble Baroness pointed out, carried out their duties with courage, professionalism and dedication to the rule of law, and whom we all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to working constructively with her, not least on legacy issues, over the months ahead.
From these Benches we strongly welcome yesterday’s Statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for both its measured tone and its content. We welcome that there is finally to be a public inquiry. The brutal murder of Patrick Finucane was one of the most shocking and controversial incidents that took place in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. The Finucane family has had to wait more than 35 years for justice, and we can but hope that this inquiry can begin to result in some closure for them after all these years.
It is extremely important that the public inquiry being established will have the confidence of the public and all the powers necessary to carry out its job in full. In that regard, can the Minister confirm that the inquiry will be able to compel witnesses and secure all relevant documents? Can she say a little more about the likely process, conditions and timetable for appointing the chair of the inquiry?
On wider legacy issues, the Minister will recognise that there are so many other families in Northern Ireland who are still waiting for truth and justice. With the ICRIR in place, and the commitment of the Government to repeal the immunity section of the legacy Act, it is important that we have clarity on these matters as soon as possible, including how the inquiry will relate to the ICRIR. Can she say how and when we are likely to be informed about the process and timing of repealing the immunity section of the legacy Act? In his Statement, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he was committed to considering measures to “further strengthen” the ICRIR. Can the Minister say how and when she expects this to take place?
Finally, I welcome the response of the Northern Ireland Secretary to my honourable friend James MacCleary MP yesterday that there will be close co-operation with opposition MPs on wider legacy issues. Can the Minister provide reassurances that Members of this House will also be kept fully informed at every stage of this process?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for his extensive service—the decades of work for peace in Northern Ireland—and I look forward to working with him to ensure that his legacy, and the legacy work that we will do, goes forward. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her welcome. I look forward to working with them both, and with all Members of this House, on all the issues raised today.
As this is my first outing at the Dispatch Box, before I move on I want to thank the many noble Lords who have worked to deliver peace in Northern Ireland. I was born in 1979. At the time of the atrocity we are discussing, I was nine years old. This is my history, and all of our history, but I lived through the benefit of peace because of the work done by so many noble Lords. I, and many others, are grateful for it.
The murder of Patrick Finucane was one of four cases for which the Government committed to establishing a public inquiry following the findings of Judge Cory. It is important to remember what was agreed at Weston Park. Inquiries were established in three cases—the murders of Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright—but not in the case of Patrick Finucane. This is how we can complete the promises and pledges made in this House and to those families as we move forward with the next stage of legacy.
I wish to put on record my deepest sympathies to the Finucane family and to all those touched by the Troubles. It is the considered view of the Secretary of State, and a commitment that the Government have made this week—having held this view consistently since 2001—that there will be a public inquiry into the case of Patrick Finucane. Although the court found that the previous investigations did not meet our Article 2 obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, they did help provide crucial information, and, as was the case following the third of the Stevens investigations, a successful prosecution of one of those involved in the murder.
As was set out in the Statement, the Government have full confidence in the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, under the leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, to deliver for victims and families. As has been published by the commission this week, and referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, 85 families have already approached the commission with their case—a positive endorsement of the new body. Eight of those requests for information are now at the information recovery stage.
As has been set out, the commission has powers comparable to those of a public inquiry—namely the powers to compel witnesses and to secure the disclosure of relevant documents by state bodies. Crucially, the courts have ruled that the commission can deliver investigations compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For these reasons, as was set out to Parliament by the Secretary of State, the Government have chosen to retain the commission. However, we have listened to the concerns of victims and families, and acknowledge that many wish to have a choice as to which avenue they pursue to get the answers and justice that they deserve.
That is why, in his Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament just before the Summer Recess, the Secretary of State set out his plans to propose measures to allow inquests that were brought to an end by the legacy Act to recommence, and to reverse the Act’s current prohibition on bringing new civil claims. The Government are also exploring how we can further strengthen the independence and powers of the commission, in addition to repealing the conditional immunity provisions in order to build public confidence in the commission across all communities.
I now need to answer the questions that were asked. I was asked about repealing, and how and when we will do it. We are currently consulting with all parties and all communities on what will work for them, and what they need to give them confidence in the commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Caine, said, the commission is now established—it exists. We need to ensure that it has the trust of all communities, some of which is lacking, and to establish what additional powers we need to give to Sir Declan Morgan to ensure that there is confidence across the communities.
Timings regarding the public inquiry that we have announced will follow in due course, but let us be clear: the Finucane family have waited 35 years for answers, and we will do everything we can to ensure that the process is as speedy as it can be. We wanted to update the House before 27 September, which was the legal deadline agreed, to make sure that your Lordships’ House was aware of the next steps. I will return to the House once we have appointed a chair, and with that chair negotiated and agreed the terms of reference.
The noble Lord, Lord Caine, asked about the costs associated with the commission. He knows better than I that a huge amount of work has already been done on the Finucane case, some of which is publicly available and some of which is not. On that basis, we believe that the terms of reference can be negotiated and delivered in such a way that costs can be managed, and that we can work with the family and all partners to ensure that this can be delivered on time, quickly, and, I hope, to budget.
The Government are mindful of the many years that Mrs Finucane and her family have been waiting for this inquiry, and of the decades that have passed since the commitment at Weston Park, which was signed by my noble friend Lord Reid. As such, we are keen to deliver the inquiry as quickly as is practicable, as it is the only outstanding case. However, as noble Lords will appreciate, due process must be followed, and it will inevitably take some time to work through all the necessary stages and preparatory work in setting up the inquiry.
We all remember the savage brutality of the Troubles and their legacy—a truly terrible time in our history. Peace can never be taken for granted. We must work every day to ensure that the Troubles remain part of our history, not of our future. By ensuring that families have access to all available information, and working together on delivering the promises of Weston Park and the Stormont agreement, we can ensure that the building blocks of legacy help us to deliver peace and reconciliation in the future.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Baroness to her place and wish her well. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Caine, said about this case, and that the Article 2 obligations can be fulfilled by a reference to the ICRIR. Given the numerous processes and events that have happened in relation to the case, that would have been entirely appropriate.
It has to be said that the murder of Pat Finucane was a shocking, disgraceful, horrible event, which should never have happened; it needs to be condemned by all right-thinking people. Today, we think of all the victims in Northern Ireland and elsewhere who have had no inquiry, no truth and no justice. When thinking of human rights lawyers, judges and others in the legal profession, I want to put on record that the IRA and Sinn Féin, which has been mentioned, and its MPs—every single one of them—refuse to condemn the murder of judges, politicians and people in civil society. That needs to be borne in mind.
The hypocrisy of the Irish Government too has been uncovered, in that they refuse to have public inquiries into, for instance, the murder of Ian Sproule in Castlederg. We think of Lord Justice Gibson and Lady Gibson, who were killed by an IRA bomb in 1987—blown to bits and identified only by their dental records. There was no public inquiry into that, despite demands in 2013 for one about collusion with Irish state forces. We think of the Hanna family, murdered in 1988—a mother and father, and a six year-old boy, blown to bits in an attempt to murder a justice of the High Court.
I have every sympathy with the Minister’s position and with what she is trying to do in Northern Ireland. But I have to say that there will be a deep feeling in Northern Ireland today—in the light of the cost, which has been mentioned, of having this unnecessary inquiry, and given what has happened and the alternatives—of great injustice among the innocent victims, thousands of them across Northern Ireland, who will say today, “Where is our inquiry? Where is the spotlight on our grief? We have been crying for years, and nothing has been done”. It is time that the Government addressed that fundamental question.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I want to put on record my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. His comments demonstrate the level of hurt that we are still touching on every time we discuss the Troubles, and the pain that so many people are still experiencing. There is very little I can say to give reassurance in terms of the specifics of his pain and that of those he touched on, but I reassure him that there is no hierarchy here. This is a unique case that was discussed and agreed in 2001 at Weston Park. We are ensuring that we deliver, as we did on the inquiries for Billy White, Robert Hamill and Rosemary Nelson. The case of Patrick Finucane is the only case in which this long-standing commitment to establish an inquiry had yet to be met, until yesterday. However, I appreciate the noble Lord’s concerns and look forward to working with him to ensure that the rest of the legacy programme is fit for purpose and that every person who was touched by the Troubles feels that they have the appropriate access to justice and truth.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there is enough time for everyone who wishes to speak to do so. I call my noble friend Lady Ritchie first and then we will go back to the Cross Benches.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench and the decision of the Secretary of State to grant a public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane, an incident I recall well. I also point out that all murders in Northern Ireland, carried out by paramilitaries or state forces, were totally wrong, inappropriate and unacceptable. I have two questions to ask the Minister. When will there be a repeal of the legacy legislation and a definite move towards inquests, investigations and inquiries to solve the problems and challenges faced by victims and survivors of the Troubles? Will the Government withdraw the application by the previous Secretary of State for a judicial review of the decision of the coroner in March this year into the case of Sean Brown, which was also mired in collusion?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her questions. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the Government will repeal and replace the legacy Act, including by reversing the prohibition on bringing new civil proceedings and proposing measures to allow inquests that were previously halted. As the Secretary of State said in the other place yesterday, the Government are now in the process of consulting all interested parties about how to give effect to the repeal and replace the commitment in the gracious Speech. We will bring that forward as quickly as possible. The Government are also in the process of addressing the incompatibility findings of the High Court and, when parliamentary time allows, we will lay a draft remedial order under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to remove the offending provisions from the statute book.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment here on the specific case mentioned by my noble friend, but I reaffirm the commitment made by the Secretary of State yesterday that the Government will carefully consider each individual case in order to reach a sensible way forward.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the Minister to her place. In an article published in today’s Belfast Telegraph, John Finucane, the son of Pat Finucane, writes:
“Everyone on our island who has been affected by horrific past events are entitled to full truth and justice”.
I wholeheartedly agree. The Finucane family, having previously turned down an inquiry in 2005, have now secured one on their terms. However, countless other families who lost loved ones to terrorism in Northern Ireland will never receive such preferential treatment. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked, can the Minister explain to those families why their lives and those of their fathers, mothers, sons or daughters mean less to the Government than the late wife of Pat Finucane? Further, noble Lords will note that in his article, John Finucane calls for everyone on “our” island to be given full truth and justice. As such, will the Minister update the House on what discussions her colleagues are having with their counterparts in Dublin, with a view to the Irish Government co-operating fully with a public inquiry into the Omagh bomb that claimed the lives of so many, on both sides of the border?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, for his questions and note his pain and disappointment. I am grateful for his comments about the Finucane family and for recognising the steps we need to take. On the specifics of his question, I can only say to all families of the Troubles that my heart goes out to them, and that this Government will do everything in our power to ensure that they have access to justice and to the information they need to ensure a level of personal peace and closure. We will review every case as and when it comes in front of the Secretary of State. If the noble Lord would like to discuss anything specific with me, I look forward to meeting with him. On the issues about all of Ireland, members of the NIO meet the Government of Ireland regularly to discuss this and all matters, and we will continue to do so to further the cause of peace.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
In welcoming the Minister to her job, I tell her that she is going to be very busy, particularly now that we have lost the Windsor Framework Sub-Committee, which I hope can be brought back. The Minister must understand that this will be seen by many people as a kind of hierarchy of victims. Many victims, particularly in rural areas, saw their families destroyed by IRA terrorism, and there has been nothing—no inquiries, no money, nothing spent—to get to the truth of that. We must make sure that everyone feels that they are being treated equally. We must make sure that the money spent on this is spent in a way that ensures that we get to the truth. I think we have already got to the truth. I see no unique circumstances, and I wonder whether, as was asked earlier by another noble Lord, she can say what the unique circumstances are, after all the other inquiries and all the money that has been spent. Of course, I think we all know what the unique circumstances are that the Government are referring to, but that will not satisfy people in Northern Ireland. Given that we all have confidence in Sir Declan Morgan, and that the Secretary of State made that clear in his Statement, I do not understand why this could not have been sent, as it should have been, to the ICRIR. This is sending out a message that the Government do not believe that Sir Declan Morgan could handle the case, and that is very sad indeed.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make it clear and put on the record that there is no hierarchy of pain or justice. Everybody touched by the Troubles deserves answers; it is why and how we engage in legacy that is so important. Yesterday’s decision by the Secretary of State is the fulfilment of our commitment made at Weston Park 23 years ago—many years before the establishment of the commission and the appointment of Sir Declan Morgan. However, I am delighted that Sir Declan Morgan has the confidence of the noble Baroness, and I look forward to working with her in the months and perhaps years ahead, depending on how long my appointment lasts, as we discuss these issues in great depth.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there is time for both noble Lords to speak. I suggest that we hear first from the former Secretary of State.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench. I am sure she will do a wonderful job as the spokesperson on Northern Ireland. When I was Secretary of State, I received the Cory report, which recommended four public inquiries. We agreed on three, but then deferred the Finucane inquiry for a bit longer because of prosecutions. Then, 20 years ago, as stated in the Statement, I made a commitment in the House of Commons to hold a public inquiry. For various reasons, that did not happen. So it is timely that that is happening now. I very much welcome this Statement and hope it will be the end of a very painful matter. I ask my noble friend, first, about the timescale for this—although she has touched on that—and, secondly, about the consultation that has been held with Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive. It is extremely important that there is a great deal of their involvement in this, and also—it has been test-run by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan—with the Irish Government and the Government of the United States of America.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
There are so many noble Lords in this House who participated and delivered peace in Northern Ireland—none more so than my noble friend Lord Murphy. I am very grateful, both for his mentorship and for the work that he did throughout his time as Secretary of State and that he continues to do to ensure that these matters are raised on a regular basis.
On the specific questions that my noble friend raised, he will know much better than I, given his former roles, that on the timescale, as fast as we may wish to go, we have responsibilities under the Inquiries Act 2005, which we will follow, and we will report to the House in due course. We hope to establish the public inquiry as quickly as possible, and I look forward to returning to your Lordships’ House with more detail as quickly as I can.
With regard to the consultation on future legacy arrangements that I believe my noble friend was touching on, we will of course be working with the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive to make sure that they are fully engaged in our future arrangements, and that any future changes to the legacy Act have their confidence to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. On that note, I want to put on record how delighted the Government are that both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive are up and running and that their programme for government was published this week. In terms of engagement with the Republic of Ireland, before we announced the inquiry, the Secretary of State engaged with the Tánaiste, Micheál Martin, and spoke to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland to make sure that everybody was up to date and informed before a decision was made.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Baroness to her place. She said that the Finucane family had been waiting for many years—30 years—for answers. Well, my family has been waiting 48 years for answers. Nobody has been brought to court. No one has been charged. Yet we are left with the same heartache and heartbreak that they say the Finucane family has. The Finucane family has already had millions of pounds spent on investigations. Is the message from this Government that there is a hierarchy of victimhood in Northern Ireland and that, as far as the Government are concerned, the ICRIR will be good enough for the rest but not for the Finucanes? Is it “he who shouts the loudest” who seem to be the only ones that hurt?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am so sorry to hear of the heartbreak and heartache that the noble Lord has had for the last 48 years. Every victim of the Troubles deserves information, peace and closure. We will do everything that we can to support every victim in making sure that they know the reality of what happened and how it happened. As I have said, there is no hierarchy in this area—no hierarchy of pain, no hierarchy of justice. We made a commitment in 2001 to four public inquiries. We are delivering on the one that is outstanding, following on from the court decisions and the processes that have been followed. With regards to the commission, I am aware of the noble Lord’s previous concerns about the legacy Act. I look forward to working with him and Members across the House as we move forward with amendments to the legacy Act and we seek to ensure that it and the commission have the confidence of every member of the community.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and pay tribute to the work he has done over so many years in this area. Of all the appointments made by the Government since the election, none has pleased me more than to see my noble friend on the Front Bench, although I do not envy her the work she will have to do on this. I am sure she can look forward, for example, to families in Birmingham renewing their demands for a public inquiry into the pub bombings in 1974. It sems to me that the only beneficiaries now are the lawyers. These inquiries always take longer and cost more than the Government think they will. So at what point will we draw a line under all of this and use this money instead for economic development in Northern Ireland, for investment in schools, jobs, reconciliation and peacebuilding, and bringing young people from both communities together, so that the people of Northern Ireland can look forward to an even brighter future?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his incredibly generous comments. We will see whether I live up to them—or not—in due course. Given the noble Lord’s role in the last Labour Government, he will be aware that every penny we can spend on economic development and regeneration itself acts as a bridge to peace and to moving on from the Troubles. However, people still need answers. One of the things we have heard in your Lordships’ House today is that people’s hurt is still tangible. We need to do everything we can to provide closure and to move forward on behalf of all the families and all those touched by the Troubles throughout my lifetime.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as there are a few seconds left, I thank the Minister for her answers this afternoon. When she looks at Hansard, she may notice that she missed one or two of my specific questions. I would be very grateful if she could go away with her officials—some of whom I spy out of the corner of my eye—and possibly write to me with some detailed answers to the questions I put.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Of course, I apologise if I did not get to all of your Lordships’ questions, and specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Caine. I will check Hansard for the full debate and respond appropriately.
Pedal Cycles
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hogan-Howe
That this House takes note of the safety and regulation issues involved in the use of pedal cycles on the road network.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. I thank the people who supported me in the ballot, the people who are speaking today, and of course the people who are here to attend. I suspect not everybody will agree with me, but that is the nature of the debate. The reason for it is to encourage people to explore the facts and see what may improve in the future.
My reasons for becoming involved in these issues are three- or fourfold. The first was a near-death experience on Victoria Street, which I suspect many people may be replicating and telling us about today. The second, just intuitively, is the number of cyclists who appear to ignore the law, particularly but not only in our urban areas. That is not sufficient, it has to be factually based, but I hope to explore that. The third is the cases I have heard of where the whole system does not seem to respond well to the fact that someone has been seriously injured—sometimes lost their life—and then there is not a proper investigation and the criminal justice system does not cover itself in glory.
I was told about one case about 18 months ago that led to my involvement here today. A young barrister aged around 35, a fit kickboxer, crossing Fulham Road with the lights in his favour on a pelican crossing, through stationary traffic on a wet night, was hit by a cycle. It must have been at high speed because his injury was a spiral fracture of his leg. I am not a medical specialist, but a spiral fracture means there has been a very severe blow, and it gives you a higher risk that your bones will not knit and you may lose your leg. Fortunately he recovered, probably due to his youth and fitness, but his experience of the criminal justice system thereafter has been pretty appalling. That is partly because the law is not very supportive, and I hope to touch on that; partly because the police were not very good; partly because the Crown Prosecution Service was slow; and lastly because the court system did not deliver a fair outcome. That case is just one reason. Many others will have their own reasons to get involved in this debate.
My second general point is that my belief is, and research shows, that there is generally only one form of deterrence that works on criminal behaviour: the risk of getting caught. All other things do not really work. You can get very severe sentences—public disorder is the exception; as we have just seen in the recent riots, if you give significant sentences shortly after rioting starts, that can deter others from getting involved—but generally it is about the risk of getting caught. One of the main issues that I want to push on is that, generally, when cyclists disobey the law they have a high chance of not being caught or of no one intervening at all. I will try to explain why they are not unique in that; it is a human behaviour thing. We could say similar things about other groups but in fact their behaviour has been modified in ways that I hope to cover.
I want to make it clear at the beginning that I am not anti-cyclist, because some may allege otherwise. I cycle myself. I have an electric cycle; it is not traditional. These things are big, heavy and fast. I enjoy it and, done properly, it is great to cycle. It is a green, safe, enjoyable and healthy thing to do that we should all encourage and make sure there is even more of. In policy terms, the last 20 years have seen Governments quite properly trying to protect cyclists against motorists. That has been necessary; we have seen many awful cases, particularly here in London, where cyclists have been badly injured or, worse, lost their life, particularly when colliding with large vehicles. We have now seen changes to the road structure to make sure that there is separation of cyclists from motorists, and that is to be supported. However, my argument today is about affording the same consideration and safety to pedestrians from cyclists.
I am not going to say that cyclists are the only threat because that would be quite wrong, but there is a case for making sure that pedestrians are protected from the behaviour of bad cyclists and cyclists who behave badly. It is only fair to notice that many good cyclists—cyclists who behave well—are harassed and intimidated by those behaving badly. There have been many cases where cyclists have been doing the proper thing only to be abused and threatened by cyclists who intend to get past them. They are not alone in this, but it is worth remembering that this is not only about pedestrians. If a motor vehicle becomes involved in a collision with a cyclist, whoever’s fault it is, that is a terrible event. Everyone involved will be shocked and there will be an outcome that no one intended. We ought to consider the motorist who ends up colliding with a cyclist too.
I should highlight that I do not believe that cyclists are more likely than any other group to become involved in criminal behaviour. Whether a lorry driver, a car driver or a bus driver, we are all humans and we all have failings. This is not just about cyclists; it is about human behaviour and the fact that we see far more people seriously injured and killed by cars each year. It is not just about the fact that cyclists can hurt people.
My principal point is that road traffic law has not maintained the accountability of cyclists in the way that motor vehicles are regulated. I hope to go through areas where that could be changed. Cyclists can be prosecuted for dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, or cycling when under the influence of drink or drugs, so there is legislation that can regulate some of the behaviour. However, Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP has been trying to fill a lacuna in the law by proposing that cyclists be covered by a new offence of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, reckless or inconsiderate cycling. That was accepted by the last Government, but the general election intervened and it was not possible to deliver that legislation. The Minister may want to comment on the new Government’s position on Sir Iain’s proposal, which I believe he is going to bring back. In the debate prior to the general election, the Opposition at the time indicated that they would be supportive of this law change. It would be helpful to hear from the Government how they intend to respond to that, if the Minister is able to say so.
There is a further offence, a very old one from the Offences against the Person Act 1861, called furious driving of a carriage. Obviously that law was for other times, but cycling can be pulled within it if there is a serious injury. It is quite hard to prosecute or even land a charge, as the prosecutors in the case that I mentioned earlier which caught my interest discovered when they got to court. You have to prove that the driving was fast, which leads to the question of what is fast in relation to a cycle, and furious, which implies some intent or recklessness. To prove that gets harder and harder, although not impossible—there have been cases that have generated those sorts of convictions—but it is not designed for that purpose. The problem with laws not designed for a purpose is that you have to try to squeeze these things in, which is difficult for the police, the prosecutor and the courts, as well as for juries, who play a part when this is an indictable offence.
Cyclists are not even bound by speed limits. When I first raised this issue in the House, I mistakenly believed that they were; I had just forgotten that they are not. Cycles can go any speed in an urban environment, or any environment. Cycles can of course get to high speeds. For fit people, through muscle power, 30 miles an hour is easily attainable on the flat, and certainly downhill. With electric assistance, that is even easier. The last Government—I am not sure what the response of the new Government is—intended to increase the power of electric cycles to allow couriers to deliver more weight, but of course if couriers are not carrying that weight then all they can do is go faster. That needs to be considered when talking about this issue.
What is the argument for change? What is the data that shows a problem, apart from someone like me saying that we see lots of cyclists ignoring the law? I found it particularly difficult to get the data because it is stored in different places: partly by the Home Office, partly by the Department for Transport, and partly by the Department of Health and Social Care. The main piece of data that I found which I think is reliable was issued by the Department for Transport in a consultation process, referred to by the Evening Standard in July. It revealed that 2,491 pedestrians were injured by cyclists over a six-year period across the country. Of those, 20 were killed and 546 were seriously injured. Each one of those deaths is a tragedy and we would hope that they could have been avoided. We have a general need to reduce the number of fatalities. It is not a very large number but it is a significant one, and of course people with serious injuries are always at risk of death depending on the health conditions caused.
It is clear that the data that I have just cited is a bare minimum. The Department for Transport gets that data from police officers who attend the scenes of collisions. They do not attend every collision. They generally will attend if it is a fatal or serious injury, but that does not account for the more minor injuries where that is not the case. It is even harder to get data out of the department of health, because that relies on the GP or accident and emergency department first of all recording the incident and then recording the cause, since someone who is injured may not fully explain exactly what happened. If nothing else, one of the things I will ask for at the end of my submission today is that we have more comprehensive and accurate data supplied, to determine whether the trend is getting worse or better and whether there is anything in particular that we should be able to improve in relation to cyclists.
My major piece of evidence, which we may hear more about, is that cyclists seem to ignore a lot, including red traffic lights and pedestrian crossings when people are on them, even outside this building. I have tried to take particular note of it this week. People are crossing the crossing and cyclists are still going through. That is not acceptable on any level. It does not happen once or occasionally; it seems to be fairly routine. It is that which we need to affect. How can we change the routine behaviour?
In addition there is the fact that, at night, a large number of people do not have lights and wear dark clothing. The chance of seeing these cyclists—which was my experience on Victoria Street recently—is fairly low. On the occasion I was nearly hit, I would admit that I was partly responsible. Part of what happened was my fault and I would take that criticism—but I never saw this person. They disappeared, cycling at least at 30 miles per hour, and we could not even have a conversation to discuss who might have been right and who might have been wrong.
Some people say the police should enforce the law more vigorously, and I agree. However, enforcing the law against 7 million cyclists across the country is difficult. Enforcement is not the thing that, on the whole, has led to an improvement in motor vehicle behaviour. I will quickly list what those things are. First, when it comes to getting officers involved, in London at the moment about 4,000 cyclists are prosecuted for failing to abide by red traffic lights—which is not an awful lot in a city of 9 million.
Secondly, the other major improvements have come from technology, but technology relies on a registration plate, which cyclists do not have. Interestingly, in Finland e-scooters now have them: on the back they have a very small plate.
Thirdly, one of the bigger contributors has been insurance. This has played a part in making sure that risk has been properly calculated for each motor vehicle. It also allows for victims to be compensated. At the moment, cyclists generally have no insurance by which victims may seek compensation; they have only a civil remedy. That is often not available, and the person who has caused injury often does not have enough resources to deliver any compensation should any award be made against them. So I would say that insurance would be a vital development if the Government were minded to provide it.
Fourthly, there is the provision of licences. You could argue that this would be quite a complex, bureaucratic thing, but you could just add another category on to a driving licence. You could give what were termed “grandfather rights” at the end of the Second World War for those who are cyclists already. You could test later. I would ask therefore for the licence to be withdrawn in the event of bad behaviour by a cyclist and for that person to be disqualified from cycling.
I have concentrated particularly on cycling on the road, but there have also been many cases where cycling on the pavement has caused similar problems. I am not talking about children cycling on the pavement; this is about adults cycling on the pavement at the speeds I have already referred to. They need to be deterred and we need to make sure it does not happen. I would accept that an argument against insurance is: what about children? Does that mean that children have to have insurance? That would need to be discussed, but I do not think it should stop the thrust of the argument I have already made.
In conclusion, I remind the House of the things that I have argued for. First, as a bare minimum, the Government should be collecting accurate data from across government about the nature of the problem, so that any future discussion can be informed by more data than I have been able to discover. Secondly, if the Government are minded to increase regulation to make people more accountable, they should consider registration marks for cycles, e-scooters and e-bikes. They should consider insurance for them, for compensation of victims, as well the mediation of risk, and riding licences that may allow courts to award points as opposed to fines, which on the whole do not work with the same effectiveness. We should also make sure that we generally train our young people to make sure they take their responsibilities seriously.
Finally, I close by saying that I am not against cyclists. I am not a zealot for producing more regulation. More regulation on the whole is not always a healthy thing, but in this case, I am not sure what happens if we do not do something—because then it will get worse and that I do not think is healthy for anyone.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord in his description of all the things that are wrong with cycling and cyclists. He made some good points. But one has to look at it from a view that the number of people killed in accidents, for example, by cyclists is very small compared with the some 2,000 people killed in road accidents. The noble Lord did not mention road accidents between vehicles—be they cars, lorries or whatever—and people. There are not many pedestrians that seem to suffer that.
Most of the issues that need to be looked at come under the category of either safety or enforcement. Many noble Lords have been speaking in this House for a long time about the lack of regulation and enforcement of electric scooters. I hope my noble friend will give us some answers about what has happened to that because, actually, you can have fun on a scooter. You should be on a road, in my view, and not on a pavement. You should also not be cycling on a pavement. There has to be much better education of cyclists and pedestrians, as well as car drivers, before we can get to a situation where everybody can live with other road users without getting completely fed up with people who disobey whatever the law is.
The noble Lord mentioned a load of statistics and I can quote a load more from a report by Sustrans, which is very useful. It gives the view that a lot of younger people are very keen to cycle and would be very keen probably to use scooters, if they were allowed to. It helps with your quality of life. One statistic really hit me:
“Every day, walking, wheeling”—
whatever that is—
“and cycling in … cities take up to 2,300,000 cars off the road”.
There is a health and accident issue there and I think it is something we need to look at in the round.
The proportion of residents who think cycling safely in their local area is good is actually not very high—somewhere between 31% and 44 %. It should be better, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is quite right that proper police enforcement is one thing that really should come in. One final statistic is that cycling actually keeps the cities moving, as 290,000 return cycling trips are made per day:
“If these cars were all in a traffic jam it would tail back 867 miles”.
I am sure noble Lords will like that.
We need to have a debate about this and we need common sense applied to all the issues that the noble Lord has mentioned. But let us not forget quality of life, safety needs and health. We should encourage other people to obey the lights and the rules. There are pedestrians who jaywalk, as well as cyclists. I am not in favour of licensing either walking or cycling. Do we want to have a licence to walk? That would be fun. But we should do more and there is good work done already on cycle training around the country. We need to do more of that and much more education, with some enforcement.
Every debate we have in your Lordships’ House tends to say that there are not enough police to enforce things, but we need this so that people can do what I love doing in Germany when I go there. There are cycle lanes for cycles and scooters. There are footpaths and road lanes and everybody obeys the lights and waits their turn. That should be our objective here.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for sponsoring this debate, and I hope noble Lords will forgive me for a moment of nostalgia. On 11 July 1975, the newly elected Member of Parliament for Acton initiated a debate in the other place on cycling. Nearly 50 years later, here he is again, though happily not, as then, at 4.30 pm on a Friday. That was a time when there were no cycle racks at all in Parliament, or at Paddington station. The few MPs who cycled to work were regarded as mildly eccentric, as was the most well-known pedalling Peer, Lord Hailsham. London then had 80,000 cyclists; it now has 600,000.
My speech included some novel arguments for promoting cycling, working out that cyclists converted energy into miles at the equivalent of 1,600 miles to the gallon, and set out a charter for cyclists, as well as a unit for cycling within government, cycle lanes, including a cycle lane in Hyde Park, a head start for cyclists at traffic lights, and cycle networks sponsored by local authorities. My speech was described as “interesting” by the Minister. This was before the programme “Yes Minister” revealed that “interesting” was mandarin for “crazy”. He proceeded to reject my suggestions, saying that it would be
“difficult to provide separate traffic lanes in the middle of … London”
and that adjusting traffic lights would be “costly”. On cycle networks promoted by local authorities, he said that
“with our present economic difficulties and with a cut-back in many local authority services imminent—this is hardly the time for Parliament to be urging local authorities to fresh expenditure”.
Well, plus ça change. The idea of a cycle lane in Hyde Park was “interesting”, and on a unit in his department there was again a thumbs down:
“We are being asked to cut down on the numbers of civil servants”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/1975; cols. 1025-26.]
But 50 years on we have made enormous progress, thanks in part to the APPG that was started in that Parliament. It anticipated “Boris bikes” by having a bicycle pool in New Palace Yard, enabling Peers and MPs to access a bicycle for £5 a year. Many used them to go out to lunch but, having been well entertained, they returned by taxi, leaving the organisers to collect our fleet from the choicest eating houses in the West End.
But enough of nostalgia. I join others, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, in condemning the dangerous and anti-social behaviour of those cyclists who break the law. Why are illegal e-bikes not confiscated on the spot? A few well-publicised instances would have a real impact. But justified criticism of a minority should not morph into an attitude that is hostile to cyclists as a whole. The focus of today’s debate should be on encouraging more people to cycle safely and responsibly, in line with the policy of Governments of all colours.
I have a specific request to the Minister. At the all-party reception on Tuesday, the deputy leader of Lambeth Council spoke about the hazard of rental bikes being abandoned on pavements. These are an obstruction to pedestrians and a hazard to the visually impaired. Lambeth does not want to ban them, as the chap from Brent wanted to do on the radio this morning, but Lambeth does not have the powers to manage the problem. Will the Minister’s officials discuss this with Lambeth to see how this might be put right?
I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, but I take issue with his proposal to register and license bicycles—I oppose that. He set out the case more fully in today’s House magazine. The Government have also looked at that and opposed it—and a Written Answer of a few months ago said:
“The Department considered the potential advantages and disadvantages of a mandatory registration and licensing system for cycle ownership as part of a comprehensive cycling and walking safety review in 2018. This found that the cost and complexity of such a system would outweigh the benefits, and that restricting people’s ability to cycle in this way would mean that many would be likely to choose other modes of transport instead, with negative impacts for congestion, pollution, and health”.
Is that still the Government’s view? Licensing has been tried and abandoned in Toronto and in Switzerland. The Prime Minister has said he wants to tread more lightly on our lives, and my noble friend Lord Moylan, a champion of deregulation, would of course want to leave an even smaller footprint on us.
In 50 years there may be another debate on cycling and I may not be on the speakers’ list, but I hope that we continue to make the sort of progress we have made over the last 50 years.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow three committed cyclists. I do not bike now but I once did, so I well understand the passion with which cyclists embrace it, and the independence, the flexibility and the sense of well-being that it brings. But as cycling as an activity grows, and as our roads become ever more congested with vehicles of every size and type, it is time to step back and to consider how biking can be made safer for pedestrians and for bikers themselves.
The biggest problem arises in the centre of our cities, where large numbers of cyclists and pedestrians increasingly come together in crowded spaces and where substantial numbers of bikers routinely ignore both the law and the Highway Code. It is commonplace—we all know this to be true—on any urban arterial road, major junction or pedestrianised precinct to see bikers in their legions cycle in the wrong direction up one-way streets; bike on busy pavements; ride through red lights; and zoom across pedestrian green-light crossways and zebra crossings while pedestrians are still using them.
I have myriad examples, but just in the last few days I saw a bike rider weaving around pedestrians on a walkway, neither hand on his handlebars, sitting bolt upright, holding up and studying his mobile phone. Last week, anticipating this debate, I stood by a main arterial route around dusk and observed the enormous numbers of bikers in transit, all travelling at speed, some at a very high speed, almost all in dark clothes, almost none wearing fluorescent jackets, only a very few wearing helmets and a significant minority with no lights, front or rear. Thus they were a hazard to themselves as well as to wary pedestrians, for whom walking on city streets or crossing the road is becoming an increasingly unrelaxing and nerve-wracking experience.
E-bikes are an even greater hazard, many souped up and evidently—ask any London taxi driver about this—substantially exceeding their 15.5 miles per hour limit, and undoubtedly unregistered, untaxed and uninsured.
Lord Birt (CB)
I am sorry, but it is a time-limited debate.
The City of London police take cycling breaches seriously, but MoJ data for the country more widely demonstrates that enforcement actions are vanishingly low—just three prosecutions for the whole of last year for ignoring traffic directions, for instance. Bikers themselves pay a very high price for using the road. It is very difficult to get figures; I have asked the Library for figures, and I think we will hear figures in this debate that are inconsistent. I do not know what the true figures are but, in the figures I have seen, each week two die and around 80 are seriously injured. I had a colleague seriously handicapped for life when a lorry knocked her off her bike at a roundabout and rode over her legs with his rear wheels.
Pedestrians suffer too in collisions with bikers. Fatalities are rare, though one is too many, but around 500 pedestrian injuries, some serious, are recorded each year—again, I do not know whether that is the right figure—as a result of pedestrian/biker collisions.
What should be done? First, the Highway Code, which I read recently for the first time in many years, is a confusing blend of advice and legal requirements, and it plainly needs revision. We should consider, for instance, legally requiring cyclists to wear helmets and high-vis jackets. Wearing a helmet, it is estimated, reduces the risk of head or brain injury in an accident by 60%. Secondly, we need better education for novice bikers, and more intense public information campaigns for all bikers. Thirdly, the Home Office needs to press the police to take proportionate action to encourage a culture of compliance, especially in city centres.
Biking is a wonderful activity, but let us make it safer for bikers and for the rest of us.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on securing this debate. It is indeed telling that a former Met Police commissioner has chosen to raise this important issue. I speak as someone who is a pedestrian and a car driver who has dogs and rides horses, but others in my family are very keen cyclists. I know that there are many noble Lords who cycle and, I am sure, who do so safely. While we can all acknowledge the health and climate benefits of cycling, the present situation with bicycles has become a serious hazard for pedestrians and other road users.
I should perhaps start by declaring an interest: I was knocked over by a cyclist while on the pedestrian crossing outside Parliament in 2019, when I had the right of way. It was by an eminent lawyer who did not apologise and did not even ask whether I was okay. The police would do nothing about it. Also, an elderly friend of mine was knocked over by a Deliveroo cyclist at a crossing and ended up injured in hospital for several weeks. The bicyclist gave a false telephone number and could not be traced. I am afraid that I do not subscribe to the argument put forward by Cycling UK that, because more people are injured by cars, we should not be concerned about holding cyclists to account. We need to address causes of injury however they occur.
Despite the words of Queen’s bicycle song,
“I want to ride it where I like”,
it is important that whoever uses the roads does so with care and consideration towards other road users. If anyone is in doubt about whether many cyclists flout the law, just go and stand by the crossing outside the Lords: cyclists not wanting to slow down or unclip their feet, jumping the lights with impunity. Last December, at a junction of High Street Kensington and Earls Court Road, over 50 cyclists were caught in just a three-hour window. The problem is not just ignoring red lights; it is not giving way to pedestrian crossings, going up on the pavement, squeezing through gaps, and undertaking, to name a few. It shows the darker side of Mario Cipollini’s oft-misused cycling quotation:
“If you brake, you don’t win”.
Such is the aggressive approach that has crept in with some that I know cycle users who will not go in the cycle lanes because they suffer such abuse if they do not go fast enough.
Respect needs to be observed for other road users. No car driver wants to hit a bicyclist; the mental health repercussions for them would be absolutely terrible. So often, however, bicyclists just stick their arms out and ride across cars without ever looking or observing the Highway Code. Those who regularly flout the law are more likely to cause accidents. Surely cyclists should have to obey the rules of the road like everyone else and, where they do not, they should be held to account. Yet in 2023 only 39 people were convicted for careless or inconsiderate cycling.
There is, of course, no mandatory training and testing for bicyclists, but ignorance of the law of the road is not a defence. I welcome initiatives such as the Bikeability Trust, the DfT’s national schoolchildren cycling programme, which has helped about 4 million children get on bikes since its inception. Safe cycling has enormous benefits for everyone.
It is not just in towns and cities where there is a problem from cyclists. On A roads and country lanes there can be cyclists, sometimes in clumps holding up all the traffic—are they not meant to pull over? While I know that we are primarily addressing cycles on the roads today, there is also a huge issue with off-road cyclists who are dangerous to walkers, dogs and horses. Last weekend, I went to walk in Surrey on common land where I have been walking all my life; I used to ride down there too. I must have seen over 40 off-road bikes, but I saw hardly any other dog walkers and no horses. I have since been told that no horse rider can now go out there at the weekend, except terribly early in the morning, and hardly anyone walks their dogs, because it is simply too dangerous. The cyclists go at a rate of knots, do not give way to anybody and many are very inconsiderate. It just is not right that these off-road bicyclists should be able to drive away other people who want to enjoy the countryside. Perhaps the Minister could address this aspect too.
I very much support the idea of registration for bikes. It would enable the regulations to be more easily implemented and cyclists who offend to be identified. It would probably be a deterrent to bike theft as well. I do not accept the argument that there are too many to do so—we manage to get everyone to pay tax and we get cars licensed, so why not bikes?
There is no doubt that there is a real problem. I hope that the Government will commit to taking action after today’s debate.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Road Danger Reduction Forum, as per my registered interests. Of course we have lawless roads, which has been a concern of mine for two and a half decades or so. Some of that is cyclists, and I would not for a moment defend cyclists who break the law; in fact, I shout at cyclists whom I see breaking the law, and I hope that every noble Lord here does the same. Some of the crime is from cyclists, but the majority of the problem is car drivers.
When I was on the Metropolitan Police Authority from 2000 to 2012—before Boris Johnson scrapped it—I kept asking how our roads had got so lawless and why it had not been a priority for the senior officers running the organisation. As the Mayor of London’s road safety ambassador, I spent a lot of my time resisting proposed cuts to the traffic police and pressing for them to get more resources.
It is painfully obvious that many drivers ignore the rules, and the people who pay the price for that are often children, older people, pedestrians and cyclists. As has been said already, in 2017 there were 28,010 recorded hit and runs. That is around 77 hit and runs a day and, of those, more than two people a day were killed or left with a life-changing injury. This is not acceptable. It is a national scandal, and the way that the last Government dealt with it was to stop publishing the figures. I really hope that the new Government will end the cover-up and recognise the scale of the problem.
We have a national registration scheme for cars, but large numbers of car drivers just ignore their responsibility and the rules. Many go further and actively destroy cameras that enforce speed or air pollution rules. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said that the risk of being caught is the best way to stop this sort of lawlessness. When I was an assembly member, I used to cycle a lot and I was very careful not to get caught, because I could not have borne the publicity; I was very law-abiding. I see time and again that the best way of dealing with lawless drivers and lawless cyclists is to stop our overreliance on electronic enforcement and registration plates. We need more police out on the roads stopping people breaking the rules of the road. Let us remember that traffic police have always had a much higher arrest rate—seven times higher—than those on the beat.
For those suggesting a registration scheme for cyclists, I say that experience has shown that it would soon become impossible to enforce and the main impact would be to put another big barrier in the way of people who want a cheap, convenient, environmentally friendly and healthy way of getting around.
I very much enjoyed the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young. It is always a pleasure to agree with a Conservative Member of your Lordships’ House—and so rare. If we want a culture of safe and law-abiding cyclists, making cycling easy, safe and segregated from cars is the way to do it. We need to get more women and children on bikes in cities. That might start to embarrass any Lycra-clad men into slowing down and perhaps obeying the rules of the road.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I am one of those very keen cyclists and have cycled thousands of miles in the last 15 years or so, both in London and in mid-Wales, so I bring a cyclist’s view of many of the issues today, as well as my own interest in working on transport issues for the Welsh Government. I have no difficulty with some of the suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, proposes regarding cyclists. I do not see why cyclists should not be subject to speed limits and, if they cause serious accidents by behaving recklessly or carelessly, they should face appropriate charges. However, I am strongly opposed to suggestions that are likely to discourage everyday cycling by law-abiding people. This is a time when we should be encouraging cycling rather than making it more complicated.
Much of the focus of today’s debate has been on the harm done by cyclists, particularly to pedestrians. My starting point is that this focus is disproportionate and does not identify the real source of safety issues. My interpretation of the statistics I have been looking at from the Department for Transport tells me that, on average, there are about 400 pedestrian fatalities a year resulting from road traffic accidents. Of these fatalities, on average, two involve cyclists. That is 0.5%. The rest involve motorised vehicles of one kind or another. For pedestrian injuries, the percentage is a bit higher, at 2%, but it is still a small part of the danger to pedestrians. The same figures tell me that there are 100 cycling fatalities a year on the roads. More than 80% of them involve motor vehicles. We should also note that a substantial proportion of them take place within 20 yards of a junction—that is where many of the critical incidents happen.
Despite a lot of improvements to road safety, there is still a serious issue of how motorists, cyclists and pedestrians can live together safely in what my noble friend Lord Birt described as the crowded cities and towns of this country. The roads can be heavily congested, particularly at peak times. Fortunately, many people have responded to this congestion by taking up more walking and cycling, so cycling has been on a sharp increase and I also notice that there is much more walking than I can remember in years gone by. Walking and cycling are suitable both for shorter journeys and, in particular, for connecting a lot of people to the public transport system, which has become such an important part of our lives. As noble Lords have mentioned, they bring important health benefits and I cannot believe that anyone would seriously wish to take measures now that would turn back the clock on this.
Rather than focusing on regulations that would reduce cycling, the emphasis should be on providing better-designed paths for both pedestrians and cyclists. These paths should be safe, clearly signed, continuous—which very rarely happens—well-maintained and separate from motor vehicles. Cycle lanes need to be clearly identified and separate from pedestrian parts of the road. The safety record at junctions might be improved too if the timing of traffic lights were more focused on helping both pedestrians and cyclists to make continuous journeys rather than face long hold-ups. Making the roads and pavements safer for both walking and cycling is surely a better long-term solution than simply pushing for additional constraints on cyclists.
At times, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists can all make mistakes and fail to see what is happening around them. Accidents happen. Five years ago, on the Embankment cycle path, I had a serious accident when a runner, out for some lunchtime exercise, crossed the road and ran into me, knocking me unconscious and breaking my jaw—but I recognise that accidents do happen. We should also recognise that the conduct of many pedestrians can be very poor. If you walk along the Embankment cycle path, you will see pedestrians walking in and out of the cycle path, crossing at red lights, too many of them listening to headphones—but I assume that nobody is going to seriously suggest that pedestrians should carry insurance and be registered.
Before we consider putting additional requirements on cyclists or pedestrians, it seems to me that we should pay much more attention to the failure of the police to enforce the laws we have. The issue of scooters has already been mentioned, and whether they are legal within the existing law. There are now many electric bikes on the road, which are illegal, as I understand it, relative to the law that is there, because they can move without pedalling; you simply have a throttle to make them go. People also hack them to make them go above 15.5 mph.
In summary, it seems to me that, rather than spending time introducing more rules that will do very little other than discourage people from pedal cycling, without changing the behaviour of those who are really badly behaved, we need to focus much more on safety and the enforcement of those things that are going wrong.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, for initiating this important debate. I am a cyclist in London, my children cycle to school and my wife cycles to work. We all agree on the benefits, and obviously more people should be encouraged to take up cycling.
Life has got better for us cyclists. Low-traffic zones; new cycle paths and superhighways; we can buy our bikes tax-free on the bike to work scheme. E-bike hire has given us another option for one-way trips. But there is a problem. There is anarchy in London—and other cities, I suspect—as my noble friend Lord Birt so graphically described. We have got to a stage where, on a cycle journey, it is more unusual to see someone stopping at a light than jumping it. Red lights have become optional. People go the wrong way, as we have heard, down one-way systems, regularly riding on the pavement. Untidily parked rental e-bikes and scooters are causing problems for those with visual impairments and mobility problems.
The author Douglas Adams described one of his characters as stepping off the pavement and being shouted at
“from a moral high ground that cyclists alone seem able to inhabit”,
and this attitude seems to pervade all cyclists, whether on Lime or in Lycra. There seems to be an attitude that cyclists are above the law, and there seems to be no way of enforcing it, as my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe so powerfully showed.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, pointed out, Cycling UK says that if you introduce measures, cycling rates could drop by 36%. How do we balance the rule of law with encouraging people to use a bike?
Over the past 10 years in London, about two cyclists were killed or seriously injured in bus crashes every month. In London, in 2022, TfL buses accounted for less than 1% of road traffic, but 40% of cyclists’ deaths were caused by them. We still do not know enough about the causes. I join my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe in his plea for better data. Can the Minister comment on that? Cycle deaths in rural areas are also a real problem—I wonder whether this is more to do with the heady cocktail of V8 engines and an ageing population. The good news is that, in the UK, there was a 23% drop in cyclist fatalities between 2013 and 2023, but I wonder whether this trend will be reversed.
It is hard to argue for better education for motorists if cyclists are not going to behave better. What is the solution? As ever, it is education—but I would say that because I am a teacher. Bike helmets are a really good idea, and we need to campaign for them to be worn regularly. We need to persuade cyclists to ride defensively to minimise risk. We need more cycle lanes, more cycle zones at lights and more cycle traffic lights, which give cyclists a head start—sometimes it is safer to jump the lights than do a Formula 1 start at junctions. We need to separate motor traffic from cycles as much as possible, especially in rural areas, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Burns said. Can the Minister update us on the progress of cycle lanes?
As we talked about this week at Questions, road surfaces need to be much better. My wife was cycling home recently and her front wheel went into a pothole. She went over the handlebars and did quite a lot of damage to her face—it was very lucky that there was not a car behind her. I thought that electronic chips on bikes might be a solution—it works for my cat. I had a conversation with a friend who was involved in the setting up of the congestion zone, and she convinced me that that was expensive and unworkable—although it works for cats.
As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, we need to use common sense and to encourage more people to cycle, but in a way that promotes safe and legal cycling, so that those of us who enjoy it so much can welcome a new breed with a clear conscience.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, this is one of those issues that we all feel intensely and strongly about. We are all obviously being afflicted by cyclists, bicycles or our own bad driving. The whole of my family cycles, including my grandchildren. I used to cycle before I had a major accident with a Segway—a different kind of awful road machine, banned here in the UK but present across Europe. It was in Poland that I had the crash, and I have lived with the consequences.
I feel particularly strongly about one dimension of bad cycling behaviour which is an increasing urban problem. I have observed it myself and heard many people describe it: cyclists, in a crush of traffic, grabbing mobile phones or personal items from women’s bags, or attempting to get hold of jewellery as they get close to the pavements and then go back on to the roads, cycling fast through traffic and red lights. That is an area of criminality which afflicts many parts of south London and other urban areas and cities, and it requires attention.
As someone who drives into London, I have observed a further dimension. When you get to, for example, Parliament Square, which has ample cycle lanes, you notice that many bicycles are not in the cycle lane but in the traffic lane. They leave the cycle lane to get a faster advantage in crossing the bridge. This creates a cluster of traffic on short traffic lights, with drivers loudly expressing their frustration.
The only way we can tackle both the criminality—this is where I agree with my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe—and the behaviour is to require either the “cat chipping” of bicycles, which was an interesting and novel idea, or to have appropriate number plates on bicycles. It is perfectly feasible and it would make sure that cyclists are registered, regulated and accountable for their behaviour.
Going through any major urban centre causes tension and stress for those who walk, are disabled or drive. On my journey home last night, after myriad votes, I observed five clusters of dumped bikes—red is Santander and the green bikes I am not so sure about—on the routeway from here to the M1. As someone who recently had a major operation to replace a knee, and is therefore more conscious of peoples’ disabilities, I watched people, including those with disabilities, navigate their way around the bicycles dumped on the pavement. Without registration or number plates, nobody is accountable if caught on camera at the point of their irresponsible dumping.
As someone who longs to be a cyclist again, and is delighted that all my family are cycling—probably right at this moment, because it is sunny—I hope we will have better cycle lanes and cycling provision. I hope my grandchildren will enjoy cycling all their lives. However, I believe we need regulation for current cyclists because their behaviour is, at times, becoming a bit like plague of mosquitoes. You simply cannot get them away from you when you get to traffic lights. I once had a cyclist bang on my window—not because he observed me doing anything wrong but because he wanted to get my attention—in an area of London that was a mobile theft hotspot. In other words, you put down the window and then someone grabs something from within your car while you are paying attention to them. We need regulation for cyclists and I hope we get it.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for initiating the debate. He made a very balanced speech, much of which I agree with, although I profoundly disagree with his recommendations. I too will give him a word of advice: he should ditch the electric bike and get a proper bicycle, because it is much better for his cardiac health.
I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, closely. Some 18 years after he made his speech on cycling, I proposed the cycling safety Bill in 1993, which I am sure everybody is familiar with—perhaps not. I have been bicycling since I bicycled to school, but the Bill came after a cousin of mine was squashed by a lorry on Clapham Common. Cycling safety is what I am more interested in than much of what has been mentioned today. I cycled in today, so I am quite current in what I have to say. Like the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I was chairman of the All-Party Group for Cycling and Walking in the House of Commons, so I have pursued this for a number of years.
Cyclists used to be termed “vulnerable” road users, like pedestrians and horse riders. I see now that some cyclists, far from being vulnerable, are rather terrifying. As an old man on a bicycle, I too get scared by some of these people whizzing past. But they are still vulnerable. If you ride a bicycle—everybody here so far has said that they do—what you are terrified of is falling over or being knocked off because you will fall. If you are walking along the road you are less likely to fall a long distance, whereas a cyclist is bound to fall because he cannot regain his balance if he is knocked off.
We have heard a lot about the responsibility of cyclists, and I agree with what has been said. People need to show more care and to have more consideration. Certainly, they should not steal mobile telephones. But what about the responsibility of pedestrians? We have all talked about cars knocking people down, but the responsibility of pedestrians also needs to be considered. The number of pedestrians who step out in front of you without looking is legion.
Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I had a small altercation a few months ago, when, in my opinion—she will dispute this—she stepped straight out in front of me just as I was turning into a road. This happens all the time—I do not wish to criticise her in particular. Only this week, some girl with ear pods in stepped out straight in front of me. I was going quite slowly so it did not matter, but she is the person who would have caused the accident and who, if hit by a car, would have been damaged. So we must consider the responsibility of pedestrians.
I have a few questions for the Minister. How many motorists have been prosecuted for drawing into what I think are called cycle stop lanes? I do not think that any have been—I have asked these questions in the past. A cycle stop lane has traffic lights so that cyclists can go in front and not be endangered by cars knocking them off as they pull away. The danger to cyclists is enormous, so this debate should not be about prosecuting cyclists; it should be about considering whether pedestrians—as well as motorists, but pedestrians in particular—have responsibilities.
If you want to deter healthy cycling, you will overregulate it. We have heard how cycling has increased, so surely we all want to increase the number of people cycling, because it is good for their health and for traffic congestion. If we have insurance, extra regulations, the registration of vehicles and licensing, all that will deter people from bicycling—it makes it more difficult. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said about an easy registration system—that might be a way forward—but if you overregulate, you will yet again deter people. So let us enforce the rules that are being broken by motorists and let us ensure that, if necessary, pedestrians are prosecuted as well as cyclists—I agree on the speed limits and making it easier to prosecute a cyclist for killing somebody, of course—but let us not deter cycling.
How nice it is to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for once.
Lord Robathan (Con)
It is always good to do so. All vulnerable road users should take more care and show greater consideration, but we do not need lots more laws to enforce that.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I salute my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe for his perseverance in securing this timely debate and his opening remarks, much of which I found myself agreeing with. I admit to being somewhat conflicted on the issues around cycle safety, when set against our need to promote healthy lifestyles and reduce our carbon emissions. I declare that I am a recreational cyclist—meaning that I do not wear Lycra and rarely exceed 15 mph—a regular dog walker in the Minister’s precinct of Richmond Hill and Richmond Park, and a London motorist.
As we know, cyclists, pedestrians and drivers do not form a harmonious community, with many insults and much finger pointing in all directions. To this we add the exploding growth in e-bikes and scooters, whose riders mostly shun the use of helmets, which only adds to the friction and antagonism.
I witness this almost every day. Indeed, exiting the House of Lords by car has become an increasingly hairy experience. Even though the police are operating the barriers, turning south into Abingdon Street is like driving the dodgems amid hordes of cyclists undertaking and overtaking, as I crawl along in my car observing the 20 mph speed limit that does not apply to them. Further down, the cycling lanes along Millbank and Grosvenor Road cannot cope with the sheer volume of cyclists. The result is that some spill out on to the road in front of cars, while others, particularly Lime bikers, lurch on to the uneven pavements, weaving through pedestrians.
It is important to note when we talk about cyclists’ behaviour that the road safety charity Brake points out the two principal reasons for fatalities for cyclists are the state of our roads and negligent driving by motorists.
Like my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, I have struggled with the fragmented data, but I do see four particular trends. First, the surge in e-bike and scooter usage brings with it increasing numbers of accidents, especially major head injury trauma for those not wearing helmets—not just in the UK but all over the world. Secondly, the number of off-road incidents, including on pavements, walkways and in parks, has surged, although most never get reported. Thirdly, e-bikes and e-scooters are increasingly becoming tools for criminals and gangs, particularly in urban areas, including for theft and drug trafficking. Despite these three points, the number of convictions for dangerous cycling has fallen steeply over the last 10 years, reflecting an increasingly lawless state of affairs.
I am not a fan of the nanny state or overregulation, but the sheer scale of the numbers persuades me that it is time to act, especially if we are serious about hitting that net-zero step target that no one has mentioned. I will remind noble Lords: by 2030, 50% of urban journeys are to be undertaken by cycle or on foot. That would probably take the current 7 million cyclists to close to 10 million. Are we going to leave that area totally unregulated?
My first suggestion is that we should make it a legal requirement to wear helmets—for cyclists, e-bikers and scooter riders. Data from the NHS and the BMJ back up this call, as does the experiences of countries such as Australia, where helmet laws are credited with reducing head injury fatalities by 65%. I speak from experience, as my wife suffered a serious accident three years ago on an e-bike in Spain, breaking her shoulder, collarbone and arm. Wearing a helmet not only saved her life but enabled a full recovery.
Secondly, and controversially, I think we need to grasp the nettle of ownership registration, not just for e-bikes and scooters but for all adult pedal cycles for road use. I have seen the arguments against, in terms of cost, complexity and privacy, but, in my view, these are mainly outdated—they go back to 2018—and outweighed by the benefits. The development of bike technology, along with the issues of health, safety, crime and dangerous and inconsiderate behaviour, should persuade us to act now, rather than kick the can further down our increasingly dangerous and potholed roads.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, because if he thinks it is easy to ride a bike at 30 mph on the flat, he should have been in the British Olympic team and not a Member of the House of Lords. I am a lifelong cyclist. I ride my bike every day for recreation or commuting. I should think I spend at least as much time on the roads of London and elsewhere in the UK as anyone else in this debate. Of course, everyone on the roads should obey the rules, whether in a car or on a bike, and they should be prosecuted when they do not.
By the way, I am also a former chair of the All-Party Cycling Group, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Young, who has worked throughout his lifetime to make cycling in our country safer.
We should all behave with courtesy and consideration on the roads, and I agree with the points made by Policy Exchange about the proliferation of e-bikes dumped on the pavements. The companies should be required to pay for e-bike bays and forced to remove dangerously or irresponsibly parked bikes immediately, and users should be fined—obviously, they can be identified because they are hiring them—if they park the bikes in an irresponsible manner.
Of course, some cyclists break the law, as we have heard, and we see this on the streets. I know people will not agree with this, but, as I say, I cycle every day and spend a lot of time on the roads, and the truth is that the majority of cyclists in London and elsewhere do not speed or cycle on the pavements, and they do stop for red lights. I get angry if I am waiting at a red light and someone goes through; I too think it is outrageous. The majority of cyclists who break the law are on electric hire bikes, which are already numbered and registered, so the people riding them could be arrested and prosecuted; but of course, the police do not enforce that. Electric bikes going at more than 15 miles an hour is illegal now, but that is never enforced either. People are never arrested for it, but they could be. Laws are already available to the police to deal with these things.
Every day I see motorists in London and elsewhere on their phones, jumping red lights or speeding, presenting a much greater risk to pedestrians than cyclists. Of course, the police are unable to enforce the law and arrest and prosecute all these people. The overwhelming majority of pedestrian injuries in the UK are caused by drivers of motor vehicles. Cyclists account for a very small percentage of pedestrian injuries. I am not saying it does not matter—of course it matters—but it is a very small percentage, and cyclists are much more likely to be killed or injured themselves.
We have heard debates about the statistics, but the figures are pretty clear. Some 85% of cycling is on minor roads, where there are more pedestrians, yet cyclists are involved in just 2% of pedestrian casualties, while 98% are caused by drivers of motor vehicles. The main threat to pedestrian safety comes from drivers of cars and HGVs. Those drivers are responsible for 99% of fatal collisions with pedestrians on pavements. There were only two such fatalities involving cyclists between 2012 and 2020. Of course, that is two too many, and it is a tragedy for the people involved and their families. In the five years between 2018 and 2022, cyclists were involved in, but not necessarily responsible for, nine pedestrian fatalities. In the same period, thousands of fatalities were caused by people driving motor vehicles. Five people die and 82 are seriously injured on the roads in the UK every single day. I gently point out that we are supposed to bring perspective, balance, wisdom and knowledge to the discussion of public policy, yet here we are with a debate which suggests that cyclists are causing all the problems.
What are noble Lords suggesting? Should police be diverted from other crimes, some no doubt very serious, to enforce a registration or insurance scheme? Should public spending be taken from other areas to employ more police to do so? Shoplifting has been virtually decriminalised. Let us not pretend that the police have got the time or the resources to enforce a cycling registration scheme. How many times have I heard noble Lords complain about red tape and regulation? Yet people want a hugely complex and enormously expensive scheme to register millions of bikes.
What about children? Should children, who are more likely to own and ride bikes, often on the pavements, have to be registered and insured? Is that what people are suggesting? The best way to make our streets safer, reduce congestion, improve the environment, tackle obesity and improve public health is to get more people on bikes, but a registration or insurance scheme would do completely the opposite.
I conclude by supporting Cycling UK’s call for a comprehensive review of road traffic laws to reduce road dangers, protect all road users and ensure that justice is served by dealing with dangerous behaviour, whether by drivers, cyclists or other road users. Will the Minister’s department implement such a review?
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Austin, a former Treasury colleague, who has always been a great advocate for cycling.
I am in favour of cycling. It takes cars off the roads, frees up capacity on public transport, is good for the environment and good for public health. I welcome the reforms by central and local government over the last two decades to encourage cycling through cycle lanes, rentals and cycle routes. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on his approaching half-century of parliamentary campaigning for cyclists.
I am not anti-cyclist. However, just as cyclists have rights, they have responsibilities: to fellow road users, to pedestrians, to old people and to the blind and partially sighted. Therefore, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe on securing this timely debate. I am quite certain that the vast majority of cyclists fully observe the Highway Code and the law. However, I am struck by a growing though still small minority who pay scant regard to the law. Let me give some examples, drawn from my daily four-minute walk to the Earl’s Court Road Tube station.
First, there are the e-bikes, often parked on the pavement, obstructing pedestrians and making life difficult for the disabled. Then, there are the cyclists who insist on using the pavement as a way of avoiding the one-way system. Some do this out of ignorance; others, judging by the abuse I receive when I take issue with them, do it knowing that they are acting illegally. Then, there are the cyclists who think that traffic lights do not apply to them. All too often, I set off across the road when the green man appears, only to find a cyclist whiz past my nose. Then, there are cyclists, albeit the fitter ones, who may not cycle at 30 mph but certainly cycle at more than the 20 mph limit which now generally applies in built-up areas. The self-employment contracts of delivery cyclists do not help—they positively incentivise speeding.
Of course, such people are not breaking the law, since, as my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe pointed out, speed limits do not apply to cycles. When I asked the previous Government whether they would change the law to bring bicycles under section 124 of the Highway Code, they said that they had no plans to do so.
Recently, a relative was run over by a speeding cyclist. He was tossed into the air and landed on his hip, which was smashed very badly. It took him several months to walk again. It was the day of an ambulance strike. To give the perpetrator credit, he did stop, but only to check that the victim was still alive. He did not help to take him to hospital or share his contact or insurance details to help pay for the inevitable physiotherapy. He simply rode on.
If we do not do more to improve the law relating to cyclists and then to enforce it, we will see a growing number of accidents. The more that cyclists see other cyclists flouting traffic lights or riding on the pavement, the more likely they are to take the view that anything goes. When I asked the previous Government about enforcement, they said that it was a matter for the police. Is that the new Government’s attitude, or do they agree that central government can do more to support the police in pursuit of their duties?
I am not arguing for a zero-tolerance approach; I recognise that police forces are stretched. I recall a police sergeant telling me, when I was briefly a police cadet in the 1970s, that if they enforced every traffic regulation, they would never get further than 250 yards from the police station. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, mentioned, there were 39 convictions for the offence of careless or inconsiderate cycling in 2023. I reckon I have witnessed more examples than that in the last month. There is surely a happy medium whereby enough offenders suffer a consequence of dangerous cycling for it to have a deterrent effect.
I have seen police in other countries—Germany comes to mind, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—who are often on bicycles and issue on-the-spot fines to those who transgress. It seems to work and, as a former Treasury official, I argue could be self-financing: police officers do not have to issue too many fines before they have paid for themselves.
Like my noble friend Lord Birt, I propose a public information campaign to encourage people to be more considerate of fellow road users and pedestrians. If we want London and other major cities to remain the peaceful places that they generally are, we need to do something to enforce the law, otherwise anti-social cycling will simply grow and grow.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on securing it. I also thank my noble friend Lord Robathan, in his absence, for highlighting the importance of observing the Highway Code. If I, as a pedestrian, am crossing at a pedestrian crossing, it is the duty of a cyclist to stop to allow me to pass. The ABI has highlighted the need for greater awareness and education in this regard, and that point was very well made by my noble friend.
I have taken a great interest in this subject and was delighted when my right honourable friend next door Iain Duncan Smith adopted the contents of my Bill from both the last Parliament, which I hope to reintroduce in this one. It aims to close a number of loopholes, which were tragically illustrated by the weak sentence imposed when a cyclist, who was driving without any brakes whatever and in a completely inappropriate fashion, caused the tragic death of Kim Briggs.
My Bill and the contents of the amendments proposed by Iain Duncan Smith next door, which I hope to bring back to this place, set out to introduce new offences, such as causing death by dangerous cycling, causing serious injury by dangerous cycling, and causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling. It introduces a number of penalties and reviews the misuse of electric scooters. The revised version, which I hope to bring before the House, also covers insurance.
I congratulate the outgoing Government and am delighted that my noble friend Lady Vere has joined us, because she wrote to me on 23 March 2022 to say:
“As the Secretary of State has already announced, we are considering bringing forward legislation to introduce new offences around dangerous cycling; we will do this as part of a suite of measures to improve the safety of all road and pavement users”.
The challenge I put to the Minister in replying today—I welcome him to his position—is whether the incoming Government will take over where the outgoing Government left off and plug the gap by putting into force these infringements, which recognise the severity of certain offences that may lead to death and serious injury by inappropriate cycling.
I differentiate between cycles, e-bikes and e-scooters and, as others have done, between rural and urban areas. Notwithstanding how the majority of cyclists are law-abiding and considerate to other road users, a certain number flout the law and give good cyclists a bad name. As I mentioned, the ABI is very keen that we educate cyclists on the contents of the revised Highway Code. In rural areas particularly, they can cause great aggravation by cycling as a block, occupying the whole of what can be a narrow lane, obstructing traffic and causing potential injury and death. As we have heard, they also cycle at speed through red lights and across pedestrian crossings, and mount pavements. As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham indicated, we have spent a fortune—a vast expense—to introduce cycle lanes. I cannot fathom why it is beyond the wit of cyclists to use them. Why are they mounting pavements where cycle lanes exist? It beggars belief and makes a complete mockery of the investment made.
Until the ABI informed me in preparation for this debate, I did not realise that pedal cycles are technically not vehicles and therefore cannot be insured. According to the ABI, third-party liability policies exist, but serious injury or death caused by cyclists would be a matter for the law. In other cases, such as e-scooters and what are known as electrically propelled pedal cycles, no liability is placed on the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, and if there is no insurance, as is frequently the case, it begs the question of why we do not make insurance compulsory. Why are so many European cities banning e-scooters and why is there so little enforcement of them in this country?
Will the Minister take the opportunity in summing up to advise when the trials will end, and what the Government’s position is on inappropriately speeding e-cycles and inappropriately used e-scooters?
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe for kicking this off. If he was to have another debate on this I might advise him to rename it “Safety and regulation issues involved in the use of pedal cycles, pedelec and twist and go e-cycles, and e-scooters on the road network and on pavements”.
I make my contribution with journalist Andrew Marr’s words ringing in my ears. In a recent article in the New Statesman he said that there
“should be a clear understanding that you don’t introduce new laws unless you can enforce them … It’s a matter of effectiveness, not policy principle. Laws that will in practice be flagrantly disobeyed bring the state into disrepute. Unenforceable, performative legislation makes both police and the ministers who instructed them ridiculous”.
I direct the last sentence at the Minister.
How on earth did we get into this state? My noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe put his finger on the context at the start of his speech when he said that, frankly, the majority of cyclists and e-scooter drivers know that there is an almost infinitesimal chance of any of them ever getting caught. Cumulatively, when you see everybody else flagrantly ignoring laws they are probably aware of, there is a sort of herd instinct and mentality where it becomes the norm over time. I stop at red lights because, frankly—like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who is not in her place—as an officer of the All-Party Group on Cycling and Walking I do not want to appear in the press, to my embarrassment and the embarrassment of the group, having been seen to infringe the law.
I live in what I regard as the wild West End. One of the indicators of the problem we have got ourselves into over the last 10 years is that, in my early youth and adulthood, the idea of a black cab running a red light would have been unthinkable. You would have lost your licence; you would not have even thought of doing it. Now, while cycling, I see each week on average two or three black cabs quite openly running red lights. I also see buses running red lights all the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, referred to the so-called bike box—the advanced stop lines in front of traffic lights. If one is so bold as to indicate to one of the many delivery drivers on e-scooters or mopeds beside you, or those with L-plates, that they are infringing on a bicyclist’s space, as the noble Lord said, you will receive a lot of finger pointing—usually, in my experience, in an upwards direction. One must be quite brave to point out that they should not do that.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services published a report in July 2020 called Roads Policing: Not Optional. It indicated, in a fairly sorry picture—the backdrop to much of what we have been debating—declining financial resources, declining human resources, and huge variation of approach across the country. The joy of having police and crime commissioners is that every area decides to reinterpret priorities in its own image, so there is no consistency in how the law is applied.
As for His Majesty’s Government—I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, is here—over the last few years, as e-scooters were introduced, with the rental schemes and all the rest of it, I heard from them that the Government were going to keep an eye on this. But in terms of enforcing the law to ensure that it is being applied, we have been somewhat negligent. I would point out that last week the city of Madrid decided that it had had enough and is kicking out Lime bikes and several others, because they have become a public nuisance.
So what do we do? We need to go back to what Andrew Marr said. I do not think we need new laws; we need to create a situation in which I, as a bicyclist, and anybody else in your Lordships’ House who is a bicyclist, know that if we transgress there is a chance that we will get caught—and that it will embarrassing, painful and, I hope, quite expensive. The police force in the City of London, in a recent initiative, made a concentrated attempt to crack down on lights being jumped, illegal e-bikes and other such things, and it was remarkably effective. They confiscated a very considerable number. It can be done and I am absolutely sure that the Minister, in replying, will do everything he can to make himself and his department not appear ridiculous.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for securing this debate. It relates to an issue of immense importance to disabled people. I should make it clear at the outset that, like other noble Lords, I believe cycling is a good thing.
Last week I had a surreal exchange with someone as he merrily cycled towards me through a red light as I was crossing the road in my wheelchair. It went like this. “The light’s on red,” I shouted. “Yes, I know,” he said politely and cheerfully as he continued his approach, while his companion looked on panic-stricken as she suddenly realised she did not know how to apply the brakes of her e-bike. Equally politely, but less cheerfully, I replied, “Well, stop! It’s illegal.” Needless to say, they sailed past.
That one incident encapsulated for me the problem we face, which we have discussed in detail this afternoon. The Home Secretary put her finger on it when she wrote in the Sun earlier this week that respect for the rule of law must be restored. She is right, and it needs to be restored precisely because, as the gentleman on the bike demonstrated, breaking the law on cycling has been normalised. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, rightly said, routine behaviour for too many.
The effect of such law-breaking for many disabled people—especially, as we have already heard, for those with visual impairments, who are disproportionately at risk of being hit by a dangerously ridden bicycle—is that they might as well have been airbrushed out of society. Their understandable fear of being hit while out, and thus their decision not to go out, and their increasing isolation as a result, are seemingly outweighed by the decision of some cyclists to ignore the law and cycle dangerously and illegally, whether by going through a red light or by cycling on the pavement. And it is not just on pavements that people cycle illegally. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who cannot be here today, told me yesterday, it is in parks, too—including, as I know from personal experience, the Royal Parks, not far from your Lordships’ House.
Several noble Lords have mentioned data but, sadly, the data that we have on the number of reported collisions is only the tip of the iceberg. Many pedestrians, such as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who also cannot be here today but who spoke to me only a few days ago about this, are so relieved to be intact after being knocked over by a cyclist who then sped off that they do not actually report it. After all, what would happen if they did? The law cannot be enforced, can it?
My Lords, I believe it can. I believe the rule of law can and must be restored, including as it relates to dangerous cycling, for enforcement and thus deterrence. Of course, the police cannot catch everyone but, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham implied, the beauty of social media is that they would need to enforce the law in only a few well-publicised cases, for example by replicating the exercise carried out by Daily Telegraph recently on Westminster Bridge, just outside St Thomas’s Hospital, intervening at rush hour in the morning and evening and prosecuting those cyclists who went through red lights. That would need to happen only a few times for the behaviour of the gentleman I mentioned to stop.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to read Policy Exchange’s report A Culture of Impunity, which has cross-party support, to which Members of your Lordships’ House contributed, and write to me detailing the Government’s response to its recommendations. I would be very grateful if he would put a copy of his response in the Library.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I want to direct my words to the lack of a national strategy for dealing with e-scooters and e-bikes, both of which have become increasingly popular as a form of public transport tailored for the individual. Rental e-scooters are legally limited to 15 trial schemes in cities as diverse as Salford and Bournemouth, with many London boroughs participating. They are regulated and riders are supposed to be over 16 and to undertake a degree of safety training before they are allowed on the roads. However, there are 750,000 private e-scooters in this country, all of which are illegal to ride on public roads or pavements, yet illegally ridden e-scooters were responsible for one death in 2019, when they were first introduced into this country, and for 31 deaths since then and more than 900 injuries. Many of these victims were riders. The youngest was 12 years old and the oldest 75 years old. In fact, safety campaigners believe that lax reporting and recording of e-scooter deaths by the police means that the figures represent only 10% of actual casualties.
Anyone who lives in one of our big cities sees the illegal use of e-scooters daily, either when they are privately owned or even when they are legally rented. I have seen parents riding with their children on the back and two people riding together. It is extraordinary, when we know how carefully monitored cars are on our streets, that e-scooters do not receive the same treatment from our law enforcement agencies. Some agencies, such as the Safer Essex Roads Partnership, have two-week or three-week blitzes in which community volunteers and the police combine to stop illegal riders. They even welcome video evidence submitted by members of the public. This enforcement is piecemeal and only partially effective. Meanwhile, across the country the police seem to be confiscating fewer and fewer illegally ridden e-scooters.
The problems will continue until illegal riders feel that there is an effective enforcement campaign to act as a deterrent and suitable punishment for illegal riders. The exact number of illegal riders on our roads is not known. Some definite evidence has to be gathered, but I suspect that, when the evidence is gathered, it will show thousands of violations. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe that e-scooters should be registered for easy identification, which will help to combat the problem. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government intend to introduce this simple measure and make our roads safer?
The other electronically powered vehicle that noble Lords have talked about is the e-bike. For hundreds of thousands of people, renting an e-bike is a transformative, efficient and cheap way to get to work or navigate our great cities. But, as many other noble Lords have mentioned, the problem is when riders reach their destination. I am pleased that many people are enjoying the freedom and relative health benefits of riding an e-bike, but with nearly 38,000 rental bikes in London alone, the problem of parking them safely has to be addressed.
E-bikes provide such convenience for many thousands, but inconvenience for many thousands more when badly parked. I have spoken to the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which tells me that so many blind and partially sighted people have fallen over the badly parked bikes on pavements that many are deterred from going into the centres towns and cities or have to take taxis to reach their destination.
The problem is that there is not enough uniformity across local authorities in regulating their parking. These rental e-bikes all need to be carefully controlled, either with digital or physical docking schemes. At the moment, in London alone, e-bike rental companies have different memorandums of understanding with different boroughs about parking regulations. However, riders renting e-bikes from many providers are not given online safety training or even tips about where they should park the bikes. Some, like Lime and Forest, do not have a maximum capacity on the digital parking bays. Certainly, from my own anecdotal experience of e-bikes scattered across the pavements of this city, Lime bikes have a particularly laissez-faire policy on parking.
I understand that one of the problems is that local authorities are reluctant to provide enough docking on parking spaces on the road, because they will take away from the revenue-generating car parking spaces. On the radio this morning, I heard the leader of Brent Council calling for Lime and other rental providers to contribute to the cost of setting up parking bays, which is also sensible. Other local authorities are taking more immediate action. Wandsworth is setting up a range of bike bays in its local town centres, and when that has happened the council will ban any kind of laissez-faire e-bike parking from these busy areas. Other councils are planning to follow suit.
It seems to me that as these rental schemes spread out across the country, the lessons from London should be learned and applied. I ask the Minister whether his department is considering national guidelines on parking rental e-bikes and to increase powers against random parking on pavements.
These electrically powered bikes and scooters are a boon to so many. I want them to be success and to create flexible, cheap transport for thousands of people across this country. However, in order to do so, Ministers need to intervene to ensure that they are a complement to other forms of transport and not a curse.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing this debate to us today. I found myself in agreement with very much of what he said. It has certainly been a very interesting debate. We heard from the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Young, who are keen cyclists, and we heard from many noble Lords who cycle, but who accept that there are problems that need dealing with.
I welcome this debate, particularly because, although we often discuss cycling in this House, the previous Government showed little interest in grappling with any of the major issues posed by cycling today. I hope the fact that the Minister is no longer in his place is not a sign of his lack of interest. I am sure he will reply fully to us, and I hope we will get a detailed approach from the new Government.
Many noble Lords have spoken of their concern as pedestrians. It is a particularly strong problem for those who have disabilities. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, was able to participate today. Several noble Lords have talked of cyclists as vulnerable road users, and indeed they are, because cars are heavier than bikes. I would point out, however, that the most vulnerable road users of all are, of course, pedestrians. We must recognise the vulnerability of cyclists, and that means we need a culture to encourage the cyclists that we have been talking about this morning to protect themselves better. In order to do that, they need to take a number of measures, one of which would be obeying the rules of the road.
Some parts of the UK have developed quite an aggressive cycling culture, and London is one of them. It is undoubtedly a result of the traffic intensity in London. I cross the road outside this building several times a day in order to get to my office in Old Palace Yard, and it is not the cars or buses that I worry about at all, because they always stop—or I hope they do. I worry about the cyclists, because in general they do not stop. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, mentioned the coverage recently of a survey taken outside St Thomas’ Hospital, of all places, which illustrated the point that a very high percentage of cyclists cycle through red lights.
The issue about the crossings outside this House are intensified by the fact that all the cyclists are surrounded by police. That underlines the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that the police are not in a position to enforce the law.
It is possible for cycling to thrive without disobeying the rules of the road. I frequently visit Belgium and I have visited the Netherlands, and the rules of the road are much more frequently obeyed in those countries, where cycling is very popular.
The reason for the urgent need for legislation to deal with cycling safety is the rapidly increasing number of e-bikes, which the noble Viscount referred to. There are several categories of e-bikes, some of which assist you with pedalling and others that have a throttle and are akin to motorbikes. Legally, they are in different categories, but the public are blissfully unaware of that to a large extent, and so, I think, are the cyclists using them. The speeds can be up to 40 miles an hour, and they all look the same to you as they come towards you on the pavement. Often the riders of the more powerful bikes use them as delivery vehicles but nevertheless treat them as bikes, riding them on the pavements and in the fastest possible manner in order to achieve their task.
There is an urgent need for action to deal with this new technology. Many of these bikes are ridden by very young people with no formal training, no licence, no helmets, no registration number, and apparently no interest on the part of the police in dealing with the infringements of the rules that follow as a result. The results can be horrendous for the young people concerned. I come from Cardiff, where two young people died a year or so ago.
We need to think about future policy on cycling in two parts. The first is traditional pedal cycling, sometimes electrically assisted, which requires fitness, and the second is the technological challenge of electric bikes. The larger ones are not creating a fitter society per se, although of course they take cars off the road and reduce congestion and so are welcome for that reason.
Just before the election the previous Government were consulting on allowing even more powerful e-bikes, presumably in response to lobbying from the delivery industry. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the current Government are not going to pursue that.
We also need greater regulation to deal with illegal adaptations, not just because of the issue of greater speed, but also because of the fire risk from batteries. That fire risk comes from cheap imports of battery adaptations, largely. My noble friend Lord Redesdale has a Private Member’s Bill on that issue.
On the issue of speed, I would like to raise an issue that a recent Sustrans report revealed, which is the gender gap. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raised the gender gap. Far more men cycle than women, but proportionately more women are injured as cyclists than men. There are theories about this being connected with positioning at traffic lights and so on, and behaviour. However, that is contrary to women as drivers of cars, who are somewhat safer than men. But they are in a more vulnerable position as women cyclists. There are issues we need to tackle.
The cycling and walking index shows that a firm majority of the public support improving our roads for walking, cycling and public transport. I hope that the Government seize upon that. They will get strong support from these Benches if they take forward a programme of investment in cycling and walking.
My final point relates to the childhood years. We need an ongoing cycle training campaign in schools, firmly linked to teaching the rules of safety; that is so important. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that that will continue. Cyclists, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, need to be made much more intensely aware of the dangers they pose—not just to pedestrians but to themselves—if they do not obey the rules of the road and do not wear helmets. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for initiating this debate.
If noble Lords will indulge me, this is my first opportunity truly to welcome the Minister to his new role. Since he has brought it up, I thought it worth mentioning that I calculated that we first worked together 25 years ago, when I was a vice-chairman of the London Councils’ transport and environment committee, which I later chaired. At that time, he was managing director of surface transport at Transport for London. Later, he was the commissioner and I sat on the board. We overlapped for about seven years, and for much of that time I was deputy chairman. We worked together and we both had firm views that one of us was working for the other. I am not entirely sure they would be absolutely concurrent if names were slotted into those particular sentences, but we had a very effective partnership. Perhaps his greatest achievement during that time was the stunning contribution Transport for London made to the success of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. He went on from that, and spent the last nine years as chairman of Network Rail.
The Minister’s latest achievement, of course, is managing an almost balletically deft transition from the Cross Benches to the Labour Front Bench. Who noticed that happening at the time? I thought it was worth mentioning these things. He is knowledgeable and effective and, when I took on this role, I was rather hoping for somebody who would not be, but there we are—and there was a wide choice.
I turn to the substance of the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering pointed out, Conservative Ministers commissioned the cycle safety review in 2017 and last year supported proposals to change the law, in the Criminal Justice Bill, to create a new offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling. The Bill fell at Dissolution earlier this year. So many questions have arisen in the course of this debate that few of mine are going to be original, but one question that I think the whole House is interested in is whether the Government intend to bring back that measure and so fill what is generally regarded as a lacuna in the range of sentences available in the admittedly rare event of death or serious injury caused by a cyclist.
When I first became a local government councillor, I had some advice from a very wise council officer that I should never allow myself to get in the middle of an argument between the pro-dog and anti-dog people. Similar sort of advice might apply, I discovered later in life, regarding the pro-cycling and anti-cycling people. There has been a slight flavour of that in this debate, although at a most distinguished and elevated level, of course. I shall try to avoid it as far as possible. However, I simply want to say—and it is incumbent on the Government to provide this—that we need a roads policy that delivers for all road users, keeps people safe and ensures that they go about their daily lives as freely and efficiently as possible. It is that test that the official Opposition will apply when we hold the Government to account on matters related to cycling, and so forth.
I add one point that is of importance to all of us, and which was illustrated by the amusing but terrifying speech made by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, on the special responsibility we have to those who are disabled. I include in that those with less obvious disability: simply the disabilities of age, and those of us who are less able to dodge out of the way than we were some years ago—and maybe than we think we still are—who take more time to cross the road, and so forth. That has not been fully addressed, and the Government should make recognition of the vulnerability of the disabled a central feature of the management of their roads policy. How they do that is very much up to them.
There are two issues that I want to mention in relation to disability, in addition to the sort of moving traffic incident mentioned by my noble friend. The first is the litter of dockless bikes, which is very difficult to negotiate for pedestrians in general and in particular for those who are in wheelchairs or suffer from vision disabilities. The other is the increasing use of cycle lanes that go behind bus stops—between the pavement and the bus stop. These are frequently found in London and maybe elsewhere. Do the Government have a view on those, and are they going to develop them?
The previous Government concluded—and this remains our view on the Opposition Front Bench—that the cost and complexity of introducing a mandatory bicycle licensing system would outweigh the benefits of such a scheme. But it is now very much in the lap of the party opposite to decide whether that is still the view, and I think we would like to know about it. There was much discussion of the question of licensing, and we have to bear in mind that there are two separate schemes for licensing. One is licensing a vehicle and giving it a registration plate and the other is licensing a person to use that vehicle.
When it comes to licensing, we are suffering to some extent from the advance of technology and our difficulties in grappling with it. Back in the day, it was all very straightforward: you had a thing that in my father’s generation was known as a pushbike or a pedal cycle; then you had something called a motorbike, and it was perfectly clear what the difference between them was. Now we have electric cycles that comply with the electrically assisted pedal cycle rules, are limited to 15.5 mph hour and generally require some sort of pedalling to make them move. The last Government had a consultation on legitimising bicycles that would have double the wattage available but would also be twist and go: you turn a throttle and the bike starts, and you do not need to pedal the thing at all because it powers itself as it goes.
There comes a point, of course, where you are overlapping with mopeds. Mopeds do require licensing, both of the person and of the vehicle, but the distinction between the two is breaking down, in my view. I will just complete the picture beyond mopeds. They can be driven permanently on a provisional licence that is simply renewable; you can do anything on a moped with a provisional licence, except go on the motorway. The reason a lot of the people have L-plates, as was referred to, is that they never get a proper licence. That is true of large numbers of delivery drivers and so forth, but also others. Of course, for a full motor cycle, you need a proper licence.
The system has become incoherent and does not command respect any more. The outgoing Government—I accuse them—did not address this issue, but I think it will fall very firmly into the lap of the new Government. They will have to take a proper schematic view of what the licensing scheme should be for the whole range of two-wheelers, because that old distinction between the pushbike and the powered two-wheeler no longer exists in the way that it did.
I come, briefly, to illegal e-bikes. I do not understand why there are illegal e-bikes; are they imported or are they the result of illicit adaptation? Who is doing this adaptation? Is it being done on a commercial basis? If it is, why is that not being stopped? These are questions that I do not understand—there may or may not be answers to them. In March this year, police data showed that the number of illegal e-bikes confiscated by police doubled in 2023 compared with 2022. In the whole country, 260 were seized; there were 130 in 2022 and only 61 in 2021. Part of that increase in numbers from 2021 to 2023 is of course explicable by lockdown, but it is good to see the numbers going up. I suspect, however, that it is merely a drop in the ocean and I wonder what intentions the Government have when it comes to enforcing the existing rules.
Finally, we come to e-scooters. Here, I think the previous Conservative Government were totally wimpish. As noble Lords explained, they are illegal, but they are legal if you are riding them as part of a licence scheme. That scheme is a trial, and the trial has been extended perpetually, I fear because Ministers did not want to grapple with the decision of whether and in what circumstances to legalise them. As I say, I accuse my own colleagues, my own side, of not bringing that to a conclusion—but it cannot be escaped. This trial cannot be continued for ever. There will have to be a decision, and it would be very helpful if the Minister could tell us today what he thinks that decision might be.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for initiating the debate, and I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister. There has been a great deal said today; I hope that he will listen to it all and present us with a properly synthesised policy in due course.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for the opportunity to debate these important issues—indeed, it is my first debate since I became a Minister. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, opposite, for his welcome, and I welcome him to his position too. He and I, on a couple of occasions a long time ago, cycled around London. We at least stopped at red traffic lights, unlike the former Mayor of London. I also hope that he is similarly as knowledgeable and effective; we can check with each other from time to time what we think of each other’s performance.
I hope to respond to everybody who has spoken but, if I do not, I will write following this debate. I note the many strong and, frankly, conflicting views that we have heard on the subject of cycling. This Government are being bold and ambitious on active travel, whether walking, wheeling or cycling. We want to set out ambitious plans to promote greener journeys, no matter how people choose to travel.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made clear, the department is committed to delivering greener transport and maintaining and renewing our road network to ensure that it serves everyone. Investment in active travel supports the Government’s economic growth, health and net-zero missions by helping to revitalise high streets, improving air quality and supporting people to live longer, healthier lives.
No one at all is simply a motorist, cyclist or pedestrian. We are all people who may choose to walk, cycle and drive at different times. However, with power comes responsibility and, whether cycling or driving, the Highway Code outlines a clear hierarchy of road users. This starts from the premise that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others. Therefore, people cycling have a duty to behave in a safe and responsible manner, particularly around pedestrians, and to follow the rules set out in the Highway Code.
As we have heard today, many of us have seen instances of poor cycling behaviour, whether jumping red lights when people are crossing, riding on crowded pavements or wearing earphones. Dangerous cycling can put lives at risk, including that of the cyclist, and it is completely unacceptable. It also has the effect of intimidating other people cycling and therefore deterring people currently cycling and those considering cycling for the first time. In that might be a clue to the gender gap to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, refers.
Like all road users, people cycling are required to comply with road traffic law in the interests of their own safety and that of other road users, and this is reflected in the Highway Code. If they cycle irresponsibly, if they do not use lights or are not visible, or if their use of the highway creates an unsafe environment or causes a nuisance, they may be committing a number of offences that can make them liable for prosecution.
The enforcement of road traffic offences has been referred to by virtually everyone who has spoken in this debate. Enforcement, including of cycling offences, is an operational matter for the police. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, will know from his time as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police of the success of the dedicated Metropolitan Police Service cycle safety team, funded by Transport for London. I hope that he and the House would commend this approach to other chief police officers elsewhere in the UK. Such a dedicated force can deal with not only cycling offences and cyclists’ behaviour but the issue of theft by cyclists, referred to earlier.
I turn to the specific points raised by several noble Lords concerning registration and insurance. With more than 20 million cycles in Britain, a national licensing system for all cycles similar to the one for cars and motor cycles would be complex and expensive to design and administer. Cycles would need to be fitted with registration plates that were sufficiently visible and robust and that could not easily be transferred from one cycle to another. The costs of administering such a scheme would be likely to outweigh any benefits, and it would also be likely to lead to a reduction in the number of people cycling. This would have adverse impacts on health and congestion, particularly if those cycling chose instead to use their cars for short journeys.
I was interested to hear some suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about licensing and adding cycling to driving licences, and particularly about maybe making cycling offences endorsable on driving licences for motor vehicles. We will certainly look at that.
Mandatory insurance is similar to licensing. People cycling are already encouraged, but not required, to take out some form of insurance, and many people have insurance cover through their membership of cycling organisations. For example, membership of Cycling UK provides £10 million of third-party liability insurance. This will cover members if they damage another person or their property—for example, if a cyclist accidentally causes injury to a fellow rider or hits a car. But it is not currently mandatory, and we believe that mandatory insurance would be as difficult as mandatory licensing. These and other matters would therefore need to be very carefully considered before any change to the law could be contemplated.
On the question of data concerning cycling and collisions, data is available from the department, several noble Lords have quoted from it, and I would be happy to consider any request that noble Lords wish to make for further data beyond that quoted today.
A number of noble Lords referred to the previous Administration’s plans to introduce new offences concerning dangerous and careless cycling through the Criminal Justice Bill, which fell due to the general election. We are currently considering a range of different interventions, including those, to improve road safety for all users.
I turn to some further specific points. There has been a lot of debate here about electric cycles and their speed and power. The current legal situation is that e-cycles are legal only where their electric motor cuts out at 15.5 mph and where the electric motor does not exceed a power of 250 watts. If they can reach greater speeds or greater power, they are classed as a moped or a motorbike and must be registered, taxed and insured. The previous Government consulted on potential changes to the existing regulations which would allow more powerful e-cycles and would enable them to be powered by the throttle all the way up to 15.5 mph. Ministers are carefully considering next steps in this policy area, including whether to proceed with these changes. We will respond on this in due course.
On the speed limit and the speed of cycles, it is the case that speed limits set under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 apply only to motor vehicles, but cyclists can still be charged with careless or dangerous cycling, depending on the circumstances. The introduction of a speed limit would bring many challenges. Many cyclists are, in practice, seldom able to exceed the speed limits that apply to motorised vehicles, other than perhaps in 20 mph zones, when going down a steep hill or in the case of those with Olympian levels of fitness. More prosaically, very few cycles are fitted with a speedometer. Again, enforcement would have to be a matter for the police, but they are already able to stop cyclists for offences such as cycling without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.
The design of cycling facilities was mentioned. Active Travel England has initiated and produced design standards which have been shown to dramatically reduce collisions and conflict, giving users greater confidence. Local authority officers need the right skills to help deliver that agenda and Active Travel England trained more than 3,500 local government officers across England last year, which has already led to real improvements. Similarly, funding for active travel has been significant. This Government will make an announcement on plans beyond 2025, including the development of a third cycling and walking investment strategy, in due course. Since it was established in 2022, Active Travel England has invested just under £250 million to deliver 260 miles of walking and cycling routes and hundreds of safer crossings and junctions. This includes funding for the national cycle network.
I turn to the question of bus stop bypasses, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, The Government are committed to championing the rights of active and disabled people, putting their views at the heart of our actions. We are fully aware of the concerns raised by some groups, particularly visually impaired people, over the use of floating bus stops. It is a complex issue and we are carefully considering next steps, following the Living Streets research the department co-funded with Transport Scotland and which was published in April this year. We will respond to that in due course.
I was much encouraged by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Young, about progress in the last 50 years. I was around 50 years ago and I too remember that there were no cycle lanes, no dedicated traffic lights and a reluctance to make any provision. I was interested by his and other noble Lords’ contributions about rental bikes abandoned on pavements. They are clearly a considerable impediment to pedestrians in general and to those with visual disabilities in particular. I will write on this subject because it is so important. The department is also consulting on micro-mobility and e-scooters.
The question of helmets was raised. The Highway Code very strongly advises cyclists to use helmets, but any change to mandatory use would pose the same issues about enforcement that are related to other matters raised today.
I was sorry to hear about noble Lords who have personal experience of accidents, either cycling or caused by cyclists, and I hope they are all fully recovered.
I do not currently have information about off-road bikes, but I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, about them.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, raised the matter of potholes, which was raised in an Oral Question yesterday. The Government are committed to a programme of filling many more potholes and making road surfaces smoother.
A noble Lord raised the question of prosecutions in advanced stop areas. I do not currently have information about that, but I will write if it is available.
The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, raised the question of road safety campaigns. The THINK! campaign, which I hope noble Lords will recognise as a long-standing and successful road safety campaign, deals particularly with the proper behaviour of all road users.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others asked about the e-scooter trials which have been extended to 3 May 2026, whereupon the Government will consider what legislation is appropriate, including registration, because it is clearly an important and growing subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, raised the Policy Exchange report, which he asked me to read and reply to, and I shall do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised training and education. Active Travel England has a £50 million programme for young people’s education on cycling. This is, of course, extremely welcome because understanding the Highway Code and the correct way to behave on the road is really important, so I am sure that all noble Lords fully support that programme.
In conclusion, the Government are being bold and ambitious on active travel, but the safety of our roads is an absolute priority, whether people are walking, wheeling, cycling or driving. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, says, that should be delivered for all road users, including the vulnerable and the disabled. We want to see more people cycling but doing so safely and with consideration for their fellow road users.
The Government are committed to delivering a new road safety strategy, the first in over a decade. Many of the points made today will be considered as part of that, and we will set out our next steps in due course.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who has taken part, whether they agreed or disagreed with me. I really enjoyed the debate; I learned things and some really good ideas came up. I had not realised I would get some medical advice. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, I appreciate the advice about my heart rate. Its resting rate is 52—I suspect it could improve. As a previous distinguished member of the Special Forces, I suspect his is even lower.
I did not think I would hear a Permanent Secretary previously at the Treasury suggest hypothecation. I did not think it had ever been Treasury policy, but if it is going go for it, I think it is a fantastic idea—the police will appreciate it immediately.
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. When I referred to the amendment suggested by Sir Iain, I did not realise that she was the original author. I spoke to him, but I did not realise where the suggestion had come from. I am sorry for not acknowledging that.
I thought that everybody gave a very good account of what happened. I was sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Austin, can no longer achieve 30 miles per hour on the flat—that was very disappointing. One major thing that I thought noble Lords could agree on was speed limits. If they are available for motor vehicles, perhaps they should also be employed and enforced for cyclists. I agree entirely with the broad thrust that the police ought to enforce the law. Whether it is shoplifting or something else, there is more scope for that. At times, I am one of the biggest critics when that is not happening—so you will never find any resistance from me on that.
The Minister brought out a good example of TfL and the Met dedicating efforts to this area during his time. My final point is that he mentioned further data. My principal thought is to combine the data from the health service with that available from the Department for Transport and the police, so that they are fused together to give a comprehensive account.
Just finally, on insurance, I thought it was weak response. I can see the arguments and logistics against licensing and registration. It is a massive task; I do get that. But, in essence, this would fall to the insurance industry. There may be an argument about whether the premiums would deter cycling, but I suspect that it would not actually cost an awful lot if incidents were as infrequent as noble Lords suggested. If there are fewer collisions, presumably the premiums will be very low.
I thank everybody for their time, particularly the Minister and the Opposition Front Benches, who I know have many demands on their time. I thank the Government for their responses.
Bus Franchising
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. The Official Opposition share the Government’s desire for high-quality public transport and we will hold the Government to account on this.
In government, the Conservatives prioritised buses, protecting our network during the pandemic and introducing the “Get Around for £2” scheme, saving millions of people money on their commute and, most importantly, incentivising them to travel by bus again quickly after the impact that the pandemic had on travel. We know that our public transport sector desperately needs increasing passenger numbers to make routes viable and this is an especially acute problem in rural areas. The previous Government’s policy, driven by the “Get Around for £2” scheme, was successful in driving up the number of passenger journeys in the year to March 2023 by almost 20%. While this is not yet at pre-pandemic levels, our scheme is supporting the return of passengers and boosting the bus sector. So, before addressing the specific issue of bus franchising, can the Minister say what the Government’s intention is for the “Get Around for £2” scheme and whether it is also at risk of means testing? Will the Minister rule that out?
I turn now to the subject of the Statement: the statutory instrument. It seeks to give to all local authorities the powers on bus franchising that are currently exercised in major conurbations such as London and Manchester. Broadly and generally, the Official Opposition welcome the granting and devolution of more powers to local authorities, but this statutory instrument, like a number of announcements from the Government to date, is fundamentally bogus, for two reasons. First, it is often argued that cities and towns outside London should have the sorts of public transport services that London has and the sort of system that provides those transport services. As noble Lords will no doubt be aware, the bus service in London is provided by private companies that operate under concessions that have been granted to them, competitively, by Transport for London in a way that ensures a degree of coherence and system in the operation of the bus service across the conurbation.
The fares risk, which is the crucial question in all this, is borne by Transport for London. The bus companies themselves simply supply the service for a fee. The truth is that this is not something that just happened overnight. TfL did not suddenly find a way to do something that nobody else had ever done. Transport for London, in various guises, has been operating transport services in London for over 150 years, and bus services going back at least to the foundation of the General Omnibus Company—a French company, actually—in the 1850s in London. It is the historical core of what we now call London Buses. The capacity of most local authorities to deliver these services is extremely limited. They do not have those roots or those abilities. Where, out of nowhere, are they to conjure the ability to set up a bus concession management system?
The second reason that this is a fundamentally bogus statutory instrument is the cost of doing it. Running bus services, on the sort of basis that local authorities wish to provide them, is very expensive and requires large subsidies. My figures might be slightly out of date, but when the last Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, left office, the subsidy to London Buses was of the order of £450 million a year. The last I heard, and it may not be totally up to date, was that under his successor the cost of London Buses is of the order of £700 million a year. That is in a very large city, of course, but £700 million a year is a huge amount to have to find to subsidise bus services.
Throughout the country, local authorities will have to subsidise buses if they are to provide the sorts of services that this statutory instrument and this Government are holding out as being possible. Where is the money going to come from? Without massive investment in capacity and the subsidisation of operations, this statutory instrument is fundamentally meaningless.
So do the Government intend to publish a full assessment of the expected impact of this policy on the quality, frequency and accessibility of bus services? Will the Minister commit to assessing the relative impact of this policy on rural communities in particular, as opposed to urban communities?
Finally, the Official Opposition, as I say, support the desire for improved public transport and we generally support the increase of powers to local authorities. But this policy appears to put showmanship ahead of practical improvements. The Government have yet again got their priorities wrong, focusing on who runs local bus services rather than on delivering the people’s priorities, which are the quality, frequency and reliability of our public transport network.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats welcome this Statement. As it has emphasised, it is clear that buses are crucial to our economy and society. They provide services for many of the poorest groups—the young, the old, more women than men—and are crucial for access to education, jobs, health services and other aspects.
We welcome rapid action to deal with our rapidly declining bus network outside London and we are fundamentally in favour of devolution, believing that decisions made locally are generally more effective and efficient. If the Minister looks back to Hansard in 2017, he will see that I put down during debates on the Bus Services Bill amendments that did roughly what the Government’s proposed measures will do—allow all local authorities to franchise and set up their own bus services. The response from the then Minister was that it was all about issues of capacity. To be fair, that is still an issue. On its own, this will not be enough, so what are the Government going to do? Will they provide additional funding and funding changes in the Budget in order to ensure that franchising is enabled in those local authorities that are not generally as big as, for example, Manchester.
As with the rail Bill, our concern is that the key issues are not necessarily included in the Government’s proposals in order to be broad enough to solve the problems. I have a couple of associated questions. Reference has been made to government subsidies to support the £2 fare cap. That will run out in December, and another funding stream that is designed to support improved services will run out in April. Can the Minister give us a commitment that we will see the end of temporary funding and that it will be replaced with a multiyear, more encompassing set of funding that is less divided up? There are four sets of funding that go to local authorities. They need, as the bus industry needs, certainty and a long-term approach, so I hope the Government will do that.
Finally, can we have an assurance that the Government will look at badly needed incentives and assistance to encourage young people on to our buses? For years and years, we have had free fares for elderly people. Young people need a nationwide scheme of at least reduced fares in order to get them on the buses and encourage them to become the bus users of the future. Many rural areas in particular need additional bus services, and young people using the buses would be a great incentive to the establishment of new bus services in those areas.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I do not normally agree with anything that the Front-Bench spokesperson says—
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
It is the turn of the Minister.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their comments on this subject. Despite the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, having just congratulated me on my position, I find myself virtually wholly disagreeing with what he said, save only one thing, which is that the quality, frequency and reliability of bus services are very important to all those who use the most popular form of public transport.
The noble Lord raised the issue of the £2 fare cap. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, observes, the money for it runs out in December. The Government are looking urgently at this to determine its future, and we will respond on it as soon as we can.
The noble Lord talked about the TfL system, which of course I am as familiar with as maybe he is, having administrated it for the best part of 15 years. He said that the fares risk is borne by TfL and questions the capacity of local authorities to deliver that. His observations about the capacity of other places in England to do this do not need to be theoretical, because the Mayor of Manchester, a combined authority, has had bus franchising in place for some time.
One of the features which distinguished it in London is being replicated in Manchester: in the last six months alone, the first tranche of franchising in Manchester has produced revenue growth of 5%. It has enabled the introduction of more buses, the service is more reliable, and a night bus service has been introduced. Those are features which occur because of the comprehensive network, its promise of stability, its consistent information, ticketing and planning, a closer interaction with traffic authorities to allow buses to progress more freely, and the introduction of real-time information. Those are all features that local authorities can deliver if they choose to go down the franchising road.
The noble Lord questions the capacity of local authorities to put in such a system. My department is building its capacity in order to give assistance on the ground to local authorities that want to proceed down this route.
On the full assessment of the impact of this policy, I have already described the interim assessment from Manchester, which is wholly good. Throughout England, in towns and cities and in the countryside, there are huge variations in the quality, volume and reliability of bus services. The Government’s suite of measures, of which the introduction of franchising is one for those local authorities that wish to take advantage of it, will stabilise things so that the quality, frequency and reliability of the bus service is more certain. That will encourage people to travel and give the bus service itself more passenger volume and revenue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, supports local devolution, and this Government strongly support that too. Franchising is a measure which will be available to all local authorities. They can choose what to do in their particular circumstances. She refers to the end of temporary funding. We certainly have a keenness to amalgamate funding streams; there are several, and it would be easier for local authorities and bus companies to understand one funding stream. We would like to give certainty on multiyear funding, but that must be subject to the parlous state of public finances that this Government have inherited. She is right that giving certainty in this direction will improve the quality, frequency and reliability of bus services in Britain.
Lastly, the noble Baroness refers to young people. Greater local authority control of bus services gives the opportunity for more local authorities to give concessions to young people, where that is justified. There are already concessions for young people, but we agree that getting young people into the habit of public transport usage is extremely important.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for leaving the depot prematurely a few moments ago.
I rarely agree with anything that the main Opposition spokesperson on transport has to say, and I notice that he glossed over the fact that hundreds of bus routes and thousands of bus miles disappeared under the previous Government’s policies. However, he does have a point as far as the financing of franchising is concerned. Does my noble friend accept from me, the former chairman of a major bus operator, that franchising outside our major cities in particular will be an expensive business, and that if franchising is to succeed, as most of us on these Benches would hope, it must be properly funded? What discussions have been held between his department and His Majesty’s Treasury to ensure that proper funding is in place?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his contribution. I should have said in my previous remarks that this is all preliminary to a buses Bill, which will be introduced to the House in due course and cover a wider range of subjects.
This is offering a choice to local authorities. It gives them the opportunity of franchising, if they believe that it is the right thing to do. Of course, all funding is being considered in the round as part of the spending review. I cannot share details about the discussions with His Majesty’s Treasury at this stage, but, in the meantime, the department is building its capacity to provide tangible, on-the-ground support to local transport authorities that wish to take back public control of bus services. We are also working with all stakeholders to determine how the buses Bill will make franchising easier and cheaper to deliver and further reduce the barriers to its introduction.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome my noble friend’s Statement, because it is about time that buses fulfilled their role of providing local transport for so many people. I worry about where they will get the money from and how many people will use them, if they use them to start with. As the noble Baroness said, it is important to get young people into the idea of using buses. How young is young? They need to be school kids right up to people starting their first job, who may well be in their 20s. If they live a long way from an established bus route, they will not get a job.
It is quite clear from what my noble friend said that all local authorities will be invited to do this and to participate one way or another, be it concession or franchise. But what happens if they do not want to do it? How will the Government encourage them? It is important to enable everyone who needs it to access public transport.
I have one example that I ask my noble friend to look into, although he may not be able to answer today. For those who live in the Isles of Scilly who want to go between the islands, the average fare in the winter is somewhere between £10 and £100—to get to the doctor, to the chemist or to work. It seems to me that what is good for city centres and the countryside in England could also be useful to people who live on islands. It might apply to the Isle of Wight as well, I do not know. I look forward to my noble friend’s comments.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his contributions. What would happen if local authorities did not want to pursue this course? The existing and partnership arrangements for bus operations, which have been in place locally for some time, would continue. It is a fair observation that there is a huge variation in standards of bus provision across Britain. If local authorities do not wish to participate or to pursue franchising, they can continue to pursue the arrangements that they currently have with their bus operators.
I cannot, of course, comment on the costs of transport between the islands of the Isles of Scilly or the minimal bus service on St Mary’s. However, as my noble friend knows, the provision in Cornwall, which is a largely rural county, is very good. That is an example of an arrangement that has been tailored to a rural area. None of these new arrangements would prevent existing arrangements from continuing.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I declare an interest: I got the bus on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and today, and shall be getting it tomorrow. As I live in Greater Manchester, I have been a real beneficiary of what the previous Government allowed for franchising in my city and its surrounds. The buses have become more reliable: I can now go to a bus stop and expect a bus to turn up within 10 minutes, not 40 minutes, which I sometimes had to wait for before.
I have two questions. First, I am old enough to remember when local authorities in Greater Manchester often had joint boards. The wonderfully named Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield joint board provided buses in parts of what is now Tameside.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
They were indeed green. I remember them very well. I wonder what the possibilities are for rural areas that are not part of a combined authority like Greater Manchester. Will local authorities have the capacity to combine together to franchise bus services jointly, rather than doing it by themselves?
Secondly, we made great progress in Greater Manchester; we got the buses and the fantastic Metrolink tram system. It would help to integrate the whole thing if we gained control of local rail services at the same time. For many people, local rail, as well as buses and trams, is necessary to make journeys. Could the Minister give any indications of plans to allow the franchisement of local rail services in places such as Greater Manchester?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments. I particularly note his support for the effects of the initial tranches of franchising in Manchester, which have indeed increased service and produced better reliability. He refers to the very old organisation of public transport in Manchester. Many of those magnificent vehicles are in the Manchester transport museum at Queens Road.
These days, the increasing number of combined authorities are of a good size to take advantage of this Government’s franchising proposition. It is, in effect, bringing together local authorities of sufficient size to be able to take advantage of the benefits of a network. I do not have an answer to whether this will allow individual local authorities to join together, but I am happy to write to the right reverend Prelate about that.
The right reverent Prelate raised the subject of the integration of rail services. We have already made a lot of progress with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, and with the Mayor of the West Midlands, in integrating rail services into the local transport network in information and in ticketing. Although this is not the subject of today’s discussion, I have no doubt that there will be some announcements on that. He is right to aspire to an integrated local network that is modally agnostic and includes rail and, in Manchester’s case, metro and buses.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, if we are going to use TfL and the London bus network as the example for going around the country, the dread problem of safety goes around again. Carrying on from the question I asked the Minister earlier this week, it often seems that in London—where, from memory, someone is killed by a bus every six weeks—the bus companies investigate their own incidents, with the DVSA checking for legalities. Who will be responsibility for safety in these franchises, and will they have teeth?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
One of the benefits of London’s large system of bus franchising is the work that Transport for London has done on the design and safety of bus travel. The noble Lord has to remember that those vehicles are on the road for 18, 20 or 24 hours a day, and they form a major part of the mileage of vehicles in London, even though their numbers are fairly small.
A significant amount of work has been done on the safety of driving and drivers, and on the design of vehicles. I know that has been shared with manufacturers and bus operators across the country, and with organisations such as Transport for Greater Manchester and the Urban Transport Group. I would expect more of that to happen.
The safety of buses is considered by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Authority, which is an executive arm of the Department for Transport and has the power to investigate serious bus accidents, which it does. It has the power to prosecute the drivers and operators of those vehicles. None of these proposals would alter its powers to continue to do so.
Prison Capacities
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to address challenges around prison capacities, and to ensure the safety and wellbeing needs of vulnerable prisoners.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am so glad that so many noble Lords have expressed their wish to speak in this debate, and I am sorry that each noble Lord will have only a short speaking time. I will try to be succinct. Please do not waste time congratulating me on securing the debate.
I thank all the agencies that have sent information, which I have heavily leaned on, including the Howard League for Penal Reform, and of course our excellent Library.
We are in a sorry mess with our Prison Service today. The number of prisoners is double what it was just over 20 years ago, and the average length of sentences has doubled. One does not have to be a statistical genius to work out that there is some kind of causal connection.
The Minister himself has described this increase as a societal addiction to punishment, leading to sentences that are much too long. I was delighted to read that the Government have indicated that they will review sentencing—a move that is very welcome indeed. I wonder if I can tempt the Minister to say a little more about this review, such as how soon it might take place, what sentences it would cover, and whether alternatives to prison will be used more frequently.
On the subject of sentence reviews, will the Government consider implementing the recommendations of the Justice Select Committee to the previous Government on imprisonment for public protection, including a resentencing exercise for that unfortunate rump of individuals still serving sentences that are today obsolete? Today, no one receives this cruel sentence, and no one has since 2012. The British Psychological Society describes such a sentence as leading to a sense of anxiety, helplessness and depression, with self-harm and suicidal behaviour. I strongly commend the work of the previous Government, in particular that of the former Secretary of State Alex Chalk, on diminishing the time on licence and delivering more improvements for IPP prisoners. But the point remains: all this falls short of the one thing that would make the difference—having the certainty of a release date.
IPPs are just one problem confronting the prison system, and those people are not the only vulnerable group suffering in our prisons today. Women prisoners are another; their travails warrant a separate debate in their own right. While they themselves are low risk, they typically suffer from trauma, domestic abuse, mental ill-health and substance misuse. Their rates of self-harm are eight times that in the male estate. And all that is before we take into account the separation effects on families and children.
Mental health problems are also huge. The British Psychological Society says that nine out of every 10 prisoners enter prison with at least one mental health or substance abuse problem. There is a complex cocktail of health and social problems. In the last year alone there has been a 24% increase in self-harm and a rise of 27% in the number of assaults in the men’s estate. Too many prisoners mean that there is not enough space, and not enough resources, to make a prisoner’s experience rehabilitative, or even safe.
Recently, the BBC’s Sima Kotecha wrote a piece about Pentonville prison, describing the dire conditions, in which most prisoners were being held in their cells for up to 22 hours a day. I think if those prisoners were animals, the RSPCA would be called. Overcrowding makes everything so much worse. Prison officers have to deal with a highly inflammatory situation. Trying to keep prisoners and themselves safe preoccupies most of their time, and rehabilitation sometimes goes out of the window—no wonder recidivism gets worse.
I hope the Minister will outline a more effective plan to control the eternally rising prisoner numbers—a plan that does not necessarily use prison. He himself has said that society has an addiction to punishment that leads to sentences that are much too long, and we know that long sentences have an inverse effect on rehabilitation.
We also know that we cannot build our way out of an overcrowding problem. The Ministry of Justice’s forecasts say that the prison population will grow to between 94,000 and more than 114,000 in the four next years alone. It is time to stop the rot, because other services are not equipped to deal with this situation. The Probation Service is on its knees, with chronic staff shortages, excessive workloads and poor morale. Many of us will have had a briefing from the probation officers’ union Napo, which is dismayed at the mass release of 1,700 prisoners this week; it fears that they will not cope, so there will be more risk to the public and to themselves, and more mistakes will be inevitable.
Turning people out of jail earlier, without proper preparation before and after release, is a recipe for disaster. People will not get the help they need. They will reoffend, and the whole merry-go-round will go faster and faster until the parts fly off.
My final question for the Minister is this. How does he plan to address the needs of prisoners? If he does not, our Prison Service will continue on its inexorable spiral of decline until it breaks. Wrongdoing must be punished, but there are other methods of punishment as well as prison.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I shall make two quick points—or perhaps two and a half, if I am quick.
My first point is to ask the Minister why, with the prisoners released this week, the local authority where I live was given no notice of which prisoners would be released from the local prison or who had a previous address in the local area? That has been the case with other prison releases over the past decade, but why is it that somebody does not inform local authorities and did not do so this week? Is that going to happen again?
The Government have made a big announcement, and rightly so, about planning infrastructure and bureaucracy, and there has been a lot of talk of a 10-year plan. That gives me the opportunity to raise something that I raised in the House of Commons many times, without any success. We have old prisons, such as Armley, in Leeds, that clearly want knocking down and the land used for expensive capital development, such as housing or whatever else, but they will need replacing with new prisons. Near where I live, and once represented, is Ranby prison. It is a more modern prison and does not need knocking down, and has vast amounts of land. I have regularly proposed to Ministers in many Governments that it would be a suitable place. There is a suitable workforce, with plenty of people who would love to work there in that industry, as plenty have done and do. Why not get on and build a brand-new prison there, with one governor and one set of management managing the two prisons as a combined prison? On long-term planning, I do not understand why that has not happened.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, successful rehabilitation reduces pressure on prison places. My two reviews for the Ministry of Justice, which it continues to implement with dedication and enthusiasm, emphasise that healthy relationships greatly reduce reoffending, as those who receive family visits are 39% less likely to reoffend than those who do not have them. HMPPS is very mindful of closeness to family when selecting which prisoners to send abroad. Some 28% of foreign national prisoners are Romanian, Polish or Albanian, and would be closer to home in Estonia than in British jails, which would give us some more space.
Many prisoners without family on the outside or friends to help them go straight benefit from well-supervised peer support in prison, and those relationships protect against repeat offending. Trained prisoners mentoring others derive much purpose from this. They take a huge load off officers and recipients more readily take their advice about going straight.
I recommended that prisons be extrovert and draw in local charities and other organisations to expose men to opportunities on the outside. Community days in prisons ensure that those who never see the visits hall can learn there about work and volunteering, including from former prisoners. One revolving-door prisoner attending his first community day was very doubtful but said, “For the first time I found myself thinking about what comes next. Now I never want to come back in again”. Does the Minister plan to roll out peer support and community days across the estate?
Finally, the Question refers to vulnerable prisoners. Much is said about diverting women who have experienced trauma and abuse away from custody. Male offenders with similar histories are treated far more harshly. Surely we should be moving towards equality of approach in this area.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Many years ago, when I was a Member of another place, I was one of many who were horrified that the prison population had reached 45,000. We do not see a more law-abiding country today, with double that number in prison. I will offer a short urgent shopping list.
First, we must deal with sentence inflation. Then we must give young offenders the opportunity to graduate out of their juvenile criminal records, which can cause them trouble with employment. We need a vast improvement in prison education facilities. We need to provide release accommodation for those who are released and have nowhere else to go. We need to provide opportunities for prisoners to leave prison for the day to be able to work their way into the normal economy. We need to enable much earlier release, maybe 25% of the sentence where it is justified; for example, by a prisoner having been to work or undergone education courses which will lead them to a better life outside. As already has been said, we must reduce the number of women in prison. It is far too high and much too damaging. Finally on my list, which I could increase, mental health provision has to be much better in person, including a greater possibility of transferring prisoners from prison mental health supervision to supervision in hospitals or in the community.
I welcome the appointment of the Minister. He comes here with very great and relevant experience and a background as a prison and punishment reformer. I hope that the promise of his appointment will reap a reward with results.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for enabling this debate and for the opportunity to speak in it. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester, lead Bishop for prisons, is unable to be here today. I know she wishes that she had been able to contribute. I share her interest in the welfare of prisoners and of those called to work in prisons, not least in the four prisons in my diocese in and around Doncaster.
Ministers have made plain their deep concern at the capacity problem in our prisons and have set out their plans to address it in both the short and longer term. I urge the Government to think deeply about the factors that have led us to this crisis and to respond creatively and boldly when considering the purpose of prison and the alternatives to custody. At their best, prisons are places of transformation. Every person supported to turn away from offending makes our country safer for everyone. But truly effective rehabilitation almost always takes place in a context of care and trust. It surely goes without saying that overcrowding in prisons is not conducive to a transformative culture.
On these Benches we celebrate the important role that prison chaplains play in helping to create the sort of culture of respect and trust which maximises the chances of rehabilitation. Those working in prisons rightly expect to be protected from harm and to carry out their duties with dignity. Current overcrowding has made a difficult role immensely challenging. Hidden from public view, prison staff work in conditions in their place of employment that few of us can appreciate or would tolerate.
Prisons must be safe for staff if a culture of respect and trust is to be built there, yet training and support for prison staff in this regard are limited and staff retention is a concern. What assessment are the Government making of the training and support required for prison staff when working under these pressures?
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
I will focus on one of the most vulnerable groups in our prisons, elderly prisoners, who all too often can be forgotten amid all the other problems in our prisons. The Prison Reform Trust, of which I am a trustee, reported last week that the number of prisoners aged over 50 in England and Wales has nearly tripled in 20 years, from 5,000 in 2003 to a projected 14,800 by next July—that is one in six prisoners.
The ever-rising length of prison sentences is obviously a contributory factor. It is hard enough coping with age-related infirmities outside prison. Dealing with illness, disability, dementia and other health problems in prison means coping with the significant challenge of accessing adequate healthcare. Diet, restricted physical space and sedentary lifestyles accelerate the onset of frailty and worsening health conditions. Some prisoners face the lonely prospect of dying in prison.
In 2020 the Ministry of Justice promised a national strategy for the care and management of older prisoners. I would be most grateful if the Minister could indicate when that will emerge. Such a strategy should ensure that older prisoners are placed in the prison estate so as to maximise accessible and personalised health provision. More resource needs to be committed to training our hugely dedicated prison staff in recognising and responding to the needs of older prisoners, including the necessity of restraints for prisoners who are frail and present less risk, as well as dealing with dementia and pain relief. As ever, it comes back to the invaluable front-line prison staff on whom the entire prisons edifice daily depends.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I shall highlight the vital work being done by Barnardo’s. I declare an interest as its vice-president.
We are seeking to address the factors that lead to young people entering the prison system, with a focus on how to address the overrepresentation in prison of care-experienced young people, especially black boys. We need to identify the young people most at risk of being drawn into crime and build a package of support that responds to the challenges they are facing, addressing issues before they escalate.
The Government’s proposed young futures hubs will play a vital role in preventing young people becoming involved in crime in the first place, but it is also important that when young people encounter the police they are treated fairly, with a focus on ensuring their safety, not illegally strip-searching them.
Research shows that one in 10 black children in care has received a custodial sentence by the time they are 18. That simply cannot be right. This is why I have been working closely with Barnardo’s and the Ministry of Justice over the past year to look at this issue and what needs to be done to tackle it. Barnardo’s Double Discrimination report reveals that many black children face racism from the very systems that are supposed to be supporting them, leaving them feeling isolated, marginalised and vulnerable. As one black care-experienced young person said, when someone treats you like a problem you become one.
We must stop the conveyor belt of vulnerable young people getting involved in crime. We need to focus on the treatment of care-experienced young people by the justice system and the police if the Government’s aim is to prevent and reduce young people’s involvement in crime.
Will the Minister meet me and Barnardo’s to discuss our vision of how to keep vulnerable children and young people out of prison? Every child deserves to have the opportunity to be safe, happy, healthy and loved, because childhood lasts a lifetime. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, amid the serious general concern about the state of our prisons, which we all share, I want to focus particularly on the risk of prisoners committing suicide. The death of anyone by suicide is a great sadness but there is a particular forlornness, a sense of failure and defeat, when someone kills themselves in prison.
The number of self-inflicted deaths in prisons last year went down slightly, from 92 to 85, and the number of deaths—1 per 1,000 prisoners—has remained roughly the same since 2018. However, as we know, the rate of suicide in prison is much higher than it is in the population as a whole and 54% of deaths that occur in prison are self-inflicted. For a range of reasons, those in prison are particularly at risk of taking their own lives. Stresses that contribute to those deaths include mental health struggles, deaths of loved ones, planned transfers to different institutions, the prospect of deportation, lack of family support and sex offender status. It is easy to see how those factors, often in combination with one another, can push people to the brink of despair.
A breakdown of the kind of person likely to kill themselves and the time they are at most risk is revealing. I do not have the most up-to-date figures, but those from previous years reveal that those most at risk are predominantly male, nearly all white and in the age groups 21 to 24 and 30 to 39. Moreover, a high percentage of suicides took place in the first 30 days in prison, even the first week, the rate being particularly high among those on remand, mostly by hanging. Arrival in prison is a particularly high time of risk. One-fifth of prisoners who take their own lives in prison do so within seven days of reception, and 39% of them die within a month of arrival. All this indicates a group of people who are particularly at risk.
What steps are taken in the early stages of remand in prison to try to identify those most at risk? Is the Minister really satisfied that those who are mentally unstable are given the opportunity to see a medical specialist?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in two minutes I will speak about two films.
I recently saw the film “Sing Sing”, based on the wonderful Rehabilitation through the Arts programme at Sing Sing maximum security prison in New York. One key figure, Divine G, a former prisoner who plays his younger self in the film, is an inspiring reminder that, yes, prison is there to punish and prisoners need to acknowledge they have been anti-social and were a threat to their fellow citizens, but that prison can find ways to help prisoners to become the best version of themselves.
However, we also know that prisons can be unsafe hell-holes that breed criminality, cynicism, addiction and despair. This sadly brings me to the second film. I was proud to speak at the premiere of “Britain’s Forgotten Prisoners” at the Sheffield documentary festival in the summer. The director, Martin Read, does an excellent job of following the stories of individuals on IPP sentences, trapped in
“a Kafka-esque world of labyrinthine bureaucracy that has seen them swallowed up by a system”.
I cried at both films, one at the humane hope of rehabilitation and one at the frustration and cruelty of inhumane and unjust prison policy.
For prisoners to stand a chance of rehabilitation, they need to believe that, however firm the system is, it is at least relatively fair. Recent events suggest there is no fairness for IPP prisoners. Never mind two-tier policing; we have a two-tier prison policy. Imagine you have done the crime, you have done your time—years earlier, in fact—yet now, way beyond your release date, you are still locked up indefinitely. The excuse is that IPP prisoners are too risky and could present a threat to public safety, with no evidence ever given. Now fellow prisoners, who have committed far worse crimes and have not done their time, are being released early for pragmatic political reasons. Will the Minister promise to at least look at releasing a batch of IPP prisoners via the early release scheme as a gesture of good faith that could restore much-needed hope to the IPP prison community?
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, if we are to cut prison numbers we need to cut reoffending. If we are to cut reoffending, prisoners need jobs, housing and hope. If they are to get jobs, housing and hope, they need to be seen in a different light.
I have visited 50 prisons in the last seven months, and 170 prisons in the last eight years. I have visited 12 different types of prisons—category B and C—and have been surrounded by hundreds of men. I have never once had an act of violence, threat or intimidation shown to me, or even a hint of one.
That scandalously bad scaremongering BBC report last Monday, which highlighted terrible travesties inside Pentonville, did not reflect the visit to Pentonville that I had made just two weeks earlier, when I was surrounded by multitudes of men of different ages, all of whom were positively looking forward to the graduations that they will receive on 23 September, when I will graduate over 100 of them on the Time4Change programme. In other words, we need to change our attitude to how we see prisoners: we perceive them to be a perpetual risk. This week’s headlines have been nothing but appalling, scandalous and destructive; they do not reflect the reality. I wonder whether the very good governor at Pentonville, Simon Drysdale, was happy with that distorted view of his prison, or whether the chaplain, Jonathan Aitken, previously of another place, was happy with that distorted view of the prison in which he serves so effectively.
I wonder whether we could take account of the fact that many prisoners who have gone through reform and renewal are fantastic role models for others who follow behind them. At the moment, through the group that I lead, we have a man called Anton who served a sentence in Swaleside and then in The Mount. With still four years left to go before the end of his sentence, he moved to HMP Isis to act as a father figure to the young men up to age 27—he is 40. He leads responsible training programmes inside the prison to change mindsets. Another prisoner from Ranby prison will move in three weeks’ time. We need to change the perspective on prisoners so that they can get jobs and housing.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, the crisis in prison capacity results from the fact that the prison population of England and Wales has more than doubled over the last 30 years, and this trend is expected to continue. Why? A large part of the answer is that the length of prison sentences has been steadily growing over the same period. Indeed, the sentences imposed today are about twice as long as they were when I started out at the Bar; they are far longer than those imposed in the rest of Europe and, indeed, in Northern Ireland.
Sentencing laws have long provided that a prison sentence should be for the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, but successive Governments have not been content to leave it to the judges to apply this test. They have introduced legislation requiring judges to impose higher sentences for offences considered to be of particular concern to the public. These have not been necessary for the purposes of deterrence, rehabilitation or protection of the public. They have usually been imposed to cater for a perceived public demand for greater punishment, but this has come with a cost: over £50,000 a year for each man in custody.
It makes no sense to spend such sums on increasing punishment when they would be better spent on rehabilitation and other measures to prevent reoffending. Doubling sentences has brought no benefit to the criminal justice system; it has led to the crisis that confronts the Prison Service today. Will the Minister seek to persuade the Government to consider the merits of reversing the trend rather than building more prisons?
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, I add two points to those already made. First, there is much talk of prison capacity, but it is important to appreciate the difference between capacity in the sense of how many can be crammed in and the real capacity of our prisons. The Ministry of Justice has its own “baseline certified normal accommodation”, designed to provide decent accommodation. At the end of August, its figures suggested that it was about 8,500 over that baseline—perhaps fewer today. The adverse consequences are well understood. Its baseline, in its own words,
“represents the good, decent standard of accommodation”.
When does the ministry expect to achieve that level of decency and return to its baseline?
Secondly, overcrowded prisons risk the courts seizing up. During my final months in office as Lord Chief Justice, I received daily prison figures, broken down region by region. There was a risk that people being remanded into custody or sentenced would have nowhere to go—and, if they cannot be taken away, the work of the court is paralysed.
We have seen two interventions by the senior judiciary to delay cases that were likely to result in custody to avoid that eventuality. There are also prisoners being located far from courts in which they are appearing, resulting in transportation problems and delays in their hearings. I observed to colleagues on more than one occasion that we were only one riot away from meltdown—and so, alas, it has transpired.
Severe overcrowding in our prisons has a multiplicity of adverse consequences beyond the most obvious. There is little realistic prospect of substantially expanding prison capacity in the near term. That is, in any event, the wrong solution. The record number of those in custody must come down.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, by this time, the Minister must be thinking that this is going to be an easy job. I am afraid he has to learn, if he has not learned already, that the House of Lords is not the best place to assess either public opinion or opinion in the other place about penal policy. Nevertheless, the contributions that he has heard today should give him confidence that if, as most of us are hoping, he will lead the charge in genuine prison reform, he will not be without support.
Fourteen years ago I arrived at the Ministry of Justice with the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, as Secretary of State. One of the first things we did was to send a memorandum to No. 10 suggesting that we manage down the prison population to under 80,000 during the course of the Parliament. The message came back from No. 10: “Not politically deliverable”. The truth is that today it is not politically deliverable to continue longer sentences, with more and more people in prison and a criminal justice system at the point of collapse.
In some ways, the Minister has come to office at just the right moment to press the arguments that he has heard from all parts of the House: there is another way, a better way, a more civilised way of treating offenders. That is not to move away from the need for them to take responsibility for their crimes, but in many of the suggestions that he has heard today there are real and positive ways that we could cut prison numbers, make the public safer and do a really good job in our criminal justice system.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the one thing that we can take away from this timely debate, which was well introduced by my noble friend Lady Burt, is that it has demonstrated that the Minister has an inbox full of difficult decisions. The current action to release prisoners early cannot remove all the risks inherent in this exceptional situation, but it does expose the problems, weaknesses and failures of the current justice system. The immediate need to free up prison spaces cannot be allowed to mask these failures. A top-to-toe set of reforms is needed from pre-sentencing through to licensing ending.
This debate has shown that the problems are extensive: there is a lack of meaningful activity in prisons; sentence inflation; vulnerability of prisoners to self-harm; drug abuse; poor morale in the Prison and Probation Service workforce; shortage of staff at all levels; and a lack of resource to effectively provide essential housing, skills and healthcare when leaving prison. The list goes on—in the course of this debate I have written down another seven or eight that should appear on the Minister’s action list. I want to add another: the so-called dynamic pricing of facilities offered to those seeking to train offenders within prison, which is pricing NGOs offering training out of prisons, such as Redemption Roasters at The Mount prison.
But there is great work going on, as we have heard. That needs replication and augmentation. Will the Minister, with all his experience at his elbow, agree that wholesale reform is needed, and as swiftly as possible? When will he be able to set out the actions that we need to take to resolve all these difficult issues, and will he provide a wholesale reform?
This is a massive project, which needs fixing so that the punishment needle can be moved back towards rehabilitation and reducing offending. That will produce a much more productive activity list for prisoners when they leave prison as well, but it will also save huge costs to taxpayers and make an improvement to society at large. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, this will be quick. Four years from now, the prison population will be around 106,000. The Institute for Government has stated that, even with new prisons being built, there could be a shortfall of 8,000 prison places by 2028. Under the previous Government, we delivered the largest expansion to the prison estate since the Victorian era. Please will the Minister let us know exactly when and where the Government are going to build new prisons to accommodate these additional offenders?
It has been reported that probation officers are aware of criminals convicted of sexual and serious violent offences who are eligible for the early release scheme because they are serving consecutive sentences and Prison Service staff take into account only the sentence for a less serious, non-sexual offence. Please can the Minister reassure the House that this is not the case and confirm that any offender serving such consecutive sentences will not be eligible for early release?
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales has warned that a third of the victims where perpetrators were due for release on Tuesday were likely to be unaware of this. Many of these victims are not eligible for victim notification schemes, and those who are often fall off the Probation Service’s lists. Please can the Minister let us know how that can be allowed to happen and the exact number of victims who have not been informed?
A senior probation officer has also recounted that, by the time the Prison Service had determined who was eligible, many colleagues had been given only four weeks to prepare for offenders confirmed for release. In one instance, a colleague had been given just one week’s notice. The Government said that at least 1,000 new trainee probation officers would be recruited by the end of March 2025. Please can the Minister explain why it takes seven months to recruit trainees? That is surely too long. Does he not agree that four months should be the target to complete this?
Finally, for prisoner well-being, will the Minister commit to building an extra exercise facility in each of the UK’s 141 prisons to help the mental and physical rehabilitation and social interaction of prisoners?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, on securing a debate on prison capacity and the safety and well-being of vulnerable prisoners. The women’s estate, which she mentioned, concerns me greatly. As she said, it is a complex cocktail of social problems—I could not agree more. As well as the focus that we need as a Government to rehabilitate prisoners and help them lead normal lives, this has to be our focus.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. It is clear that there is a real strength of feeling about the state of our prisons, which I share. As your Lordships are aware, when this Government came into office, men’s prisons were consistently operating at around 99% of their capacity. In recent weeks we came closer to total collapse than ever before. If that had happened, the consequences would have been dire, with courts forced to grind to a halt and the police unable to make arrests. The result: a total breakdown of law and order. The impact is also felt in prisons. Overcrowded prisons are dangerous places: tensions run high, and violence can erupt without warning. That makes them dangerous for prisoners and prison officers, with violence against staff rising rapidly.
Prisons should be safe places. They should be places that create better citizens, not better criminals. When they are this full for this long, all prison officers can do is attempt to control the chaos. For the sake of public protection, as well as the prisoners themselves, prisons should help offenders get back on the straight and narrow. We know that is not happening as things stand, because 80% of offending is reoffending.
On coming into government and facing the total collapse of our prisons—going from running a retail business to running the Prison Service, this was quite a shock—we were left with no choice: this week, as noble Lords know well, the temporary change to the automatic release point for some offenders serving standard determinate sentences came into force. Let me be clear: this was not something we wanted to do.
We announced this measure eight weeks ago, to give ourselves as long as possible to put in place everything we could to protect the public. We excluded a series of offences: sexual crimes, a series of crimes associated with domestic abuse, terror offences, and serious violence with a sentence over four years. We gave probation time to prepare release plans for every offender. I have visited the probation units at Cheshire East and Camden and I know that staff are doing their very best in what are very difficult circumstances. Offenders released are subject to licence conditions, including tags, exclusion zones and curfews, and can be returned to prison as soon as any condition is broken. We have announced that 1,000 new probation officers will join by March next year. We have by no means solved the many problems that face the prison estate and the wider criminal justice system, but we have made a critical first step.
I turn to the contributions of colleagues, which led us through some of the challenges that this Government will address in the months and years to come. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, focused on suicides. I should note that, in prisons as full as ours have been, suicides at this level are, tragically, all too common. I can tell noble Lords that I receive a daily incident report and, in the first six months of the year, there were 36 self-inflicted deaths. Every death is a tragedy. In terms of prevention, new prisons have been largely fitted with ligature-resistant cells. Our ambition is to make a small number available at every prison for use by vulnerable prisoners.
To the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, I reiterate our appreciation for the work the chaplaincy does. Having been around prisons for 22 years, I always meet the chaplain whenever I can: I think the relationships chaplains build with prisoners are fascinating. As for prison officer training, which the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, also mentioned, before I took this job on I had just completed a review of prison officer training and I hope that now I am in the seat on level nine of the MoJ, the prison officer training review will come into action.
A number of noble Lords discussed IPP prisoners. The noble Baronesses, Lady Burt and Lady Fox, both talked passionately about imprisonment for public protection sentences. Those serving IPP sentences face unique challenges and there are, sadly, too many IPP deaths in custody. It is right that this sentence no longer exists, but we must address a historic challenge of the British state’s own making, and I will return to this place in the months to come with more detail on how we will do that.
For now, we are balancing two considerations. First, I know that many noble Lords feel passionately, as I do, about IPPs, and with 30% of IPP prisoners not currently in the correct prison to support them with their sentence plan, they continue to be failed by the system. I am clear that this must be addressed as a matter of urgency. We need to get it right, but IPP offenders need to engage with their sentence plans too. I have seen some fantastic work recently in HMP High Down, with its community living unit, where IPPs are living and really engaging. In my previous job running the Timpson business, I was proud to have 30 IPP colleagues working alongside me.
Secondly, however, we must always balance this against the importance of protecting the public, and any measures that are taken must begin with this as our priority. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, must be commended on his incredible visit record. I think he must have visited more prisons than any other Member of these two Houses. It is good to hear of the graduations coming up at HMP Pentonville: there is hope and there are great people, such as Anton, who need to be given a second chance.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Carlile and Lord Moylan, all made important points about sentences. The Government will be launching a review of sentencing, with a focus on how it both protects the public and reduces reoffending. I believe that we will soon be in a position to share the terms of reference of that review and announce its chair. I note noble Lords’ interest in the review and look forward to engaging with colleagues in due course. I am sure there will be plenty of opportunity to debate sentencing.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned violence in prisons. In overcrowded prisons, violence has soared. Now that we have begun to address the capacity crisis in our prisons, we must tackle violence too. Violence can be driven by the illicit economy. We are working to restrict the supply of drugs, reduce demand through rehabilitative services and support prisoners to build recovery from substance misuse. We know that debt drives poor safety and outcomes, and the drug trade really fuels it. We need to make sure that our vulnerable prisoners are not extorted, assaulted or forced to do things they do not want to do. There have been many instances of prisoners inheriting the debt of a former resident of a cell. Some prisoners arrive with no money, so they borrow to get canteen items and have to repay “double bubble”.
The noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord German, spoke about education and purposeful activity, healthcare, and housing. As I have already mentioned, capacity pressures make these more difficult than they should be. However, we continue to build on good practice through our employment advisory boards, and we work with education experts, employers and the voluntary sector to improve the offer across the prison estate so that offenders have the best chance to get the input they need to turn their back on crime for good.
With the capacity as it has been, it has been difficult for prison staff to get people into classrooms and places where they can find housing and employment. In my time going round prisons, I have walked past too many classrooms where there are lots of computers but no prisoners. That is something I want to sort out. The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about the level of reform I am hoping to do. I hope to be here for a long time—I think it will take a long time.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked about prison building. It is very much our plan to build the 20,000 prison places that we need. We are committed to building more prisons and the rate of prisoner growth means that we will have to.
I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, brought up the subject of elderly prisoners and I was interested to read the Prison Reform Trust’s recent report on this. While the physical prison estate can present challenges to older prisoners’ safety, the newer prisons we are building are accessible by design, with cells adapted to the needs of those with mobility issues and physical disabilities. I recently visited HMP Holme House, where they are building a specialist wing for elderly prisoners which is wheelchair-friendly. I remember going to HMP Stafford a few years ago, where I met a prisoner who was in a wheelchair. On talking to him, I found out he was 104 years old. We have a range of work ongoing to improve provision for elderly prisoners, focusing on health and care support, how we are using the estate to best meet their needs and how to spread best practice on purposeful regime activities. There is a lot more we need to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, asked about local authorities and the recent releases of this week. All local authorities were engaged with by probation teams and they have done their best in very difficult circumstances. It is not perfect by any means—but the prison system that we have inherited is far from perfect.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his continued and considered commitment to supporting the important work on strengthening offenders’ positive ties with their friends, family and peers, and for our recent meeting. Phone calls, visits and temporary release from prison help prevent offenders returning to crime when they leave prison, by providing the opportunity to build these crucial ties. I want to be inspired by the best practice demonstrated by the impressive visit centres that I have seen, and the community days that I have been a part of are inspirational. Holding establishments to account by means of the family ties performance measure has led to a continued improvement in this vital contribution to reducing reoffending.
The plan to rent prison places in Estonia was explored by the previous Government but is not something we intend to implement. We value our strong relationship with Estonia, and I know we will continue to co-operate and share learning on a range of justice and security measures.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, raised a very good point about young people coming into the prison system. I completely agree that it cannot be right. I was brought up with foster children and far too many of them ended up in prison. I will arrange for colleagues at the Home Office and the Department for Education to meet the noble Baroness and Barnardo’s—only last week, I met Martin Narey, who used to run the prison estate and then went on to run Barnardo’s.
I remember discussing the daily prison figures with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, when he was in his previous role. The impact of prison capacity on the courts is significant. Had we not acted, I think it would have been even worse, but we cannot have prisons overflowing. The recent civil disorder has highlighted how difficult this is. Further reform will be necessary to ensure that we never get so close to the catastrophe we have had in the past.
In closing, I once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for raising this hugely important issue for debate and noble Lords for their contributions. If there is anything I have missed from the debate, I will be happy to write to colleagues as soon as possible.
I have been around prisons for longer than I care to admit, but while I am new to this House, I already feel enriched by the level of your Lordships’ expertise and engagement. In all these years, I have never known things as bad as they were when this Government took office. We are acutely aware of the pressure this has put on our prisons and probation services when they operate so close to the limits of their capacity. Full prisons put prison staff and prisoners at risk of harm from violence and disorder, and they make it much harder for our dedicated staff to support offenders properly. For a small but significant number of vulnerable offenders, that can lead to tragic cases of self-harm and suicide.
As Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending Minister, I am clear that any one tragedy in our prisons is one too many. I am determined to work throughout the life of this Parliament to support prisons to become safer places to work and live for everybody inside them.
Higher Education Funding
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Krebs
That this House takes note of the current challenges of higher education funding.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to introduce this debate. I thank my fellow Cross-Benchers who voted for it. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Tarassenko, who has chosen to give his maiden speech during the debate; I very much look forward to hearing what he has to say, alongside the contributions of other noble Lords.
When I proposed the debate, my title was “The Crisis in Higher Education Funding”, but the Table Office, in its wisdom, preferred the more neutrally worded Motion we are debating today. While recognising the importance of all HEI providers, I will talk particularly about universities in England. As I started to think about today’s debate, I wanted to begin with a fact, so I asked myself: how many universities are there in England? I contacted the Higher Education Policy Institute, and its chief executive said to me:
“That is a fascinating question and almost impossible to answer”.
His best guess is around 150. I checked with the Higher Education Statistics Agency—HESA—which said that, unfortunately, its open data does not list universities. However, it tells us that there are 285 HEI providers. The Office for Students has 121 universities in England on its register. There are 141 members of Universities UK, most of which are in England. Can the Minister, in her response, tell us how many universities there are in England? She is quickly texting to find out.
Regardless of the precise number, we should be in no doubt that our universities are facing a funding crisis. This is not a case of “Crisis? What crisis?”. The interim chair of the Office for Students, Sir David Behan, has referred to a “significant” funding crisis and has said that universities “can’t just carry on”. In its insight briefing of May this year, the OfS notes that 74 of England’s universities will run a deficit in 2024-25 and that the forecasts of recovery in future years made by universities are based on overly optimistic assumptions, so that by 2026-27 nearly two-thirds are likely to be in deficit. The OfS concludes:
“The current financial climate could mean that some universities and colleges face closure”.
It refers to
“the unplanned closure of a university, perhaps in the middle of an academic year, without arrangements in place to support students to complete their courses”.
The OfS clearly takes this seriously, as it has launched a £4 million tender for auditors to analyse what the document describes as “market exits”. Universities themselves are responding to the crisis. Estimates suggest that about 70 universities have in place redundancy programmes or are closing courses or departments.
The main factors leading to this funding crisis are well known and include the following. First, the student fee has not increased since 2016 and therefore has been eroded by about 30% in real terms. The Russell group estimates that its members lose £2,500 per year for every home student they teach. Secondly, most if not all universities have become dependent on income from overseas students to subsidise the rest of their activities. Thirdly, the number of overseas applicants for taught master’s courses has dropped following changes in the visa rules that prevent them bringing families with them.
In addition to these three core reasons, there are other factors. Many universities, for example, have ageing buildings that require upgrading to meet net-zero requirements. Government grants to universities have gone down from 30% to a mere 13% of income in the past 10 years. In my own university, Oxford, out of a £1.6 billion income, 11% comes from government grants. Furthermore, research funding from the Government and from charities does not cover the full costs so, paradoxically, the more successful a university is at winning research grants, the further into deficit it goes. The Russell group estimates that only 69% of full economic research costs are funded. UKRI has said there is a £5.3 billion black hole in research funding. Does the Minister agree with that number? If so, does she think it matters?
Given that we know the main causes of the crisis, what are the options for responding to it? Should the Government take the view that universities are independent institutions that manage their own finances, and that the crisis will be resolved by market forces, or should they take a strategic view of the future shape of universities in this country? So far, the signals have suggested that the Government are inclined to the first of these, a laissez-faire policy, but I hope the Minister will tell us that that is not the intention.
Discussion in recent months has concentrated in particular on whether the Government would allow individual universities to go bust. For instance, on 15 August on “Channel 4 News”, the Minister was asked:
“Are you willing to see a university go bust? Because there are some institutions – you’ll know where they are – that are at that point now”.
The Minister replied:
“Yes. If it were necessary. Yes, that would have to be the situation. But I don’t want that to be necessary. I want us to find a way for there to be financial stability for universities, and most importantly, for the students that they are serving into the future”.
The Minister says that she wants to secure financial stability for universities. How might this be achieved? One answer would be simply to spend more public money on universities. Figures on the Statista website show that our public expenditure on higher education, as a proportion of GDP, is lower than any other country in Europe apart from Luxembourg, about half that of the United States and under half that of France and Germany. Nevertheless, I doubt whether the Minister will tell us that the Government’s response to the crisis is to inject more public funding.
A second option might be to reverse the visa restrictions and encourage more overseas students to come and participate in taught master’s degrees, and allow them to bring their families. According to HESA and the OfS, one in six universities earns more than a third of its income from overseas student fees, and it has been estimated by one source that at least a quarter of the total income for the sector comes from international student fees. There is the question, however, of whether it is appropriate for our universities to be dependent on the cash cow of overseas students. That is worthy of debate, and other noble Lords may wish to raise it. I do not have time to go into it, but I hope the Minister will tell us whether it is the Government’s view that dependence on this cash cow is central to their strategy for the future of the university sector.
A third option, raising the student fee from £9,250 to over £12,000, in line with inflation, would be highly unpopular and might well deter UK students from attending university. The average student debt on graduation is said to be £45,600, and the Sutton Trust reports that, for students from the poorest families, this rises to over £60,000. According to government figures, graduates pay 9% of their income once they are earning over the threshold for starting to make repayments. This is really a swingeing tax on young people. Indeed, if one considers the student loan fee as a graduate tax, those who have done introductory economics will be familiar with the Laffer curve, which might suggest that revenue to universities might actually go down rather than up if fees were increased.
However, I want to suggest that, while the Government should act to help solve the short-term crisis, there is a longer-term question: is the university sector as a whole fit for purpose? Could the crisis be turned into an opportunity to rethink the size, shape and role of the university sector? Once we know how many there are, we might be able to ask, “Is that too many or is that too few?”
The Secretary of State for Education herself has said that it may be time to “reform the system overall”. We know from history that universities are very adaptable. They have adapted in the past and, if government policy changed, universities would adapt to whatever change the Government produced. I very much hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government intend to take a strategic view of the university sector, instead of leaving it entirely to the market.
If she does, perhaps I might make one suggestion—one among many possibilities. A key objective should be to encourage greater diversity of purpose among universities. The current funding arrangements for universities tend to drive them towards convergence. They are essentially competing to climb up the same ladder and I question whether this is desirable. There is of course already considerable diversity of mission among universities and government policy could be deployed to support and encourage greater diversity.
We all know, because it is often said, that the UK has some “world-leading” universities in research and teaching. The Minister said in her Channel 4 interview:
“We’ve got world leading universities in this country. We’ve got four out of the top ten universities in the world. We’ve got 15 out of the top 100 universities”.
I believe she was referring to the recent QS rankings in which Imperial, Oxford, Cambridge and UCL were in the top 10. We are the only country other than the United States to have four in the top 10, and the 15 in the top 100 include two Scottish universities, which is not relevant to today’s debate but nevertheless a very important mark of distinction.
But, even if you take a generous view of what “world-leading” means and go further down the ranking list, a majority of English universities would not be counted as “world-class” or “world-leading”. That does not, however, diminish their importance. Some may be world-class in particular subject areas, while others might be fulfilling important roles such as technical and vocational skills training for the economy and providing training for professional qualifications such as nursing. We should celebrate and encourage this diversity of mission and ensure that government policy supports and steers it.
Suppose, for example, that we were to accept that England could afford to support a relatively small number of research-intensive universities—I put a number in my speech notes but I will not give it because that is a hostage to fortune—with global aspirations for attracting talent, being at the forefront of research in many fields and spinning out companies that will create wealth in the future. Suppose that, at the same time, we were to agree that many other universities should have, as a major part of their mission, training and skills for the local economy, working in partnership with business and complementing the excellent work of FE colleges, to build sustainable skills-based jobs in the area, alongside providing professional qualifications. This initiative could be a genuine contribution to economic growth and to supporting disadvantaged communities. Of course, the reply will be that some universities are already doing that. So what I am calling for is nothing radically new but a more overt recognition of the diverse role that universities can play and the development of government policy to support this diversity.
In summary, my proposal is that the Government should not simply stand back and allow market forces to determine the future size and shape of our university sector. Education is a public good and therefore should be shaped by what the country needs and shaped by the Government rather than by the random exigencies of the market. I have put forward one idea. There may be others for encouraging diversity of mission.
As an aside, some noble Lords may be aware that in the United States, facing declining student enrolment numbers, universities including Stanford have diversified into becoming retirement homes—university-based retirement communities. I just float the possibility that we might be able to solve the social care crisis and the university funding crisis with one manoeuvre. I am not being too optimistic there but just floating a thought.
I look forward very much to hearing what other noble Lords have to say on this and to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Government are readying us for grim times ahead, though my noble friend the Minister remains genial and I am so glad to see her in her place.
I gently submit that we cannot afford not to refund our universities. It was an extraordinary dereliction on the part of the previous Government, by freezing fees for years on end, to allow the present crisis in the funding of higher education to develop. An extensive and thriving university sector is crucial to our economic, social and cultural progress. The new Government should not contemplate institutional bankruptcies, market exits or enforced mergers. These would be too damaging for students, staff, the academic enterprise, host communities and local and regional economies. The Government should treat investment in the HE system—and schools as well—as capital investment. Human capital, intellectual capital, is the capital that is most valuable in the 21st century. If the accounting conventions do not permit this, disregard them. The markets will not mind.
In those relatively carefree days of opposition back in March when she delivered her Mais Lecture, my right honourable friend the Chancellor distinguished between the then Government’s indiscriminate constraint on all government borrowing and Labour’s willingness to allow a greater freedom to borrow to invest. She spoke of the virtues of supply-side policies to enhance human capital and spur innovation, and of the wastefulness of excessive austerity. Her vision was of a smart and strategic state which would identify sectors in which Britain could enjoy comparative advantage in a global marketplace. Higher education is an obvious instance. Investment would be fostered in partnership with business and the OBR would report, as indeed it already has, on the long-term benefit of capital spending decisions. She said:
“Investment matters not just for what it can physically build, but for the ideas it can nurture”.
She praised the part played by our universities in enabling Britain to rank in the top five countries in the Global Innovation Index and made the point that innovation must be nourished with reliable sources of funding. To grow our economy, she also noted, we cannot rely on just a few pockets of the country but must mobilise the human potential in every town and city.
So the Chancellor herself has provided the clear rationale for borrowing now to invest in a rescue package for our HE system. Of course, it must be a well-designed package, drawn up not only with Universities UK but with business leaders and others, and not a bailout of poor academic leadership and weak management.
As for the ongoing funding of university teaching, there is now nothing for it but to bring in a graduate tax. It would be less of a deterrent to young people contemplating university-level education than student loans at their present atrocious rates of interest, and it would have the merit of being what it said on the tin. I would prefer HE, being a public as well as a private good, to be funded from general taxation, but that has been ruled out for the foreseeable future.
Domestically generated funding must be sufficient to end the distorting and demeaning dependence of our universities on charging exorbitant fees to foreign students. When the Government turn their attention to alleviating poverty in our society, they should not omit to consider the hardship faced by some students.
As for the funding of blue skies research, the Government should not stint in providing funding via the research council to the ablest academics in all fields of inquiry. What will transpire can never be predicted, but the Government should not hesitate to invest in the brilliant academic talent that, somehow or other, we still have in our universities. The cost is trivial; the potential benefits are immense.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on calling this debate and thank him for his exciting vision for our universities as the care homes of the future. I declare my interest, especially if we are talking about care homes; I am a visiting professor at King’s College London. His speech correctly identified the pressures that universities face, on both their research funding and their teaching funding. They are linked in various ways, including because overseas student fees, which used to help subsidise the cost of research, are increasingly being used to subsidise the cost of teaching, which puts extra pressures on research funding. The DSIT capacity to do research is being cut because the DfE will not increase teaching fees for undergraduates.
I think it is important that we tackle the pressures on the cost of teaching students through an increase in the fees that they pay. This is important, above all, because of the interests of students themselves in a well-funded higher education. It is also in the interests of the wider economy to have well-funded, effective higher education, with good-quality teaching.
I particularly draw the Minister’s attention to an excellent piece of research showing the economic benefits of universities, and of creating more universities, by two academics at the London School of Economics, Professor John Van Reenen and Anna Valero, who now both happen to be in the Chancellor’s Economic Advisory Council—a very useful place for them to be located.
If we are to increase funding for teaching in universities, the Minister has a mechanism available to her—fees. There may be arguments for more selective funding of research. The UKRI budget is already allocated in a pretty selective way; a very high proportion of current research funding goes to the most prestigious, elite, research-intensive universities. More research funding could be allocated, if that is what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, wants, but it would not tackle the underlying need to have better-funded teaching across the entire sector.
There is no brilliant alternative. Of course, if fees go up, it is right to expect clear evidence that this will mean better quality teaching. My noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone, who increased fees from £9,000 to £9,250, did so in association with that much more rigorous assessment of teaching quality in universities.
Most depressing is the belief that this mechanism is somehow no longer available for us, despite the fact that almost every party represented in this House now has in the past used precisely such a mechanism to fund higher education. It has been the cross-party agreed basis for funding higher education over the past 20 years. I have heard people say that students cannot afford it because of the cost of living crisis, but we know that students do not pay upfront. We also know that it does not affect the amount that graduates repay; there is a repayment formula for that, which is highly progressive. Rightly or wrongly, there are no longer interest rates on graduate debt. It is reasonable to expect a prosperous middle-aged person to pay back for a couple of extra years if it means that the university education of the younger generation is properly funded. I very much hope that the Minister will accept that this is one mechanism at her disposal to tackle this financial crisis.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, UK universities are a source of national pride. Their reputation for research and teaching attracts not only the brightest and best of UK students but those from all parts of the world. However, they are, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, set out so brilliantly, currently under severe financial pressure as they face challenges on multiple fronts.
I think it was Lord Dearing who commented that the beneficiaries of higher education are the individuals, the state and employers. Should these not also be the people who contribute to our universities? We are well aware that the income from students has not kept pace with inflation, but successive Governments have been reluctant to raise student contributions, knowing the hardship that many students face. Government contributions are essential, of course. Perhaps we might look to employers to increase their funding, not only for teaching, which is troubled and has seen the cutting of some important programmes, courses and provision, but for research, where funding has also faced limitations.
Our woeful decision to leave the EU has seen a huge decrease in EU students studying here. It is to be welcomed that we have seen a partial about-turn on funding from Horizon, which made such an impact on our research through both collaboration and funds. We hope that the EU will welcome our return to fully participating in a programme to which UK researchers contributed so greatly.
Anti-immigration policies have had a dangerous effect on the UK’s reputation for welcoming overseas students. Those students provided not only much needed income but, perhaps more importantly, diversity and international friendships, which greatly enhanced the experience for home students. The changes to immigration policy have sent out messages that the UK does not welcome those from overseas. These damaging moves include the hit on dependants. Students and their dependants are not permanent residents—the vast majority will return to their home countries after their period of study—so why such a vicious policy?
Our lack of welcome is a boost to other countries which open their doors more readily and cream off many of the high achievers who would otherwise have studied here, enjoyed living in the UK and become British friends for life. Given how many international leaders have studied in the UK, this soft power can be enormously beneficial to future international relations.
The British Academy has major concerns about the impact on the social sciences, humanities and the arts for people and the economy—SHAPE, as it is calling it. These are essential programmes if we are to grow the people who will lead our institutions. Of course we need to remain leaders in science, engineering and technology, but the arts play a critical role in life, growth and productivity. The creative industries are one of the jewels in the UK crown, making a major contribution to the economy and to our well-being.
Increases in the cost of living have a disproportionate effect on students, who are traditionally strapped for cash, and we hear horror stories of some student accommodation that is not fit for purpose but is often all that students can afford. What is being done about student accommodation?
The Labour Government have committed to reviewing HE funding but must act fast if we are not to see some fine institutions damaged beyond repair. As one who went to university many years ago when we paid nothing, I would be happy to pay a graduate tax late in the day. But why not target those of us who had free university education? Has thought been given to restoring grants, implementing the lifelong learning entitlement from 2026 and, as a first step, introducing credit-based fee caps to facilitate growing demand for accelerated part-time study? Valuable organisations, such as the Open University and Birkbeck, have done much to bring HE to those who might not have considered it. They deserve a boost of this sort.
It is tough on young graduates to have to embark on adult life with eye-watering debt around their necks. As the HE situation grows grave, what measures are the Government considering to rescue these institutions of which we are so justly proud, to ensure that they not only survive but flourish?
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)
My Lords, the UK’s whole post-18 education system surely needs not only a greater funding stream but more institutional variety, and increased flexibility in its offerings.
There is currently a systemic weakness. The missions of individual institutions are not sufficiently varied. They nearly all aspire to rise in the same league table. Most of their students are between 18 and 21, are undergoing three years of full-time, generally residential, education, and are studying a curriculum that is probably too narrow even for the minority who aspire to professional or academic careers. Even worse, the school curriculum is too narrow as well.
Students should be able to choose their preferred balance between online and residential courses, and to access distance learning of higher quality. We need a blurring of the damaging divide between technical and university education, and a consequent shift towards the attitude that a vocational diploma has the same status as a degree. We should abandon the view that the standard three-year full-time degree is the minimum worthwhile goal. The core courses offered in the first two years are often the most valuable.
Moreover, students who realise that the degree course they have embarked on is not right for them, or who suffer problems of various kinds, should be enabled to leave early with dignity, with a certificate to mark what they have accomplished. They should not be disparaged as “wastage”. More importantly, they—and everyone else—should have the opportunity to re-enter higher education, maybe part-time or online, at any stage in their lives. This path could become smoother if there were a formalised system of transferable credits across the whole system, as urged in the Augar report supported by the previous Government, and a flexible grant or loan system.
Admission to the most demanding and attractive courses is naturally competitive, but the playing field is still far from level. Many 18 year-olds of high intellectual potential have had poor schooling and suffered other disadvantages, often dating from their pre-school years.
It will be a long slog to ensure that high-quality teaching at school is available across the full geographical and social spectrum. In the meantime, it would send an encouraging signal if UK universities whose entry bar is dauntingly high were to reserve a fraction of their places for students who do not come straight from school. They could thereby offer a second chance to those who were disadvantaged at 18 but have caught up by earning two years’ worth of credits at other institutions or online. Such students could then perhaps advance to degree level in two further years.
What about graduate-level education? In the US only a minority of universities have strong graduate schools. That is a model which, as other noble Lords have said, the UK should move towards.
I shall say a word here about foreign students. We should surely welcome talent at graduate level, especially from the global South—and not just for the money those students bring in. Indeed, we should foster international north-south collaborations in advanced teaching and research—in food science, health and clean energy, for example. This could prevent a widening gap and resist brain-draining of the talented students to the north, so that they can pursue careers that narrow their own nations’ gap with the north.
Universities are currently one of the UK’s distinctive strengths, but we should not be complacent. The sector must not be sclerotic. A rethink is overdue if we are to sustain its status in a changing world. It needs to be responsive to changes in needs, lifestyles and opportunities. It will then be able to offer springboards to the long-term prosperity not just of our nation but of the world.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for focusing the attention of the House on the HE crisis and for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko.
As the Bishop of Sheffield I have close ties with both universities in the city, the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University. I am told that those two institutions support more than 19,500 jobs and generate more than £1 billion annually for the local economy. I know at first hand that they bring a rich cultural diversity to our city. What is true in Sheffield is true across the country: universities are generally hugely beneficial to the communities within which they are situated.
The Church of England believes that higher education should be in the service of the common good—that is to say, not merely the private good of personal enhancement but the public good of benefit to the community and society that it derives from the education of its citizens. For example, working together, Sheffield University and Sheffield Hallam University support communities across South Yorkshire in a variety of ways, and I would like to celebrate just three. First, they have partnered with local and national government to create the South Yorkshire investment zone, bringing jobs and billions of pounds in private investment to the area. Secondly, their students volunteer and work on placement years across health, education, social care, law and other areas, directly impacting the experience of local people of these essential public services. Thirdly, their HeppSY partnership supports those at risk of missing out on HE to make informed and inspired choices about their future.
Civic activities such as these are seriously threatened by the financial crisis in HE and the perfect storm currently battering the sector. In the past few years, as noble Lords have mentioned, there has been a drastic drop in EU students while international students from further afield are facing visa restrictions. UK students have been poorly placed to cope with the cost of living crisis, and I gather that a lower birth rate in the early 2000s means that there are reduced numbers of young people in the cohort currently in sixth-form and FE colleges. As a result, there has been increased competition between institutions for the same smaller pool of students, and the pinch has been felt most keenly by the smallest of our HE institutions.
Among these are the universities that belong to the Cathedrals Group, 14 church-founded universities committed to higher education for the common good. These 14 institutions make higher education disproportionately available to underserved communities, such as rural and coastal areas. They typically have a higher proportion of students who progress to university when they are older and who are the first in their family to make that step. I mention the Cathedrals Group simply by way of illustration. Our HE sector as a whole is under threat, and what is at risk is not just the private good of students and potential students, whose opportunities to study and to enhance their prospects have been eroded, but the common good that universities bring to the communities in which they are set.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this debate and declare an interest as a professor at King’s College London, a trustee of the Council for the Defence of British Universities and a member of the Augar review of post-18 education and funding in England.
We are all very aware of the declining value of student fees, but I also emphasise to noble Lords the precipitous decline in direct government top-up funding for high-cost subjects. A university gets little more for a home student in chemistry or bioengineering than for one studying business or law, with horribly distortionary effects. We highlighted this in the Augar review with, I have to say, minimal effect. We have some special problems in this country, but this is a global issue, and that is what I shall say a little about now.
Countries everywhere have expanded student numbers, often at speed. They recognise citizens’ aspirations and the importance of graduate skills, but the background is sluggish growth. University is still a route to most of the best jobs, but the average return for a degree inevitably falls and government budgets are under increasing strain. The simplest response to this is always to reduce per-student funding. At the moment, England has higher levels of support per home student than any other part of these islands. Scotland has student number controls and has recently reduced the number of places it funds, and still spends markedly less per student than England. Northern Ireland has lower fees and lower funding. The Republic of Ireland is committed to demand-led enrolment without student fees, although it levies a so-called contribution. Its enrolments have risen, but its spending per student has gone down substantially. The European University Association confirms that this is the modal pattern: enrolment up, total government spending often up, spending per student down. In the USA many states are cutting funding for their public systems, and if you talk to Australian or Canadian vice-chancellors it feels like you are still at home. The challenges, the worries, the difficulties and the solutions that are not quite as attractive as they seemed are all the same.
So, with no easy answers on finance to be borrowed from elsewhere in the world, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that we really need to turn our thinking around a bit. We should start to think not just about how to top up funding but about what it is that we want to fund, and therefore how much and how we want to fund the different parts. What does it take to deliver what we recognise as high quality in engineering or law? When we look across the world at everybody cutting funding, cutting per-student funding, increasing class sizes, abolishing most personalised feedback in many of our institutions, what does this do? What happens? What do our students learn? How far are we charging students and taxpayers for what economists call “signalling”—which in this case is having letters after your name—rather than a transformative experience?
I do not think we know nearly enough about this and I do not think we know nearly enough about what makes different institutions more or less efficient in how they use their funding. With the current model running into the sand, not just in England but everywhere, we should be thinking much harder about what we want university education to be and what universities should be doing in a mass system where we want to respond to the desires and aspirations of the entire citizenry, and then we should think about what the different components cost and how we might best pay for them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the parlous state of our universities—extending far beyond, although deeply interrelated with, their funding crisis—was a subject of considerable discussion at Green Party conference last weekend, so I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for securing this timely debate.
I am going to focus on the deeper and broader problems of which the funding crisis is a symptom rather than a cause. The University and College Union (UCU) fringe, at which I spoke at Green Party conference, summed it up with “Cancel the Market”. The chair of the Office for Students recently claimed that the “golden age of universities” could be over. That is not how recent decades look to growing numbers of academics and other workers in universities, to students or to the communities that house them.
Forced by neoliberal ideology to become competitive businesses, with control taken from communities of scholars and put into the untender hands of business managers, universities have certainly grown their shiny, glass-fronted buildings—and their debt loads. They have added to GDP with massive student fees that weigh —unpayably—on their graduates for decades. They have presided over growth in staff numbers—increasingly, low-paid workers on zero-hours and other insecure contracts. Universities have bulged across disadvantaged communities and then risked dumping them deeper in the financial mire. I was in Hull last night, where one in 10 academic staff faces the chop and the city faces a significant economic blow.
The neo-liberalisation of the university is a trend that has progressed, to varying degrees, around the world. It has been accompanied by the meteoric rise of the work of the website Retraction Watch—exposing fraud and error at startling levels—and the replication crisis, a growing area of literature and of great concern. This is not an accident. It is what the market—what publish or perish—demands: volume and rankings, not innovation and sense.
Visiting universities, I often see that the most celebrated academics are those who have produced a spin-out company, a marketable product. That attitude has seen, particularly from the former Government, a drive against the humanities and creative subjects, dismissed as luxury, unnecessary items, “More STEM, more STEM—there’s money in it.”
At the Green Party conference at the National Education Union fringe, a despairing student from a fast-expanding and hopelessly overstretched aeronautical engineering course asked, “What do we do when the universities collapse?”
Positively, I would say that this direction of travel has come not from within universities but from ideological forces here in Westminster, but universities, students, academics and communities want something different and they have lots of ideas. We have to look to them for the ideas for how to repair this situation.
I also note the Slow Knowledge movement, as charted by Cal Newport. His model of slow productivity has three principles: do fewer things, work at a natural pace and obsess over quality. How do we create institutions that do that? How do we take this crisis of funding and turn it into an opportunity—as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said—to change direction?
The world needs our universities to generate knowledge and wisdom to reshape our broken economic, social and environmental systems, not just debt and new profit opportunities for planet-wrecking products. To quote the Australian academic Tyson Yunkaporta, founder of the Indigenous Knowledge Systems Lab at Deakin University:
“I’ve been chipping away all the bits of the Age of Reason that contain world-terminating algorithms and I have to tell you it’s getting a bit thin”.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for securing this important debate.
There are two major problems converging now on the higher education sector: first, a level of underfunding, with an estimated 40% of institutions likely to be running a budget deficit this year and, secondly, an eye-watering amount of accumulating student debt, which in England alone is approaching £236 billion. It is increasing exponentially and much of it will be unpaid. There is no doubt that our best universities are world-class and a jewel in the UK’s crown, and our objective should be to ensure their financial sustainability. However, I question if we need all the universities that exist.
The seeds of this crisis lie in the policy of the then Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1999 to have 50% of 18 to 30 year-olds attend university. Following this, the number of UK higher education institutions rose by 45%—according to the numbers I have been able to get—up to 2021, with, sadly, an attendant fall in further education colleges by 40% over the same period.
The introduction of fees paid by students was meant to introduce market choice, but virtually all institutions that became universities have charged the maximum fee, irrespective of the quality of programmes offered, and many young people have been encouraged to pursue expensive degree programmes of questionable worth. The Augar report in 2019 concluded that too many students were being recruited to poor-value higher education courses, with both poor graduate retention and poor graduate outcomes. Many students may have been better served by vocational programmes preparing for employment and a defined career path.
In expanding the numbers of universities and university students, we have reduced their unit of resource, such that we are not now properly funding those quality institutions providing the academically and technically demanding qualifications that we need in certain key sectors. At the same time we are underfunding the FE sector, which provides the skills training we are desperately short of.
An example in the HE sector with which I am familiar is veterinary education. Our UK vet schools are world-class, with five in the global top 20. The funding for a veterinary degree programme is about £20,000 per student per year, but the estimated true cost to provide that education is £25,000. To compensate for this shortfall, many vet schools are admitting substantial numbers of overseas students, who pay £30,000 to 40,000 a year in fees. Currently, over 20% of our veterinary graduates from UK vet schools are overseas students who are less likely to work in the UK, yet we are desperately short of vets.
This pattern is repeated in many other degree programmes that provide high-quality graduates urgently needed for our strategic sectors, and direct government support for these programmes needs to be adequate. I am not sure whether increasing top-up fees can be the solution, because presumably that will mean increasing student borrowing and further escalating the massive total of student debt. At the same time, greater investment in more vocational college and work-based programmes, including apprenticeships, will help provide the skills training we need so desperately.
I suggest that we are currently failing the country’s needs and the capabilities of our young people throughout the spectrum of tertiary education. Let us focus the finite resources we have in an evidence-based way to address the strategic needs for our economic and intellectual development.
Baroness Clark of Calton (Non-Afl)
My Lords, let me declare an interest: I benefited from the expansion of university education in the 1960s and received free tuition and generous means-tested maintenance grants, at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. This was the only reason I was able to pursue a career in law. Over the years at different times I have been privileged to be a member of the court at three universities: Edinburgh, Edinburgh Napier and, more recently, until 2022, the University of Dundee. Drawing on my experience at Dundee, I will illustrate some economic benefits of one university in one community—that is in Scotland, of course.
A recent economic impact assessment for the University of Dundee, which has an outstanding research record, concluded that directly or indirectly the operation contributed £449 million and 6,760 jobs to the city of Dundee’s economy. It contributes £975 million and 9,410 jobs to the Scottish economy, and it makes an enormous contribution to both the UK economy and to the international economy. The University of Dundee has an outstanding research record. It is a modern university and noble Lords may agree that it is perhaps not given the same research funding and opportunities as some of the older universities, so it has made that enormous contribution despite that.
Looking more generally, a study for Universities UK in 2023 found that, in 2021, the university sector directly or indirectly supported 76,800 jobs and added £71.3 billion of value to the economy. Educational institutions all over the UK contribute in many and varied ways to the economy, at both local and national level, and noble Lords have given us some examples today.
It is true that higher education, including university education, is a devolved function, for which the Scottish Government have responsibility. However, the economy of the UK and UK government policies have a great impact in all parts of the UK, including Scotland. An example of this impact is the immigration changes to family visas and post-work visas, which we had have heard about from other noble Lords. I point out that, in Scotland, these policies may have even greater impact because of the different model in Scotland, where we have no tuition fees but cap the number of students. These are serious problems for Scotland.
The wider issues relating to the purpose and funding of higher education, which noble Lords have touched upon, have been too long neglected by successive Governments, who have made piecemeal changes and short-term solutions which sometimes exacerbate the problems. We have heard about the problems: inadequate and short-term funding, high inflation, Brexit, Covid, incoherent government policies of internal competition—I exclude the present Government from that—heavy-handed regulation and sudden policy changes, structural inequalities, and long-standing pension and staffing issues, particularly low-paid short-term contracts. These can all be added to this unhappy picture.
Much as we have praised the research functions of our universities, there is constant underfunding in virtually all our methods of research funding. Our greatest problem is to face up to some fundamental questions. What is the public good that we want universities and other higher education institutions to achieve? How best can that be achieved and funded for the future?
The purpose of my contribution today is to say that I recognise that the new Government have many problems to deal with, and I sympathise. But higher education is so important to public good in its widest sense, as well as integral to the Government’s policies of economic development, that the Government must take action. I urge the Government to work actively and urgently with the devolved Governments and the regions to bring people together to find the short-term solutions to the many problems we have. But much more is required.
Royal commissions appear to have fallen out of favour, but we need some research. We need evidence-based solutions and cross-party consensus to consider the purpose, future and funding of higher education, and how the public good can best be served. We have heard many ideas put forward today, some of which I agree with. The Government need to push this forward. Sorting out the higher education system is essential if the Government are serious about economic revival, fairness and justice in opportunities.
I think a royal commission would be a way forward. There are obviously other models, but I urge the Government to plan now for a long-term solution. The provision of creative solutions and investment in higher education is one of the best ways to help this Government achieve their economic ambitions, and it will also transform lives and communities. That, perhaps, is just as important.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, looked at objectively, the crisis facing universities seems inevitable, given that the two key elements of their income have been undermined. Government grants have been cut by 78% over the last 12 years, and the level of fees paid for tuition in 2012 has not been revalued since then, so inflation has reduced £9,000 to £5,942 in real value. It is scarcely surprising that the sector regulator expects at least 40% of providers to be in deficit this year. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others have highlighted, research excellence is also at risk, as the funding method for our universities’ world-class research has been undermined as well.
Fees from international students, who pay the full cost of their tuition, have been the mechanism for trying to bridge these ever-increasing gaps in funding, and this helped while the numbers remained buoyant. But the numbers are inherently unstable and subject to, among other things, political changes in immigration policy. The drop in numbers this year reinforces this. I hope that the Minister today will undertake to change the previous government rhetoric on international students to restore confidence that the UK will be an open and welcoming place for them.
Recent independent scenario-planning shows that a significant proportion of universities are vulnerable to reductions in international student numbers, increased expenditure, and reduction in growth of undergraduate students—what UUK has called “a perfect storm”. At the same time, it is important to recognise that students, too, have been directly hit. Frozen household income thresholds and inadequate maintenance increases mean that the maintenance loan falls £582 short of covering living costs every month. Pressures on staff are leading to demands for pay increases to mitigate rising living costs.
Universities have not yet sunk under these pressures. Most have introduced restructuring and efficiency programmes. Some very unpalatable course closures have been made, which will inevitably restrict student choice; estates are being neglected; and carbon reduction plans are stalled. This cannot continue without irreparable damage being done. I am glad to say that our Government have recognised this; they have said that they are committed to a sustainable funding model which supports high-value provision. They are not short of suggested approaches as to what that funding model should look like, including from Members of this House.
The Secretary of State has said that she intends to “reform the system overall”, which may be eminently sensible, but it will inevitably take some time, possibly considerable time. In the meantime, all the pressures on higher education will continue, to the detriment of students, institutions at risk, and
“powering opportunity and growth and meeting the skills needs of the country”,
to quote Minister Janet Daby.
I urge the Secretary of State urgently to talk to Universities UK to ensure that her longer-term ambition does not mask the need to stabilise the system now. UUK has proposed measures that will
“create … space for a wider review of university financing”,
and I hope that my noble friend will ensure that the Government respond speedily.
I have focused on universities, but we have received some telling evidence from the FE college sector, where higher education is a relatively small but strategically important part of the provision. It, too, is facing increasing financial pressures. I refer specifically to the fact that demand in key areas such as construction, engineering, and health and social care is outstripping the funding that it has available to provide them. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will refer to this in her response as well.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this important debate. As ever, I find myself in very strong agreement with my noble friend Lord Willetts, who I note incidentally may not be the only candidate in this House for the role of Chancellor of the University of Oxford but is the only one who, day in, day out, demonstrates his commitment to the future of the sector and would be absolutely splendid in that role, were he to be successful in that campaign.
I turn to the issue at hand. I want to say right at the outset that I truly welcome the change in tone from the new Government towards the university sector. It is a wonderful breath of fresh air not to have the negativity and university-bashing that has characterised too many of the airwaves from the previous Government.
In particular, I warmly welcome all the positive messages that the new Government have been sending out about international students, who make such a huge contribution to the success of our higher education system, society and broader economy. That said, I of course agree with others, including the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who have pointed out that we should avoid an excessive dependency on the fee income from international students. We need to put in place a funding system that is sustainable and does not leave us exposed as a country to volatility and factors well beyond the control of the sector itself.
However, I do not think we need a long, two-year review to come to a conclusion as to what a sustainable system is. My view remains very much that the current model, as Winston Churchill might have put it, is the worst imaginable—except for all the others. There is essentially nothing wrong with it. It does the job you need a funding system to do in three key respects: it maintains the unit of resource, potentially, for what we need to have a world-class HE system; it is fair to the taxpayer; and it removes barriers to access because, as my noble friend Lord Willetts said, fees are not paid upfront by the student but underwritten by the Government in the form of a loan. There is nothing structurally wrong with the model we have, except for two flaws, which are fixable: first, it is not inflation-proof and, secondly, there is no link to quality. We fund volumes—bums on seats—rather than outcomes; clearly, that is unacceptable.
The Cameron Government tried to address those two flaws and, in 2017-18, we allowed a system whereby fees were indexed with inflation, but only for institutions that were able to demonstrate high-quality outcomes as assessed by the teaching excellence framework. I strongly think that we should return to that model. Had we continued with that system over the past six years, many of the institutions that are now forced to make these rationalisations would not be doing so. A mid-sized institution such as Teesside would have £30 million a year of additional tuition fee income, had we continued to upgrade tuition fees in line with inflation over recent years. Such a system is, frankly, the only game in town and everybody needs to get real and recognise that, given the current fiscal environment.
There is not a chance in hell that we are going to return to a system of funding tuition fees through the teaching grant. There is a political window now, early on in the Parliament, for the new Government to put in place a progressive ratchet of fee uplifts with inflation over the next few years, and I urge them to do so.
Lord Tarassenko (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to address this House for the first time. I must first thank noble Lords for their warm welcome, and the officials and staff for their guidance and advice. Everyone has made great efforts to pronounce my name correctly. It may be a very common name in Ukraine—my paternal grandfather was born in Kharkiv—but it is much less common in these parts. For the record, I should add that my maternal grandfather was born in a small village in northern Brittany. I also thank my two supporters, the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackwood and Lady Royall, each of whom does much to ensure that the University of Oxford maintains its excellence in research, teaching and innovation.
Within five years of arriving in this country from France, aged 13, I was privileged to be offered a place at that very same university to study engineering science. Ten years after leaving to work in industrial R&D, I became a professor in the same department. Looking back, I value the freedom I was given to pursue research into machine learning before it was even called machine learning. Sceptical colleagues would tell me that learning from data using neural networks had no future; today, machine learning research in our higher education sector is world leading, especially in its application to fields such as healthcare, with access to uniquely valuable datasets.
The exam question before us today is how we address the current challenges of higher education funding. As already noted by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, according to the QS rankings, the UK has four of the top 10 universities in the world and 15 of the top 100. It is from the perspective of these research-intensive universities that I will tackle the exam question.
I have had the privilege of supervising 70 PhD students during my academic career. For the first 25 years, 60% of my research students were British; in the last 10 years, 20% were. We should of course be wary of small-sample statistics, but other data from Russell group universities confirms this trend: there has been a clear decrease in the percentage of UK-domiciled graduates going on to doctoral studies since 2017, when the first home students to have paid £9,000 per annum in fees were graduating from English universities.
We should not be surprised: which English student with a first-class degree is going to want to stay at university for a doctorate and accumulate further debt when they already have £50,000 of debt at age 21 or 22? For STEM subjects, the stipends to support PhD students are much lower than the sums a bright student can earn for doing almost anything else. The reduction in the number of UK-domiciled students studying for a doctorate as an unintended consequence of the introduction of the £9,000 tuition fee in 2012 should not be ignored in any discussions about increasing the tuition fee beyond £9,250.
To help ensure that the UK still has 15 universities amongst the top 100 in the world in 10 years’ time, we should promote further the culture of innovation and entrepreneurship within our research-intensive universities. In March this year, the previous Government welcomed the Independent Review of University Spin-out Companies and accepted all its recommendations. Much of the report was about sharing best practice in the setting up of spin-out companies and attracting seed and growth capital. Less noticed was the recommendation that all PhD students funded by UKRI should have the option to attend high-quality entrepreneurship training. The world famous Martin Trust Center for Entrepreneurship at MIT is unequivocal: entrepreneurship is a craft that can be taught.
The first employees of spin-out companies set up by university professors have often been their PhD students, but there is now a growing trend of spin-outs, with university IP, or start-ups, where there is no university IP, being founded by PhD students. The annual survey of Oxford students for the last three years reveals that between 20% and 22% of them now see entrepreneurship as a career path.
The competition for talented students is global, and we need more graduate scholarships to recruit not only the best international students but also those talented home students from lower-income backgrounds. The few graduate scholarships that are available are highly competitive, and there are many UK students with excellent first degrees who miss out on them and are unable to accept a PhD offer; the maximum doctoral loan available to them is insufficient to cover the cost of doing a graduate degree, being lower than the sum of the tuition fees and living expenses.
Growth in innovation activities can make a major contribution to the long-term viability of our higher education sector. It requires a growing population of students with a PhD, from whom many of the innovators and entrepreneurs of tomorrow will come.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko. As a Cambridge engineer, I speak on behalf of the whole House in extending a very warm welcome to an Oxford engineer. The noble Lord is a distinguished electrical engineer and a world-leading expert in the application of signal processing and machine learning to healthcare. His many achievements include being a founding director of the Institute of Biomedical Engineering at Oxford, which was awarded a Queen’s Anniversary Prize for new collaborations between engineering and medicine, delivering significant benefit to patients. This House does not have enough engineers, so we are very fortunate to have the noble Lord as a new Member. We look forward to benefiting from his considerable engineering and academic expertise and to his many contributions to the activities of the House.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Krebs for introducing this important debate and congratulate him on his thoughtful opening speech. I will briefly comment on tuition fees and international students, declaring an interest as an emeritus professor of engineering at Cambridge University.
On tuition fees, the current higher education funding model is based on sharing the financial burden between student and taxpayer. However, the value to English universities of the maximum home tuition fee has been steadily eroded by inflation. The current level of £9,250 is worth only £6,000 in 2012 prices—2012 being when the £9,000 fee was introduced. Analysis by the Russell group shows that the average deficit universities incur for teaching each home undergraduate student was £1,750 in 2021-22 and will increase to around £4,000 in 2024-25. This is clearly unsustainable and is already causing serious financial difficulty for most English universities. Indeed, in many cases it is causing a crisis.
Under the present system, the Government may therefore have no choice but to allow universities to increase tuition fees in line with inflation. This would, of course, be unpopular and have a regrettable effect on student debt. However, to minimize the impact, the forthcoming review should consider the key conditions of the student loan: the repayment threshold, the period of repayment and the effective interest rates. Importantly, any increase in tuition fees should be accompanied by an increase in maintenance grants for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, to offset any increase in debt for the poorest students.
On international students, from January this year, those on master’s courses are no longer able to bring their dependants with them for the duration of their studies. Postgraduate research students continue to benefit from an exemption to this rule; it is to be hoped that this permission continues, as it is immensely valuable for universities to recruit postgraduate research students against international competition. The Russell group calculates that a single cohort of international students generates a £37 billion net economic impact for the UK. It is therefore crucial that the UK’s visa offer to international students can compete with that made by other major higher education destinations—the US, Canada, Australia and Germany. The level of fees, the length of post-study leave and dependants’ rights are all important factors in a student’s choice.
The UK punches well above its weight in global research rankings. Our outstanding research plays a key role in attracting investment and boosting the economy, especially in science, engineering and technology. International postgraduate research students play an increasingly vital role in achieving this, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Tarassenko; they and all other international students also play a key role in funding our universities. It is therefore essential for the prosperity of the UK and of our universities that our visa offers remain competitive globally.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for securing this debate and for his thoughtful and thought-provoking opening speech. I also very much enjoyed the very well-engineered maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko; I look forward to his future contributions in your Lordships’ House.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield said, universities bring a massive input to local economies. The average across each constituency in the UK is some £58 million, which is an enormous contribution to the general well-being in their communities. According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, tuition fees account for 53% of higher education institutions’ income. With fees capped since 2017, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, told us, it is hardly surprising that by 2026-27, two-thirds are expected to be in deficit. For that reason, international students have become increasingly important to universities, and whether or not that is a good thing, it is a fact of life as we are at the moment. Yet the latest Home Office data, in July, showed a 15% decline in total international student visa applications compared to the same time last year. As the noble Lord, Lord Mair, has just said, the reasons for that are very clear.
It was a bit disappointing that a letter sent to all noble Lords two days ago by my noble friend Lord Hanson, the Home Office Minister, outlining a number of changes to immigration rules, did not have anything to say on the question of the dependants of international students. Of course, immigration rules are not the responsibility of my noble friend the Minister, but Ministers and officials from the Department for Education and the Home Office meet from time to time, and I hope she can indicate that discussions on this important issue will soon take place.
Arguably, the most straightforward option for the Government in addressing the sector’s creaking finances would be to end the cap on tuition fees. The Secretary of State stated this week that she did not want to do so, preferring instead to reform the system overall. I welcome that, but it is going to take considerable time. In the interim, allowing the cap to expire at the end of this academic year, and then increasing fees in line with inflation, would be welcomed by the sector.
I want to highlight a part of the higher education sector whose role is too often undervalued: part-time higher education. It is most notably delivered by the Open University, although Birkbeck also has a long tradition of offering courses to working Londoners. Part-time distance learning is critical to widening access and supporting social justice by allowing adults from higher education cold spots to access higher-level qualifications in their local area. That is evidenced by the Open University, where more than half the students begin their studies without the traditional entry qualifications demanded by other universities.
The lifelong learning entitlement will offer a real opportunity to tackle many of the barriers to people studying flexibly in England. It is not due to be introduced until next year, and I hope my noble friend can clarify the Government’s intentions regarding its rollout. The positive impact of the lifelong learning entitlement could be enhanced by extending maintenance support to all part-time students, including distance learners, through either an extension of maintenance loans or the introduction of targeted maintenance bursaries. The Government should also protect the value of part-time student premium funding in real terms to enable the continued viability of part-time provision.
I endorse the comments of my noble friend Lady Warwick, who recognised the role that further education colleges play in the delivery of higher education. There are more than 100,000 students of higher education at colleges, and often this is the only option for mature students with families and dependants, as well as those looking to reskill or upskill locally. Despite the fact that FE funding has historically compared very unfavourably with both school and university funding levels, the vast majority of FE colleges delivering higher education do not charge the maximum tuition fees. That in itself is a strong reason for the new Government to examine FE funding, as well as that for the HE sector.
Ensuring that the country has a sound base of the skills needed for the demands of an ever-evolving economy should not be seen as a cost. It is, as my noble friend Lord Howarth said, clearly an investment in the future and an essential component in driving economic growth.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome this debate, but will perhaps challenge its focus. When the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson halted the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act only a week before its commencement, she insisted that the Office for Students should instead “be more sharply focused” on the financial stability of universities. To me, this rather implies knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. When we discuss the challenges of a sector struggling financially, it worries me if government or university senior management think that academic freedom is a dispensable lower priority and is valued less than propping up higher education institutions as businesses.
I rather regret the marketisation of education that we have seen over recent decades. It has long since caused problems, undermining the core role of universities in intellectual freedom, and academics are told to treat students as customers who need to be kept satisfied, rather than offended or challenged. Students are educated to see degrees as commodities that can be bought and assessed via value-for-money metrics. I regret such philistinism and its consequences.
I am heartbroken, for example, to see the closure of many arts and humanities courses and to see wonderful academics lose their jobs. They are often told that, because they do not tick the production of job-ready graduates box, they are not relevant for 2024. What is the good of all that useless knowledge associated with philosophy, classical music, medieval history and so on?
Realistically, I think that we need to ask whether we should keep universities, departments and courses open at any cost and have that conversation. The question has to be asked: what price academic freedom in that context? When vice-chancellors and higher education NGOs, which lobbied the Government to smother the free speech Act, said they were worried that the legislation could lead to universities being sued at a time when they were facing crippling costs, surely the Government’s reply should have been, “Well, you won’t get sued if you promote and protect free speech on campus stridently”. The Government should also say, “You aren’t a university worth its name if you don’t understand that free speech is a core value, more valuable than anything else, and totally valuable to your existence”.
When the Free Speech Union sent a pre-action protocol letter to Ms Phillipson threatening a judicial review for the failure to commence a free speech Act, it was shocking when we found out that government lawyers noted that concerns had been raised by university managers and senior managers about the consequences of the law on doing business with authoritarian countries that have restrictions on free speech. How grubby that, because some British universities operate overseas students and do not want to lose out on the money, they are prepared to compromise on free speech. The fact that English universities want to boost opportunities for lucrative research partnerships means that they do not want a piece of free speech legislation that might upset China, Dubai or Singapore.
As for attracting more international students, I do not, in any way, do anything other than endorse that. But the self-congratulatory tone that we have heard worries me, because, too often, international students are cynically treated as cash cows rather than welcomed here as some act of philanthropic generosity. Many of the overseas students I have worked with over recent years have noted that they came here imagining that they would find free speech on campus as a value, but actually, having left China, they found it even more restrictive to face some of the cancel culture on campus. I ask for a different set of priorities here.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his excellent introduction, after having secured this debate. I want to turn to one aspect of what he said: the need for us to consider this in the long term and in the wider interests of the UK economy. It may be surprising that I want to take this from the vantage point of law, which is not necessarily seen as an important industry—but it is, as well as a significant contributor to the economy.
One can see two aspects of the current lack of a coherent policy in what has happened recently. The first involves overseas students. As the chancellor of Aberystwyth University who has travelled to visit lawyers and the judiciary in overseas countries, I have seen the enormous advantage of training overseas lawyers here. In Aberystwyth, a huge number were educated in the 1960s, 1970s and onwards who now have important positions in the law in other countries. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, brought in an excellent programme for teaching judges from countries such as China and elsewhere.
This is not soft power; it has real benefit to the UK economy. The muddled thinking of the previous Government on visas shows that there was no strategy for how you relate universities to the greater benefit of the economy.
One can take this analogy with the subject of law slightly further, in that you not only learn law at universities but you gain hugely from doing a short amount of practical work. Therefore, not thinking through the restrictions imposed on working thereafter was a grave mistake. The other mistake in this respect was to fail to realise the intense competition other nations have in law and other fields.
There is a second aspect of the lack of strategy, which law illustrates. Law is a very cheap subject to teach, and cheaper now than it has ever been because you do not even need a library. Therefore, it is often referred to as a cash cow—I am sorry to use such a cheap and vulgar expression in such a place. It is important to realise that this has a detrimental effect—unlike the example that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, gave—on the way the UK works. We are teaching people law when we do not need them, but we are doing it to drive the universities’ finances.
Therefore, I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others who have spoken. We need a proper long-term strategy, and there are three points about that. First, it must safeguard university independence, because that independence is almost as important as the independence of the judiciary—I hope noble Lords do not mind the word “almost”. Secondly, it seems to me that we must look at this on a UK-strategic basis. I am a huge supporter of devolution—many may be surprised to hear that—but you cannot do this without the strategy of a union Government, so that all have the same purpose. Thirdly, I fear that there probably is no alternative other than looking to fee income.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, during the so-called Robbins expansion of the university sector in the 1960s, there was a clear understanding between the Government and the universities. Whereas the Government would provide the necessary funds for the sector, the universities would be left largely to their own devices. However, there was strict control over the numbers in the student intake, so as to match the provision of funds. Nowadays, matters are quite the reverse. There is a severe shortfall in the funds available to universities. The direct subventions from the Government and the income from student fees have not kept pace with inflation. Recently, there has been a dramatic loss of income from overseas students.
Brexit and the state of Britain’s international relations have been factors in discouraging overseas students from joining universities. The policies of the previous Government, which was keen to discourage even the most temporary immigration, have worsened the situation.
The interference of the Government in running universities has led to an unbridled expansion of the administrative staff, whose numbers typically exceed those of the academic staff. The administrators have been given the tasks of academic quality control, the adjudication of degree classes, the award of degrees, the corporate publicity, and much else besides. Latterly, they have taken control, in many instances, of the academic syllabus, on the grounds that it is necessary to ensure that what is taught is popular with the students. This is the consequence of the National Student Survey, which is also an imposition of the Government. There is ill feeling between academics and administrators. Recently, an academic colleague of mine described the relationship as an old-fashioned conspiracy of the management against the workers.
Leaving these matters aside, the most immediate concern is for the financial viability of the universities. The largest item in their current expenditure is the salary bill. There may be enough leverage over this item to ensure that there will be only a handful of bankruptcies in the short term. In the past, when academic staff had the guarantee of job security by virtue of what was described as academic tenure, the salary bill would have been a fixed cost. Nowadays, the bill can be reduced quite readily by reductions in the numbers of staff. Most universities are now pursuing programmes of voluntary and compulsory retirement. This is greatly facilitated by the fact that most academic staff are nowadays employed on short-term or time-limited contracts. In some cases, they have been dismissed and partly re-employed on new and lower-paid contracts.
Staff redundancies are affecting the academic subjects to differing degrees. The arts and some of the sciences have been suffering, while more worldly studies, such as business studies in its various guises, including accountancy, have been prospering. There is an abundant student demand for these subjects.
I have a sorry story to tell regarding the mathematics department of the University of Leicester, of which I am an emeritus professor. The pure mathematicians have been dismissed and the department is now calling itself the School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences. It is to be devoted mainly to teaching job-focused degrees, including actuarial science. Some of the staff were spared the sack; they were downgraded to assistant lecturers and teaching fellows, and their salaries were cut. Most of those remaining quickly resigned from the university.
This experience is being repeated throughout the university sector at a time when we are becoming increasingly conscious of the need for mathematicians in industry, and for those who can teach them. The problem is affecting particularly those universities that would be expected to train the mathematicians who will enter the teaching profession. Our schools will be unable to teach mathematics effectively, since the task will have to be undertaken by those who are not trained in the subject.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman of King’s College London, where my neighbour on these Benches is a distinguished professor.
It is surely clear to everyone—it has been stated many times today—that the situation with university funding is now unsustainable. The coalition Government bravely increased student fees to £9,000 in 2012, against massive opposition at the time, but there was probably no alternative at that moment. They then lost their courage and, in the following 12 years, the only increase was a further £250 in 2017. Whenever a Government, in effect, freeze fees of this nature, there eventually comes a moment of reckoning. I feel very sorry for students who now leave university with a debt of £40,000 or more. Fortunately, the latest iteration of the student loans scheme now charges an interest rate equivalent to the retail prices index, but previously it was very much higher, which in my opinion was shameful. But although the interest rate is lower, so is the threshold above which the loans are repaid, currently £25,000 a year. This seems far too low, and I suggest to Ministers that they ought to raise this threshold and, as others have said, from now on they must consider small annual increases to the student fee.
However, the real problem is that universities are running at a deficit. In 2022-23—the latest figures I have seen—a government agency has estimated the loss by the universities from teaching at £1.5 billion per annum and the loss from doing research at £4.5 billion. In fact, very few, if any, universities make a margin on their research, yet most universities undertake research. Although it would be very much against the culture of many universities, we must at least consider whether the country can afford for so many universities to do research.
The other major difficulty for universities is the reduction in overseas students, as many have said. This year, there has been a considerable decrease in foreign postgraduate student applications. This is a very important source of revenue for most universities and the decrease is a direct result of the previous Government’s decision to restrict visas for families. But as the average age of postgraduates is 25, they are likely to have families, and it does not seem reasonable to place such a harsh limit on family members accompanying postgraduate students.
I could never understand the previous Government’s hostility towards overseas students, although of course they always claimed otherwise. The fact is, it is very much in this country’s interest for overseas students to come to our universities. I therefore suggest to the Minister—apparently she has tried and not yet succeeded—that she must try again to persuade the Home Office to issue more visas, not fewer, to foreign students. The alternative is to put more taxpayers’ money into the university system, and I cannot believe she is able or willing to do that.
So, although it is a somewhat overused word, I agree with the original wording of this debate from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that there is a crisis in the funding of our universities, and, regrettably, Ministers will have to do something about it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in welcoming the Minister to the Lords, I remind her that I have often thought that the academic lobby is the most powerful lobby in this place. If you add up the chancellors, chairs of councils, former professors and others, it certainly is overrepresented in the Lords and its voice is always quite loud. I welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko. It reminded me that when I was a graduate student working on some of the most advanced computers available, you fed punch cards in at one end, got reams of paper out of the other and typed up the result on your typewriter afterwards. The world has moved on a great deal in the last 40 or 50 years.
I disagreed strongly with the interpretation of free speech in universities of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, just as I disagreed with the article by her former colleague Frank Furedi in the Times the other week, but that is a debate for another time. On the whole, the question of freedom of speech in universities is very complex.
We all know that our university sector is one of the jewels of our global reputation and our economy. The global rankings show that. I am particularly proud of having a child who is now on the staff at Imperial, which rose to second in the QS global rankings this year. My son works in another of the top 20 universities in this country. However, we must remember that universities do not necessarily stay at the top of the list. I am always conscious that 120 years ago, German universities were dominant in the world, far better than British universities and much better than American universities at the time. Of course, German universities collapsed when the Nazis came into power. Many of their best staff left to colonise British and American universities, which led to the dominance of American universities for some time.
Our universities have improved considerably over the last half-century. The quality of teaching in our universities has improved a great deal since I started out, without any training at all in how to teach at university, in a research university which often regarded teaching as an interference with the serious work of academic research. I therefore have mixed views on students as customers. We now have to pay more attention to our undergraduate as well as our graduate students, which we certainly did not do in universities that thought they were important in the 1960s, when I was first appointed to one.
We do not need a major restructuring of the current system or a royal commission. It is far better to promote a gradual evolution towards an even more varied higher and further education sector. We need to take higher education and further education together and to recognise that if we talk about the challenge to higher education funding, the challenge to further education funding is even more acute. The intermediate skills which we need in this country—construction, nursing, social care—we are desperately short of. That is part of what drives high immigration into this country: the Ghanaian nurses, the Latvian builders and others. Getting further education right is as important to improving the British economy and the quality of our society as getting higher education right.
We often underestimate the sheer diversity of our higher education sector. I have worked in three research universities, but I am very conscious in the north of England of the extent to which regional universities play a very important part in the regional society and the regional economy. I often hear people say that students who come to study in a particular place often stay on after graduation, which reinforces the local economy and society.
Therefore, we absolutely must go on supporting teaching universities as well as research universities. I look at Huddersfield University as an example: the quality of the classical and pop music it teaches its students becomes an important part of a different part of our economy, as does the quality of its teaching of textiles and other useful vocational elements. So I hope we will come back to talk about the further education sector in more detail; it is one we should never neglect.
The previous Government were incoherent about and often hostile to universities. I heard someone yesterday talking about the “war on universities” hopefully now being over. We are all conscious that the Home Office has done its best to push back against the Department for Education and those concerned with research in imposing the appallingly high visa and health charges on staff and students visiting Britain. I hope the Minister will take up with the Home Office the sheer damage that these charges do to international staff and staff exchanges.
My son is a systems biologist working on joint projects with academics in Germany, France and the United States. If you say to someone, “We would like you to come and work in our lab for 12 months but, if you want to bring your wife and two children with you, it may cost you £20,000 or more up front to arrive in Britain”, you are blocking academic exchange and academic quality. Good universities are unavoidably international universities and movement is a very important part of how they all behave. Getting universities right and having a coherent policy across Whitehall, with a sense that universities are again valued, is an important message which I hope this Government will get across.
Let us also recognise that there is a substantial problem in maintaining the quality of our universities in pay. Academic pay, as with teachers’ pay and even more so with further education pay, has sunk very badly over the last 20 years. My son has just been given a permanent contract, 14 years after he finished his PhD. On promotion, his salary is now larger than his mother’s professorial pension. I note that as an example of just how poorly academic scientists in key areas—he is a systems biologist—are paid now. That is another part of the funding challenge for our universities because, in a highly international world, we will not keep our academics. They will take jobs in the United States, Berlin or elsewhere unless we do something about pay.
Research funding has been mentioned, as well as research buildings and computers. The decision to review the Edinburgh exascale computer is extremely worrying, because we need to maintain global quality by maintaining the quality of resources for our research. That is all part of a very broad challenge to funding.
We are now at peak international student flow. Nearly a quarter of students in our universities come from abroad—almost too many from China, and I suspect more at the present moment than there will be in three or four years. That means that we need to think about other ways in which to fund our future universities. I would like to see our university and higher education sector moving towards a model that I saw when I went to the United States, to Cornell University. It is a comprehensive university that has a Nobel Prize winner teaching in its physics department, but also faculties of home economics, hotel administration and labour relations. I would like to see universities run from top to vocational, if you see what I mean.
We should have more part-time degrees, apprenticeship degrees and continuing education. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rees, that we should think about two-year degrees as well as three-year degrees, and taking your higher education in bits as you move on. It is important to be more flexible and less snobby about that dimension of higher education.
We agree with the Quality Assurance Agency paper, which said:
“It is increasingly apparent that the current funding arrangements in England are unsustainable in the long term”.
They are unsustainable and they need to change. That probably means we have to increase student fees to some extent. We certainly need to increase research funding and we must also fundraise for bursaries, scholarships, endowments and buildings.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this important debate. I add my warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, and thank him for his maiden speech—in particular for his insights into the impact of the student finance system on the number of home students doing PhDs in his field.
As we have heard, the challenges facing our higher education institutions are not isolated. They are interconnected with the challenges facing students, taxpayers and, more broadly, the economy. We are rightly proud of our universities and need them to thrive as part of building a path to higher economic growth and prosperity in terms of undergraduate and graduate degrees, and of research.
I was struck by the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Rees of Ludlow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, suggesting that we should perhaps consider a more intentional split between research and teaching. In preparation for this debate I read the paper Triangle of Sadness, produced last year by the vice-chancellor of King’s College London, Professor Kapur, which many of your Lordships may have seen. He made the contrast—I hope I reflect this accurately—between a state such as California, which has a GDP of similar size to the UK and a similar number of universities which are split very much between research, teaching and state institutions. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on the potential for that in this country.
The last Government tried, in a different way, to encourage collaboration between business, the further education sector and the higher education sector through the institutes of technology, which I hope the new Government will encourage and develop further. I also hope they will build on our record of access and participation for students from disadvantaged areas.
I attempted to make a point in a debate last May—clearly completely unsuccessfully—when we debated the excellent report from the Industry and Regulators Committee on the Office for Students on the risks of making sweeping statements about the financial health of the sector. Despite having failed in May, I will make another attempt today. Both in that debate and today, a number of your Lordships cited the figure of 40% of the sector being in deficit. To put this in context, this is a sector that has grown 50% over the past few years. The OfS report projected a surplus of £2.1 billion for the sector for 2026-27 and a margin of 3.9%. Average borrowing in the sector is 30%. That is not a typical picture of a sector facing impending collapse.
The point I am trying to make is that some universities remain financially very solid and successful. The aggregate deficit of providers in England, referred to in the recent report from the OfS, was just over £330 million, the aggregate surplus of those in surplus was £3.3 billion, and 50% of the aggregate deficit was accounted for by 10 providers. We need to focus on the institutions that are financially fragile, but not to paint the whole sector that way. None the less, obviously, there is a risk that an individual institution could get into serious financial difficulty. I, along with other noble Lords, would find it interesting to hear the Minister’s plans to address that, and in particular, how they plan to protect student interests if it does happen, to ensure that students’ education is not disrupted.
As for the pressures on students from the affordability of their university education, I absolutely recognise your Lordships’ comments and criticisms of our policy to freeze fees for the last seven years. But, looking forward, I am interested in whether the Minister can update the House on the Government’s plans, and whether they intend to keep the student loan system as we have it today. I cannot quote my noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone accurately—but I am referring to the Churchill version.
In her speech to the Universities UK conference last year, the now Secretary of State mentioned
“modelling showing that the government could reduce the monthly repayments for every single new graduate without adding a penny to government borrowing or general taxation”.
I wonder whether the Government still hold that view.
The Minister will be aware that there are Muslim students who have been excluded from higher education because of the nature of the student loan system. Can she confirm that she will continue to meet stakeholders quarterly to ensure that alternative student finance is delivered in a timely way?
We have seen an extraordinary expansion in the number of students in franchised provision, and in universities offering foundation years. I would be interested in the Minister’s reflections on whether those students are getting value for money, and how the Government will ensure that.
I echo the questions from other noble Lords about international students, given that the Office for Students projects that international students will account for 48% of university income by 2026-27. What is the Government’s assessment of the risk to universities from volatility in international student numbers? Obviously, we have seen the depreciation of the Nigerian currency, and the impact on students from that country.
This House has often debated the need for more qualifications at levels 4 and 5, as well as level 6, and of course our further education colleges play an important part in the delivery of those. I wonder what the Minister’s response is to the Association of Colleges report which says that almost a quarter of colleges have waiting lists for qualifications such as engineering, which the economy so badly needs.
The previous Government very much appreciated the support that the current Government gave us when in opposition with the introduction of the lifelong learning entitlement. That is obviously a huge opportunity both financially for universities, because there is a cohort of potential students who could benefit from additional qualifications, and for our economy. I know that the Open University has been calling for those entitlements to be able to be used more flexibly to facilitate the growing demand for accelerated part-time study, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.
Before I close, I want to pick up very briefly the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, on the issue of academic freedom and freedom of speech, because that is clearly one of the challenges that our higher education institutions face. I know the noble Baroness committed recently to looking at the Secretary of State’s decision further, but I wonder whether she will take this opportunity to withdraw what felt like an ill-advised statement describing the Act as a hate speech charter, since obviously, as she knows, it does not change people’s rights to free speech under the law but rather gives them easier redress.
We have heard a thoughtful and well-informed series of speeches in your Lordships’ House today, and I look forward very much to the Minister’s reply.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for bringing to the House’s attention today the important matter of higher education funding. I also very much welcome the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, his maiden speech and the considerable expertise as both a student and an academic that he brings to our debate today. I thought I was relatively new, but I am pleased that there are now those who are even newer to this House than I am. I feel confident that he will make a strong contribution.
Our higher education sector is one of the very best in the world, and we are rightly proud of it. I have been very pleased with the tone of the debate today in which that fact has been largely recognised, not least, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, because a large number of Members of this House have considerable expertise in this area. I think I mentioned that in my maiden speech when I said how much I was looking forward to learning from it, not realising that I would be brought to the House on a very early Thursday afternoon to respond on that. Nevertheless, I welcome the contributions made today.
I welcomed the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in which she talked glowingly about the university sector. I wholly understand that that has been her long-term approach. It is just a shame that it was not so much the approach of the previous Government, who tended, particularly towards the end of their time in government, to see higher education as an opportunity for political point-scoring rather than the enormous benefits it brings to the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, challenged me on the number of higher education institutions. I have to say to him, “It’s complicated”. The UK higher education sector comprises different types of providers, including universities and university colleges as well as HE providers without university titles, and there are also FE providers offering HE courses. In 2022-23, there were 291 HE providers in the UK reporting student number data to HESA. These figures do not include further education providers that offer HE courses as they report data to the Education and Skills Funding Agency. I hope that has brought some clarity to the debate.
I return to the contribution of higher education. UK higher education creates opportunity. It is an engine for growth in our economy, and it supports local communities. As the Robbins report set out over 60 years ago, and as I believe today, universities have a broader role to play as well in shaping and enriching the society we live in and the culture we enjoy—not just for each of us but for all of us. For that reason, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that we have too many students and too many universities. I do not believe that we should cap student numbers or the number of universities, because of the contribution to individuals and to our society as a whole, and, of course, because of the crucial role they play in promoting economic growth. Universities will have a key role in developing the growth that is so important for this country. For these reasons, I assure noble Lords that this Government are committed to creating a secure future for our world-leading higher education providers, so that they can ably serve and benefit students, taxpayers, workers and the economy.
Several noble Lords emphasised the significant contribution that higher education makes. My noble friend Lord Howarth, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and his campaign manager, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Clark, are all right that the higher education sector has a huge role to play locally, nationally and internationally in driving growth. Teaching and research activities are estimated to generate £158 billion total economic impact for the UK, with a further £37 billion in value from education exports.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and my noble friend Lord Watson identified the substantial contribution made throughout all regions and locally in the UK, and although economic and employment impacts are the largest, in absolute terms, in London and the south-east, the sector’s proportional contribution to employment is between 2% and 4% in all individual regions and nations. It is an integral part of our landscape at a local level as well. Why do so many people—colleagues in the other place, for example—campaign for university campuses in their constituencies? It is because they understand the economic, social and cultural power they can bring to the communities that they represent.
I did not agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said about universities, but where I do agree with her is that they are a public good as well as autonomous organisations and that they owe a duty to students and staff. Given this enormous contribution, we may ask ourselves—as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, did in introducing the debate—why we are facing such a very worrying financial position in the higher education sector. I agree with him: whether or not we call it a crisis, it is enormously challenging for our higher education sector.
The Office for Students has identified that 40% of higher education institutions will be in deficit this year. For that reason, I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Clark, and my noble friend Lady Warwick urged speed in addressing this issue. This Government did act quickly: we refocused the Office for Students on to the issue of financial sustainability; we brought in the interim chair, David Behan, who is helping to ensure that we have that focus through the Office for Students; and we have already started reviewing options to deliver a more robust higher education sector. It will take some time to get right but I do not believe that it will take as long as some people fear. We are determined that the higher education funding system delivers for our economy, for universities and for students. I look forward to bringing further information about this to this House.
I also recognise, as noble Lords have identified, the impact of the current situation on both courses and staff, although I say to my noble friend Lord Hanworth that I think that is an impact on all staff. Trying to create a distinction between academic staff and those who support them to deliver their work is not particularly helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, suggested that I was relaxed about higher education providers closing. I am most certainly not relaxed about that, but I recognise the autonomy and independence of higher education institutions. That is the point that I was making.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked what we would do in the event that a provider was at particular risk. We would work enormously closely with the Office for Students, the provider and other government departments to ensure that students’ best interests were protected in those circumstances. Students will always be our priority.
Several noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, have identified the range of funding that needs to be part of a response to this challenge: the contribution of tuition fees, the importance of research funding, the grants that the Government provide and of course the contribution of international students. I will talk briefly about each of those.
The noble Lords, Lord Mair and Lord Johnson, my noble friend Lord Watson and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, all identified the challenge with student fees and the fact that in real terms they have reduced in value in funding the teaching that they are aimed at helping to provide. That is of course a challenge as part of the funding arrangements that the Government are thinking about, but we also recognise that students have been particularly badly affected by the cost of living crisis. It will be important to find a funding arrangement that is fair to both institutions and students. That is at the heart of the very hard thinking that, I assure noble Lords, the Government are doing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked about progress on alternative student finance. I assure her that we will be restarting the work on that and bringing together the stakeholder group to make progress. She also mentioned franchising, which for some higher education institutions is a source of funding and provides high quality, but she is right that in some cases there are concerns. We will monitor that very carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, talked about the challenge of research funding. The noble Lord referenced a deficit in research funding of £5.3 billion, and that is a number that I recognise. The Government recognise the importance of research and development to our national success. We are determined to work with the sector to transition to a sustainable research funding model, including by increasing grant cost recovery. Of course universities will also need to take their own steps to ensure that they are working as efficiently as possible and, where necessary, make difficult choices. Across all the areas that we are talking about, we need to find a suitable balance that provides stability for our higher education sector.
On the point about the Government’s strategic priorities grant, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, I recognise her concern about the levels of government funding, but the strategic priorities grant is particularly focused on those subjects that are expensive to deliver, which she identified. The Government will keep that under review in order to support teaching and students in particularly expensive subjects such as medicine, science and engineering. That is important in terms of the contribution of HE.
Several noble Lords spoke about the importance of international students, sometimes as contributors to the finances of higher education. I have to say I do not accept the use of the expression “cash cow” that was used by several noble Lords. Some have feared that international students are somehow displacing domestic students but, actually, international students have made a very important financial contribution to the teaching of domestic students. They make a broader contribution than that, and we recognise the vital contribution that they make.
I want to make the Government’s position clear, as my noble friend Lady Warwick asked. We are committed to a UK that is outward-looking and welcomes international students, who make a positive impact on our higher education sector, our economy and our society as a whole. Our top universities benefit from strong international ties, as many of our universities do—so much so that, as noble Lords mentioned, we have we have educated 58 current or recent world leaders. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, identified, we have educated top lawyers as well.
International students enrich our university campuses. They forge lifelong friendships with our domestic students. They become global ambassadors for the UK and for too long international students have been treated as political footballs, not valued guests. This Government will take a different approach and we will speak clearly about that. Noble Lords should be in no doubt that international students are welcome in the UK.
Several noble Lords challenged me on the position of the Home Office with respect to international students. I do have the benefit, although it was some time ago, of understanding some of the challenges and interests of the Home Office. On the cost of student visas, the Home Office keeps fees under review. It also does not, as some have suggested, make a profit from fees. Any income from fees set above the cost of processing is utilised for the purpose of running the migration and borders system.
There is, of course, despite some threats, the maintenance of the graduate route to enable students to come to this country and stay after their period of study. This is an important way of recognising and welcoming international students, but I have to say that the Government do not have any intention at this time of removing the restrictions on dependants that were introduced by the last Government.
Several noble Lords identified the range of provision and different ways of learning. That is important for both our higher education sector and its relationship with further education. I do not see a distinction. I do not think it is helpful to see a university education and a vocational contribution of the further education sector as being in conflict. We will be successful when we manage to find the successful links between them, not least because it will provide better access and give different routes depending on the strength of the students and it will be good for the economy. So we will continue to support degree apprenticeships, which we know can deliver excellent outcomes.
We are working to ensure that the approach to lifelong learning will be as effective as possible, enabling people to gain the skills that they need to support their careers, and to do that in a way that enables them at different times in their life to benefit from education. I want to come back to this House to update it on the issue of the lifelong learning entitlement. I hope noble Lords are in no doubt that we consider the objective of lifelong learning to be a very important one. That was an important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, and my noble friend Lord Watson.
On the subject of freedom of speech, I have to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, wholly misrepresented the position of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education. In actual fact, she said at Questions in the other place earlier this week that of course, it was a Labour Government who enshrined freedom of expression in law. The recent decision to pause further implementation of the freedom of speech Act at this point was made precisely because we believe in the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom, and it is crucial, therefore, to make that legal framework workable. My officials and I are meeting with a range of stakeholders, including academics concerned about their free speech being protected, and their views will form part of our consideration of options for protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom in future. On that too, I shall want to come back to the House to update noble Lords on our proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked us to take a strategic approach. He is absolutely right, but stable funding has to be at the heart, and the basis going forward. Many of the things that noble Lords have argued for—considering the diversity of the sector; better access; ensuring progression for students; the contribution of our higher education sector to growth, skills and innovation; the local and regional contributions; and the quality of teaching and the student experience—all require that stable funding basis; but we are also committed to making progress on all those areas.
I close by thanking noble Lords for their contributions. I assure them that the Government will consider many of the excellent points made in this debate. As I said in my maiden speech in this House, our higher education sector is one of this country’s greatest enablers. It provides opportunities for people to follow their passions and expand their horizons; through research and teaching, it enables us to challenge our understanding and develop new ideas. In many communities, higher education provides a vital anchor for wider economic development and progress. That is why this Government are committed to creating a secure future for the sector.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Tarassenko for his excellent maiden speech and thank my noble friend Lord Mair for confirming that you cannot have too many engineers. I was beginning to worry about the balance on the Cross Benches but, fortunately, another newly appointed Cross-Bench Peer, my noble friend Lady Freeman, is, like me, a zoologist; she tells me that I taught her when she was an undergraduate at Oxford. So the balance is maintained, and I am grateful for that.
With the level of expertise in the contributions, we have been very fortunate to have the wisdom and experience of two excellent former Universities Ministers —thank you very much—as well as many other noble Lords who have worked in the higher education sector and have direct personal experience.
I do not intend at this late hour to summarise the many points that were made, but I turn to the Minister’s response, for which I thank her very much. Partly it was “wait and see”, because she said that the Government are reviewing the options for dealing with the current crisis. We have to hold our breath and hope that they come up with a solution. In the here and now, I hope I understood correctly that, on the question of research running at a deficit, the Government are minded to look for ways to increase cost recovery, so that the black hole that UKRI has identified can eventually be filled in. That I welcome very much.
I think the Minister said that she agreed with me that the time is right to take a strategic view of the higher education sector, rather than simply leaving things to the vagaries of the market. I very much welcome that. The third point I picked up was that, although the Government want to be welcoming to overseas students —in my academic career I have taught and supervised graduate students from many different countries, and they have hugely enriched my academic experience and the quality of work that goes on in this country, so I am all in favour of them—they do not intend to change the cost of visas or the current visa restrictions. It will be interesting to see how the message, “We welcome you, but actually we are not removing some of the barriers stopping you coming here”, plays out.
At this point, I simply once again thank all noble Lords who have participated, thank the Minister for her reply and close the debate.