House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we proceed to questions, I am pleased to inform the House that the Reverend Mark Birch has been appointed Speaker’s Chaplain and Canon of Westminster Abbey—he will formally take up that post on 7 November.
Mark has been a minor canon at Westminster Abbey since January 2015. He was made a member of the Royal Victorian Order in March 2023 for his part in organising the funeral of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. He played a central role in rehearsals and preparations for the coronation of Their Majesties the King and Queen. He has a wealth of experience: before he joined the abbey, he served as a chaplain in a variety of settings —schools, universities and hospices—as well as serving as a parish priest. I know that he will be an effective, engaging and supportive presence for the parliamentary community, and I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in welcoming Mark to his new post.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
May I say briefly, Mr Speaker, that as my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has said, 7 October last year was the deadliest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust, and we stand firm in our commitment to bring the remaining hostages home and secure the immediate ceasefire and aid that civilians in Gaza and Lebanon desperately need.
An estimated 880,000 of the poorest pensioners are not claiming the pension credit they are entitled to, so they do not get the winter fuel payment or pension credit of up to £3,900 a year. That is why we have launched the biggest ever drive to increase pension credit uptake and ensure that the poorest pensioners get the support they deserve.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Having spent the run-up to the election scaring pensioners into voting for them by claiming it was the Conservative Government who were a threat to their wellbeing, some of our poorest pensioners will now be forced to find out how difficult it is to keep warm huddled around Labour’s gaslight. Given that the Government’s own equality analysis states that only 100,000 of the 880,000 pensioners who are eligible for pension credit are expected to apply for it, if all those who are eligible do apply, how much more will that cost compared with the initial saving from removing the winter fuel payment?
Liz Kendall
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that upon coming into government, we discovered that 880,000 pensioners are not claiming the pension credit they are entitled to. Given that his former Government failed to take action to deal with that issue, I suggest that instead of making that point, he works with his council to increase pension credit uptake and looks at the £1.8 million we have given to Peterborough council to make sure that all the help for pensioners, including on winter fuel, is made available.
Wendy Morton
I remain deeply concerned about the pensioners in my constituency who will not be entitled to the winter fuel payment this winter—we are now into October. Given that we now know that just 14% of pensioners in absolute poverty receive pension credit, how can the Minister justify her Government’s claim that they are focusing support on those in the greatest need?
Liz Kendall
Again, I say to the right hon. Lady that the reason so many of the poorest pensioners are missing out is that her Government failed to increase pension credit uptake. We have launched the biggest ever programme to increase uptake of pension credit. For the first time, we will be writing to all pensioners on housing benefit, and I urge the right hon. Lady to work with her local council and others to make sure that the poorest in her constituency get the money they are entitled to.
Gregory Stafford
Over 18,000 people in my constituency will lose the winter fuel payment, but this is not about figures; it is about individuals, which is why I am running a pensioners advisory service on Friday to help them with this issue. This is about people, so what does the Secretary of State say to people such as Rita in my constituency, who is looking after her husband who has multiple sclerosis and who will not be eligible for pension credit and therefore the winter fuel payment?
Liz Kendall
I know that the hon. Gentleman has focused over many years on health and healthcare issues, and I would say to him that we are in this situation because his Government left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. Unlike Conservative Members, we take our responsibilities seriously, and I would urge him to work with his councils—they have received £7.1 million in Hampshire and £5.3 million in Surrey from the household support fund—to make sure that all pensioners get the money they are entitled to.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome the work that my right hon. Friend is doing in ensuring that the uptake of pension credit is increased, but there are genuine concerns about people who are just above that threshold who will remain in poverty—just under a quarter of a million in the north-west alone. In addition to the fantastic commitment there has been through the household support fund, will my right hon. Friend be undertaking any other mitigations to ensure that those pensioners living in poverty, particularly disabled pensioners, will not fall foul of this?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and I welcome her to her position as Chair of the Select Committee. Alongside our work to increase pension credit uptake, the household support fund is available for those just above the pension credit level. My own council has done a lot of work to make sure that pensioners just above that level can get extra help with the costs of heating or energy debt. There is also the warm home discount, which is available not just to those on pension credit, but again to those just above that level if they are on low incomes and have high housing costs.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on her ambition to sign people up to pension credit, but we know that about 780,000 people will not sign up in time and also that there are 1 million people in fuel poverty above that mark. Given that we are really worried now, as winter is approaching, about the impact that this is going to have, particularly on the health of older people, will she look at the work done by Energy Systems Catapult and NHS Gloucestershire on social prescribing to ensure that people can receive energy payments in that way?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. This is not just about urging people to come forward and claim. We are writing to pensioners on housing benefit for the first time ever, and I am determined to bring forward the merger of housing benefit and pension credit, which the former Government delayed for years. I very much agree about the need to bring together social prescribing with help from the household support fund and other areas to make sure pensioners get all the help they need, and about the need to work with frontline NHS staff, as we are also doing, to make sure that the poorest who may be stuck at home with chronic conditions also know what they are entitled to.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
It is clear that one of the drivers of pensioner poverty is the sheer number of pensioners eligible for pension credit who have been left not claiming it for successive years by the previous Government. I welcome the Secretary of State’s zeal for making sure that we put that right, but how can we as Members from across the House work with her Department to make sure that there are no unnecessary barriers for those who are eligible and in need of pension credit to claiming it this winter?
Liz Kendall
I would urge all hon. Members in this House to work with their local councils, as I am doing, to make sure that those on housing benefit and other pensioners know what they are entitled to, and to make sure that their councils know that the household support fund—the £421 million we have set aside this year, despite all the problems we face—is also available to those pensioners just above the pension credit level.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
In the general election, the Labour party promised that it had no plans to means-test the winter fuel allowance, yet we learn that millions of pensioners are to be affected. Indeed, in 2017 the right hon. Lady’s party produced an analysis suggesting that around 4,000 pensioners would die prematurely were this policy to be brought into effect. Does she stand by that figure of around 4,000? If not, how many premature deaths does she believe will occur as a result of this policy?
Liz Kendall
In 2017, the right hon. Gentleman’s party manifesto promised to means-test winter fuel payments. Until Conservative Members know that they have to apologise to the British people for the 200,000 extra pensioners in poverty over the past 14 years, and for a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, which we are now putting right but that has put the public finances at risk, they will remain on the Opposition Benches and we will remain on the Government Benches.
Mel Stride
I think I need to correct the right hon. Lady: there were actually 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty under the previous Conservative Government. She quite rightly is pressing the uptake of pension credit, but if all those who are eligible for it take it up, that will cost £3.8 billion, which is substantially more than the saving that is scored at £1.4 billion. If she is successful in her aspiration, the costs will substantially outweigh the savings; if she is not successful, potentially millions of pensioners will be plunged further into poverty. May I ask her which it is?
Liz Kendall
There are 200,000 more pensioners in poverty, and I am happy to put those figures into the public domain to set the record straight. The savings we have put forward take into account the increase in uptake that we foresee. Unlike Conservative Members, we are determined and will do everything possible—they should perhaps ask themselves why they first announced the merger of pension credit and housing benefit in 2012 and then put it off until 2028—to change things and get people the money they are entitled to. We will bring that forward to ensure that all the poorest pensioners get what they are entitled to.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
There are 2.7 million pensioners over the age of 80 who would have benefited from the £300 winter fuel allowance. They are among the most vulnerable in our society. The right hon. Lady is right to say that the previous Government let them down, but let us not add insult to injury and have the new Government let them down. Can she reassure the House that she will reverse the regressive approach that she has taken to the winter fuel allowance, and not hit the most vulnerable people who are over 80?
Liz Kendall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will know that this was not a decision that we wanted or expected to make. The reason we have taken it is that we have to deal with the £22 billion black hole in the public finances left by Conservative Members. But in doing so, we will as a progressive party always prioritise the very poorest pensioners. That is why we are so determined to end a situation where up to 880,000 people miss out on the winter fuel allowance because they are not getting pension credit. We are determined to put that right.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Labour’s manifesto said that we will tackle the backlog of Access to Work claims, and we will. We have improved the process and increased the number of staff processing claims, but there is more to do and that work is ongoing.
Johanna Baxter
Does the Minister agree that delays to the processing of Access to Work claims not only impact the individual and their health, particularly their mental health, but impact their ability to fulfil their potential and contribute to our economy? What further steps will she take to ensure that the process for helping disabled people back into work is reformed, to ensure that it is genuinely one of support that allows people to fulfil their potential and enables businesses to thrive?
Alison McGovern
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Disabled people have the right to work like everybody else. We have an ambition to see an 80% employment rate in this country, and we cannot do that without the contribution of people with disabilities. We are working on an employment White Paper and developing our policies, and we want everybody in this country to make their full contribution, especially disabled people.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The Child Maintenance Service is committed to ensuring that separated parents support their children financially and to taking robust enforcement action against those who do not do so. Between March 2023 and March this year, the percentage of parents paying something towards maintenance through collect and pay increased from 65% to 69%. This Government recognise that child maintenance payments play a crucial role in keeping hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty each year, and we are determined to do all we can to increase those collection levels further.
Mr Forster
Given that around half of children in separated families—that is 1.8 million children—are receiving no support from their non-residential parent, does the Minister know when that figure might change?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about those families who receive no support. I am told that the figure is actually around 40%, but none the less it is not good enough. Although there are varied reasons for that—indeed, there are some parents who do not want an arrangement—we are looking, as he may be aware, at a recently concluded consultation on the future of the Child Maintenance Service. We will consider our next steps with a view to trying to increase collection levels wherever we can.
Mr Speaker
Members have to stand to be called. I am not a mind reader; I am pretty good, but I cannot win the lottery.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Two constituents have contacted me with separate but similar cases relating to obtaining child maintenance payments from abusive ex-partners. In both cases, their abusers have been able to use features of the system to avoid paying their fair share to their victims and their children, leaving my constituents with a shortfall of thousands of pounds. Can my hon. Friend tell me what steps are being taken to reform the child maintenance system to protect victims of abuse, such as my constituents?
Andrew Western
The Department takes domestic abuse extremely seriously. My hon. Friend will be keen to hear that the recently concluded consultation I referenced in my previous answer looked to address some of the issues with the direct pay service. Indeed, it consulted on the potential removal of that service moving forward. That service has been open to abuse and has led to victims of domestic abuse continuing to be terrorised. That is unacceptable, and we will look to address it moving forward.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. Pensioners with a long-term health condition or disability may be eligible for disability-related benefits, such as disability living allowance or attendance allowance, and these benefits also provide for an additional amount in pension credit for those on low incomes.
Bradley Thomas
The Government’s impersonal approach is cold comfort to thousands of disabled pensioners, including Ann in my constituency. She has to boil water to prevent infection and uses an electric nebuliser, and as a result she has high energy usage to protect her health. Can the Minister tell Ann what sacrifices she should make to protect her health this winter?
Emma Reynolds
This is a decision that we neither wanted nor expected to make, but when we came into office there was a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. There are mitigations in place. We have extended the household support fund and the hon. Gentleman’s council will receive an extra £3.9 million. We are increasing the state pension. Through the triple lock, the state pension will increase by £1,700 in this Parliament. We will also deliver the warm home discount scheme, and I hope he will join me in making sure that every pensioner who is eligible for pension credit receives it, which will passport them to the winter fuel payment.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
We know that 2 million older people currently live in poverty in this country, with millions more with incomes just above the poverty level. Does the Minister agree that the Government should set up a pensioner taskforce to look at how pensioner poverty can be tackled once and for all?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I will meet him and any other Members of this House who have concerns on this matter.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)
We have been running a national campaign since September across a range of channels, including print and broadcast media, to encourage pensioners to check their eligibility and make a claim, and we will continue to work with external partners, local authorities and devolved Governments to boost the take-up of pension credit.
Blake Stephenson
Around 93% of pensioners in Mid Bedfordshire face losing the winter fuel payment this year; some of them earn less than £1,000 a month. What further support will the Minister give them to fill Labour’s black hole in their household finances so that they can keep warm this winter?
Emma Reynolds
The winter fuel payment was once described as the
“largest benefit paid to pensioners…regardless of need, giving money to wealthier pensioners when working people on lower incomes do not get similar support.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the Tories’ 2017 manifesto.
Paul Davies
Claiming pension credit can provide pensioners with additional help for housing costs, council tax and heating bills. We all have a duty to boost pension credit uptake to ensure that low-income pensioners in all our constituencies receive the necessary support. I welcomed the Deputy Prime Minister and the Work and Pensions Secretary collaborating with local authorities and charities for the annual pension credit week of action, which took place during recess. What more can be done to ensure that low-income pensioners receive pension credit?
Emma Reynolds
We were pleased to see 160 local authorities respond positively to our call for action. They are working with us to drive the boost in uptake of pension credit. Apart from the national campaign that we have been running, we will bring together the administration of housing benefit and pension credit in a way that the former Government failed to do.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)
I was the first Minister for eight long years to meet Women Against State Pension Inequality campaigners to hear their experiences directly. However, we do need time to carefully consider the ombudsman’s report and evidence before we can outline our approach.
Mohammad Yasin
I have long supported women in Bedford born in the 1950s who have been failed by the DWP. We must do right by the WASPI women, some of whom are struggling to make ends meet. Will the Minister tell them today when the Government will respond to the report by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which recommended a compensation scheme?
Emma Reynolds
The ombudsman’s report is a serious report that took six years to complete and deserves serious consideration. We are carefully reviewing the details of that complex report and will come to a conclusion in the round.
Adrian Ramsay
I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on this serious injustice, which is being compounded by the lack of swift action for redress. It really matters to all our constituents, including mine in Norfolk and Suffolk, where I have spoken to the local WASPI women group, which highlighted just how a big an impact it is having, including on women born in the 1950s who are struggling to make ends meet. Will the Minister please set out the timescale by which she will respond to the report and the action that will be taken?
Emma Reynolds
The ombudsman took six years to look into what is a serious, significant and complex set of cases. We need time to look at that seriously, and we are doing precisely that.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We are committed to supporting vulnerable customers into work. At jobcentres, for example, we can identify the support needed and signpost people to courses or organisations to help them overcome barriers. We will be saying more about our proposals in the forthcoming employment White Paper.
Dame Meg Hillier
In my local jobcentre on Mare Street in my constituency, there is an extremely good team of DWP staff who work closely with vulnerable constituents to help them overcome the hurdles to getting benefits and getting into work. However, for people with fluctuating conditions, and particularly mental health conditions, there are many barriers both for them and for prospective employers. I wonder whether the Minister could give us a taster of what might be in the White Paper in terms of support for employers in particular to encourage them to take on people with such challenges.
Sir Stephen Timms
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s positive report of the work in her local jobcentre. She highlights a major challenge behind a significant proportion of increased inactivity over the past few years. We will set out our response in the “Getting Britain Working” White Paper, but we are already providing tailored support in partnership with NHS talking therapies and individual placement and support in primary care. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a good deal more to be done.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Conservative-run East Sussex county council is threatening to close the Steps to Work programme, as well as Linden Court in Eastbourne, which supports people with learning disabilities to work towards employment. Will the Minister urge the county council to halt its plans and to consider alternatives such as selling off council buildings to raise the funds needed to provide these essential services for people with learning disabilities?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman draws my attention to a concerning development. My view is that we need more support for people with learning disabilities to get into work, not less. If he sends me the details of the concerns he has raised, I will be happy to look into them further.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
The well-received and groundbreaking Buckland review of autism employment focused on the action needed to help to tackle the lack of opportunities and outdated recruitment practices that do not meet the employment needs of autistic people. How is the Minister—I welcome him to his place—going to use this review, which I seem to remember him welcoming, to tackle the lack of understanding and ongoing stereotypes to help to make real change via Access to Work and other DWP interventions?
Sir Stephen Timms
I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome. I am looking forward to a meeting with Sir Robert later on this month, and we will be talking exactly about that matter.
Mims Davies
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. The disability action plan mid-year update is now somewhat overdue. Can the Minister confirm to the House when there will be a much-needed update? In helping vulnerable people to thrive in all walks of life, whether in employment or in respect of equality of opportunity, will the Minister’s Government commit, like the previous Conservative Government did, to working towards hosting the 2031 Special Olympics?
Sir Stephen Timms
We will be saying more and we will provide an update in the forthcoming “Getting Britain Working” White Paper. If the hon. Lady would like to drop me a line about the Special Olympics, I would be happy to look into that as well.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
We need jobcentres to be better everywhere, including those in rural areas with unique challenges. In the autumn we will publish a White Paper on our plans to transform the employment support system, which will change jobcentres. I welcome input on that issue from Members from all parts of the House.
Stuart Anderson
In South Shropshire, youth unemployment has risen over the past month. What is the Minister going to do to stop this worrying trend in rural communities like mine?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Member for bringing that point to the House; it is a major focus of the work that is currently going into the White Paper. We have had very worrying developments for young people since the pandemic, and we need to do much better to give them the best possible start in life. I will say it again: on this issue we welcome input from Members on all sides of the House.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Housing associations are the second largest investor in employment support in the UK, second only to the Department for Work and Pensions. Their work invests in employment support for some of the hardest-to-reach communities, including rural communities such as mine in Suffolk Coastal. Will the Minister commit to working with housing associations to co-design and co-invest employment support over this Parliament?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend again for her very welcome point. Housing associations are extremely important for connecting with residents, who often have multiple vulnerabilities. When thinking about the journey into work we need joined up services between the NHS, the local authority and our housing associations. They will be a part of the future partnership, and I look forward to working with her for her constituency.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
To be frank, the current system is focused on the problems of yesterday. In the last Parliament, economic inactivity increased and the employment rate fell. We are planning fundamental reforms to the system that will focus on the problems of today and get more people into work, details of which will be set out in our forthcoming White Paper, “Get Britain Working”.
Patrick Hurley
Will the Minister set out how the proposed merger between Jobcentre Plus and the National Careers Service will help to tackle economic inactivity and change the way that jobcentres work with their customers?
Andrew Western
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; I was pleased to hear that one of his earliest visits as the first ever Labour Member for Southport was to his local jobcentre with the Minister for Employment, who I know would want me to commend all the staff at the Southport jobcentre. The truth is that, at present, jobcentres seem to function more as places from which benefits are administered than as centres supporting people into work. The merger of Jobcentre Plus and the National Careers Service will address that, enabling us to get more people into employment and help those on low pay increase their earnings, through more personalised and localised support, ensuring that no one is left behind.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The challenge that jobcentres in Kendal and the rest of Cumbria face, as well as getting people back into work, is the fact that our workforce in Westmorland is far too small. The average house price in our constituency is 12 times average earnings, and waiting lists for social housing are through the roof. Some 66% of all employers surveyed in our community recently said that they were working below capacity because they could not find enough staff, so if we want to tackle the problem in our economy, we need to do two things: first, increase the amount of social housing and secondly, allow more flexible visa arrangements. Would the Minister’s Department work with housing colleagues to provide more housing grants for our community and sign up to the youth mobility visa arrangements?
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member should know better. He gets in a lot, so he should not take advantage of other Members.
Andrew Western
The hon. Member will be pleased to know that we intend to work considerably more flexibly to support the needs of communities in a varied and bespoke way. He has particular challenges because of the rural nature of his constituency and various other factors, but he will appreciate that I will not make housing or Home Office policy on the hoof from the Dispatch Box.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Jobcentres are extremely good, as we just heard from the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who is leaving the Chamber. Yet the new Minister for Employment previously described jobcentres as places nobody wants to go, and claimed that they do not offer real help. Our jobcentres help to ensure that almost 4 million more people have work, compared with when her party left office in 2010. More than 2 million of those employed are women. Will the Minister and the DWP team who have made disparaging remarks apologise to work coaches and DWP staff, who she and they have rubbished but who now have to look up to them as the new ministerial team?
Andrew Western
I fear that the hon. Lady has misunderstood the criticism, which is levied not at our outstanding work coaches but at the policies of the previous Government, who have left us with economic inactivity at its highest rate in years. We are the only G7 economy with a lower employment rate than before the pandemic. Those are the challenges that we have been left with, and the problems that we will solve.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Provider guidance, which is published on gov.uk, makes clear that contractors on all our employment programmes must reimburse customers’ reasonable travel costs.
Josh Newbury
I thank the Minister for that response. My constituent Connor is in a predicament: he is out of pocket for taxi fares to weekly or even twice weekly sessions with a Jobcentre Plus private contractor. Connor told me that the sessions last barely 15 minutes and are not helping him to reach his goal of becoming a mechanical engineering apprentice. Will the Minister review the value of Jobcentre Plus private contracts to both jobseekers and taxpayers?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Performance is reviewed regularly and there are customer satisfaction surveys, but unlike the previous Government, this Government want to publish performance data so that everybody can see what is going on.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his response. I think everyone wishes for claimants to be able to get job opportunities without finding themselves in a financial mess due to having to pay out for travel costs when they should be reimbursed. This is a big issue in my constituency in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister help directly those constituents who have been accordingly disadvantaged?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am not familiar with the arrangements in Northern Ireland, but certainly in the rest of the UK it is very clear that contractors ideally need to pay up-front, buy tickets and give them to the jobseeker before they embark on their journey, or, if not, reimburse them very quickly on production of a receipt.
Torsten Bell (Swansea West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Tackling child poverty is a top priority for the new Government, and a personal priority for me. Children cannot fulfil their potential without food in their belly or a decent roof over their head, and we cannot fulfil our potential as a country when the talents of so many are left behind. That is why our new child poverty taskforce will drive action across every area of government to drive up family income, drive down family costs and give every child the best start in life.
Torsten Bell
I welcome the establishment of the child poverty taskforce. How will the taskforce ensure that lessons, including on the role of housing costs in driving up relative poverty and the necessity of growth to drive down absolute poverty, will be learnt from previous attempts to drive down child poverty in Wales and across the UK?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about learning the lessons from the last time we were in government and lifted more than 600,000 children out of poverty, and looking at similarities and differences, not least that there are more children growing up in poverty in households, whether in the private rented sector or in social housing, and that there are more children growing up poor in a household where somebody works. Getting and creating more good quality jobs, and helping families into those jobs, is absolutely a crucial part of our child poverty plan.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Yet we have a situation where families with more children are impacted by the two-child cap and the benefit cap, and the Government are refusing to get rid of those things. At a stroke, they could lift thousands of children out of poverty and improve, overnight, their life chances. I appreciate the fact that the Government have the child poverty taskforce, but that is not making a difference to these children today, is it?
Liz Kendall
I am under no illusion about the impact 14 years of the Conservatives and the social security system has had on child poverty. That is why we are determined to take action across government to increase family incomes, drive down costs and, crucially, put in place long-term support, particularly in the early years. We will produce the strategy by spring. I am absolutely sure that every part of the plan will lift more children out of poverty.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
The last Labour Government lifted 600,000 children out of poverty. Under the Conservatives, the number went up by 700,000. There are now more than 4 million children living in poverty in the UK in the 21st century. In one of the richest countries in the world, that is a complete disgrace. That is why the work of the child poverty taskforce, which I co-chair with the Education Secretary, is so urgent and so important.
Luke Akehurst
Almost a third of children in the north-east live in poverty. The problem is particularly acute in the region. Will the Secretary of State work with our Mayor of the North East, Kim McGuinness, on her excellent regional plans to reduce child poverty?
Liz Kendall
Yes, we have already met Kim McGuinness, on 19 September, when she set out the actions she is already taking. Let me say to Members on both sides of the House that our strategy will be out in the spring, but we will not be waiting until then to act. Nationally, we have put £421 million into the household support fund to help the poorest families, and mayors such as Kim McGuinness are doing amazing work: they are working with schools to ensure that people claim the benefits to which they are entitled, and, crucially, working with businesses to help them to do all that they can to tackle in-work poverty and ensure that working families receive the money for those children.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The work of unpaid carers is vital and often heroic, and we are determined to give them the support that they need. We are currently looking at options for tackling the problem of overpayments, including the possible introduction of a text message alert service.
Alison Hume
Carers make incredible sacrifices to care for loved ones, but they can be left deep in debt as a result of repaying the allowance after unintentionally breaching the qualifying rules. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we, as a society, have a duty of care to carers, and can he say more about the progress that the Government are making in overhauling carer’s allowance and addressing the earnings cliff edge?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I agree that we need to support carers properly. We want to get to the bottom of what has gone wrong with these overpayments and why so many people have been caught out. We have been piloting the introduction of a text message service, as I have mentioned, which has involved texting 3,500 claimants to alert them when His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs informs the DWP that they have breached the current earnings limit. We are currently looking at the results, and if they are positive, that will be the first step towards addressing the overpayments problem. We will need to do more, but it will be a good first step.
Anna Dixon
There are nearly 1,200 recipients of carer’s allowance in Shipley. The current earnings limit leaves people vulnerable to accidentally accruing overpayments if they become ineligible for the allowance, and it also acts as a disincentive, deterring people from working as much as they would like to. Will the Government consider raising the earnings limit?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend has written to me about this matter, and I welcome her commitment to making progress. In an excellent piece of work, the former Work and Pensions Committee made a number of recommendations on the earnings rules, and once the new Committee is in place, we shall respond to the former Committee’s proposals.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister has referred to the army of carers that we have across the country, but we also have an army of unpaid carers who are being deterred from applying for carer’s allowance because of concerns about the financial implications. Can the Government reassure those who have not yet come forward that they will be supported properly?
Sir Stephen Timms
I very much hope that we can, because the hon. Gentleman is right: there is a good deal of anxiety about these overpayment problems. We hope that the alert service will at least inform people when they run into a problem so that they do not then develop a large overpayment, which has happened all too often in the past, but we also need to look at the other arrangements relating to carer’s allowance in order to provide the reassurance for which the hon. Gentleman has rightly called.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
In May 2019 the universal credit sanction rate was 3.17%. It reduced considerably during the pandemic, gradually returning to 3.51% by November 2021. It then continued to rise, reaching a peak of 7.29% in October 2023, but it is now falling, with a rate of 6.17% in May 2024.
Dr Huq
According to recent research by Gingerbread, a high percentage of sanctions have been misapplied to single parents, not because they have not met the job search requirements but because of missed meetings for reasons connected with childcare. Max, a bereaved single dad of two, had his sanction overturned, which involved a fairly challenging process. Will my hon. Friend please look into the possibility of overhauling the mess of a system that was left behind by that lot over there?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and, through her, I would like to thank Gingerbread for its work on this issue. There have always been, and always will be, conditions attached to social security, but the past 14 years show what happens when we have a Government who are more interested in blaming people and creating cheap headlines than offering real help. In our manifesto, Labour committed to review universal credit so that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and the report that Gingerbread has written will also help inform our child poverty taskforce.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I am determined to put transparency at the heart of the DWP, so I have today published 31 reports that were sat on by the previous Government—something that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability has long campaigned for. Under this Government’s leadership, the DWP will be honest about the problems that the country faces and focused on the solutions needed to help people build a better life. That starts with our forthcoming White Paper, to get Britain working again.
Chris Webb
I first joined WASPI women—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—in their welcome campaigning activity back in 2017. Seven years later, they are still fighting for justice. Can the Minister assure women in my constituency and across the country that she will act urgently, unlike the previous Government, and bring this injustice to an end?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I met representatives of the WASPI campaign before this Government were elected. My hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions was the first Minister to meet them in eight years. It really is a serious report that requires serious consideration. We will do everything possible to get this issue resolved as soon as possible.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
On 10 September, two days before recess, I led a debate in this Chamber, secured by the Conservative party, on the winter fuel allowance. The right hon. Lady spoke just now about transparency, but there was no equality impact assessment made available for that debate. Indeed, on 30 August, by way of a written question, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) established that the Government had no intention of publishing that particular report. Yet on 13 September—two days after the debate and the vote, and one day after Parliament had risen—the report was made available. It was clearly, in my opinion, deliberately withheld. Does the right hon. Lady agree?
Liz Kendall
That is not true. The Conservative Government did not even allow the Office for Budget Responsibility to do an analysis of Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget and sat on 31 publications that, under their own rules, should have been published. We published an equality analysis. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that was never done for secondary legislation when he was in government, but this Government will be open and transparent, which is what we are already doing.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise this issue. He will be pleased to know that this Government are looking to utilise new powers to obtain a liability order without recourse to the courts, reducing the time taken to secure such an order from 22 weeks to around six.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Mr Speaker, may I draw your attention to a report recently published by the University of Bath, which highlights that benefit claimants face a series of cliff edges if they claim additional funds? If a family earn just £7,399, they lose the ability to claim free school meals. What plans does the Minister have to tackle the lack of compassion in the system?
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am not familiar with the report to which the hon. Member refers, but we committed in our manifesto to reviewing universal credit, nearly 15 years after it was first launched. The cliff edge issue and others will be among those that we will want to look at in the course of that review.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. These are topical questions, so please can we keep them short? I have to try and get through the list to help others.
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend has raised these issues with me before, and I will absolutely meet children, families and child poverty organisations from her constituency. We aim to visit every region and every devolved nation as part of that strategy, and I look forward to meeting her and her constituents then.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady raises an extremely important question, which I have discussed with a hospice and other organisations such as Marie Curie and Sue Ryder in my own constituency. I want to look at how the system can be made to work as quickly and swiftly as possible, particularly for people at this very difficult time in life, and I would be happy for the Social Security Minister and my office to contact her directly to get more information.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
My hon. Friend is an absolute expert on this kind of inclusive change that we need to make to our employment support system so that we can help everybody, and I look forward to working with her on ideas just like that when we bring forward our White Paper in the autumn.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I have looked into this issue, which has a long and complex history, and I would be very willing to meet him to discuss it in more detail.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend asks an extremely good question. The policy of the previous Government was to publish all such commissioned research reports within 12 weeks of receiving them. That policy was complied with until 2018, when Ministers stopped complying with it, so we have had to publish all these reports today. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s announcement is a vital first step in rebuilding the trust in the Department that was so shattered by the culture of secrecy, obfuscation and cover-up by Conservative Ministers.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In response to several hon. Members, Ministers have spoken about the complexity of the ombudsman’s report on the WASPI campaign. While appreciating that, may I ask for a statement in principle that the Government will eventually offer significant compensation to the WASPI women?
Emma Reynolds
As I said previously, the ombudsman took six years to consider this complex case. We are looking into it very seriously, but I cannot make any announcements today. The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for our announcement on this issue.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Alison McGovern
I assure my hon. Friend that we will work with the Welsh Government, Welsh local authorities and all our colleagues across the United Kingdom to get the policy right for young people, who I believe have been failed over recent years. It is about time they had the future they deserve.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
With employers in Witham and across the country about to be whacked with a barrage of higher taxes, thanks to this Government, how do the Government expect employment levels to stay high? How do they expect small businesses to be at the heart of any employment strategy that they claim to have?
Liz Kendall
Under the previous Government, we had the highest taxes in 70 years, and jobcentres to which only one in six employers ever went to recruit. We will transform our jobcentres into a new jobs and careers service, so that people get the help they need, and so that employers can recruit the staff they desperately need.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Andrew Western
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the proposed fraud Bill. The level of fraud in the welfare system is absolutely unacceptable; almost £10 billion was lost last year. Increased use of data will be essential to clamping down on both capital fraud and broader fraud. However, we will do that without sharing any information at all with banks and financial institutions.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her personal commitment to transparency. Further to the question asked by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), will she share with the House how many thousands of people will die as a result of Labour’s choice to cut the winter fuel payment?
Liz Kendall
I am very happy to share the data: there are 200,000 more pensioners living in poverty after 14 years of Conservative government. I am also very happy to publish information showing a 152% increase in pension credit claims, thanks to the big, bold campaign run by this Labour Government.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents want a fair and robust welfare system, but they have no truck with fraud. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that she is doing everything she can to crack down on fraud, and to make sure that those who genuinely need help get it?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is correct to raise this issue. As I said, we will not tolerate the current levels of fraud in our welfare system. He will be pleased to note the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of the forthcoming fraud, error and debt Bill, which will begin the necessary work to drive down fraud in the Department.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Can I share with the Secretary of State the plight of my constituent, who went without child maintenance payments for six months? That happened not because of anything done wrong by her, or the paying parent, or the paying parent’s employer, which processed the direct deduction of earnings order, but because the Child Maintenance Service misplaced the payments. Will the Secretary of State apologise for that mishap? What plans does she have to rectify that deeply flawed organisation?
Andrew Western
I am very sorry to hear of this case. I am not familiar with it, but I will look into it, if the hon. Gentleman contacts me with the details.
Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Prime Minister, I am sure that the House will wish to reflect for a moment on the fact that this is a solemn day. It marks the first anniversary of the terrorist attack on Israel. Dozens of hostages are still in captivity, and the conflict has claimed thousands of innocent civilian lives. Today we should come together to remember all those who have been affected. I call the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Today we mark a year since the horrific attack on Israel by the terrorists of Hamas. It was the bloodiest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust—a day of sorrow, a day of grief. Over 1,000 people were massacred, with hundreds taken hostage, in an attack born of hatred, targeted not just at individuals, but at Jewish communities, at their way of life and at the state of Israel—the symbol of Jewish security to the world. Fifteen British citizens were brutally slain that day. Another has since died in captivity. Our thoughts today are with the Jewish people around the world, the Jewish community here in the United Kingdom, and all those we lost a year ago.
For so many, the pain and horror of that day is as acute today as it was a year ago. They live it every day. Last week I met the families of British hostages and those killed on 7 October. I sat with them as they told me about their loved ones. I will never forget their words. Mandy Damari spoke of her love for her daughter Emily. She said:
“my personal clock stopped at 10:24 on the 7th of October”,
the moment when Emily sent a desperate, unfinished message as Hamas attacked her kibbutz. She is still held captive today. We can hardly imagine what hostages like Emily are going through, or what the families are going through—the agony day after day. So I say again: the hostages must be returned immediately and unconditionally. They will always be uppermost in our minds. I pay tribute again to the families for their incredible dignity and determination.
Today is also a day of grief for the wider region, as we look back on a year of conflict and suffering. The human toll among innocent civilians in Gaza is truly devastating. Over 41,000 Palestinians have been killed, tens of thousands orphaned and almost 2 million displaced, facing disease, starvation and desperation without proper healthcare or shelter. It is a living nightmare and it must end. We stand with all innocent victims in Israel, Gaza, the west bank, Lebanon and beyond, and we stand with all communities here in the United Kingdom against hatred of Jews or Muslims, because any attack on a minority is an attack on our proud values of tolerance and respect, and we will not stand for it.
With the middle east close to the brink, and the very real danger of a regional war, last week the Iranian regime chose to strike Israel. The whole House will join me in utterly condemning this attack. We support Israel’s right to defend herself against Iran’s aggression in line with international law. Let us be very clear: this was not a defensive action by Iran; it was an act of aggression and a major escalation in response to the death of a terrorist leader. It exposes once again Iran’s malign role in the region. It helped equip Hamas for the 7 October attacks. It armed Hezbollah, which launched a year-long barrage of rockets at northern Israel, forcing 60,000 Israelis to flee their home, and supports the Houthis, who mount direct attacks on Israel and continue to attack international shipping.
I know the whole House will join me in thanking our brave servicemen and servicewomen, who have shown their usual courage in countering this threat, but make no mistake: the region cannot endure another year of this. Civilians on all sides have suffered too much. All sides must now step back from the brink and find the courage of restraint. There is no military solution to these challenges, so we must renew our diplomatic efforts. Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, I have had discussions with the leaders of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, the G7 and the European Union, and made the case at the United Nations for political solutions to end the fighting.
In the weeks ahead, we will continue that work, focusing on three areas. The first is Lebanon, where our immediate priority is the safety of British citizens. Our team is on the ground, helping to get people out. We have already brought more than 430 people home on chartered flights, and we stand ready to make additional evacuation efforts as necessary. I again give this important message to British citizens still in Lebanon: you must leave now. We are also working to ease the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon—last week we provided £10 million of vital support, in addition to the £5 million we are already providing to UNICEF—but the situation cannot go on. We will continue to lead calls for an immediate ceasefire, and for the return to a political plan for Lebanon based on Security Council resolution 1701, which requires Hezbollah to withdraw north of the Litani river. They must stop firing rockets and end this now, so that people on both sides of the border can return to their homes.
Secondly, we must renew efforts for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, but we cannot simply wait for that to happen. We must do more now to provide relief to the civilian population. That is why we have restarted aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We are supporting field hospitals, and the delivery of water, healthcare and treatment for malnourished children, but the ongoing restrictions on aid are impossible to justify. Israel must open more crossings and allow lifesaving aid to flow. Crucially, Israel must provide a safe environment for aid workers. Too many have been killed, including three British citizens. Israel must act now, so that, together with our allies, we can surge humanitarian support ahead of winter.
Thirdly, we must put in place solutions for the long term, to break the relentless cycle of violence. The ultimate goal here is well understood: it must be a two-state solution. There is no other option that offers stability and security. We need to build a political route towards it, so that Israel is finally safe and secure, alongside the long-promised Palestinian state. That requires support for the Palestinian Authority to step into the vacuum in Gaza; it requires an urgent international effort to support reconstruction; and it requires guarantees for Israel’s security. We will work with our allies and partners to that end, but the key to all this remains a ceasefire in Gaza now, the unconditional release of the hostages, and the unhindered flow of aid. That is the fundamental first step to change the trajectory of the region.
Nobody in this House can truly imagine what it feels like to cower under the bodies of their friends, hoping a terrorist will not find them, mere minutes after dancing at a music festival. Nobody in this House can truly imagine seeing their city, home, schools, hospitals and businesses obliterated, with their neighbours and family buried underneath. It is beyond our comprehension, and with that should come a humility. It is hard even to understand the full depth of this pain, but what we can do is remember. What we can do is respect and listen to the voices that reach out to us at these moments, and what we can do is use the power of diplomacy to try to find practical steps that minimise the suffering on the ground and work towards that long-term solution, so that a year of such terrible and bloody conflict can never happen again. That is what we have done on the Labour Benches, it is what the whole House has done, and it is what this Government will continue to do. I commend this statement to the House.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.
Today is the anniversary of 7 October. This modern pogrom—the worst loss of Jewish life since the second world war—was a horrendous reminder of the antisemitism in our world and the existential threats that Israel faces. Over the past year, many of the hostages kidnapped by Hamas on 7 October have been raped, sexually abused, murdered, and mutilated beyond recognition. Today, a year on, many still remain held by Hamas and other terrorist groups. I think particularly today of the British citizen Emily Damari, who has endured a year in captivity. Across this House, I know that we join in saying, “Bring them home.”
The situation in the middle east is grave. Too many innocent civilian lives have been lost. It is right that this country continues to play its part in defending Israel against Iranian attacks, but we should not forget the base cause of all these events: Iran’s refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist, and its desire to destabilise the region through arming and funding its terrorist proxies—Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. The current conflict in Lebanon is a result of Hezbollah’s determination to use this territory to launch rocket attacks on Israel. Let me be clear: Israel has a right to defend itself, it has a right to eliminate the leadership of Hezbollah, and it has a right to restore security for its citizens. This country should support Israel in pursuing those goals, but can the Prime Minister expand on what he said about what role the United Kingdom is playing in providing humanitarian support to those Lebanese citizens who have been displaced because of this conflict? I welcome his announcements on some financial support to that end.
The medium-term question that we must help to address is what happens once the Israeli operation has finished. I ask the Prime Minister to update the House on what steps this country, along with our allies, is taking to help to build up the capacity of the Lebanese state so that Hezbollah cannot simply re-establish itself in southern Lebanon. We must never forget that Hezbollah does not represent the interests of Lebanon or its citizens; it represents those of its paymasters in Tehran.
Turning to the situation of British nationals in Lebanon, I know that the Government have rightly been urging them to leave for some time now, but it is clear that difficulties in obtaining tickets on commercial flights mean that a number of our citizens are still there. I welcome the Government’s chartering of planes to help British nationals to return home, and know very well the logistical challenges involved. I pay tribute to all the Foreign Office and other teams who will be working hard to make sure that that happens. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that any British national who wishes to leave Lebanon will be able to do so on a Government-chartered flight?
Turning next to the Prime Minister’s speech at the UN General Assembly, which he mentioned, I fully endorse his reaffirmation that the United Kingdom will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Events in the middle east, and indeed Ukraine, are another reminder that the world is increasingly becoming more dangerous. If we wish to be able to continue to deter our enemies, defend our values and stand up for our interests, we will need to invest more in our military. The Prime Minister and I have discussed previously my view that we should increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, and in our previous exchanges in this House he has said that a trajectory for future defence spending would be set out at the coming fiscal event. I ask that he reconfirm his commitment to that timetable.
On this sad anniversary, I finish by saying that the United Kingdom stands with Israel against this terrorism today, tomorrow and always. I say to the Jewish community here in Britain that I know that at moments like this, when the Jewish people are under attack in their homeland, Jewish people everywhere can feel less safe. I know that the Prime Minister will agree with me that, across this House, we will always stand against the evils of antisemitism.
The Prime Minister
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his words. On an occasion like this, it is important that we speak with one voice across the House, and I think the whole House will agree with him that we must bring the hostages home. They must be uppermost in our minds.
The Leader of the Opposition asks about the assistance in Lebanon. Humanitarian assistance is being provided—aid and money, as well as training, as he will know—and we are working towards the Security Council resolution.
On evacuations, we will make sure that any British national has the assistance they need to come home. I repeat that now is the time to leave. If any British national requires assistance, I ask them please to make contact with us so that we can provide it.
In relation to defence spending, let me recommit to increasing it to 2.5%. We will set out our plans in due course, but the most important thing today is for this House to do as it is doing: speaking with one voice on the one-year anniversary of an awful terrorist attack.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
On this anniversary, the House unites in its condemnation of the murder of more than 1,000 Israeli citizens and makes a united call for the release of 100 hostages. Parliament also stands behind a belief in the rules-based international order—a belief that all civilian life is equal and must be protected. Today, we mark a year during which more than 41,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, 742 people have been killed in the west bank and more than 2,000 people have been killed in Lebanon. Will the Prime Minister confirm that all British actions in the middle east will be guided by the principles of de-escalation, peace and diplomacy, and the protection of all civilian life?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question, particularly her words about all civilian life being equal and protected. I confirm that everything that we are doing is aimed at de-escalating across the region. It is on the brink, and it is important for all sides to pull back from the brink. That is why we have been working so closely with our allies in the G7 on de-escalation, speaking with one voice.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.
On the anniversary of the horrific attacks in Israel, we remember the victims, the people taken hostage and their families, and we stand with the whole Jewish community. Earlier this year, I visited Israel and Palestine, and saw how both peoples were experiencing trauma. We must never forget the trauma of the hostages and their families. In Tel Aviv, I met Itzik Horn, a father still praying for his two sons, Yair and Eitan, to come home. We must urge all actors to take the steps most likely to get the hostages home quickly and safely.
The past year has seen terrible violence in the middle east, a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, and an appalling spike in hate crimes here in the UK. We must stand firm against antisemitism and Islamophobia, we must press for an immediate bilateral ceasefire to end the terrible cycle of violence and bring about lasting peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians, and we must do all we can to prevent a regional war in the middle east. UK forces rightly played their part in helping Israel to neutralise Iran’s outrageous attacks, and I hope that the Government will now try to convince Israel that keeping her citizens safe and secure is best achieved by restraint, not retaliation and the risk of a regional war. As we do that, let us take a tougher stance on Iran and all her proxies, from Hezbollah to the Houthis. Will the Prime Minister finally proscribe Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
We are horrified by the new crisis unfolding in Lebanon. Will the Government go further on humanitarian aid? Most importantly, we join the Prime Minister in calling for the cessation of rocket fire, the protection of civilians, and an immediate bilateral ceasefire, just like the one that we so desperately need in Gaza.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those questions. I absolutely agree with him in relation to the hostage families. When I sat with them, we often sat in silence because they could not find the words to describe what they were going through. I also agree with what he said about hate crimes. The message and the messaging is very much de-escalation across the region. He is right that we need to deal with state threats, including the IRGC. We are working at pace to identify further ways to deal with such threats, including those from the IRGC. More than 400 sanctions designations against Iranian organisations and individuals are already in place, and we continue to look at that important issue.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in condemning that horrific attack one year ago. Yesterday at church during bidding prayers we prayed about the conflicts in the middle east and elsewhere. My thoughts remain with those loved ones who are still displaced a year on.
Sadly, the United Nations has reported credible evidence of sexual violence against innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict. No matter the intensity of the situation, there can be no justification for sexual violence, which leaves victims traumatised for many years. What steps are the Government taking to raise that issue and ensure that innocent civilians across the middle east are protected from the horrors of sexual violence?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important point about sexual violence, which, as she rightly says, has absolutely no justification. Along with other issues, we continue to raise any such allegations with our allies.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
There are many different opinions on policy in the middle east, but does the Prime Minister agree that what must surely unite everyone in this House is our profound detestation of antisemitism in all its shapes and forces, as well as our profound love for the Jewish people on their day of suffering, especially as many of those who were murdered at the music festival and in the kibbutz were actively working for peace? Will he reflect that there are still many people—many Jewish and Arab people—who want a moderate solution, and that we should give them our support?
The Prime Minister
I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman on antisemitism, and on our love for—and on standing with—the Jewish people, both across the globe and here in the United Kingdom. Many of them want nothing more than peace and security for themselves and their families, and we will continue to work with them. I agree with his remarks and the sentiment behind them.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I very much agree with my right hon. and learned Friend’s comments about the need for all sides to work towards a two-state solution. Does he therefore understand the wider concern at the Israeli Prime Minister saying repeatedly in recent weeks that he does not support a two-state solution, either now or in the future? Does my right hon. and learned Friend understand the frustration and anger that that creates among many Palestinians, particularly young ones, and that it breeds a climate in which hostility and violence are likely to increase rather than decrease? What can he do to change the Israeli Prime Minister’s mind?
The Prime Minister
We have to be very clear that the two-state solution is the only viable long-term route through this conflict. Recognition has to be a question of when, not if. Israel has a right to be safe and secure—it is not—and we must have a viable Palestinian state. However difficult that may seem at the moment, we must never lose sight of that being, in the end, the only political solution to this awful conflict.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
We are a year on from when 1,200 Jewish people were systematically murdered. Those who were women were raped and mutilated; 254 were taken hostage into Gaza, and 101 remain unaccounted for. I agree with the Prime Minister that we need to make sure the hostages are returned immediately, but the first aspect of that is ensuring that the International Committee of the Red Cross has access to all those hostages in order to assess their state of health and, indeed, whether they are still alive. Will the Prime Minister press for that, to make sure that we know how many are still alive and can be returned to their families? For those who have sadly been murdered, at least their families will know what has happened to them.
The Prime Minister
Yes, that is very important. When spending any time with the families, you get a real sense of the agony they are going through, which is made even worse by the fact that they do not have any meaningful information about their loved ones. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: that is an essential step to at least reduce some of the agony.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
We in my constituency stand today with our neighbour Sharone in saying the name of her father, Oded Lifschitz, a proud peace activist who has been held by Hamas for over a year now. We stand with our Palestinian neighbours who were able to escape from Gaza, who now fear for their relatives and what harm may befall them. We stand with our neighbour trying to get out of Lebanon, where he was trying to support local children to learn. We reject the lazy stereotype in this conflict that we have to pick a side. We pick peace, and we simply ask the Prime Minister to do and show the same, so what reassurance can my right hon. and learned Friend give me and my constituents today that everything that the British have—in fighting for the rule of law, in diplomacy, and even in our work on arms sales—will be dedicated towards peace and resolution for the innocent civilians in these regions?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, which is a reminder of the impact that the conflict is having on so many of our communities here in the United Kingdom. We are absolutely working with our allies on de-escalating across the region. That requires Iran to take responsibility and be held accountable for what it is doing, which is why in my view, it is important for the G7 to speak so powerfully together with a co-ordinated and collaborative approach.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Today is a devastating and sobering day for those who are suffering the pain of grief—it feels that the claws are being run over those wounds again. We have now seen escalation in the region, something that this House warned about for months before this point. It is clearer now than ever that when the embers finally die down and we can start to rebuild, the Palestinian question must be the No. 1 priority on the Prime Minister’s list and those of other world leaders—not because it is the right thing to do, but because it is a security concern that we must address if we want a safer world. Does he agree that we now need to show unprecedented levels of leadership? What is he doing personally to add to that?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for her question—as ever, she speaks powerfully on this issue. I completely agree that the only way through in the long term is the two-state solution. To answer her question directly, we are working non-stop with our allies on that question, answering “What happens next?” and never losing sight of the fact that the two-state solution is the only way to long-lasting peace. We will continue in those efforts, which I know have the support of the House. It is so important that we continue to do so, and we will.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Prime Minister rightly says we need a ceasefire now, but after a year and over 45,000 deaths, what more can he do to achieve that ceasefire? While the violence in the region continues, will he ask the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary to look sympathetically at requests for evacuation from dependants and close relatives of UK citizens?
The Prime Minister
On the question of a ceasefire, we are continuing to work with allies to bring that ceasefire about and to co-ordinate our efforts. I recognise that diplomacy is sometimes slow, but it is in the end the only way to bring about that ceasefire, and we will continue with it. In relation to British citizens in Lebanon, we do have a plan in place. If anybody across the House has any details of our citizens who need further assistance, I would genuinely be pleased if they passed them to me, so we can action that straightaway.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
On the anniversary of the terrorist attack last year, may I echo the sentiments of the Prime Minister in condemning Hamas, in supporting our Jewish community and, of course, in calling for the release of all the hostages? I share his concern about the malign influence of Iran. In that regard, can he confirm to the House that there will be no British involvement—be that personnel, facilities or airbases—in any Israeli response to its abhorrent attack last week?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. As he will understand, I will not go into details on the Floor of the House as to our capabilities, but he will know that the involvement so far—for example, in relation to the attack in April—related to Israel’s self-defence, when missiles were raining in on Israel. That is the support that we did provide and would always be prepared to provide.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
Today, as we remember all those killed in the 7 October Hamas attack and all those killed day after day in Israel’s war on Gaza and now Lebanon, the case for peace, the preservation of human life and the protection of human life has never been more urgent and compelling. An immediate ceasefire is desperately needed to stop all the killing, end the war crimes, free the hostages and get aid into Gaza. However, it is clear that Israel’s right-wing political leaders will keep rejecting ceasefires and keep violating international law without stronger international pressure. To get Israeli leaders to back a ceasefire, do we not need to see tougher action, including an end to all arms sales, as recent international court rulings demand?
The Prime Minister
I completely agree that we need an immediate ceasefire. That is what we are working for and what the US is leading on. I do not agree with a complete ban on arms sales. That would include a ban on arms being used for defensive purposes. Looking at the attack of only a few days ago by Iran, I think the House will understand my position on this and the position of many across the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Prime Minister has rightly spoken about the significance of diplomacy right now, and I think the entire House would agree that, across the region itself, leaders must come together. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with Gulf Co-operation Council leaders about the behaviour—the aggressive behaviour—of their neighbour Iran, and what role they can play in de-escalation and preventing Iran from further escalating this terrible conflict?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for that question. This is a really important issue. We have had numerous discussions with our colleagues and with leaders, and I do think there is an important role that can be played and pressure that can be applied through those discussions. We will continue to do so, so I thank her for her question.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Among those killed in the horrors of 7 October were children, with a number still held hostage to this day. In Gaza since then, there is a grisly new acronym—WCNSF: wounded child, no surviving family—to add to the child death toll, which is now rising in Lebanon as well. Will my right hon. and learned Friend press for the protection of children in advocating for a ceasefire and in his humanitarian efforts, and does he agree that no parent should ever have to bury their child?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with that, whether it is children taken as hostages—it hardly seems possible to say that sentence without recoiling—or those orphaned in Gaza, as my hon. Friend rightly suggests.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I appreciate that it is difficult to get into the mind of a theocratic regime such as that of the ayatollahs in Iran, but to what extent have the Government been able to establish whether a principal motivation for what happened on 7 October was the desire of the Iranian regime to prevent a rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, its great rival?
The Prime Minister
Iran bears huge responsibility across the region, both in its assistance in relation to the 7 October attack and through the other action that it is supporting in the region. That is why we have been clear in our positioning on Iran, and clear about the responsibility that Iran bears in relation to those awful incidents.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
On the anniversary of the horrific 7 October attacks, I again repeat the call for the immediate release of all hostages. In light of Israel’s genocidal assault in Gaza, the violence in the west bank and the invasion of Lebanon, does the Prime Minister believe that Israel’s right to self-defence justifies a death toll that, according to research by US medical professionals who have worked in Gaza, has now surpassed 118,000, as well as the 2,000 people killed in Lebanon? Will he do what is morally and legally right and end the Government’s complicity in war crimes by banning all arms sales to Israel, including the F-35 fighter jet, and not just 30 licences—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
No, but it is a really serious point. Banning all sales would mean none for defensive purposes—
The Prime Minister
It would mean none for defensive purposes. On the anniversary of 7 October and days after a huge attack by Iran into Israel, that would be the wrong position for this Government and I will not take it.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Prime Minister has rightly pointed out that the conflict in the middle east has been manipulated and sponsored by the Iranian regime. We should stand by Israel, which is bearing the burden, taking the risks and standing up to world opinion in taking on Iran and its proxy terrorist groups. What part can our Government play in putting pressure on the Iranian regime, and why is it that the revolutionary guards who are sponsoring much of this terrorism can still operate freely in London?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must stand by Israel and be absolutely clear about Israel’s right to defend herself, particularly at this time of escalation by Iran. On the Iranian regime, we have to be really clear that we stand with Israel and clear in condemning Iran, and we have to do that with our allies with one voice, so that the message is heard very powerfully.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the condemnation of the atrocities committed by Hamas a year ago? That said, there is a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and the restriction on aid is unacceptable. What more can the international community do to achieve the free movement of aid into Gaza?
The Prime Minister
I addressed that in my statement: we need to get more humanitarian aid in; it is desperately needed, and has been needed for a very long time. That is why we continue to press for that aid to go in, and for the protection to go in for those who will be delivering it once the aid gets into Gaza, as is desperately needed.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Since the barbaric attack on 7 October, we have seen an explosion in antisemitism and extremism on the streets of our own country. Only on Saturday, we saw people flagrantly valorising Hezbollah in London. We must root out those who despise our country and our values. What will the Prime Minister do to revoke the visas, where appropriate, of those in the UK who are conducting themselves in this manner, to encourage the police to enforce our existing laws without fear or favour, and to further ban and proscribe organisations such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps which do not support the UK, our values, and the way we wish to conduct ourselves in the world?
The Prime Minister
We are proud of the democratic right to protest in this country, but supporting a proscribed terrorist group is unacceptable, and we need to be very clear about that and give the police our full support in taking the action they need to take in relation to that, wherever it is in the United Kingdom.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
As we mark the anniversary of the horrific Hamas attacks, the subsequent colossal death and destruction and the ensuing escalation in the region, we should say for anybody in any doubt in the country that Iran is no friend of ours. Indeed, it is disliked by many of its neighbouring Arab nations for its destabilising activities in the region. It was abundantly clear to many of us that as soon Iran came to the aid of its proxy Hezbollah, Israel’s allies would come to its aid to protect it from Iranian missiles. However, it is extremely frustrating that Prime Minister Netanyahu continues to ignore the international community and the UN Security Council resolutions. Our own Prime Minister was one of the first to call for an immediate ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel, and this UK Parliament voted eight months ago for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. How exactly will the UK Government help to bring all sides to the negotiating table and secure peace?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend’s comments about Iran are absolutely right. We must stand with Israel in the face of the attacks, wherever they come from and wherever they are sponsored. In direct answer to his question, we are working with our allies on de-escalation. We are working with the US in particular on its plan for a ceasefire, because it is only through a ceasefire that we can create the space for the hostages to be safely released, for the aid to get into the region and for a foot in the door for a political two-state solution, which is the only way to lasting peace.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Prime Minister spoke rightly of the fact that we can barely imagine the pain of the Israeli families and those in Gaza affected over the past year since that Hamas atrocity, but it is also a pain felt acutely in our own communities, by our Jewish communities and by our Muslim communities. We have had 5,000 antisemitic attacks in this country since that atrocity—a record number—so what will the Prime Minister do to reassure the Jewish and Muslim communities and to work with the Community Security Trust and Tell MAMA to strengthen their bonds?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady raises an important point. We have upped the support to communities as a result of the dreadful rise in hate crime in all its manifestations in the past year or so, and we will continue to do so. I know we will have the support of the House in doing so.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Today is a day of mourning for all those who lost family members on 7 October and those hostages in the tunnels lost since then, and for all those civilians in Gaza, the west bank and now in Lebanon. Like the Prime Minister, I have been meeting hostage families all this past year. The only time hostages got released was when there was a hostage-prisoner deal on 22 November last year and some 150 prisoners and 50 hostages were released. Has the Prime Ministers spoken to the Israeli Government about another deal to allow the hostages to be released through swapping them with political prisoners held in Israeli jails?
The Prime Minister
I accept my hon. Friend’s point that it is through a cessation of hostilities that the space can be created for the release of hostages. Yes, of course we talk to leaders, including in Israel, the whole time about how that can be brought about. It is the central focus of all our discussions with Israel and with our allies.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is vital that today and every day we remember every life lost at the hands of Hamas a year ago and every life lost in captivity since, and that we renew our calls for the release of every hostage. While I totally agree with the Prime Minister when he says that Israel must have that right to defend herself, some of the decisions he has taken have led to a feeling that the Government have stepped back their support for Israel, not least in the restoration of funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Does the Prime Minister regret that, and will he revisit that decision, so that actions marry up with words?
The Prime Minister
No, there has been no stepping back of support for Israel. We have been absolutely robust in that support. I have expressed it many times in different places, including to the Prime Minister of Israel. We will continue to support Israel and we will continue to support Israel’s right to defend herself. The House is at its best when it speaks with once voice.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
It has been a year of profound suffering, darkness and trauma. Tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed and displaced, yet the world has learned nothing. The prospect of a two-state solution is a distant dream and the odds on all-out war in the middle east are growing by the day. The unimaginable devastation has to stop; the only hope is a diplomatic solution. Will the Prime Minister assure me that the Government are doing everything in their power to bring about an immediate and permanent ceasefire across the region?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and we are not doing it alone. We are working with our allies in relation to it— last week, I spoke to G7 allies about it, and we speak constantly to the US about it—because we need to de-escalate across the region. We have seen escalation in recent days and weeks, and all sides need to pull back from the brink.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
On behalf of the Green party, I associate myself with the remarks made by the Prime Minister and others in the House in remembrance of all those who lost their lives and were taken hostage in the horrific terrorist attacks on 7 October last year. One of those was Hayim Katsman, who was murdered by Hamas in Kibbutz Holit. His brother Noy had his words included in a collection of speeches and eulogies published today by Standing Together. Noy said this of Hayim:
“I have no doubt that even in the face of Hamas’ people that murdered him, in the face of their extreme right wing beliefs, he would still call out against killing and violence of innocent people. Here, too, he would be empathetic to pain and oppression.”
Those are powerful words. In that spirit, I express my continued and deep concern at the disproportionate response of Israel to the attacks on 7 October and the extent to which that has perpetuated pain, oppression and the killing of innocent people. In recent days, that response has resulted in an escalation of deadly violence. I welcome the Prime Minister’s words about commitment to de-escalation. Does he agree that an urgent ceasefire both between Israel and Hezbollah and in Gaza is essential to resolving the conflict?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member read out some powerful words, which will have been heard across the House. Yes, de-escalation is absolutely needed at the moment as the region stands on the brink.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, may I associate myself with your words and those of the Prime Minister in opening his statement? In any time of conflict, our focus must be on two things: de-escalation and peace; and the plight of the civilian population, whether they be those hostages kidnapped on 7 October, those in Lebanon now sheltering in the street or those in Gaza who seek to find health facilities to treat their loved ones and themselves when they suffer from attacks by Israel. What more can we do to support the health service in Lebanon, which is now on its knees and really needs our support if it is to help the people of Lebanon?
The Prime Minister
We do need to help and assist with the health services in Lebanon—along with the other humanitarian support and the support for training and other matters that we are putting in, it is so important that we do that. We are in constant contact with the Lebanese authorities in relation to that.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Many of us have been fortunate enough to see the good work that UNRWA has done on the ground over many years, but, to be effective, an aid delivery vehicle needs to be rigorously impartial. Given that, will the Government treat UNRWA with caution and carefully, and remember that other aid delivery agencies are available?
The Prime Minister
We of course have to be careful to ensure that any agency absolutely complies with international law and, where there are any allegations, we must ensure that they are properly investigated and any wrongdoing is rooted out. We do have to provide, or help to provide, aid across the region, but that is caveated by the first part of my statement in relation to the point that the right hon. Gentleman rightly raises.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I wish to put on the record my sorrow at the appallingly violent events of 7 October one year ago in southern Israel, and at all the days of violence we have witnessed since. Since the House last met, the forced displacement of almost 2 million residents of Gaza by Israel’s military action has been compounded by a further half a million people forcibly displaced in Lebanon, again by Israeli military action. Does the Prime Minister share the concerns of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, that in destroying civilian infrastructure, killing civilians and impacting humanitarian operations, the Israeli invasion is a breach of international law? What further steps will the Prime Minister take to enforce a ceasefire?
The Prime Minister
I am not going to accept invitations to agree with other people’s assessments. I will make my own. I have been absolutely clear that Israel has the right to defend herself in accordance with international law. The displacement is a very serious issue across the region. Very many people have been displaced and many of them simply want to go home. That includes Israelis who have been displaced from their homes as well. That is why we need to de-escalate: to ensure that those displaced can return back and live safely in their own communities.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
In just 15 months, Iran will be free of many of the restrictions under the joint comprehensive plan of action on its production of centrifuges and its uranium enrichment. Given the new nexus of evil of North Korea, Iran and Russia on nuclear technology transfer, does the Prime Minister believe the JCPOA is still fit for purpose?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point in relation to the nuclear ambitions that we absolutely have to be alive to. We must ensure that Iran cannot possibly get weapons. The sanctions, and the regime around them, must be geared towards that central issue.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I extend my heartfelt sympathies to the families who lost loved ones in the terror attack a year ago, as well as to those who have loved ones that are held in captivity at the moment. I would also like to do the same for ordinary Palestinian civilians who have lost loved ones in the violence of the past year. It is quite clear that, given the heightened tension across the region, an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the west bank and Lebanon is not possible. The Prime Minister has talked about a road map; will he share with us what the steps are towards a peace process and the immediate ceasefire that is desperately needed in the region?
The Prime Minister
I accept that an immediate ceasefire is difficult; I do not accept that it is impossible. The US and Qatar are working hard on this, and they have our full support in the action they are taking. The reason why the US is leading on this is that it well understands the importance of a ceasefire to create the space for all the other relief that needs to be provided and, of course, for the hostages to be released.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The House knows that when events unfold abroad they often reverberate on our streets here at home. Despite the trauma of the last 12 months, I am incredibly proud that rabbis, imams and other religious leaders in St Albans have worked hand in glove to make a bold statement called “Five principles for dialogue: why Jews and Muslims refuse to hate each other”. They have taken that statement into our primary schools, secondary schools and community forums. It has had a profound effect in my community. Is the relevant Government Department actively seeking out examples of such initiatives to build or, where necessary, rebuild interfaith dialogue and community cohesion across the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
Yes, because that joint work is really important. Some of the interfaith work done before 7 October did not have the resilience that many of us thought and hoped it would have. Rebuilding it is hard but it should be supported wherever it takes place. I was interested to hear the particular example that the hon. Lady referred to.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his comments. My thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the violence and war over the past year. Human rights and international law apply equally and without favour. All lives matter—Palestinian, Israeli and Lebanese. When breaches of international law are committed, they should be condemned equally. Does the Prime Minister agree that a ceasefire in Gaza is the best way to de-escalate violence? Will he give assurances that this Government will do all they can to support diplomatic measures and keep an open review of arms sales? Does he agree that we must, at all cost, avoid getting involved in a middle eastern war that could have catastrophic consequences both here and abroad?
The Prime Minister
We are working constantly with our allies to de-escalate the situation, to hold those responsible to account and to ensure that we bring about the much sought-after peace that all communities want.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
As well as the terrible loss of life of Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese citizens, a shocking number of journalists have been killed or wounded while covering events in the middle east. Will the Prime Minister pay tribute to the courage of journalists who are risking their lives daily simply to do their job? Will he re-emphasise the importance of protecting and respecting all media workers who are covering conflict?
The Prime Minister
Yes and yes. It is a very important point. Journalists and those working in the media are risking their lives to ensure that the rest of us have information about what is happening on the ground. Too many have lost their lives, and we must respect that and pay tribute to the really important work that they do. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising a really important issue.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
Today is a day for sombre remembrance of the suffering on all sides, but if the threatened war against Iran takes place, we will need to revisit that discussion in this Chamber. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has rightly demonstrated our concern about the suffering on all sides, and particularly mentioned the suffering of children. When the Ukraine war started, we set up the scheme to evacuate children who were seriously injured to come here for treatment. In January I raised the prospect of that scheme being introduced for Palestinian children and others. I raised it again in May. In July I wrote to my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary. I wrote again in August, and again in September. There does not seem to be any progress on developing such a scheme, despite the willingness of clinicians here. Could the Prime Minister look at how we can achieve progress?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member is right to emphasise the impact that this has on children in particular. We have special responsibilities to children in any conflict. The first step to protecting children is to create the conditions for a ceasefire and de-escalate, which is why, working with our allies, we are spending so much time on that de-escalation and finding a route to a ceasefire.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
In February I stood in the wreckage of some of the kibbutzim where the atrocities took place on 7 October. I was struck by the families we met and their desire for peace rather than revenge. Since then, I am afraid to say that I have heard Minister after Minister at the Dispatch Box mouth the words of peace and de-escalation, yet the situation has got worse and worse. How many more people will have to die before we realise that talking is not enough, and we have to take action with our partners to compel a ceasefire?
The Prime Minister
What happens at the Dispatch Box is the reporting back of the action we are taking elsewhere—that is under this Government and under the last Government—and when not at the Dispatch Box, we are working with our allies to bring about a ceasefire. I accept it is difficult; I accept it has not yet happened. I refuse to give up on the idea that, through diplomacy, we can reach that de-escalation and ceasefire. We will continue to work with our allies to do so. What we have tried to do, particularly in recent weeks, is co-ordinate with our allies so we speak and take action in one co-ordinated way. That, for me, is more powerful than each nation taking action separately.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I associate myself with the words of hon. and right hon. Members today, and add my thoughts to the families and the hostages who were taken a year ago. I too hope for their safe return. Latest figures suggest that approximately 6,000 Lebanese nationals are in the UK with a temporary right to remain. Lebanese nationals in Edinburgh have recounted to me their fears about returning home and their concerns about the inevitable humanitarian crisis that will follow should the conflict continue. Will the Government commit to looking at options to ensure no Lebanese national currently in the UK is forced to return to Lebanon during the current conflict?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can give that assurance. It is very important. We need to get British nationals who are in Lebanon out of Lebanon as quickly and safely as possible, and we certainly should not be returning people back to the conflict zone while the conflict is going on.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary delivered important statements at the UN last month, emphasising the importance of upholding both the principles and the purposes of the UN charter as a foundation for the rules-based international order. The Prime Minister rightly states today that a political settlement is the only route to a lasting peace and stability in the region. In working towards that aim, what consideration are the Government giving to official recognition of Palestinian statehood?
The Prime Minister
The question of recognition is a question of when, not if. [Interruption.] Well, at the point of greatest impact. We need a two-state solution. We need to work with our allies towards that end. We will continue to do so, because this conflict will not de-escalate until there is a political route through.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
It is with profound sadness that we take stock of the past year in which 1,200 Israelis were killed by Hamas’s horrific attack and over 41,000 Palestinians and thousands in Lebanon have been killed by the Israeli military onslaught. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that all lives should be cherished—Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese—and that nothing can ever justify the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure? Will he join me in calling for a ceasefire and accountability in the region of the middle east?
The Prime Minister
I certainly agree that all lives should be cherished, and I think that is the position across the House. As I have said, de-escalation and a ceasefire is the only way forward, which is why we are working so hard on it.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
While I welcome the Prime Minister’s call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, there is so much more he can do to bring that about. As South Africa’s Foreign Minister said, the decision to stop the fighting in Gaza is in the hands of those who supply Israel with weapons. He knows that international law does not differentiate between offensive weapons and defensive weapons, so why does he continue to license 90% of weapon sales to Israel when there is ample proof that UK weapons are still being used to prolong this catastrophe?
The Prime Minister
For the reason I have twice stated. If the sale of weapons for defensive use by Israel were banned, that is a position I could not countenance a year after 7 October. It is not a position I could countenance in the face of attacks by Iran. The whole House saw the number of missiles coming over into Israel only the other day. The idea that we could say we support Israel’s right to defend herself, and at the same time deprive her of the means to do so, is so wholly inconsistent that it will never be my position.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The scale of the devastation that we have seen in the middle east is appalling. In recent weeks, 127 innocent children have been killed in Lebanon. The scale of death is appalling, and the potential for further escalation is terrifying. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how he is working with his fellow world leaders to push for de-escalation and a peaceful settlement?
The Prime Minister
We are working constantly with our colleagues and allies, whether in the G7 or bilaterally. We have numerous daily contacts to bring about the de-escalation that is so desperately needed.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Hezbollah began its latest assault on Israel on 8 October, the day after Hamas’s attacks on Israel. The Iran-backed terror group has fired more than 12,000 rockets towards Israel over the past year, but the international community called for a ceasefire only after Israel had responded. The Prime Minister has said that he is committed to standing by Israel against the threats that it faces, but will he deliver on his commitment to proscribing Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
The Prime Minister
I gave an answer earlier on the issue of the IRGC. We do need to address state threats; we are looking into how we can do that, and will continue to do so.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister has said, the horrific Hamas attacks a year ago inflicted unbearable pain and loss on Israeli civilians, and we continue to condemn those attacks in the strongest terms. I remember clearly, too, the fear that my then colleagues in Gaza, Palestinian aid workers, felt as bombs began dropping on them that night. The healthcare system in Gaza is now all but destroyed, and according to the United Nations there have been 36 recent attacks on healthcare facilities in Lebanon. Israeli forces are also now using fighter jets to bomb refugee camps in the west bank. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is unacceptable? As he will know, the UK Government are the United Nations Security Council lead on the protection of civilians. Next month, when the UK has the United Nations Security Council presidency, will he ensure that there is a focus on their protection?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks with great experience. Yes, we need aid to get into the region, and we need to protect aid workers, because that is the only way in which the aid can get to where it is needed.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Today we mark that terrible anniversary of the biggest slaughter of Jews since the second world war. We must also note that since that day, more than 60,000 Israelis have been displaced in northern Israel by the actions of Hezbollah. The Israeli Government have had no choice but to mobilise the Israel Defence Forces, and any Israeli citizen can have to be involved in that.
I am proud of the fact that yesterday Leeds held a multi-faith remembrance service in Millennium Square, attended by more than 1,000 people. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is in marked contrast to the individual who drove the Jewish chaplain of Leeds into hiding because, as an Israeli citizen, he had to serve as a member of the IDF? Is that not an act of pure hatred and antisemitism?
The Prime Minister
We must hunt down that hatred wherever we see it, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to raise it and to call it out. We must focus on the multi-faith work to which he referred: I think that, across the House, we want to see more of it. He is also right about the displacement in northern Israel. Many families simply want to return to their homes, on both sides of the border, and we must never forget the impact that it has on them.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement on what is a sombre and sobering day as we reflect on the past year—the atrocities of 7 October last year, and, of course, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and now in Lebanon. In my constituency are communities who have links with Israel, with Gaza, with Palestine and also with Lebanon, and they raise with me regularly the need for an immediate ceasefire. Does the Prime Minister recognise that that ceasefire is a critical step towards what, in the end, can be the only solution: a political solution for the region?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and that is why we are working with allies, including the United States, on seeking to bring it about.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
There have been 1,200 butchered and more than 250 hostages taken, more than 100 of whom are still there, including Emily Damari, a 28-year-old British citizen. Will the Prime Minister recommit himself today to doing whatever it takes—to leaving no stone unturned —in ensuring that she is returned to her family, and that, if necessary, British assets are used to help to extract her?
The Prime Minister
Yes, absolutely; that is the commitment I gave to her mother and the other families I met last week, and on various other occasions before that. I have sat with her mother and seen at first hand the utter agony that she is going through, as any parent would in those circumstances. I gave her that commitment and I repeat it here.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and associate myself with the clear calls for unimpeded access to aid, an immediate ceasefire and an immediate return of the hostages? Since the heinous terrorist attack one year ago, we have seen here at home a consequential increase in crimes of hate, antisemitism and other forms of hatred. I know his commitment to tackling the scourge of such hatred—I have seen it up close—so will he assure me that his Government will continue to challenge all such forms of hatred, both here and abroad?
The Prime Minister
Yes, absolutely; we can and we must. Across the House, we all know the impact of hate crime, and we have all been horrified by the increase over the last 12 months. We have a duty and a responsibility to do everything we can to reduce it, and we will work with others to do so.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
May I, too, join the Prime Minister in offering my condolences to the families of all those who have been killed and those who continue to be killed? I also join the Prime Minister in relation to the release of hostages—all hostages, including the children who are held in Israeli detention centres without charge and without any legal representation. Given what he said in relation to self-defence, which is a moot point, is he stating to the House that all offensive weapons are banned and that only defensive weapons are being supplied?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman will well know the legal framework. We have domestic legislation in place that was passed and applied by successive Governments, and we have international obligations. We have taken our decisions in accordance with that legislation, as the House would expect, and we have published a summary of our reasons for doing so, for the House to examine.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
May I, too, express my heartfelt sympathy and condolences to all those affected by the terrorist attacks on 7 October? I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. Does he agree that the sharp rise in antisemitism that we have seen since 7 October—it has now reached the highest level ever recorded in the UK—is a stain on our democracy? May I ask him to give reassurances to Jewish communities across the UK that his Government are doing everything they can to ensure their security and safety, and to tackle the scourge of antisemitism?
The Prime Minister
Let me give that reassurance. I think we are all shocked by the sharp rise in antisemitism, and we need to work with all communities to bring down hate crime, whichever community it is aimed at—whether it is the Jewish community, the Muslim community or any other community.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for clarifying the Government’s position on Israel’s right to defend itself. Will he and the Home Secretary clarify to the House what steps are being taken to tackle violent disorder and antisemitism in London? Many members of the British Jewish communities here in London feel under threat, and this weekend we saw violent protest. What will the Government do to tackle that and to make our British Jewish communities feel safe again?
The Prime Minister
We have to support the right of freedom of protest but, at the same time, be absolutely clear that support for terrorist organisations is not to be tolerated. We will work with the police and other law enforcement agencies to ensure that we tackle it and stand very firm on it.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
Today, as at so many times in the history of the Jewish people, we are bound in grief and mourning. Will the Prime Minister assure the Jewish community that we are not alone in that grief, and will he take this opportunity to join me in praising the dignity, courage and love shown by the families and friends of the hostages in their efforts to bring them home?
The Prime Minister
Let me give that assurance that they are not alone, and let me pay tribute again to the families. It is incredibly moving to spend any time with them and to hear at first hand what they are going through. As I have said to them every time I have met them, the impact that this has on anybody listening to them, and the impact it has on me, is profound.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I join the Prime Minister and the House in offering my condolences to the families of all those Israeli civilians killed on 7 October, and of all innocent civilians—Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese or any other—killed over the last 12 months. Over the last 12 months, more than 950 Palestinian bloodlines have been wiped off the face of the earth—no family member remains from those generations. Over 1,000 families have only one sole survivor remaining living today. What message does the Prime Minister have for the British Palestinians and the surviving Palestinians in the affected region, and what is he doing to protect them from the same fate as the 42,000 and counting?
The Prime Minister
There has been far too much bloodshed and killing, and far too many children orphaned. I give my assurance that we will do everything we can, and we are doing everything we can, to de-escalate and to bring about a ceasefire to allow much-needed aid to go in and hostages to come out, but I absolutely understand the strength of the point that the hon. Member puts to me.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Prime Minister said that I stand with Israel. I stand with peace; I stand with the Israeli people and with the Palestinians and the Lebanese equally. This is not mere semantics. I applaud the involvement of the UK military in protecting Israelis at the weekend, but where is the equivalent for the people of Gaza, Beirut and elsewhere?
The Prime Minister
It is in the work that we are doing to bring about de-escalation and a ceasefire, because that is the only route through. That is why we are working with our allies so closely on those issues and will continue to do so.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The tragedy of the deaths a year ago has now been compounded by tens of thousands more deaths in Gaza, the west bank and Lebanon. Gaza is now reduced to a place of rubble, famine, thirst and premature death, and lots of children looking for their families. The bombs that have rained down on Gaza and other places are in part supplied by this country. The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court have both given strong opinions on the situation there. Will the Prime Minister revisit the whole situation of the sale of British arms that are being used to bomb Gaza and kill wholly innocent Palestinian civilians?
The Prime Minister
We have set out our position: domestic law is clear, international law is clear, and we have taken our decision and put a summary of that before the House.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
If we in this House, at this distance, can feel the pain of that dastardly attack a year ago, we can but imagine its indelible imprint on the people of Israel and on Jewish folk across the world. What is the Prime Minister’s view of the fact that our national broadcaster, the BBC, refuses to call those who perpetrated this heinous terrorist attack “terrorists”, and likewise now with Hezbollah? What is the Government’s position on that and what representations have they made?
The Prime Minister
The Government’s position is that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organisations. We stand very firm on that and rightly call them what they are.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in condemning the Iranian ballistic missile attack on Israel last Tuesday, and I support the role of UK armed forces in defeating it. Back in January, the Prime Minister said that parliamentary approval of military action is needed only when deploying troops. We do not know how Israel will respond to the Iranian attack, and the Government could find themselves asked to contribute at short notice. Can the Prime Minister set out what he meant when he said that a parliamentary debate and vote would happen only when deploying troops?
The Prime Minister
The whole House condemns Iran’s attack of a few days ago—we all saw the impact—and the whole House will understand that there will be occasions when it is important for a Government to act without first coming to this House.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Like others, I recently had the sobering experience of meeting some of the hostage families. One person described how his brother had seen his wife, the mother of their new baby, murdered before his eyes, just before he was taken by Hamas. Despite their ordeal, the hostage families I met showed a desire for peace and reconciliation that I found utterly breathtaking and humbling, and it gives me hope. Does the Prime Minister agree that the release of the hostages is not only the right thing to do, in and of itself—of course, it is—but a major key to ending the conflict? Any ceasefire without the release of the hostages is, de facto, not a ceasefire.
The Prime Minister
I agree, which is why we must continue to press for the immediate and unconditional release of the hostages. I, too, have been struck by the incredible resilience of the families. It is humbling to listen and comprehend what they are going through while they, none the less, insist that there has to be a peaceful way forward for all concerned.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his strong statement, which this House supports—well done.
In the light of recent events, it has become clear that Israel’s right to defend itself, though verbally supported, is effectively condemned when it takes action. Ever mindful of the 1,200 Israeli citizens who were so brutally murdered a year ago, will the Prime Minister condemn the disgraceful antisemitic demonstrations that took place on the streets of London on Saturday? Will he ensure that all military aid is made available to Israel against the murderous intentions of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran?
The Prime Minister
I condemn antisemitism, wherever and whenever it happens. We must stand together across this House to stamp it out.
British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the next statement, I remind the Government that I understand, and the whole House understands, that the business of the Government continues during recess and that Ministers will always need to respond to events in the UK and around the world. However, it is frustrating for hon. Members on both sides of the House when major planned announcements are scheduled during periods when the House is not sitting, particularly towards the end of recess.
Although I appreciate the Government informing me directly of the developments on some of these issues, that does not substitute for informing the House. If announcements made towards the end of last week had been held over until after the weekend, hon. Members would have had the first opportunity to question the Secretary of State, rather than learning about it through the media.
Ministers should come to the House to announce their policies in the first instance, even if that means waiting a few days. The excuse that there is an election elsewhere in the world is not my concern, because it is the elected Members on both sides of this House whom I represent.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Mr Speaker, I am very grateful for your instructions at the beginning of this statement. With permission, I will make a statement on the conclusion of negotiations on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I have done the bidding. I do not need others to come in on the back of it.
Mr Lammy
On Thursday 3 October, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister and Mauritian Prime Minister Jugnauth made an historic announcement: after two years of negotiations and decades of disagreement, the United Kingdom and Mauritius have reached a political agreement on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The treaty is neither signed nor ratified, but I wanted to update the House on the conclusion of formal negotiations at the earliest opportunity.
Members will appreciate the context. Since its creation, the territory and the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia have had a contested existence. [Interruption.] In recent years, the threat has risen significantly. When we came into office, the status quo was clearly not sustainable. [Interruption.] A binding judgment against the UK seemed inevitable, and it was just a matter of time before our only choices would have been abandoning the base altogether or breaking international law.
Mr Speaker
Order. You will all be able to question the Secretary of State, so please just wait for that moment.
Mr Speaker
You have been here long enough to know that points of order do not come at this stage. Good try, but it is not working.
Mr Lammy
If Members oppose the deal, which of the alternatives do they prefer? Doing this deal on our terms was the sole way to maintain the full and effective operation of the base into the future. That is why, in November 2022, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), initiated sovereignty negotiations. It is also why my predecessor, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, ultimately continued with those negotiations. Under the previous Government, there were 11 rounds of negotiations, the last one held just weeks before the general election was called. In July, this Government inherited unfinished business. The threat was real, and inaction was not a strategy.
Inaction posed several acute risks to the United Kingdom. First, it threatened the UK-US base. From countering malign Iranian activity in the middle east to ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific, the base is critical for our national security. Without surety of tenure, no base can operate effectively or truly deter our enemies. Critical investment decisions were already being delayed. Secondly, inaction impacted on our relationship with the United States, which neither wanted nor welcomed the legal uncertainty and strongly encouraged us to strike a deal. I am a transatlanticist, and we had to protect that important relationship. Thirdly, inaction undermined our international standing. We are showing that what we mean is what we say, when it comes to international law and our desire for partnerships with the global south. That strengthens our arguments on issues such as Ukraine or the South China sea.
Further legal wrangling served nobody’s interests but our adversaries’. In a more volatile world, a deal benefited us all—the UK, the United States and Mauritius. This Government therefore made striking the best possible deal a priority. We appointed Jonathan Powell as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for these negotiations, and he has worked closely with a brilliant team of civil servants and lawyers. Their goal was a way forward that serves UK national interests, respects the interests of our partners, and upholds the international rule of law. The agreement fulfils these objectives. It is strongly supported by partners, with Present Biden going so far as to “applaud” our achievement within minutes of the announcement. Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin have also backed this “successful outcome” which “reaffirms” our “special defence relationship”. The agreement has also been welcomed by the Indian Government and commended by the United Nations Secretary-General.
In return for our agreeing to Mauritian sovereignty over the entire islands, including Diego Garcia, the UK-US base has an uncontested long-term future. Base operations will remain under full UK control well into the next century. Mauritius will authorise us to exercise their sovereign rights and authorities in respect of Diego Garcia. This is initially for 99 years, but the UK has the right to extend that. We have full Mauritian backing for robust security arrangements, including to prevent foreign armed forces from accessing or establishing themselves on the outer islands. The base’s long-term future is therefore more secure under this agreement than without it. If that were not the case, I doubt the White House, State Department or Pentagon would have praised the deal so effusively.
The agreement will be underpinned by a financial settlement that is acceptable to both sides. Members will be aware that the Government do not normally reveal payments for our military bases overseas, so it would be inappropriate to publicise further details of those arrangements at this stage.
The agreement also recognises and rights the wrongs of the past. The whole House would agree that the manner in which Chagossians were forcibly removed in the 1960s was deeply wrong and regrettable. Mauritius is now free to implement a resettlement programme to islands other than Diego Garcia. The United Kingdom and Mauritius have also committed to supporting Chagossians’ welfare, establishing a new trust fund capitalised by the UK, and providing additional Government support to Chagossians in the UK. The UK will maintain the pathway for Chagossians to obtain British citizenship. Furthermore, Mauritius and the UK will establish a new programme of visits to the archipelago for Chagossians.
The agreement also ushers in a new era in our relations with Mauritius—a Commonwealth nation and Africa’s leading democracy. We have agreed to intensify co-operation on our shared priorities, including security, growth and the environment. The agreement ensures continued protection of the islands’ unique environment, which is home to over 200 species of coral and over 800 species of fish.
Finally, I reassure the House and all members of the UK family worldwide that the agreement does not signal any change in policy on Britain’s other overseas territories. British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and the sovereign base areas is not up for negotiation. The situations are not comparable. That has been acknowledged across our overseas territories. Fabian Picardo, Chief Minister of Gibraltar, vocally supported the agreement, stating that there is “no possible read across” to Gibraltar on the issue of sovereignty. Similarly, the Governor of the Falklands has confirmed that the historical contexts of the Chagos islands and the Falklands are “very different”.
The Government remain firmly committed to modern partnerships with our overseas territories based on mutual consent. After the Mauritian elections, the Government will move towards treaty signature, and it is our intention to pursue ratification in 2025 by submitting the treaty and a Bill to this House for scrutiny. This is a historic moment, a victory for diplomacy. We have saved the base and secured Britain’s national interests for the long term. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for sharing his statement with me in advance. At a time when the world is more dangerous than at any point in our lifetimes, when the middle east is on the edge of serious conflict, when there is war in Europe, and when British military forces are engaged in protecting an ally from Iranian missiles, the Government propose giving away a key strategic military asset to a state that has never controlled it, and to which the Chagossian people feel little affinity, if any. It is frankly astonishing that this announcement was slipped out at the end of last week, a few days before Parliament returned, to advantage the election timetable of the governing party in Mauritius, rather than in a statement to the House. The Times put it well:
“In a dangerous world Britain’s security is being risked by ministers and departmental lawyers who believe appeasing faux anti-colonialist sentiment in the UN matters more than the national interest.”
UK sovereignty has applied to the British Indian Ocean Territory for more than 200 years. Its strategic location, right in the centre of the Indian ocean, is unmatchable, and it houses our one and only military base in the Indo-Pacific. I can tell the House that this is a deal that the former Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Cameron, would never have done. Nor for that matter would my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly). Had they been willing to do it, the deal would have been concluded long ago. The Conservative Government declined to enter into a deal with Mauritius for reasons that I think are now clear for the House to see. The Labour Government have not published the draft treaty—they have published only a non-legally binding joint statement—so we are somewhat in the dark about exactly what has been agreed. Crucially, can the Foreign Secretary guarantee that there will be a vote on this treaty?
The noble Lord West of Spithead, the most senior military figure ever to hold office in a Labour Government, said that there is
“an irrefutable case that ceding the Chagos Islands to Mauritius would be an irresponsible act, which would put our strategic interests…in danger, while also recklessly undermining fundamental principles of international law.”
I would therefore be most grateful if the Foreign Secretary could answer the following five questions. First, never mind what the Chief Minister said; what steps have the Foreign Secretary and the Government taken to reassure the people of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands that this ill-advised decision will have no effect on their sovereignty? Secondly, and yet more importantly, what steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to make it clear that this decision will have no read-across for the sovereign base areas in Cyprus—Episkopi, Dhekelia and Akrotiri? Thirdly, what assurances has he received that no Chinese military assets will be placed on any of the nearby islands in the archipelago? While his words are welcome, the House needs to see the wording clearly set out.
Fourthly, precisely how much money are we planning that British taxpayers should pay to Mauritius for each year under this deal, as well as in total? We want full transparency on all payments that the Government intend to make, and on what the money is for. What are the payments for the privilege of giving the territory away? Fifthly, what consultations has the Foreign Secretary undertaken with the Chagossian community in this country and elsewhere? We note that his hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) has, with courage and integrity, opposed this deal. It remains to be seen whether others on the Government Benches will have the good sense, courage and integrity so to do. Jonathan Powell has only just been appointed special envoy for these negotiations; can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Government have ensured that there is time for us to draw on his expertise?
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary propose giving away Britain’s key strategic assets in the Indian ocean. Little or no attention has been paid to the position of those with direct heritage and family links to Chagos. We have no clear details of any safeguards that will guard against China, a close ally of Mauritius, setting up military facilities and surveillance capacity not far away. Through this statement, the Government give succour to our enemies in a dangerous world, and undermine the strategic web of Britain’s defence interests. Our country is the poorer and the lesser for it.
Mr Lammy
It takes some brass neck to criticise this Government for delivering what the last Government tried and failed to do. It was the last Government that opened these negotiations in the first place, because they understood what was at risk. They went through 11 rounds of negotiations and resolved nothing. Instead, as with much that we found across Government, they left it for us to inherit and to fix.
The shadow Foreign Secretary prays in aid the previous Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), who is now auditioning for the Tory leadership. The right hon. Member for Braintree seems to have suffered short-term memory loss in the past few years, because he told the Commons that, in negotiations with Mauritius,
“Our primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 151.]
That is exactly what we delivered. Do not take my word for it: ask President Biden, Secretary Blinken or Secretary Austin. If this can win the approval of the White House and the Pentagon on the protection of security interests, I think the shadow Foreign Secretary can rest easy and put down some of the bombast.
The reality is that those who do not support the agreement support either abandoning the base or breaking international law. I ask the right hon. Gentleman: which is it? Our agreement secures the base, stops a potentially dangerous illegal migration route, protects the marine areas, provides new support for the Chagossians and ensures that the UK is compliant with international law. There was a time when the Tories believed in international law; they now seem to have given up, and are telling other people basically to go ahead and break it.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that this was a serious negotiation, which the last Government began and left to us to conclude. It secures the future of an important security asset in the Indian ocean. The Conservatives posture; we lead. Parliament will, of course, get the scrutiny that it deserves in the coming months. He knows, too, that this was a negotiation between two Governments, and of course we kept the Chagossians informed all along the way.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
In a parallel reality, may I ask the Foreign Secretary about a particular aspect of the treaty that I do not believe will get a great deal of attention in all the heat and fury, but that is very important? At a time when our oceans have never been under such stress, the British Indian Ocean Territory is one of the last ocean wildernesses in the world, and tuna trawlers are lining up on the boundary of the no-take zone, trying to entice fish across into their nets. Artisanal fishing by Chagossians who have come home is quite possible in this ecosystem, but licensed fishing is not, and any break in environmental protection will lead to a huge spike in illegal fishing. Will the Foreign Security inform the House what provision has been made to ensure the ongoing protection of this unique part of the world once the administration of the islands is handed over to Mauritius, and what involvement the Chagossians have had in that process?
Mr Lammy
I reassure my right hon. Friend that we will of course do everything we can, and have done everything we can—including combating illegal fishing—to better secure the environment. A new marine protected area will be established and managed as part of the deal. We will continue to work with the Mauritians on that marine protected area, and the United States will play its part as well. I am grateful for the question.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Five years on from the ICJ ruling, the Liberal Democrats welcome the effort to comply with the advice of that Court while protecting our national security interests at a time of global insecurity. However, we put on record our concerns about the way in which that process was conducted, and the risk that it bakes into a new treaty the historic injustices faced by the Chagossian people.
The voice of the Chagossians has been excluded throughout the negotiations and the outcome. That is deeply regrettable. The UK rightly believes in the principle of self-determination, yet there has been no opportunity for the self-determination of Chagossians. Today I met Maxwell Evenor, a Chagossian living in Crawley who is desperate to return to the islands. Maxwell said to me:
“All we have is our voice but that has been silenced for so long.”
Will the Foreign Secretary set out how the voices of Chagossians can be injected into the process, even at this late stage? The House was too often bypassed under the last Conservative Government, so I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s assurance that there will be proper parliamentary oversight of the final treaty.
Finally, may I express my concern about some of the language used by those on the Benches of the official Opposition in response to this announcement? There is no equivalence between the Chagos islands and other British overseas territories. We must be absolutely clear about that, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will reaffirm it. For some Conservative Members to entertain the idea that Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands are in some sense at risk is to play into the hands of those who do not share Britain’s interests. We in this House must speak with one voice when it comes to Britain’s sovereign overseas territories.
Mr Lammy
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for raising the plight of the Chagossians. The way in which they were treated in the 1960s was wrong and is a matter of immense regret, and he is absolutely right to raise those issues. He will know that this negotiation was between two state parties, as is the way with such matters, and we sought to keep the Chagossians informed along the way. My belief is that the previous Government also sought to do that. I reassure him that a trust fund has been set up to ensure that Chagossians are able to get support. They are also able to apply for citizenship of this country. Although there is not one view among Chagossian groups—he will recognise that there are Chagossians in the Seychelles, in Mauritius and in the United Kingdom, so it is hard to get one view—we will continue to do all we can to support them.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I acknowledge the Foreign Secretary’s words on trying to right an historic wrong, and on how that will help to improve relations with the global south. I also note the words of support from our closest ally, the US President. However, what mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that the strategic defence importance of the US-UK base remains after the expiration of the deal? How will we ensure that the voice of the Chagossians, who have never been under Mauritian Government control, will be central to any future arrangement?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee. In relation to the global south, he will have seen that the Government of India welcomed the agreement, and that India committed to continued work with Mauritius and like-minded partners, including the United Kingdom—that was important. The agreement that has been struck can be extended upon completion of the lease. As I said before, we are committed to working with the Chagossians —that is why we have a trust fund set up. Of course, now that Mauritius will effectively be in charge upon completion of the treaty, it is saying that it will work with the Chagossians on resettlements—not on Diego Garcia, but on some of the other islands in the surrounds.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
This is a shameful day for British democracy and a dark moment for human rights in the United Kingdom. Already, the people of the Chagos islands have been forcibly removed from their homeland; today, this Government are handing their home over to a foreign country that is in cahoots with a hostile nation. The Foreign Secretary must commit to allowing the British Chagossian people the right of self-determination—the same right we afford to every other British overseas territory. Are the people of the Chagos islands of less worth than the Falkland Islanders, the Gibraltarians or the people of any other British overseas territory? Will he commit to allowing the people of the Chagos islands to decide their own destiny?
Mr Lammy
I think the hon. Gentleman knows better than that, having chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Mauritius. He knows that these discussions began under the last Government; he will also have read the ICJ judgment and will know it is important that this deal was struck. The last Government left it to us to do it; we did it, and we are proud of it.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Words that are said in this House bear a huge amount of weight, particularly for citizens in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. Will the Foreign Secretary clearly set out that nothing in this agreement or in his statement today affects their settled status and their self-determination?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and of course I agree with him wholeheartedly.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Can I say to the right hon. Gentleman that even when I was on the Government Benches, I was opposed to what my Government were doing, even when they were only going to go halfway? He supported my position then; why has he now turned around?
The one point I want to make to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench is that the Mauritian Government are guilty of vast human rights abuses, locking up other politicians who are independent, and that the black Creole Mauritians were traduced by that Government. We have handed that Government rights that the Chagossians have never agreed to, so my question is this: why was this done in a rush, just before their election? The Mauritian Government will now use this agreement to benefit themselves in the re-election process. Why are we doing that to support a disgusting Government who are in league with the Chinese?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has immense experience in this House. As Members of this House know, sometimes one is able to strike up friendships across the Floor—we are fellow Spurs supporters—but Mauritius is a country that is part of our Commonwealth, so I cannot possibly associate myself with the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman has just made.
Let us be clear: what was done to the Chagossians back in the 1960s is a matter of regret. It is a sore that has run through our relations with Mauritius, but also with substantial parts of the global south. That is why we continued the negotiations and struck this agreement—the right hon. Gentleman may well have disagreed with the last Government, but I remind him that they undertook 11 rounds of negotiations.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
On the penultimate day of the last Labour Government, the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, created the marine protected area around the British Indian Ocean Territory. At that time, it was the largest protected area anywhere in the world. As my right hon. Friend knows, the last time a prosecution was brought for illegal fishing in that area was in 2020, four and a half years ago, and the way in which that prosecution was conducted meant that a £10,000 fine—a mere slap on the wrist—was levied against the vessel. Such vessels take hundreds of thousands of pounds of fish out of that marine protected area. Who is going to pay? How committed are the Government to ensuring that that marine protected area continues to exist, and how will they ensure that the minimal level of protection that is currently in place is increased?
Mr Lammy
I know how my hon. Friend has championed these issues for many years, and I reassure him that this was an issue of intense discussion under the last Government and under this Government. We recognise the importance of that marine protected area, and when he sees the provisions of the treaty come forward, we can of course have a further discussion on that surety.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
It would appear that the judgment—the potential next judgment—of a spurious, rather political foreign Court matters more than the issue of national sovereignty. The Foreign Secretary boasts that President Biden likes this deal. The Speaker said earlier that this House should not be affected by elections that take place in foreign countries, but how confident is the Foreign Secretary that Donald Trump, if he becomes the 47th President of the USA, will approve of this deal, given the importance of our relationship with America?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Let me reassure him that we have sought to take views across the US political establishment, but I do say to him that to get a US President, a US Secretary of State for foreign affairs and a US Secretary of Defence to applaud this agreement should reassure him that the US would do nothing that helped our enemies, particularly the Chinese, in this regard.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that, despite others trying to score cheap political points and recklessly scaremonger among the residents of our other overseas territories, this Government are completely committed to supporting the right of self-determination of the people of Gibraltar and of the Falklands?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs the all-party group on Gibraltar. We unequivocally support the right of both Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands to self-determination. I was pleased to see the Chief Minister come out categorically and put down some of the false statements that were being made last week.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
The old principle that we used to apply was the Wilson principle—the principle of self-determination—which the Foreign Secretary may remember is the defence of the Falkland Islands and the defence of Gibraltar. He has now just violated that principle by undermining the rights of the Chagossian people in favour of a claim that was abandoned in 1965—it was never really made because it was only administrative, and the islands were never properly governed from Mauritius anyway—and by being in favour of a Court judgment that was advisory, he has sold out the sovereignty of the British people. Truly, nobody apart from a boy called Jack has ever made a worse deal on the way to market, and he has come back with a handful of beans that he is trying to sell as a prize.
Mr Lammy
I have to say that I have always admired the right hon. Gentleman’s eloquence, but I have not always admired his principles. He was part of the last Government—
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Can I begin by congratulating Conservative Members on their sudden interest in national security? They must have forgotten all about the millions and millions of Russian roubles swilling about in the party’s bank accounts.
I do have a question for the Foreign Secretary, and I want to ask a question on behalf of my constituents in Plymouth and of the constituency of the Royal Marines community in the UK. The Falklands and Gibraltar represent something really personal and special to anyone who has served in the Navy or the Royal Marines. These are places that hold a real emotional weight: not only does it say “Gibraltar” across the Royal Marines cap badge, but it is written across our hearts. Can the Foreign Secretary please assure that constituency about what this Government’s plans are for the Falklands Islands and Gibraltar?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and for his service and the seriousness with which he puts his remarks. I can give him that unequivocal assurance for the Falklands, for Gibraltar, for Cyprus and the rights that exist. The situation in the British Indian Ocean Territory is completely different and not comparable, and I regret that in a way this decision has been made against the backdrop of a Conservative leadership contest, and that colleagues who know a lot better have sought to make partisan points with something so important.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Did the Government take the trouble to consult the head of their own strategic defence review, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, before announcing this decision? If so, what did Lord Robertson say? The SDR is supposed to report early next year. Would it not have been more sensible to see what its findings were before taking a militarily risky decision such as this?
Mr Lammy
This deal secures the future of the base beyond the lifetime of anyone currently in this Parliament, and it can be extended. That is why the US Secretary of Defence has welcomed it. I would have thought that a former head of NATO of course welcomes this deal, because it secures the base and our national security, and the national security of the global community.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the vital operations on the base on Diego Garcia will remain completely unaltered and without disruption thanks to this agreement?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Absolutely, yes, I can.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Over the past 210 years Chagossians have been traded, deprived of their liberty and of their dignity. They have been displaced from their homeland and now, thanks to this process, they face the prospect of being dispossessed from their islands and from their future hope of self-determination. Chagossians are not children, and they do not require or ask for a trust fund. They are a proud community of many thousands of people who have been wronged time after time, and who today are looking to the Foreign Secretary, to the UK, and to Members of this House to ensure that their right to self-determination is understood and respected. Many of those Chagossians are outside right now. Can the right hon. Gentleman offer them that reassurance and think again on this negotiation?
Mr Lammy
The way that the Chagossians were treated was wrong, and this deal secures a right to settlement for them to the outer islands. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are a range of opinions among them, but he is absolutely right to put on record the manner in which they were treated, which I hope the whole House would accept is a matter of immense regret.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the threat of illegal migration on to Diego Garcia carried the threat of creating a further smuggling route into the UK, and has that threat now been shut down?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a serious issue. On the signing of that treaty that is now a matter for Mauritius, and she is right to highlight that important issue in terms of our own national security.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I do not know how many people in the Chamber have visited these islands, but I went there with the Defence Committee 38 years ago. It was crucial in our whole effort in the cold war against the Soviet Union. We never appeased once in that cold war, and we won it. The question I want to ask—it is a serious question—is this: given that Mauritius has a close relationship with China, and given that we cannot trust a single word the Chinese say with our experience on Hong Kong, and given that they are militarising islands all over the Pacific, are we absolutely sure that sometime in the future the Chinese will not exert pressure on the Mauritian Government to have a base on these islands?
Mr Lammy
I have to say that such a senior Member of the House of Commons should just check his facts a little bit more closely. Mauritius is one of only two countries in Africa that has not participated in China’s belt and road. Mauritius is an ally of India, not China.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
This Government have committed to a reset of the UK’s relationship with the global south. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that putting this issue to bed will help neutralise the charge that the UK plays by double standards where international law is concerned?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Some would argue that the International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 2019 was only advisory and that the UN General Assembly resolution of 22 May 2019 was not binding, but he will recognise that many of our closest allies voted against us on that occasion. It is important that we are a country that upholds the rule of law. I am called to come to this Dispatch Box to make the case for standing with Ukraine and for international humanitarian law. For all those reasons, we must be a country that upholds the rules-based order.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
We have just handed sovereign British territory to a small island nation that is an ally of China, and we are paying for the privilege, all so the Foreign Secretary can feel good about himself at his next north London dinner party. In whose interests does he think he serves: those of the global diplomatic elite or those of the British people and our national interest?
Mr Lammy
Well, I hope that question may have garnered the right hon. Gentleman a few more votes, but if that is his position, he is unlikely to lead the Conservative party to victory. This deal secures the base and it is in our national interests. That is why it is a good deal and it is why the President and the Defence Secretary of the United States applaud and welcome this deal. What do they know about global national security that he does not?
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
It is fairly unseemly, seeing a leadership race being conducted in the middle of a foreign policy debate—that is what is happening—but does the Secretary of State agree that clarity over the legal status of Diego Garcia, achieved through diplomacy with a Commonwealth partner, cements our influence in the Indo-Pacific?
Mr Lammy
I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend, because the Commonwealth matters to those on the Government Benches. It used to matter to those on the Opposition Benches. As we head to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa, it is hugely important that we are a country that plays by the rules. That is why this agreement is so important.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
I do not think it will come as a huge surprise to anyone that, unlike the outraged masses sat to my right, I have absolutely no problem with the principle of the United Kingdom divesting itself of what little remains of its colonial past. Can I ask the Minister about the involvement of the Chagossian people in this process—a people who he accepts have been treated shamefully by the United Kingdom and whose forced displacement is rightly regarded as a crime against humanity? Will he be clear about when his Government met the Chagossian people, the nature of the discussions that were had and the extent to which the opinion of the Chagossian people was represented in this deal?
Mr Lammy
As I have said, this deal will mean that, for the first time, Chagossians will be able to resettle on the outer islands. This was a negotiation between the United Kingdom Government and Mauritius; that was the nature of the state agreement. Of course, we sought to keep Chagossians informed, but I remind the hon. Gentleman—he knows this—that there are a range of Chagossian groups, with some in the Seychelles, some in Mauritius and some in this country.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
When the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), was leading negotiations with Mauritius, he said:
“Our primary objective is to ensure the continued effective operation of our defence facility on Diego Garcia.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 151.]
This Government have now delivered that. On that basis, should the Conservatives not be welcoming the agreement?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is completely right, but she knows that the Conservatives have got a leadership contest on, and this is a bit of a beauty parade. That is why they are stepping away from a negotiation that they began, had 11 rounds on and failed to deliver on.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Having heard the Foreign Secretary’s performance this afternoon, we now know why the Government did not dare announce this in the House of Commons. This abject surrender of British sovereign territory for nothing—that is what it is—risks a Chinese veto over a vital military facility. May I ask the Foreign Secretary how much in rent this country will now pay Mauritius for the right to lease back what is already ours? Which Government Department—the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—will pay the landlord?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a Chinese veto. The Chinese do not have a veto in this House. The treaty will be scrutinised by this House. All Members will be able to look at it, debate it and reflect on it. Of course, at the time of publishing the treaty, there will be a discussion of the costs, but no basing agreements ever discuss costs, because that would damage our national security, and the Government are not prepared to do that.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Given that the previous Government began these negotiations, does the Foreign Secretary agree that while Opposition Members may now be more interested in the views of Tory party members, this Government will always act in Britain’s national interests?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right. The Conservative party used to claim to be a party of defence. This is an agreement that secures our national defence and security interests in an important part of the globe, so it is shameful to see Opposition Members behaving as they are.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I just describe the right hon. Gentleman as hopelessly naive? Has he not seen how the rule of international law across the world is collapsing under the challenge from Russia, Iran, North Korea and China? Given a few flimsy pieces of paper, how much does he think that China or any of those other countries will respect it after we have given up the principle that this is British sovereign territory?
Mr Lammy
Up against a tough geopolitical environment in which Russia, Iran, North Korea and China are far from playing by the global rules, it is hugely important that this country is one that supports the rules-based order, and it is hugely important that this facility has been secured for longer than anybody else in this Parliament was able to do. That is what we have secured. I trust the judgment of our closest ally, not that of the hon. Gentleman.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that an agreement has been reached over the Chagos islands that helps to right a historic wrong and guarantees the security that we need. Among the confected outrage from the Opposition Benches we have heard the expected scaremongering over the future of other territories, including Gibraltar. Both the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) have in recent months reaffirmed the double lock on Gibraltar’s sovereignty, meaning not only that Gibraltarian sovereignty will never be altered without its people’s consent but that the UK Government will never enter into a process of negotiation with which the Gibraltarian people are not content. Does that remain the case?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. My hon. Friend the Minister of State communicated that with a letter to the Prime Minister just a few weeks ago. What we have seen in the last few days from the Opposition has been wholly irresponsible.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary said he is establishing a trust fund and that Chagossians will be able to apply for British citizenship. What discussions did he have with the Chagossian people about that? Can he confirm that the Home Office is ready to deal with the applications?
Mr Lammy
They already can apply for UK citizenship. Of course we have been in dialogue and discussions with the Chagossians. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has met them regularly.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this agreement has no bearing on the Government’s relationship with the other overseas territories and that the UK Government’s policy towards the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and other territories remains unchanged, with support for their right to self-determination?
Mr Lammy
Self-determination is the key word, and we absolutely support the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar in that regard.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Coming from Northern Ireland, I am not surprised that this Government have surrendered British interests against the wishes of the people who live there, because, after all, they supported the previous Government’s deal in relation to EU demands on Northern Ireland. The Government have given away a strategic interest. They have not published the deal. They will not reveal the cost. They will not guarantee that there will be no Chinese influence in this strategic area. They have handed this strategic interest to a country that has no historical claim. Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise the impact that this has on other people who are eyeing British territory—the EU in respect of Gibraltar and Argentina in respect of the Falklands? This is a dirty, dangerous and desperate deal. It is a shameful surrender of British interests. Is the Foreign Secretary relying on the fact that the Government have a huge, sledgehammer majority that can drive this through the House, despite its impact on long-term British interests?
Mr Lammy
I think the right hon. Gentleman lost much of the House when he said that the people live there—they do not; that is the whole point. This is a deal that will give them the right to resettlement on the outer islands. I do not recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s caricature.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
President Biden, Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin have welcomed the agreement. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Tory critics do not know more about US national security than the White House and the Pentagon?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He knows, as the whole House knows, that it does not matter who is in the White House or who is in No. 10: for generations, the US and the UK have acted in concert, and the future of Diego Garcia has been central to that. It has been central to the security of the Indo-Pacific and the wider Pacific, and central to global security. The capabilities across our nations are essential. That is why it is so sad to see the Conservative party not living up to where it should be on these crucial issues of national security, which ought not to be partisan.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
My old boss, Admiral Lord West of Spithead, won his Distinguished Service Cross in the Falklands in 1982. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, Lord West is a former Labour security Minister. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that Lord West is of the view that what he is doing poses a grave security risk to this country and is likely to undermine our position in the Falkland Islands? Will he give a straight answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who asked whether Lord Robertson had been consulted in any way over the decision that the Foreign Secretary has made?
Mr Lammy
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to read the remarks of the Chief Minister of the Falkland Islands, and I urge him to consult more widely the defence establishment in this country, which is pleased that an issue that was looking as though it might become very contentious between us and the United States in terms of global national security has now been settled.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and particularly for the reassurances given to our brothers and sisters in Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. The scaremongering in respect of those two areas has been absolutely shameful. However, in the spirit of trying to achieve cross-party consensus, it is really important to acknowledge the work of the previous Government on this subject and how that has provided the foundation for what we have today. Before then, progress was all too slow, and it shamed our country. None the less, I want to give the Secretary the opportunity again to reassure us that this deal is in our strategic interest and also the interest of our partners.
Mr Lammy
There is seriousness behind my hon. Friend’s question. I reassure him that the Defence Secretary and I have sought to secure a deal that secures the future of the base long after any of us in this Chamber are left. In particular, it ensures that China cannot locate on any of the other islands, as well as Diego Garcia. In truth, that is why the President, Defence Secretary and Secretary of State of the United States have welcomed this deal. It is also important to recognise that India has welcomed this deal—it does not want China in its backyard.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How does the cost of leasing compare with the savings that the Government are making on the winter fuel allowance?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman will be able to return to these issues when the treaty is before the House. He must wait, as I do, for the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary will have a go at answering a direct question. How much will the UK have to pay for the privilege of ceding our sovereignty?
Mr Lammy
As I have said, these are issues that we can discuss when we have the treaty. It is not routine for any Government to comment on basing arrangements. The hon. Lady would not expect us to do that and put our national interests at stake.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this Government’s commitment to our populated British overseas territories is fundamental, unshakeable and unbreakable. I am glad to hear him make his statement, and I think this is a good thing for Britain.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right. There is an important distinction between the Indian ocean overseas territories and Diego Garcia, and Gibraltar and the Falklands, which are, of course, populated. The self-determination of those people is essential to their future, which is why the remarks that have been made over the past few days are wholly unacceptable and shameful.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to recognise that what happened to the Chagossian people in the 1960s and 1970s was abominable, abusive, illegal and disgraceful? Many of them lived in poverty for many years after in the Seychelles and Mauritius. They have long demanded their right to return to Diego Garcia and to the archipelago, which has been denied until now. It is right for the Foreign Secretary to pay tribute to those Chagossians who led that campaign for the right of return and resettlement on their home islands. An apology is due to the Chagossian people for the way they were treated.
Could I also ask the Foreign Secretary about the situation in Diego Garcia? It is unclear to me whether Chagossian people can visit, reside, stay or remain there, or whether they will be denied going there for another 140 years because of the deal done with the USA. Finally, why have the Americans been offered a 140-year lease as part of this deal? That is a very long time in recorded history of any sort, and longer than many countries have even existed. Can he explain that?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has championed the Chagossians in their plight for many years in this House. He makes his remarks with tremendous passion and strength, and he is right to do so. The way they were treated was wrong. I will have more to say on that when I bring forward the treaty in the months ahead. On whether they will now have a right to visit Diego Garcia, I must tell him that they will not under this treaty. Any resettlement or visits will be to the outer islands. This is an important US-UK security base, so I am unable to give him that assurance—they do not have that right under this treaty.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I do not believe I ever had the pleasure of flying into our joint base on Diego Garcia, either in the US Air Force or as a pilot in our own Royal Air Force, but its strategic value in terms of the capabilities that it offers and the relationship it cements with our US partners is clear, as was its contested existence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was a Tory Government that started the negotiations, because they recognised the dangerous situation facing the base, and that this Labour Government have now ensured that the base is undisputed and on a secure footing?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for his service. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of the islands being contested and this agreement putting them beyond contestation. That makes us all more secure as a result, as he knows because of his service. I think that most of the general public who have paid attention recognise that this is a deal that we in the United Kingdom can be proud of.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
After that performance from the Foreign Secretary, I am delighted to read that there will be reshuffle at Christmas. He should revisit his statement, as he said that my noble Friend Lord Cameron carried on the negotiations—I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he ended the negotiations; this Foreign Secretary capitulated in three weeks. Given the sham negotiation that he has carried out, can he assure me that no military equipment will be allowed to be stationed on not only the outer islands but the inner islands under this agreement over the 99 years? Can he outline to the House—he has not managed to outline much this afternoon—what scrutiny structures and how many votes we will be allowed in this House when he lays the treaty?
Mr Lammy
Yes to the hon. Gentleman’s question. We will come forward with plans in due course.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
In the Foreign Secretary’s oral statement he said:
“A binding judgment against the UK seemed inevitable”.
That seems misleading verbal baby food at best. So far, there has been a non-binding advisory opinion and nothing to suggest that we will breach any form of international law. At a time of increasing global conflict, will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why there is such urgency to do what he is proposing? It seems to be a case of acting in haste and repenting at leisure.
Mr Lammy
It was precisely to put the base on a secure footing, because of that global uncertainty, that this deal was the right deal.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I must say that I am surprised by Labour’s conversion to the merits of leasehold rather than the security of freehold ownership—I did not think that was its position. In addition to being an unsinkable aircraft carrier, the British Indian Ocean Territory is host to unique space observation capabilities. It is the only remote monitoring place in the southern hemisphere that is able to see parts of the sky to which we would otherwise be blind. Space is a heavily contested military domain, so did the Foreign Secretary even know about these space monitoring capabilities? What are his plans to secure alternatives to save our freedom and security?
Mr Lammy
Foreign Secretaries do not comment on such capabilities, but the House will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
There is no dispute in the House that Diego Garcia is a vital strategic base in the heart of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Will the Foreign Secretary undertake, when he publishes the details of the treaty provisions, to include two things: first, the exclusion zone around Diego Garcia—how many miles—and secondly, provisions to prevent any other foreign power establishing a sovereign military base on any of the archipelagos of the British Indian Ocean Territory?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these issues. He will be able to scrutinise provisions in that regard in the coming months.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has come to this House with the smile of a favourite, having exchanged British sovereign territory for a 99-year lease from a Chinese ally, and expects to be applauded for it. He claimed in his statement that we can extend the lease, but can he inform the House whether that right is unilateral and, if so, how many years will that extension be? Why does he think that this piece of paper will prevent Chinese encroachment?
Mr Lammy
As I have already said, this is not a Chinese ally; it is one of two countries that have not participated in China’s belt and road in the continent of Africa, for a reason. It is an ally of India, not a Chinese ally, and it is hard to take the hon. Gentleman seriously if he cannot even get his facts right.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
We have heard with great interest all these other countries that the Foreign Secretary is looking to please. I am interested in our country. I am interested in what goes on in this House. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that we will have a vote, and the mechanism by which that vote will come to this House, so that we can have a say on our sovereignty and what we own?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is not new to this House. We will follow the usual processes, as he would expect.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
We saw a previous Labour Government sell off this country’s gold. We now have a Labour Government who are surrendering our sovereignty and giving away our territory. Has the Foreign Secretary had any specific discussions with the Chagossian people as part of the negotiations?
Mr Lammy
I will not take lectures from a party that left a £22 billion black hole and our public services in a state. The chutzpah of the Opposition is unbelievable.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Those of us who have had the privilege of visiting some of the overseas territories or meeting their representatives here in Westminster are very much aware of their strong loyalty to and admiration for the United Kingdom. Even if they have heard what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon, perhaps they are right to have a nagging doubt that that loyalty will not be returned, are they not?
Mr Lammy
Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman, because there is seriousness behind his question, that all of us believe in the right to self-determination. I am unequivocally, absolutely clear that the overseas territories remain an important part of our national story and nothing we have done in this deal puts them in any jeopardy.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Given the exploitative response of Argentina in the context of the Falklands, is it not clear that those with malevolent aspirations about British territory are drawing comfort from the belief created by this deal that this Government are weak on the question of sovereignty? Does that not come off the back of the fact that Westminster, within the United Kingdom, surrendered sovereignty in over 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland to a foreign Parliament—namely, the European Parliament? If the Foreign Secretary wants to demonstrate that his assurances to Gibraltar and the Falklands are to be taken seriously, then should he not begin by reclaiming sovereignty over all of the United Kingdom and reverse the surrender of sovereignty in over 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland?
Mr Lammy
We will always defend the Falkland Islands. I raised that point with Argentina’s Foreign Secretary just last week in New York.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
In the mid-1960s, when Mauritius was granted independence, it agreed, as part of that deal, to relinquish all claims to this British sovereign territory, which we have owned since the treaty of Paris in 1814. Why does the Foreign Secretary see fit to do a deal with a nation that has reneged on a previous deal, and why are we selling a sovereign asset that we all agree is of great value for no money up front? We are paying them. It is negligent.
Mr Lammy
Because we have done a deal that secures the security of the global community. I cannot recall if the hon. Gentleman is legally qualified, but I have to tell him that we found ourselves with no one supporting our claim in the family of the UN and the rules-based order. For that reason, the previous Government began the negotiations and it is absolutely right that we conclude them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Foreign Secretary has made a very clear point. In 1982 Margaret Thatcher set the precedent that the United Kingdom would do everything necessary to defend our overseas territories. Some 42 years later, it is important that that legacy is carried on. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to ensuring that this decision has no bearing on other overseas territories, such as the Falklands or Gibraltar? I have many friends who live in the Falklands and Gibraltar. What steps will be taken to protect and preserve them?
Mr Lammy
Yes, I can. In that regard, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the former Prime Minister and state once again that the right to self-determination governs our relationship with the overseas territories. They remain a very important part of our national story and nothing in this deal undermines that important relationship. That is why the Governor of the Falklands and Fabian Picardo in Gibraltar have been very clear about that in the past few days.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I do not think the hon. Gentleman was standing throughout the statement.
Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before we come to the next statement, may I reiterate the comments that Mr Speaker made earlier today? While the whole House understands that the business of government will go on during recess and that Ministers are required to respond to events, it is frustrating for hon. Members when statements are made during scheduled periods of recess, when the House is not sitting.
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heard your statement, and Mr Speaker’s earlier.
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s carbon capture programme. Last week was a historic week for our energy system. On Monday, 142 years of coal-fired electricity generation came to an end, as Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station closed for the last time. I pay tribute to the generations of coal workers, at Ratcliffe and elsewhere, who powered our country for more than a century, and to power station workers; we owe them a huge debt. I am sure that sentiment is shared across the whole House. As one era ends and we begin the next stage of Britain’s energy journey, the Government are determined to create a new generation of good jobs in our industrial heartlands. On Friday, we began a new era, as Government and industry agreed the deals that will launch Britain’s carbon capture industry.
This has been a long time coming. I was proud, as Energy Secretary, to kick-start the process of developing carbon capture way back in 2009—some hon. Members were then still at school, and I am much greyer now—with a £1 billion competition. In 2011, that programme was cancelled by the coalition Government. In 2012, a new competition was announced, and in 2015, it too was cancelled. When we came to office, we inherited an in-principle aspiration to go ahead, but the very significant Government funding required had not yet been accounted for, so under the last Government we had fits and starts, dither and delay.
By contrast, just three months since we came to office, this Government have turned promise into reality. I can confirm to the House that we have agreed commercial terms, and £21.7 billion of funding over 25 years for five carbon capture, usage and storage projects across two clusters: HyNet in the north-west, and the East Coast Cluster in the north-east. This announcement will enable the construction of two transport and storage networks that will underpin this new industry. The highways for carbon capture and the deals we have agreed will also kick-start development of Net Zero Teesside, the world’s largest gas with CCUS plant, and—these are both in Ellesmere Port—Protos, a new CCUS energy from waste facility, and EET Hydrogen, the UK’s first large-scale blue hydrogen project, which is the cleanest in the world. They will crowd in £8 billion of private investment across the two clusters, creating 4,000 jobs in our industrial heartlands and building an initial capacity to remove over 8.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions each and every year. I pay tribute to the six new Labour MPs in Teesside and colleagues across the north-west who have been brilliant champions for those projects. This is just the start; we will have more to say in the coming months about carbon capture sites in Humberside, Scotland and elsewhere around the country.
This investment is the right thing to do for Britain. CCUS will unlock the decarbonisation of hard-to-abate sectors, from chemicals to cement; enable the production of low-carbon hydrogen; and, by capturing emissions from gas-fired power stations, play an important role, alongside renewables and nuclear, in delivering clean power by 2030 and beyond. That is why experts in bodies ranging from the Climate Change Committee to the International Energy Agency are clear that carbon capture is critical to our meeting our climate commitments. There are those who doubt that. To them I quote James Richardson, the acting chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, who said on Friday quite simply:
“We can’t hit the country’s targets without CCUS”.
The IEA, in a report from 2020 that I very much recommend to right hon. and hon. Members, said:
“Reaching net zero will be virtually impossible without CCUS”,
pointing to “heavy industries” that
“account for almost 20% of global CO2 emissions today”.
To those who doubt whether the technology can work, I point out that it has been operating safely for decades in Norway and the US.
Last week’s announcement puts the UK on the path to leading the world in deploying carbon capture at scale. Being an early mover in this technology offers huge economic and industrial benefits for Britain. The North sea means that we have the chance to lead; it gives us the capacity to store 200 years of our carbon emissions, has existing infrastructure that can be repurposed, and allows us to use the talents and experience of our highly skilled oil and gas workforce.
Over the last few years, around the world we have seen the race for the jobs and industries of the future accelerate. For too long, Britain has opted out and lost out. No longer. We will harness Britain’s geology, know-how and expertise to be a world leader in this technology that will define the 21st century, building an industry that could support up to 50,000 jobs by the 2030s and using every tool at our disposal to seize the opportunities for Britain, with a proper industrial strategy and a commitment—which is absolutely crucial—to using public and private investment to build the future that our country deserves.
That is all part of the action of a Government who, in the last three months, have shown that we are in a hurry to deliver our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. We have lifted the onshore wind ban, consented to record amounts of nationally significant solar, launched Great British Energy, delivered the most successful renewables auction in British history, and set out our plans to lift more than a million households out of fuel poverty. We are moving apace, both because of the urgency of the challenges that we face and because of this Government’s determination to win for Britain. Last week marked the end of one chapter in our country’s energy story and the start of a new one—a new era showing that we can decarbonise and reindustrialise, a new era of clean energy jobs and investment in our industrial heartlands, and a new era of climate leadership. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. While I welcome the news today, I am saddened, if not surprised, that he has not had the grace to acknowledge the work of the last Government in getting us to this place. I know that his opinion is not that of the many partners who have come together to get this project over the line, and it does a huge disservice to his officials, who have worked so incredibly hard over the last couple of years to get us here. As far as I can see, the only positive investments that the Labour party seems to have made in its first 100 days—the Blackstone artificial intelligence data centre in Northumberland, the sixth assessment report and now this—were negotiated under the Conservatives. This is what the right hon. Gentleman’s party has turned into reality: it has crashed business confidence, and overseen £666 million of assets from UK-focused equity funds fleeing the country. No wonder it has had to have a change of management.
In 2022, in the Energy Security Bill, we set out £1 billion of investment and the business models to support the CCUS market. Our aim was to have four industrial clusters by 2030. I must pay tribute to all who have worked together on those plans, including BP, Equinor, Eni, and all those involved with HyNet and the East Coast Cluster.
The brilliant Mayor of Tees Valley, Ben Houchen, has been a leading light in this regard for many years. I noted that the Secretary of State did not mention him, which was pretty graceless, but I am sure that he would like to welcome his work. I must also mention the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), who first announced Government support for carbon capture technology amounting to £20 billion last year. That, ultimately, was the breakthrough step that got us here.
The Secretary of State says that CCUS was not funded. Let me remind him of the extent to which he is resting his laurels on a set of draft policy statements for nuclear from back in 2009 that had no Treasury funding attached. I had agreement that at least £20 billion would be spent following the next spending review. The Secretary of State is a former Treasury spad, so he knows what that means. As always, it is the cheap politics that he reaches for. He is, I am afraid, the ultimate career politician. In fact, the funding that we had announced, which would run for 20 years, was about £200 million more per year than what he has set out today. Can he confirm that the projects have not been scaled back, and if they have been, will he tell us where the losses will be?
We have also had no word on the track 2 clusters, Acorn and Viking, on which we were due to make progress over the summer; they were conspicuously absent from the Secretary of State’s statement. Many people will be deeply concerned, so can he update the House on those two projects? More widely, while his announcement rightly drew attention to the importance of British industry, both the TUC and the GMB have warned repeatedly about his net zero plans and what they will mean for British industry. In the words of Gary Smith, the leader of the GMB, the Secretary of State’s approach has been to export jobs and import virtue.
Let us look at what has happened on Labour’s watch. At Grangemouth, 400 jobs are at risk, with nearly 3,000 potentially affected. At Port Talbot, 3,500 jobs are under threat, and at Scunthorpe, there is the potential for 2,500 job losses before Christmas. Moreover, Labour are putting 200,000 jobs at risk through their plans to ban new oil and gas licences and to make the UK regime the most punitive fiscal regime for the sector anywhere in the world. When will the Secretary of State publish an assessment of the impact that his plans for the North sea will have on jobs, and on investment in clean energy? After all, this carbon capture investment today would not be possible without Eni, Equinor and BP—companies using the stable finances of their oil and gas businesses to invest in clean energy.
The Secretary of State has talked about the importance of UK decarbonisation in tackling climate change, but will he acknowledge that his plans to target UK production will not mean that we use less? They will just leave us importing more from abroad—importing more oil and gas from the United States and the middle east, and importing more steel from China, which is still 60% powered by coal. Will he acknowledge that both those developments will actually increase global emissions? It would be carbon accounting gone mad. It might leave some in the green lobby cheering at our reduced emissions, but overall there would be more carbon in the atmosphere and fewer jobs here in Britain. Is the Labour party seriously going to be responsible for the end of steelmaking in the UK, with the added cost of the loss of more than 10,000 jobs in our most left-behind communities? The Secretary of State must acknowledge that a better balance has to be found.
The Secretary of State has still made no comment on, and no apology for, promising the British public at the general election savings of £300 on their energy bills by 2030. Will he finally give an answer to his Back Benchers, the House and all our constituents, and explain what has happened to that pledge?
Ed Miliband
I know that the right hon. Lady is in a difficult position, and it rather showed today. Let us be honest: the truth is quite painful for her. She failed, as Energy Secretary, to get carbon capture over the line, year after year—well, to be fair, she was only in the job for 10 months, but certainly month after month. The funding was never secured, because there was not the political will from the Chancellor or the Prime Minister. We have seen a long line of 20 Energy Secretaries and 14 years of failure. I must give the right hon. Lady her due: she did try, I am sure; but there was nothing but dither and delay. When we came to office, the funding had not been accounted for as part of a spending review; it simply was not there. There was just a vague promise. Now it is quite difficult for the right hon. Lady, and perhaps we should have a little sympathy for her, because she has had to come to the House and see what a Government actually delivering looks like.
Let me deal with the right hon. Lady’s questions in turn. She had the brass neck to suggest that the problems at Grangemouth and Port Talbot were somehow due to the negligence of this Government. Let me tell the House about Grangemouth. I came to office with the closure of Grangemouth already announced and likely to happen. I have probably had more conversations with my counterpart in the Scottish Government than Tory Ministers had in 10 years, because they just were not interested. We should be extremely angry about that. So what did we do? We funded the Willow project, which the Tories did not fund. We added to the growth deal, which they did not do. We said that we would have a national wealth fund with the potential to fund Project Willow. We had none of that from the right hon. Lady. She just was not interested. She just did not care; that is the truth of the matter. Of course it is ideological, rather than accidental. [Interruption.] Yes, it is. A bit of honesty from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie)! I noted that he was very honest about the right hon. Lady at the party conference. The truth is that the Tories did not have an industrial strategy because they do not believe in an industrial strategy.
Let me deal with the rest of the right hon. Lady’s nonsense. I am very pleased that she is interested in Gary Smith, because he has said:
“This is a serious step in the right direction and a welcome investment in jobs and industries after years of neglect under the previous administration.”
That is the reality. As for the other stuff that the right hon. Lady said, I think that she has a decision to make. She began her political career in the Conservative Environment Network, and she has ended up backing a net zero sceptic for the Tory leadership. I think it is a little bit sad. She should take some time to reflect on that, and on the utter contrast between her failure and this Government’s delivery.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Unlike the shadow Secretary of State, I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has announced jobs in Teesside—jobs from which my constituents in the north-west of England will potentially benefit. I am also very pleased that we have a Government who are committed to an industrial strategy, and who believe in Government working in partnership with business.
The Secretary of State mentioned just how important it is that we have this technology if we are to decarbonise; he quoted James Richardson in making the case. It will be crucial for the abatement of heavy industries such as chemicals, glass—the Secretary of State went to visit a glass factory in the north-west on Friday—and cement, but it will also be crucial for hydrogen production, for the new gas-fired power stations and, indeed, for converting waste into energy. How long does he think we will need this technology for the abatement of heavy industry, and how long does he think we will need it for hydrogen production and production from gas?
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he makes a really important point. Some people are sceptical about the use of carbon capture and storage. The truth is that for hard-to-abate industries—cement, for example—unless we have CCS technology, either there will be no future for these industries or they will not be able to decarbonise. Yes, it is an investment, but it is absolutely crucial, and I am struck by what the IEA said. We are talking about probably 20% of industry, and we are doing the right thing for Britain and setting an example to the world.
I always say on these occasions that, when it comes to blue hydrogen and gas with CCUS, we need all the technologies at our disposal on this decarbonisation journey. It is going to be a primarily renewables-based system, but nuclear has an important role and we need dispatchable decarbonised or low-carbon generation as well. All these things have a role, and the pathway will become clearer over time, but this issue is so urgent that I want to have all the technologies at our disposal.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The Liberal Democrats are committed to supporting British industries in cutting carbon emissions and getting the country back on track towards meeting our climate targets. It cannot be emphasised enough how significant it is that this announcement comes at the same time as we hear about the UK being the first industrial nation to close its last coal-fired power plant. We had been dependent on coal for 150 years, so that is absolutely key.
It is clear that the future lies with renewables and clean energy, where we need to bring urgency and the necessary scale of investment. The Conservative Government’s irresponsible roll-back from key climate pledges, and their failure to invest properly in renewable energy and home insulation, has left thousands of households vulnerable to fuel poverty as another winter approaches. The failure to move forward at pace in decarbonising our industries, our transport and our homes has left us needing to take difficult decisions. We support the need, recognised by the Climate Change Committee, for at-scale, long-term investment in CCS, particularly for hard-to-decarbonise industries such as chemicals, cement and steel manufacturing. We would like to see investment in existing industries, and we want it to meet environmental requirements.
While we are discussing history, I should mention that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) who launched carbon capture and storage, which was yet again cancelled by the Conservatives. However, although carbon capture and storage is a key tool in reaching net zero, it is also very expensive and complex, and evidence of its efficacy is still scant. Understandably, as the Secretary of State mentioned, there is much concern about the focus on incentivising industries to invest in CCS as an alternative to radically reducing their emissions. Therefore, it is important that the Government set out clearly and transparently the path to delivery for any CCS they invest in and show the milestones for progress. What will the Secretary of State do to increase investment—
Ed Miliband
May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her place, and thanking her for the tone and substance of her remarks? She is right to underline the fact that we are marking a new era but also marking the passing of an era, and it is right to pay tribute to all the people who worked in our coal-fired power stations and, indeed, who worked underground to dig coal for our country. It is a big moment of change and the passing of an era.
On the hon. Lady’s broad points about CCS, my philosophy is that we want zero-carbon power where possible, but we also need carbon capture, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors and so that we can have not unabated gas, but gas with CCS or hydrogen power. She raises the question of cost. Imagine if we had had this conversation 15 years ago, when I was Secretary of State and much younger—15 years younger, to be precise. [Interruption.] Yes, I am good at maths. Some people were saying at the time, “Why are you subsidising offshore wind? It can never be competitive with fossil fuels.” Now, it is among the cheapest technologies to build and operate. That is what deployment does for us, and that is what the combination of public and private sectors working together does for us. Yes, there is an investment here, but a far-sighted, forward-looking Government have to make such investments, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s support.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I had rather hoped that my right hon. Friend was going to start his statement by saying, “As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted—”. I have waited so long to hear a Secretary of State make such announcements from the Dispatch Box, and I am delighted. However, my right hon. Friend knows that carbon capture technologies reduce the energy intensity of fossil fuels by up to 25%, which makes such electricity much more expensive than that produced from renewables. Can the Secretary of State confirm that CCUS will be used not simply to allow the continued extraction of fossil fuel for our power sector, but only for the hardest-to-abate heavy industries and for the production of green hydrogen, thereby keeping domestic fuel bills low and delivering on this Government’s commitment to decarbonise our power sector by 2030 through much cheaper renewables and nuclear, not more expensive gas with CCUS? Finally, may I caution him against swallowing too much of the hype around blue hydrogen?
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he speaks with great knowledge and expertise on these issues. He is absolutely right about the hard-to-abate sectors. I say to him what I said to the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson): there is a role for both blue hydrogen and gas with CCUS, but that is within the context of a primarily renewables-based system that uses nuclear as well. It goes back to the point about needing all the technologies at our disposal if we are to surmount the challenges we face.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Humber area produces the most emissions in the country, and it is vital that we make progress in that region. Some £15 billion-worth of private investment stands ready. The Secretary of State mentioned that there will be a further announcement in the coming months. Could he perhaps advance that as quickly as possible in order that we can take our first steps towards reaching our targets?
Ed Miliband
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that this is a point of agreement between us. These are very important projects, and I thank him for his question. They were always envisaged as being two tracks, and we inherited a significant degree of delay from the last Government. We want these projects to happen as soon as possible and, as I said in my statement, this is something that we will address in the months ahead.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I was happy to hear the Secretary of State’s words last week when he said that industries should not die, and the Government investment in Merseyside and Teesside is most welcome. Can he commit to the same level of bold and transformative Government action to retain the Grangemouth refinery workers’ jobs, as they face the prospect of redundancies and their industry dying?
Ed Miliband
This is something that my hon. Friend and I have talked about. On Grangemouth, we are advancing at speed—in a way that the last Government completely failed to do, because the project had not even started—with Project Willow, which is seeking an industrial future for the Grangemouth site. He has my absolute commitment that we will use every lever at our disposal in Government to try and make this happen. We have a number of levers available to us that the last Government did not have, including the national wealth fund, and we are going to work intensively on that in the coming months.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that until a few days ago, the Fawley refinery and chemicals complex run by ExxonMobil in New Forest East was planning a major carbon capture project that involved controversial pipelines either over sensitive areas of the New Forest or across the Isle of Wight. ExxonMobil has temporarily pulled the plug on that, but one reason it seems to think it cannot use a sea route, perhaps to feed this in to the North sea outlet for carbon capture and storage, is the absence of purpose-built ships for the safe transportation of liquefied CO2. Will the Secretary of State look into where we are with the development of safe methods of transporting the gas in liquid form by sea?
Ed Miliband
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I talked to the UK chair of ExxonMobil last week about this issue, and I believe that the Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), is going to meet him later this week. For the benefit of the House, this was not in either track 1 or track 2—it was part of the Solent cluster—but we want all the projects to go ahead and the Solent cluster has real potential and is an important part of this. The UK chair told me that this temporary pause was certainly nothing to do with the actions of this Government, but, frankly, was to do with the time it had taken the previous Government to get going on this. I undertake to the right hon. Gentleman that we will continue our dialogue with the company about these issues, including on the more technical issues that he is talking about.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
This announcement is fantastic news for the north-east and for the country. It will place us at the forefront of a critical and growing sector, it will help to re-industrialise regions that have been de-industrialised by successive Conservative Governments and it will deliver thousands of well-paid jobs—jobs that people can raise a family on. For the benefit of those with genuine concerns about the feasibility of this technology—as opposed to those playing party politics with innovation or those ideologically opposed to industry—will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the world-leading research and innovation that will carry on alongside this deployment, and particularly about the carbon storage research facility and the work that it will do?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge of this subject. She is unusual in this House, in that she is an engineer by background and actually knows about these issues. She is absolutely right about this. Our world-leading scientists and engineers are a crucial part of our playing a world-leading role in this technology. I also say to those who are worried about the risk of this technology that the much, much greater risk is in not acting. The risk before us is the climate crisis that grows every day, and it is the right thing to do to get CCS moving.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome what the Secretary of State said about there being more news to come about Scotland, because the Acorn project is not a track 1 project; it is a track 2 project. The previous Prime Minister visited Peterhead and raised hopes that there might be investment coming there, but then nothing. The Secretary of State also spoke about the great skills that we have in oil engineering. There is possibly nowhere else in Europe, and perhaps the world, that has more of those skills than the north-east of Scotland, so can he tell us how committed the Government are to bringing forward Acorn as quickly as possible?
Ed Miliband
I concur completely with what the hon. Lady says. We are absolutely committed to Acorn; it is very important. We came into Government with track 1 not accounted for, so part of the challenge was getting track 1 over the line because it just seemed so important to send a signal that there was not going to be more of the dither and delay that we had seen. I can absolutely assure her and other Scottish colleagues across the House that this is of fundamental importance to us. It is of fundamental importance for Scotland but also for the whole of the United Kingdom, because we will not be able to surmount the challenges we face simply with track 1 projects.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today. Could he say a bit more about how this important project will sit alongside other investments in green energy as we move towards the 2030 and 2050 targets? Could he also explain more about the potential for job creation across the country in a wide range of industries and regions?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is entirely right. This is part of a whole set of things this Government are doing, including lifting the onshore wind ban, releasing private investment and dealing with solar projects that had frankly been sitting on desks for far too long, with nearly 2 GW consented. In fact, more has been consented in nationally consented projects in three months of this Government than in 14 years of the last Government. Doesn’t that tell a story about dither, delay and inaction? So my hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is part of a whole series of investments, both private and public, that this Government are unleashing and putting in.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I am pleased that there is an announcement on the funding of blue hydrogen at Ellesmere Port, but what about Bacton, the gas terminal in north Norfolk? What are the Secretary of State’s plans to support blue hydrogen projects at Bacton, which would be ideally suited for the southern North sea? Also, having looked at the numbers, which seem a bit light, could he please confirm that it is still Government policy that we should capture and store between 20 and 30 megatons of CO2 by 2030?
Ed Miliband
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, that is very much part of our plans for the future. On his second point, we will obviously set out all those details in response to the work of the Climate Change Committee. Frankly, one thing that we are struggling with is the delays under the last Government. I have set out the impact of this project and will be setting out the impact of future projects when they are announced.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
May I put on record my thanks to the Secretary of State and his wider team, who have decided in such difficult economic times to invest in my part of the country? This marks a huge vote of confidence in our local industry leaders and our fantastic regional workforce, and as he said, it has been a long time coming. Does he agree that this carbon capture project will create exciting, skilled jobs and opportunities for people in Darlington and the Tees valley, solidifying a green industrial future for my constituency?
Ed Miliband
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for her brilliant advocacy on this issue. She raises an important point, which is that people will look at this investment and think that it is a big investment, albeit over 25 years. Is it the right thing to do for the country? Emphatically, yes. It is right for our industries and for the industries of the future, because the transport and storage networks are absolutely crucial, not just for the specific projects I have announced but for future projects, for our security as a country and for jobs in our industrial heartland. I thank her for her advocacy and we will keep moving forward on this.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Secretary of State says he is absolutely committed to the Acorn project. Well, the way to show that would be to fund it, because yet again the UK Government have failed to announce funding for carbon capture utilisation and storage projects in Scotland. This is a disaster economically, industrially and environmentally. I am sure he will agree that without Acorn, the UK cannot meet its net zero targets and will miss them by some margin. The last Tory Government failed to back this project in Scotland for years, and despite offering change, Labour has done exactly the same thing, following the same path with broadly the same budget and prioritising less developed, less substantial and less deliverable projects in England while offering the Scottish cluster no funding at all to date. People in Scotland remember well how eager the Treasury and the Westminster Government were to get their hands on revenues from North sea oil and gas. When will we see that returned with investment from Westminster into the north-east of Scotland to support the Acorn project?
Ed Miliband
I am sorry about the hon. Gentleman’s tone, but it is entirely predictable. He knows that there have always been two tracks. This Government have moved at speed to fund track 1, and I have made absolutely clear our commitment to Acorn and track 2.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of major investment in carbon capture in our industrial heartlands, including in Merseyside. Knowsley hosts significant industrial capacity and has huge potential to contribute to this. Can the Secretary of State provide details and meet me to discuss how Knowsley will benefit from investment in the thousands of good, secure jobs expected under this scheme?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The challenge for the Government, and for the companies that have won these contracts, is to make sure that we create jobs in the supply chain, including in her constituency. I look forward to meeting her to discuss this.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Waste incinerators release, on average, a tonne of CO2 for every tonne of waste incinerated. They are usually called “energy from waste” but their environmental value is questionable unless carbon capture is attached. Yes, we need to recycle more, but energy from waste will be with us for years to come. Will the Secretary of State commit to significantly scaling up carbon capture for energy from waste plants?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and it is why one of the projects we funded is an energy from waste project. This is exactly the kind of role that CCS can play.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s engagement on this issue. Labour Members from across the Tees valley, especially our friend Alex Cunningham, have been pressing for many years to secure carbon capture, utilisation and storage. Given the dithering of the Conservative party, we had become increasingly anxious that the final investment decisions would not be aligned and that the opportunity to invest in this critical project would be lost. It is a testament to this Labour Government that it has been delivered so early after entering office. So that we can use this precious investment, will my right hon. Friend, along with his Business and Trade and Education colleagues, meet hon. Members from across the Tees valley to discuss how we can secure the well-paid jobs, apprenticeships and training that we need?
Ed Miliband
I pay tribute to Alex Cunningham and my hon. Friend for being tireless advocates. He makes such an important point. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), we must ensure that the jobs we are delivering get to the people and places that have not seen such opportunities for far too long. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) to discuss this further.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Given the Chancellor’s rhetoric about black holes, it is perhaps a little surprising that the Government have managed to magic £22 billion for this, but I wish the Secretary of State well. I hope his plan works. Does he share my concern that, in doing this, we will reduce the drive to decarbonise industries, just as the use of waste incinerators has reduced the imperative to reduce, reuse and recycle waste, including in Westbury in my constituency?
Ed Miliband
I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s question, although I do not agree. First, this is a long-term investment in the country’s future, and I think the Chancellor is far-sighted in recognising its importance. Secondly, there are hard-to-abate industries that, without carbon capture, will find it very hard to enter a decarbonised world. We have to protect those industries, but I agree that, where industries can decarbonise without CCS, of course we want them to do so.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I congratulate the trade unions, communities and campaigners that have campaigned for this for so long. His leadership stands in stark contrast with the asset-stripping of jobs, hopes and investment that we have seen in too many of our industrial heartlands. Does he agree that carbon capture is about not just net zero or boosting cluster areas, but boosting jobs, skills and futures in the supply chain in communities such as mine in Peterborough and across the country?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend always speaks with great eloquence on these issues, and he is completely right. When we talk about the transition to clean energy creating the jobs of the future, and about it being the greatest economic opportunity of the 21st century, we have to show that it can actually happen. The problem with the last Government is that, although they used that rhetoric at times, they never actually delivered. Today, we are showing the difference.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
As the Secretary of State will be aware, the vast majority of carbon capture and storage pilot and demonstration projects that have been commissioned worldwide have been cancelled or put on hold. I am concerned that the Government are putting so much money—£22 billion—into an unproven technology. I understand that the track 1 projects are about new gas power stations and blue hydrogen, about which the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) has already expressed concern because they are fossil fuel technologies. Will the Secretary of State rule out investing any of this £22 billion in new fossil fuels, locking the UK into new fossil fuel production? Will he instead consider a major scaling up of natural carbon capture through major investment in the restoration of woodlands, peatlands and wetlands?
Ed Miliband
It is early, but I worry about the hon. Gentleman’s opposition to new grid infrastructure, so goodness knows what will happen to the renewables. He also opposes carbon capture, so goodness knows what will happen to the hard-to-abate industries. I am all in favour of investing in woodlands, but we need all of these things. I want to be generous to the Green party—[Interruption.] I am a generous person, and I am sure the Green party has the best of intentions, but the scale of the transition means this country needs all of these technologies. It is not about choosing to invest in the woodlands and not investing in grid infrastructure or CCS. I urge the hon. Gentleman to think about this, because we need all of these technologies.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s announcement on moving forward with the track 1 projects, which will create thousands of well-paid jobs, attract inward investment and accelerate us towards net zero. With the closure of the blast furnace at Port Talbot, the two largest carbon emitters in Wales are now in my Mid and South Pembrokeshire constituency, but they have no access to pipeline CO2 transport. What measures is the Secretary of State taking to encourage the decarbonisation of sites such as those in Pembrokeshire, which rely on non-pipeline solutions for CO2 transport, to achieve a just transition?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend also speaks with customary eloquence on these issues. This is potentially an important part of the solution. We owe a debt to the workers at Port Talbot, and we must ensure that we leave no stone unturned in looking to the future. I look forward to continuing these discussions with him.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has boasted about spending £27 billion of public money on carbon capture and storage, and on promoting what he calls renewable energy. Does he feel any sense of irony in taking £27 billion from a financial black hole and putting it into a carbon-absorbing black hole? Does he not recognise that his own green policies are generating the very CO2 he condemns? The Drax B power station needs American forests to be chopped down and brought halfway around the world to be burned, emitting CO2, at a cost of £1 billion a year in subsidy.
In Northern Ireland, we are tearing up thousands of acres of pristine upland bogland to erect windmills, and Scotland has already cut down 17 million carbon-absorbing trees to make space for windmills. I know the Secretary of State is keen on modelling, but have his models told him how many carbon capture and storage facilities will be needed to offset the carbon impact of his green policies?
Ed Miliband
I will let the House into a secret: the conversation—if I can put it that way—between myself and the right hon. Gentleman goes back to 2008 or 2009, when he was shadowing me, so this is a long-running saga, and I fear I will not convince him. I disagree with him on so many levels that it is hard to listen. I respect his point of view, but I think we will not agree.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
This Government have shown in the last three months what can be achieved by rejecting the climate denialism that the last Government often seemed at risk of sliding into. However, this announcement is important because it underlines the opportunity we have to also reject climate delivery denialism—the idea that we can somehow make the transition to net zero work without making big, bold investments or by focusing only on narrow solutions that align with our ideological priorities. The International Energy Agency and the Climate Change Committee could not be clearer: CCUS is not just an economic opportunity for this country, but a scientific necessity if we are to meet our climate targets. Will the Secretary of State therefore leave no stone unturned and no opportunity off the table, doing everything we can not just to deliver on our targets, but to ensure that we make the most of the opportunity to reindustrialise parts of this country that have been neglected for far too long?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes such an important point. I was with the Prime Minister in New York in the last couple of weeks, talking to international partners about where the new British Government stood, and there is a sense that British leadership is back. However, if I had said to them, “We can’t do carbon capture; that’s just not an answer,” they would have said, “Well, what are we going to do about our industries?” My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to have all the solutions at our disposal, both for British leadership and for global decarbonisation.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Secretary of State will know that it is vital that we reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid the worst ravages of a climate crisis that is already manifesting. Given that this deal risks incentivising hard-to-abate businesses to continue with business as usual, will he outline what steps the Government intend to take to ensure that those industries also invest in reducing their emissions?
Ed Miliband
I welcome the hon. Member to the House. We have all kinds of projects in place to encourage business to decarbonise; indeed, our drive for clean power by 2030 is part of ensuring that we decarbonise the electricity system to help businesses to be part of the decarbonisation journey. However, I just do not recognise the picture that he paints—that this proposal is somehow a disincentive for companies. I hear lots of businesses asking how they are going to exist, frankly, in a decarbonised world. What is the answer, for example, for the cement industry in a decarbonised world? That is why CCS is so vital.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am so pleased to be part of a new era of clean energy investment, with carbon capture in the north-east and the very successful recent renewables auction. The Secretary of State has been to see our critical minerals, floating offshore wind potential and geothermal potential in Cornwall. Will he please confirm that the industrial strategy and renewables will be truly UK-wide and will span from Scotland and the north-east down to the west and Cornwall, with a clear pipeline of investment opportunities in order to give certainty to developers in, for example, floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said before in the House, Cornwall has a crucial role to play in our clean energy future. She is a brilliant champion for Cornwall and for floating wind. As she says, there is huge opportunity, and we look forward to working with her to make it happen.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s enthusiasm for decarbonisation and carbon capture, particularly in heavy industry, including cement. However, the track 1 projects include new gas power stations and new blue hydrogen, which will carry a huge greenhouse gas penalty caused by upstream methane emissions. Will the Secretary of State therefore commit to reviewing the full-lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for any project before it goes to a full investment decision?
Ed Miliband
That is indeed done as part of this. I gently say to some of those asking me this question that this Government have a world-leading position on no new oil and gas licences, and that position is recognised around the world. I say to the hon. Member—this goes back to what I have said throughout this statement—that we need everything as part of the mix. That is why we are going to keep existing fields in the North sea open for their lifespan—for decades to come—and that is part of the energy mix. Of course we are going to move off oil and gas; indeed, we have a science-based position on this issue, unlike the last Government. But this does need to be a transition, and that is what we are going to make happen.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s commitment to delivering for Teesside and to delivering thousands of good green jobs in clean industries—delivery after years of delay. He mentioned Solent earlier, and he knows the risk that delay can pose to CCUS and to jobs. Does he therefore agree that it is absurd for the Conservative party to try to claim credit for this proposal after failing to deliver for 14 years, failing to commit any resources and leaving our industries in the lurch?
Ed Miliband
My hon Friend is absolutely right. The last Government cancelled the project twice, which tells us all we need to know about them. I had forgotten about the second cancellation; I actually had to check—I could not believe that they had cancelled it not just once but twice. That is going some. After three months, here is the reality: they talked, we acted.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that investment in these CCUS projects would not be possible without the private investment generated from our oil and gas companies. In the light of that, of him again confirming his policy on no new licences and of other policies that are set to close down the North sea, how will he ensure that that private investment continues so that more CCUS projects come forward in the future?
Ed Miliband
I listened to what oil and gas companies such as BP and Equinor said: they warmly welcomed this announcement. Frankly, there was a sigh of relief; after years of promises and delay, we finally had a Government getting this done.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Ten million pensioners will find it utterly extraordinary that this Government can find over £20 billion when they cannot find £1 billion to fund the winter fuel payment. That is £20 billion to invest in what the Secretary of State has today admitted is a risky technology—I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with the co-leader of the Green party, the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), on that. The extraordinary thing is that this is almost £1,000 per household. Will this sum of taxpayers’ money be added to general taxation, when taxes are already at record highs, or will it be added to our energy bills, which the Secretary of State has promised will be brought down?
Ed Miliband
Let us be absolutely clear about this, because that was a significant intervention from the hon. Gentleman. Here we have what claims to be the party of working people opposing jobs for working people right across the country. That says all we need to know about the hon. Gentleman: outside this House, he pretends to be in favour of good industrial jobs for Britain; in this House, he opposes them.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I welcome the announcement that has been made, but the Acorn project in St Fergus, between Fraserburgh and Peterhead in my constituency, has been waiting for years, following a promise of jam tomorrow from the last lot. Opposition colleagues have asked for a definitive statement regarding progress on the project. I know that it is a track 2 project, but I am deeply impressed by the extent to which the Secretary of State is prepared to move things forward rapidly, so can he please give us some sort of timescale for the Acorn project today?
Ed Miliband
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his question. I do understand that, just as track 1 was led a merry dance by the last Government, so too was track 2. The current Government have been in power for three months. We are moving at speed, and we have got track 1 over the line. These are obviously decisions that the Chancellor will have to make in the spending review, for reasons the hon. Gentleman will understand. I just say to him that we are absolutely committed to track 2, including Acorn.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but carbon capture can be done in a number of ways. Anaerobic digestion plants, for example, produce as much CO2 as methane, which can be ducted into greenhouses to produce bigger tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuces. Will such natural carbon capture be included in the project, thereby helping to enhance our food security?
Ed Miliband
I am all in favour of big tomatoes and improving our food security. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the potential uses of CCUS. On Friday, we were at a glass factory that will be using hydrogen from a new project and will be the beneficiary of a decarbonised supply. I look forward to further discussions with the hon. Gentleman.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
And the final word goes to Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Maybe not the final word, Madam Deputy Speaker, as that will be for the Secretary of State. I welcome the statement, in which he rightly underlined that anybody who ignores carbon capture, use and storage does so at their peril, and the Government’s commitment to carbon capture. While the amount set aside is incredible, so too is the requirement that every penny brings an achievement. How will the Secretary of State ensure that each region of the United Kingdom is involved in this net gain? I say to him gently that Northern Ireland is not mentioned in his statement; I am sure he will address that issue. There must be accountability to ensure the realisation of environmental goals, rather than simply the aspiration of achieving them.
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I hope he has a conversation with his right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson)—[Interruption.] I see the right hon. Member does not want to talk to him right now. A good point to end on is the fact that, of course, jobs will be created in certain parts of the United Kingdom, but the measures announced will benefit supply chains across the whole United Kingdom. This Government look forward to ensuring that happens.
NHS Performance: Darzi Investigation
(1 week, 1 day 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)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Lord Darzi’s independent investigation into NHS performance.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to open this debate on Lord Darzi’s investigation into the national health service, not just so that we can debate the past and what went so badly wrong, but so that the House can also debate the future of our NHS, how it needs to change and the many reasons to be optimistic about what our health service can be.
We have to start with honesty. For too long, Conservative Governments swept problems under the carpet, more interested in scapegoats than solutions. [Interruption.] I know; it is terrible. That is why I asked Lord Darzi to conduct an independent investigation into our national health service. He is an eminent cancer surgeon, with 30 years’ experience in the NHS, yet what he found shocked even him: some 100,000 toddlers and babies were left waiting for six hours in A&E last year; more than one in 10 hospital beds are taken up by patients who do not need to be there; children are less healthy today than they were a decade ago; adults are living longer but getting sicker sooner; conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are rising relentlessly; mortality from preventable causes is far higher than in other advanced countries; almost 3 million people are off work sick; and waiting lists are at record highs while patient satisfaction is at a record low.
The fundamental promise of the NHS—that it will be there for us when we need it—has been broken for a decade. Why? Because of four knock-out blows. First, a decade of under-investment means NHS staff are forced to use pagers and fax machines, with fewer cancer scanners than Greece and buildings literally crumbling. That is not to mention the disgrace that the previous Government’s new hospitals programme was written according to fictitious timetables, with the funding running out this coming March.
Secondly, there was Andrew Lansley’s disastrous 2012 top-down reorganisation that nobody voted for, cost billions and took years. It was an enormous waste of time, talent and money that should have been spent on caring for patients.
Thirdly, there was a failure to reform. The reforms made by the last Labour Government, which delivered the shortest waiting times and highest patient satisfaction in history, were ditched—a golden inheritance squandered.
Fourthly, there was coronavirus. Lord Darzi found that the NHS was hit harder than any other comparable healthcare system because of the damage the Tories had already done. It is not just that they did not fix the roof when the sun was shining; they doused the house in petrol, left the gas on and covid just lit the match. That is why millions are stuck on waiting lists, ambulances do not arrive on time and people cannot see their GP. Never forgive, never forget and never let the Tories do it again.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Lord Darzi’s report was utterly damning about the treatment of children in our health system. He said that too many children were being let down, and pointed out that they account for 24% of the population, but only 11% of NHS expenditure, and that over 100,000 children wait for over a year to be assessed for mental health treatment. He said we must do better, so will the Secretary of State commit to putting children front and centre of the 10-year plan, and to making them a priority, because for a decade, the Tories let our children down?
Wes Streeting
I strongly agree with the hon. Member. I will talk about the 10-year plan shortly, but I can guarantee that children and paediatric care will be front and centre of that plan. We can do much more to shine a spotlight on paediatric waiting lists, as well as doing much more in practice. She mentioned children and young people’s mental health, on which our parties strongly agree. We will deliver our manifesto commitment to put mental health support in every primary and secondary school in the country, as well as providing walk-in services in every community, so that young people receive the mental health and wellbeing support that they need and do not get to the crisis point reached by far too many of our children.
The hon. Member’s intervention is an example of why I am looking forward to the debate. I hope to listen to contributions and to challenge from all sides of the House. Before I take any interventions from Conservative Members, I advise them that if they want to get a hearing on the NHS ever again, then the first word that should pass their lips is, “Sorry”. Only last week, at the Conservative party conference, we did not see a single shred of remorse or contrition for their appalling record. Indeed, when it comes to the shadow Secretary of State and her party, it seems that sorry is the hardest word.
The NHS is broken. NHS staff do not want to accept that, but it is. According to YouGov, that is what the vast majority of patients say. It is also what staff tell me every time I am on the frontline, but I understand why some people find the word difficult. In the past few weeks, I have met some of the NHS team who happened to be on duty on Monday 29 July. I have listened to paramedics describe the scene they walked into at the community centre in Southport. Children and adults who had been dancing to Taylor Swift were lying bleeding and, in some cases, tragically dying as a result of an unimaginable, senseless, mindless attack. Those paramedics had to make split-second decisions about who to treat and in what order to give the injured the best chance of survival. Security teams cleared busy hospital corridors to shield as many people as possible from the horror. Lab teams mobilised blood supplies. Receptionists fielded calls from panic-stricken patients. Surgical teams across multiple hospitals worked together, fighting to save those young lives. Even now, months later, mental health staff are picking up the pieces for families who are either grieving or going through the unimaginable challenge of supporting their children through what they witnessed.
On that day, those NHS responders—the whole team involved—were the best of humanity confronting the worst. That is who NHS staff are. That is what they do. Let me be clear: the NHS may be broken, but NHS staff did not break it. I want to be clear about this too: what is broken can be fixed. While the NHS may be in the midst of the worst crisis in its history, the biggest asset that we have is the people who work in it. They are up for the challenge, and up for change. The NHS is broken, but it is not beaten. Together with the 1.5 million people working in the health service, this Government will turn our NHS around, get it back on its feet, and make it fit for the future.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Across my constituency, my constituents are struggling to see the GPs they need; indeed, we see that across the whole nation. On Friday, I visited the Park View surgery, where the GPs do not have the necessary resources and cannot move into the premises that they need to be in to treat their patients. Can the Secretary of State assure me that he will follow Lord Darzi’s recommendations and invest in primary care, so that my constituents get the GPs they need and the Park View surgery can move into the premises that it needs, with the capital expenditure that it requires?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Of course it is not just in Loughborough that we have a challenge with access to general practice; it is right across the country. I want to be clear, because GPs come in for a lot of criticism: primary care may be broken, and the front door to the NHS may be broken, but GPs did not break it. In fact, there are fewer GPs now than there were in 2015, yet they are providing more appointments. They have worked hard to improve the productivity of general practice, but they are under-resourced. That is why we are committed, as I told the Royal College of GPs just last week, to delivering the shift that we need out of hospitals and into the community—to growing primary care, including general practice, as a proportion of the NHS’s budget, so that we have the GPs needed to treat patients on time.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Saturday was World Meningitis Day, but in the last year we have seen an almost doubling of meningitis cases in the UK. Does the Secretary of State think that the meningitis vaccination take-up rate is where it should be?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her question. No, I do not think that the take-up rate is where it should be. That is why in the short time we have been in office we have put more effort and energy into vaccine take-up, but there is more to do. I welcome her to the House, and will not have a go at her for the record of the people who sat on the Government Benches just before the general election.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
At the end of September, a large GP federation serving patients across Sussex suddenly went bust, causing 130 redundancies; patient care was severely affected. The federation reported that the cause was a failure to obtain long-term contracts from any of its major clients, and the erosion of the real-terms value of contracts with both primary care networks and NHS Sussex. Does the Secretary of State agree that protecting continuity of service is key to public confidence in primary care, and will he meet me to discuss this case?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her intervention. I wish that this was a challenge only in her constituency; it is a challenge right across the country. As I said to the Royal College of GPs last week, it will take time to rebuild general practice, so that it is back where we want it to be. We would be delighted to hear more from her; I will ensure that my Department makes contact, and that a Minister is in touch about the challenge in her constituency.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for today’s debate. The whole House, and indeed the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, wishes him well in bringing forward the changes that we wish to see. An issue that comes to my attention regularly is research and development. We hear in the press every day about new advances in treating diabetes, heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s, dementia and rare diseases. When we look at the bigger picture of the NHS, we see the big problems, but sometimes there are smaller issues. Will he reassure us that research and development will be encouraged?
Wes Streeting
I strongly agree. Although health is devolved, I look forward to working constructively and closely with Governments right across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because every part of the health system in every part of the UK is going through challenges. We are determined to do that. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member wants to come in again.
Jim Shannon
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations go from here to Northern Ireland, and then we endorse them; if we do not get them from here to start with, we cannot make people better. That is the point that I was trying to make.
Wes Streeting
The hon. Member’s point is taken.
The NHS stands at a fork in the road. There is a choice before us, and the parties represented in the House have different opinions on the best way forward. The first option is for the NHS to continue on its current path—to head down the road to ruin, on a mismanaged decline, with a status quo so poor that patients are forced to raid their savings to go private, and with the worst yet to come, because many Opposition Members believe that all patients should have to put their hands in their pockets when they fall ill. Reform UK has openly stated that it wants to change the funding model and replace it with an insurance-based system, and plenty in the Conservative party want to head in the same direction, chasing Reform UK down the hard-right rabbit hole.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
That is nonsense.
Wes Streeting
The shadow Secretary of State says that it is nonsense. She is very upset about it, so let me point out to her that earlier this year, the Conservative former dentistry Minister, who served in her team, under her leadership, proposed a monthly £10 insurance fee to see a dentist. That is what the Conservatives were planning before the election. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member wants to intervene, I will give way.
Victoria Atkins
I will happily intervene. That is simply incorrect. There are a couple of points that the Secretary of State has made that are completely wrong, which I will have to correct in my speech. He is no longer in opposition. He needs to be careful what he says on the record. That is not right.
Wes Streeting
Honestly, Madam Deputy Speaker, “brass neck” springs to mind. Once again, the hon. Member gets to her feet and fails to say the word “sorry”. If she wants to correct the record, how about she stands up and corrects the abysmal record that she and her predecessors lumbered this country with? They took the NHS from being the very best—that is how it was left in 2010—to being the very worst; that is how she inherited it. If she wants to talk about humility, she might like to start demonstrating some before her time in Parliament comes to an end.
If the hon. Member wants to distance herself from her former dentistry Minister, let us turn to the candidate seeking to lead her party who is head and shoulders above the rest with its membership, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch). She wants to go even further. On whether the NHS should be free at the point of use, she told The Times last month:
“I think we need to have a serious cross-party, national conversation.”
That is what she said about whether the NHS should be free at the point of use. I suspect that she has blamed the journalist for her own words since, but just so that Government Members are clear, that will happen over my dead body. This Labour Government will always defend our NHS as a public service that is free at the point of use, so that whenever someone falls ill, they never have to worry about the bill.
The problem is not, and has never been, the fair, equitable model of funding. It is the same model that we had in 2010, when the last Labour Government delivered the shortest waiting times and highest patient satisfaction in history. A universal, single-payer health service is the fairest, most equitable way to provide healthcare. More than that, in a way that could never have been predicted in 1948 by Attlee and Bevan, it makes the NHS the best placed healthcare system in the world for the revolution taking place in genomics, technology and life sciences. The NHS has the right funding model, but it is not taking advantage of the opportunities in front of it. That is what we need to change.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Under the previous Government, poor investment and a lack of respect for NHS workers, particularly in primary care, resulted in Portsmouth North having over 3,000 patients per GP. That has resulted in over 1,800 people waiting more than a month to see a GP. Despite that, Lord Darzi notes that many of the solutions can be found in parts of the NHS in our constituencies. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the fantastic initiative and hard work of GPs in Portsmouth North, as they work alongside trainee GPs from King’s College London, and look to push that across the country?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is right. In Portsmouth and right across the country, there are people who, against the backdrop of the previous Government, have none the less tried to innovate, do things differently and improve services for patients. Especially given that they sent her to represent them here in Parliament, I am sure they are relieved that they now have a Labour Government on their side.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Chapter 5 of Lord Darzi’s report is about where and how the money should be spent. I know from previous experience that there is a lot of money that can be spent in the national health service, but does the Secretary of State agree that we have to invest to save? We cannot simply move about the money that we currently have in the health service. Investment is needed to allow us to go into the greater detail that Lord Darzi talks about in respect of moving from analogue to digital and from primary care back into the community. That needs investment; it cannot be done simply with the budget that is there.
Wes Streeting
I strongly agree with the former Minister. I will take that as a representation for the forthcoming Budget and spending review, and ensure that his comments are sent straight to my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Without pre-empting future fiscal events, we have been clear for some time that it is investment and reform that deliver results. That is how the last Labour Government delivered the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history. If people are in any doubt about what investment minus reform does, they need only look at what Darzi says about our hospitals: after 2019, lots of resource was poured in, particularly in relation to staffing, but productivity fell. It is investment and reform that deliver results, and this Labour Government will deliver both.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
One of the moments before the last general election that I will never forget was turning up at Milton Keynes hospital with my 91-year-old grandmother, who we suspected was having a heart attack, only to be told that the average waiting time at that moment was nine and a half hours. Milton Keynes has some of the longest NHS waiting lists in the country, because of the damage done by the last Tory Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we all deserve an apology from the Conservatives, not just for the state they left our NHS in, but for going into the election promising a new hospital for Milton Keynes even though they clearly did not have a plan to deliver it?
Wes Streeting
I was delighted to visit Milton Keynes hospital with my hon. Friend before the general election. It is doing incredible work in the conditions that he describes; in particular, its innovation in the application of smart, everyday, practical technology to improve patients’ experience is to be commended.
I share my hon. Friend’s anger, his constituents’ anger and the anger of people right across the country in every community—including mine, by the way, where a hospital upgrade was promised. We were told there was a plan and a timetable, and we were told that the programme was fully funded. Then we came into government to find that the timetables were a work of fiction and that the funding runs out in March. That is something else that the shadow Secretary of State should apologise for, and I look forward to hearing her apology. People across the country are owed an apology.
Let me say to every hon. Member who is in the same position that I, my hon. Friend and people across the country are in that we will not play fast and loose with the public’s trust, and we will come forward with a plan for the upgrade of hospitals that is credible, achievable and funded. That is the difference between the way that this Labour Government will behave, in terms of both public trust and public money, and the way that the previous Conservative Government behaved, which was a total disgrace.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
On top of coming clean to the public and making a change from the way the previous Government treated the country, will the Secretary of State also assure the House that the Government will establish a proper, effective and honest workforce plan? After the years of Johnsonian bluster, when there was no effective workforce plan, the nurses who are the backbone of the NHS are still being paid £29,000 a year at grade 5. As the Royal College of Nursing says, it is about retention of staff, not just recruitment. They are leaving in droves because they cannot stand the unsafe circumstances in which they are operating.
Wes Streeting
The hon. Member is right to raise the issues of recruitment and retention. My message to staff who are thinking of leaving the NHS, or who perhaps have left the NHS in recent years because of working conditions and because there was no light at the end of the tunnel, is to stay—or indeed return—and help us to be the generation that takes the NHS from the worst crisis in its history, gets it back on its feet and ensures that it is fit for the future.
On the workforce plan, let me just say that it was regrettable that it was only at 5 minutes to midnight that the previous Government published such a plan. We were highly flattered by the fact that so much that underpinned that plan was Labour party policy commitments, such as doubling the number of medical school places and increasing the number of nursing and midwifery clinical training places. We are committed to those headline commitments. We will inevitably want to update the workforce plan in the light of the 10-year plan and some of the analysis that underpins Darzi. We are clear that that kind of long-term workforce planning is essential, and we are committed—
Wes Streeting
I must make some progress; I will try to take more interventions shortly.
The public are clear that they do not want the NHS to be sacrificed. They gave Labour our marching orders at the general election to rescue the NHS and turn it around, and that is what we will do. I appreciate that the shadow Health Secretary must be embarrassed by all this, not just by the state that she and her Conservative predecessors left the NHS in, but by what Conservative Members have been saying. I was going to say, “Members who are sat behind her,” but they are actually not—I think they are hiding in shame. [Interruption.] The shadow Health Secretary says from a sedentary position that we have already had this discussion. The Conservatives would rather we just moved on and forgot their abysmal record. Well, I am afraid that we are not ready to do that just yet. At least some of her Back Benchers now say what they refused to say when they were in office: that the NHS is broken. Some of them even admit that only Labour can fix it.
When the shadow Secretary of State stands up, I wonder whether she can tell us whether she agrees with the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who said:
“I applaud Wes Streeting for having the political courage. I think only Labour can really say this. The NHS is sort of their thing…I really hope that we can get behind him”.
It is not just Back Benchers. What about the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)? He said:
“I’m very supportive of what Wes Streeting is saying… The Conservative government put a lot of money into the NHS, the record is there for all to see… I’m not one of those who is seeking to attack…the Labour Party on the NHS.”
He is going for my vote, but sadly—or gladly—I am not qualified to vote in that particular election. Perhaps the shadow Health Secretary can tell us what the shadow Foreign Secretary meant when he said we were not—[Interruption.] She is clearly enjoying this. Was the shadow Foreign Secretary speaking for the shadow Cabinet? [Interruption.] No, he was not.
Let me move to my favourite comments on the NHS from a Tory MP. This right hon. Member said:
“We were not obsessed with how we can ensure that it actually delivers the experience that patients actually deserve…Out of fear of our opponents mischaracterising our efforts, we shirked the difficult decisions…If Wes Streeting comes forward with genuine reforms I think we should back him.”
Those are the words of the candidate that the shadow Health Secretary is backing to lead her party, so does she agree with the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)? Will she finally apologise for her part in the Tories’ abysmal record and have the humility to admit that when it came to NHS reform their cupboard was bare, and that actually they quite agree with our efforts to clean up the mess that they left behind?
For all the agreement with our diagnosis and praise of our plans, the problem is that there is no apology. Of the four leadership candidates and eight former Health Secretaries, not a single one has apologised for the state they left the NHS in. Would the shadow Health Secretary like to correct that record today and finally say sorry? I expect that we might have to wait a long time. While the Conservatives continue the longest leadership election in history, we are getting on with the job of cleaning up their mess.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The reform that we desperately need includes the so-called “left shift” out of hospitals and into primary care. Yet under the previous Government, the amount of money spent on hospitals went from 47% to 58% of the NHS budget. According to Age UK, every day 2,000 people are admitted to hospital who could be treated elsewhere and earlier. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way to fix the NHS is to get more and better care in the community?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that brings me to our reform agenda.
To deliver the Government’s reform agenda, we will have to take on both left and right-wing orthodoxies—for simplicity’s sake, we will call them The Guardian and the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail agrees on the need for health service reform, but attacks proposals for public health reform as “nanny state”. The Guardian loves prevention, but all this talk about health service reform makes it very nervous. The truth is that the Daily Mail and The Guardian are half right and half wrong. We all need to face up to the challenges of today. Our society is getting older and living longer but becoming sicker sooner. Those rising tides of demands and costs are combining to form a perfect storm that threatens to shipwreck the NHS.
Wes Streeting
I must make progress.
The right must accept that without reform on public health, we will pay a heavy price, with higher taxes and poorer quality of life—exactly the sort of dependency culture that the right rails against. The left must accept that investment without reform of the health service would be killing the NHS with kindness, with more cash and poor results until the public give up altogether.
Several hon. Members rose—
Wes Streeting
I must make more progress.
That is the choice: public health reform or higher taxes; NHS reform or no NHS. The Tories did neither; Labour will do both. It really is reform or die, and we choose reform. That is why this month we will begin formal engagement with NHS staff and patients, who will help to write the 10-year plan for our NHS—a plan that will deliver the change and modernisation that our health service is crying out for—with three big shifts in its focus.
First, a shift from hospital to community will turn the NHS into a neighbourhood health service as much as a national health service, so that patients get more of their tests, scans and healthcare on high streets and in town centres in their own community, and from the comfort of their own home. It will ensure that patients can easily book appointments to see the GP they want to see in the manner that they choose, and it will bring back the family doctor, rebuild NHS dentistry and build a national care service.
Wes Streeting
I must make progress. There are lots of speakers and little time.
Secondly, there will be a shift from sickness to prevention. It will mean that we take action to give our children a healthier and happier life, flattening the curve of rising pressures that threaten to overwhelm the NHS by building a healthier society, which will help to build a healthier economy.
Thirdly, there will be a shift from analogue to digital. Upgrading the NHS app will give patients real choice and control over their own healthcare, creating a single patient record owned by the patient and shared across the system so that every part of the NHS has a full picture of the patient that they are treating. Getting the NHS working hand in glove with our country’s leading scientists will put modern technology and equipment in the hands of NHS staff, and patients at the front of the queue for the latest treatments.
Wes Streeting
I must begin to conclude my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I see that the Chair of the Select Committee on Health and Social Care is seeking my eye. Given that I will be before her Committee soon and know where my bread is buttered, I give way.
Layla Moran
The Secretary of State is very kind indeed. I can take no credit for what I am about to say, which comes from reports on prevention and digital transformation published by the previous Select Committee, which he would do very well to look at. What those reports say is very much echoed in Lord Darzi’s report—particularly that the place-based narratives about embedding the NHS into our communities are key, as is reform of Government as a whole, and embedding health in every Department. Will he say a bit more about reform in Government, and not just reform in the NHS?
Wes Streeting
I strongly agree with the Chair of the Select Committee and commend the work of the previous Committee, to which she refers. She has certainly given me some revision for the first meeting that I will attend. To answer her question, she is absolutely right that digital transformation and place-based healthcare planning are key. This Government will have a much sharper focus on health inequalities than the previous Government did. In fact, if we consider the NHS over the past 30 or 40 years, even when it has performed well overall, and patients in every part of the country have received access to timely care, some health systems have still been more challenged than others. We need to be honest about the structural challenges in those areas. Secondly, she is absolutely right that, if we are serious about health and prevention, we need a serious cross-Government approach. That is why I am delighted that the Prime Minister’s mission-driven approach has already seen Departments coming together with a focus on prevention. That will deliver fruit.
This is the major surgery that our national health service needs over the next decade to make it fit for the future. There is no time to waste, so we have hit the ground running. We inherited a Care Quality Commission that is not fit for purpose. I was genuinely stunned to learn that one in five health and care providers has never been inspected; some hospitals have been left uninspected for a decade; and inspectors were sent to care homes when they had never met someone with dementia. The Conservatives did not think that patients would like the answers, so they stopped asking the questions. This Labour Government are different: we will be honest about the problems facing the health service, and serious about solving them. Our policy is radical candour.
Today I am delighted to announce that Sir Julian Hartley has been appointed the new chief executive of the CQC. He is a proven reformer with a track record of turning around large organisations, and I am confident that he will provide the leadership that staff in the CQC need to address this crisis, improve patient safety and restore confidence in the regulator. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, so this Government are taking action to turn the regulator around. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
We inherited the farce of newly qualified GPs facing unemployment. Patients could not get a GP appointment, while GPs could not get a job, so we cut red tape, found the funding and are recruiting an extra 1,000 GPs. That is the difference a Labour Government make. We have tabled a motion to ban junk food ads targeted at children —our first step towards making our country’s children the healthiest generation that has ever lived. That is the difference a Labour Government make. Just this week, the Secretary of State for Science and Technology and I announced funding to produce new cutting-edge cancer treatments: a new blood test that can detect 12 different cancers. We are backing Britain’s scientists to save lives. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
Of course, strikes in the NHS have cost taxpayers billions. Patients saw 1.5 million operations and appointments cancelled. The Conservatives saw strikes as an opportunity to scapegoat NHS staff, so they let the strikes rage on. In fact, the shadow Health Secretary had not even bothered to meet the junior doctors since March. This Government do not exploit problems; we solve them. I called the junior doctors on day one and met them in week one, and in just three weeks, we had negotiated a deal to end the strikes. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
Those are just our first steps. Rebuilding the NHS will not be easy and it will take time, but we have done it before and we will do it again. Along with the millions of dedicated staff in health and social care across our country, this can be the generation that takes the NHS from the worst crisis in its history to build an NHS fit for the future—an NHS that is there for us when we need it, with world-class care for the many, not just the few. That is the change that Britain voted for; that is the change we will deliver together; and that change has already begun.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I bring in the Opposition Front Benchers, the House should be aware that over 50 Members wish to speak in the debate, so I ask you to help each other. On this occasion, I will impose a three-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, with the exception of maiden speeches and that of the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
On this, the first anniversary of Hamas’s horrific attack on Israel, our thoughts are with Israel, the victims of that horrific attack and their loved ones, and with all those who are trying to rescue the hostages, get aid where it is needed and bring peace to the region.
Day 95 of this fumbling Labour Government, and yet another general debate to talk about a report that we talked about three weeks ago. That seems to be the golden—or Gray—thread running through this Government: lots of talk, but where is the action? If the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care wanted to make a meaningful contribution to the nation’s health, why did he not bring forward the Second Reading of the Tobacco And Vapes Bill this evening, to help our children and bring about the first smokefree generation? That Bill is ready to go; why are the Government not?
The right hon. Gentleman could have provided an update to the House on the 40,000 more appointments that he promised many times during the campaign, which the latest answer from his Minister to a written parliamentary question suggests is nowhere near happening. It is perhaps about as likely as the Prime Minister paying for his own glasses. The right hon. Gentleman could have set out the steps that his Department is taking to prepare the NHS for winter. In the spring, I asked the system to start planning for this winter. How many beds, ambulances and care packages has he put into the system to prepare it for winter? He could have set out the terms of the royal commission on social care. We in the Conservative party stand ready to help on that royal commission, because we believe in constructive opposition, yet we have heard nothing from this Government. The right hon. Gentleman could have launched the much-hyped 10-year plan, which he promised before the election was “oven-ready”, but appears to be in the deep freeze. How many more Government resets will there be before that 10-year plan is launched?
Instead, in their first 95 days, this Labour Government have talked down the economy and the NHS, stopped new hospitals from being built, scrapped NHS productivity improvements, overseen GPs entering industrial action, been exposed in a health cronyism scandal, and opened a dispute with hundreds of thousands of nurses and midwives. They seek to justify all of that with the Darzi report. That report, from a former Labour Health Minister, has sunk as quickly as it was briefed out. It looks backwards, but not far enough to mark the last Labour Government’s policy and operational failures. If this Government are serious about reforming the NHS—and I genuinely hope they are—they and the Secretary of State need to transition quickly from opposing to governing.
Victoria Atkins
I will finish this point. That transition must begin with the language that the Secretary of State is choosing to use about the NHS. Interestingly, we have heard a little bit of nuance for the first time tonight, perhaps because health leaders are raising concerns that his “broken” narrative is damaging public confidence and will lead to people not coming forward for care, as was reported on the day that the right hon. Gentleman gave his speech to conference. That narrative is hurting the morale of staff who are working tirelessly for their patients. As the confected doom and gloom of the new Chancellor damages business confidence, so too does the Health Secretary’s relentlessly negative language risk consequences in real life.
Let me say what the Health Secretary refuses to acknowledge: the NHS is here for us and is ready to help. Its dedicated staff look after 1.6 million people per day, a 25% increase from the days of the last Labour Government. That is why I am always a little concerned whenever the right hon. Gentleman harks back so far; I do not think he has quite understood the change in capacity and scale of the national health service since we inherited it from the last Labour Government. The majority of those 1.6 million people will receive good care. [Interruption.] These are just facts, but I know the Health Secretary finds them difficult to receive.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Victoria Atkins
In one moment.
Of course, it is important that we focus relentlessly on those patients who do not receive good care, but that will not be achieved by writing off the 1.5 million people who work in the NHS. In fact, the NHS has more doctors, nurses and investment than at any point in its history. It is delivering millions more outpatient appointments and diagnostic tests and procedures for patients than in 2010, and NHS mental health services are supporting 3.6 million people a year, a 10% increase in one year alone.
Victoria Atkins
I will give way to the doctor behind me, and then I will give way again.
Dr Evans
It is interesting that Lord Darzi chose 2010, because there were some good points in what the Labour Government put in place, but there was also the problem of Mid Staffs. We had the Medical Training Application Service fiasco around medical careers, for which Patricia Hewitt had to apologise, and we had the £11 billion IT project that was put in place and has now failed as well. These things shape the NHS, and when we are trying to come up with solutions, they impact on the way that doctors, leaders and politicians come together. Does my right hon. Friend have suggestions for how we can take the politics out of this debate, enabling us to have a sensible debate on reform, which I think both sides of this House would like to see?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend, who brings his clinical experience and expertise to this debate. I say frankly to the Secretary of State that I wish he had taken the approach of the Defence Secretary, who has set up a cross-party commission on defence spending. Indeed, he has invited my former colleagues to sit on that review, because he understands that we bring an enormous amount of knowledge, experience, and—dare I say it?—some hard knocks from working in those massively complex Departments.
The right hon. Gentleman knows me. We have done good-humoured battle over the Dispatch Boxes for a long time now, and had he come to me and asked me to help him, I genuinely would have. [Interruption.] The public are hearing this. They want politicians to cut all the flim-flam and the bluster and work together, and had the right hon. Gentleman been serious about the Darzi report, he would have done exactly as his colleague around the Cabinet table has done and conducted a cross-party review of the NHS to ensure that we can make real progress. It is interesting that the Health Secretary does not appear to agree with the approach that his Cabinet colleague has taken.
Victoria Atkins
I will listen to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I am very generous with interventions, and I know that he brings expertise and experience to the House as well.
Peter Prinsley
I am grateful that you have given way, and thank you for that. I have been sitting listening to you—[Hon. Members: “Shadow Secretary of State.”] I am sorry, I am getting the hang of this. To be honest, I am struggling to recognise what the right hon. Lady is talking about. The state of the health service is a disgrace; the Opposition, who I believe were the Government until quite recently, have totally messed the situation up over a period of 14 years. What Lord Darzi has had to say is a pretty accurate diagnosis of the situation we are in, so it is quite surprising to listen to the shadow Secretary of State talk as if everything was perfect over the last 14 years. That is simply not the case.
Victoria Atkins
I will help the hon. Gentleman, because I appreciate that he is new to this place. If he had been listening carefully to me, he would have heard that I am and have always been—in fairness, I hope the Health Secretary would acknowledge this as well—very open about the fact that the NHS needs reform. In fact, I said as Secretary of State that I wanted to reform our NHS to make it faster, simpler and fairer.
By the way, I speak with personal experience. I know there are some Members on the Back Benches who are new to this place and perhaps have not quite moved on from the natural competitiveness of a general election campaign, but I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of three. I have seen the very best of the NHS, but I have also seen some of its darkest corners. The NHS is genuinely one of the reasons why I came into politics, and one of the most damaging things about political discourse and the healthcare system in this country is when people seek to attribute to others a lack of care or commitment to our healthcare system, just because we have different ways of tackling these challenges and different solutions.
This is why—I will say this again, because I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is listening—I will work constructively with him to improve the health service, but we have to do this on the facts. Some of the suggestions he made in the debate today and in his discourse during the general election campaign and so on are not accurate, and this is where I will pull him up. For example, he has not mentioned the introduction of Pharmacy First or the 160 community diagnostic centres. Just to help him, those were backed by the largest central cash investment in MRI and CT scanning capacity in the history of the NHS. Those, as well as the new surgical hubs that we introduced, are not only putting healthcare into the community but, critically, helping to improve the numbers of chest checks and scans going through the system, which means speedier diagnosis.
Wes Streeting
The right hon. Lady mentions Pharmacy First. How many pharmacies went bust on her watch?
Victoria Atkins
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, because I imagine he will have got exactly the same briefing I used to get when I was in his shoes and being advised by exactly the same civil servants—and I am having to let this flow back into my memory here—the average person in England is within walking distance of their pharmacy. He will know that in many high streets in our market towns, as well as in London and other urban areas, there is a density of pharmacies. We want to support those pharmacies to ensure they are able to provide the services that they can provide, and in fairness, to enable pharmacists to work at the top of their licences. He supported Pharmacy First when I introduced it, so I am a little surprised that he appears to be casting doubt on it, but I am grateful for his intervention.
The next point is that our women’s health strategy—it does not have the attention from his ministerial team that it should have at the moment, and I hope that will improve over the coming months—is seeing the roll-out of women’s health hubs across England into every integrated care board area by the end of this year, ensuring that women’s health issues receive the attention they deserve.
Of course, there are parts of the NHS that need to change and do much better. The NHS needs to reform for the future of healthcare, and our focus must be on improving outcomes for patients, not protecting structures, bureaucracy and vested interests in the NHS. As I have said repeatedly, we will scrutinise constructively and support any meaningful efforts to reform the NHS to improve outcomes and experiences for patients, because we all want the NHS to thrive.
However, after nearly 100 days, there has not been anything yet for us to scrutinise or indeed support from this Government. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says he has just given me a list. Interestingly, I am pretty sure that three out of those four were started under my Government. [Interruption.] I am pretty sure that I was the Secretary of State who ordered the review of the Care Quality Commission, precisely because I was so concerned. He will be able to build on that report, and quite rightly so, but he should please be careful of his facts. Disappointingly, it is the right hon. Gentleman’s fondness for parties and concerts that has made the news recently, rather than his health policies. This Government need to sober up and start taking responsibility for their choices.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
On Saturday, I had a surgery appointment with a young lady who has struggled to access support for her eating disorder and mental health issues. She has gone through some of the most difficult experiences anybody can go through. She asked me a simple question: “Why have I been unable to access NHS support for my mental health?” What would the shadow Secretary of State say to my constituent, who, when she looks back at the reasons, frankly blames the previous Government?
Victoria Atkins
First, I am very sorry to hear that. Again, the way we were trying to deal with the enormous increase we have seen in mental ill health across our country was first of all to boost mental health services for children and young people. Indeed, the hon. Member may not be aware of this, but we rolled out mental health support teams across nearly 45% of schools. We wanted to complete that to 100% of schools by the end of the decade, and I very much hope that the Secretary of State will be taking up that policy and delivering it.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) might know that there seems to have been a real increase in eating disorders since the pandemic. We know, for example, that the impact of social media sites, and the algorithms that sit behind them, can lead people who are already feeling very vulnerable into even darker places. So when the Secretary of State says that there should be a cross-Government piece of work, I very much agree with him—I hope he will achieve that through his mission board. But we really have to look at how we as a society can deal with some of these causes, because I do not think anyone is happy with seeing such a huge increase in anxiety and mental ill health among our young people since the pandemic.
Jim Shannon
One of the things that came up at our party conference some time ago was a recommendation from the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council to encourage medical students into local trusts by paying their fees, which would pay for itself given the cost of locum doctors in each of our health trusts. Would the shadow Secretary of State support that, and would she in turn encourage the Government to do likewise?
Victoria Atkins
I hope the hon. Gentleman knows by now that when he makes a suggestion, I will take it away. He will appreciate that, as part of a constructive Opposition, I want to look carefully at the ramifications—both the intended and unintended consequences—of policies suggested in the Chamber, but that sounds very interesting. I thank him for his contribution, as always.
Several hon. Members rose—
Victoria Atkins
I am going to make some progress.
One of the choices facing the Health Secretary is whether he will fight for the investment required from the Treasury to implement the productivity plan. At spring Budget, the Conservatives announced more than £3.4 billion of investment to upgrade IT systems, expand services on the NHS app and make better use of artificial intelligence, in order to reduce bureaucracy for staff and free up clinical time for doctors and nurses. Alongside the long-term workforce plan—the first ever in the history of the NHS—this plan will see productivity grow by 2% a year by the end of the decade and unlock £35 billion of savings, yet the productivity plan is not mentioned anywhere in this 163-page report.
This plan was made in partnership with NHS England and funded by the Conservative Government. While the right hon. Gentleman has talked a good game on productivity, we are still waiting for him to confirm his commitment to deliver the plan that was drawn up with NHS England to help improve productivity. I asked him three weeks ago whether he was cancelling this plan, and he failed to answer. I am very happy to give way now if he wants to commit to it. The whole NHS would like to know.
Wes Streeting
I am delighted that the shadow Secretary of State has so generously given way. I am not going to pre-empt the Chancellor’s announcements at the Budget and the spending review, but I say to her that the reason why so many of the things she said at this Dispatch Box as Secretary of State were a pile of nonsense is that they were plans built on a pillar of sand—a £22 billion black hole for which she and her party are yet to apologise. Will she do that now?
Victoria Atkins
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, calculations were made in the Treasury for this economic inheritance, but the Treasury cannot even explain how it has arrived at those calculations. If I were him, I would be a little bit careful of relying on that figure, because I fear it may trip up his Chancellor in due course. Perhaps the reason why he cannot answer the question about whether he is in fact committed to the productivity plan is that his friend the former Health Secretary, who has been walking in and out of the Department for Health with all of his private healthcare businesses, has not told him whether he plans to accept it, but we will find that out in due course.
The Secretary of State’s silence continues with new medicines, technology and trials. These will be at the forefront of the reforms needed in health services across the world, let alone the NHS, yet the Darzi report mentioned NICE only once in 163 pages. Even worse, I am hearing from the life sciences sector that he and his team are refusing to meet these businesses, putting at risk the hundreds of millions of pounds of investment that the Conservative Government secured, as well as the highly skilled jobs they provide and the life-enhancing treatments they promise our constituents. It is his responsibility to persuade the Chancellor to continue supporting and investing in this innovation for the future, because patients will not thank Labour if it refuses to engage in the medical revolution with these businesses.
Another choice that the right hon. Gentleman must make—we perhaps have a precursor of what he is going to say—concerns the workforce. We know that NHS staff are at the heart of our healthcare services, and that training, retaining and developing our workforce is critical to the future of the NHS. The Conservative Government created the first ever long-term workforce plan for the NHS—again, a plan that was asked for and welcomed by the whole NHS, and developed hand in hand with NHS England to train the doctors, nurses, midwives and other healthcare staff that we need now and in the future. The plan was described by NHS England’s chief executive as
“one of the most seminal moments in our 75-year history.”
Crikey, even the right hon. Gentleman supported it. Yet this supposedly independent investigation failed to mention the plan once. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this Government stand by this plan and will fund it as the Conservatives would do? [Interruption.] He says that he talked about it, but he did not give an answer, because his job is to ask the Chancellor for this funding—has he done so?
Victoria Atkins
Right, okay. We have that on the record now and we will wait to see what happens at the Budget.
It is also striking that the report mentions pay and wages only twice in 163 pages, despite the fact that staff costs account for 65% of provider operating costs a year. If the report and the Secretary of State do not acknowledge the single biggest cost pressure for providers, how can they claim to have the answers on reform? He claims to have sorted out industrial action in the NHS, and I must again correct him on something. He keeps referencing when I last had a conversation with the junior doctors committee, as it then was. What he neglects to tell us is that we entered mediation with junior doctors in May—he never thinks to mention that when he is holding forth at the Dispatch Box.
Victoria Atkins
We entered into that negotiation in good faith, and I gently remind Labour Members of Parliament who were here before the last election that again and again I asked the right hon. Gentleman and Labour MPs to condemn the strike actions and they refused to do so, because we know of their links to their union paymasters—[Interruption.] I will just say “train drivers” and leave that hanging in the air.
When I asked the right hon. Gentleman during Health and Social Care questions in July whether he was going to cut services or whether the Chancellor was going to raise taxes for the junior doctors pay rise, he assured the House that any pay rise would be affordable. How affordable does his deal look now? He has given resident doctors an inflation-busting pay rise for being on strike, and he is paying them for the days they were on strike. He did that with no reform and no productivity improvements attached to it, and with more strikes threatened for next spring. Completely foreseeably, that has led to nurses and midwives asking why they should accept less. Simply telling nurses, “We’re on your side” will not heat their homes this winter. The report does not deal with the here and now; it looks only at the past. Indeed, the Darzi report talks about the importance of capital investment, so if the right hon. Gentleman intends to use the report to inform his policy decisions, as he says he does, why is he stopping new hospitals from being built?
There are now 24 hospitals whose futures are at risk, despite commitments from the right hon. Gentleman and Labour candidates during the election campaign. Labour candidates in Watford, Hillingdon, Milton Keynes, Leeds and Basingstoke made promises to their voters that are now at risk under this Labour Government. Patients in Chelsea and Fulham, Truro, Harlow, Plymouth and Kettering will not get the investment and upgrades that they deserve, despite the promises of their Labour candidates. [Interruption.] Do not believe a word when this Secretary of State says, as he is saying now, that it is because of the economy. The truth is that he had been planning to pause those hospitals since May 2023. For those who are wondering, the details are in his health mission paper, which was published to great fanfare in May 2023—page 6, if that helps. He was planning this since May last year, which is exactly why the promises made at the election were so cynical and now need to be revealed.
Take a perhaps unhealthy dose of salt with the right hon. Gentleman’s claim that the money runs only until March next year. Let me help this very inexperienced Secretary of State understand basic Treasury rules. The comprehensive spending review period finishes in March. I wish I could have bound this Labour Government to committing to those hospitals in the next CSR period, but I could not. It is his responsibility and his role to fight for funding from the Chancellor to ensure that the hospitals are built. We promised that we would allocate the money needed, and would prioritise the new hospitals in the next CSR period. It is now the job of this Secretary of State to secure the money from his Labour Chancellor.
Through our plans to invest in more capital projects, we also sought to improve cancer diagnosis and treatment. While outcomes have improved since 2010, there is much more to do. That is why we opened 160 community diagnostic centres, rolled out new lung cancer screening programmes, and expanded the use of artificial intelligence to speed up diagnoses. Again, we note the lack of any mention of those centres or hubs, which would reduce waiting lists and speed up diagnoses, in this supposedly independent review by the former Labour Health Minister.
I want a straight answer from the Minister in their winding-up speech on an issue that is worrying families up and down the country. Cancer is the single biggest killer of children under the age of 14. I launched the children and young people’s cancer taskforce, which brought together top clinicians, leading cancer charities and the Government to combat childhood cancer, and improve diagnosis and access to new treatments. Its launch was warmly welcomed by parents and charities, and experts were lending their time to the taskforce for free, yet this Secretary of State has chosen to pause it. Parents and charities including the Teenage Cancer Trust, Young Lives vs Cancer, and Solving Kids’ Cancer UK cannot understand why the Health Secretary has chosen to stop that work. That is his choice, and the Minister must please explain in the wind-ups why the decision was taken to pause it.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady makes the point that cancer is the biggest killer of people under 40, but glioblastoma brain tumours are the biggest killer of people under the age of 40. What progress has there been in the last 30 years in the treatment and diagnosis of glioblastoma brain tumours?
Victoria Atkins
I think the hon. Lady did not hear me; I said that cancer is the biggest killer of children under the age of 14, not 40. I know only too well how that terrible brain cancer has hurt her family, and the great loss that she has suffered. I know that she has ambitions for the work that we were doing to get cancer treatments, particularly new cancer treatments, as quickly as possible to patients who are getting towards the end of their life. We will of course support anything that the Government do to help people such as the hon. Lady’s sister; again, I come back to the fact that we all want this to work.
Victoria Atkins
I will make some progress, because I know that I am trying your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Lord Darzi says that prevention is better than cure. We agree. The Government say that they are committed to prevention, but actions speak louder than words. Scrapping the winter fuel payment for millions of pensioners will undoubtedly come at a cost to the NHS. The equality analysis estimates that 780,000 of the most vulnerable pensioners who are eligible for pension credit will miss out this winter, and the cut will result in 262,000 pensioners needing NHS treatment because they are living in cold, damp homes, at an additional cost of £169 million in a year. How has the Secretary of State stood by as the Chancellor made that appalling decision, which will affect vulnerable pensioners in his constituency, as well as the NHS?
Finally, we have heard the words that the right hon. Gentleman has used about the NHS in England; it is surprising, to say the least, that he has not used those same words times 100 to describe the state of the NHS in Labour-run Wales. On almost every measure, the NHS performs the worst in Wales, where one in four people is on an NHS waiting list. Wales has the longest waiting times; Welsh patients wait on average seven weeks longer than in England. More than 23,000 people wait longer than two years, compared with just 120 people in England. Given the Secretary of State’s rhetoric about NHS England, why has he not asked Lord Darzi to take a cold, hard look at how Labour has run the NHS in Wales for 25 years?
In conclusion, we Conservatives want to support good reforms and good policies for the better health of the nation, but this backward-looking report will not improve productivity. Headlines will not drive better outcomes for patients, and speeches will not improve the life chances of our constituents. This Government need to move from words to action quickly.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I will be brief. I think there is general consensus on Lord Darzi’s review of the issues facing the NHS, but in spite of what the shadow Minister says, staff morale is low, particularly when compared with 2010. It has never been so low. I express my gratitude to and solidarity with all the staff, clinical and non-clinical, for the work they do.
I will briefly focus on the key drivers. We have heard a little about them from the Health Secretary, particularly in terms of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. I sat on both the Bill Committees. I was aghast, having just come out of the NHS and having faced the issues. I just knew it would be catastrophic, and it was. It had an almost immediate impact on staff morale.
We must also recognise the impact of austerity between 2010 and 2018. NHS revenue budgets grew by just 1% each year—the lowest rate since the NHS was formed. That compares with growth of nearly 4% a year since then. In 2010, the Commonwealth Fund found that the NHS was one of the top-ranking health systems in the world. It was No. 1 for equity in access to healthcare; we are now ranked 10th. If we compare spending on healthcare, we are ranked 26th in the OECD. Austerity impacted not only the overall funding of the NHS, but the funding allocation formulas. The weighting for deprivation was slashed, so areas such as mine received less money, although we had greater health needs. Austerity also had an impact on other aspects of public funding and local government, and metropolitan areas such as mine were particularly badly affected. It stripped the support from people in need.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I came into politics because of a desire to reverse growing inequalities in health and disability. In my constituency of Shipley, there is a 10-year gap in healthy life expectancy between those living in Wharfedale and their neighbours over the moor in Windhill. While lots needs to be done to tackle poor housing and poverty, there are things that the NHS can do. Does my hon. Friend agree that the NHS plan must prioritise prevention, as well as just treating sickness?
Debbie Abrahams
As a former public health consultant, I would obviously agree with my hon. Friend. I have similar health inequalities across Oldham. I was about to talk about the impact of other issues, such as social security cuts, which meant greater poverty, including in-work poverty and children from working families living in poverty. That has had a consequential impact on our health as a whole. We have flatlining life expectancy, and in areas such as mine, life expectancy has got worse. That impacts on our productivity and the wealth of our country.
I will briefly mention a couple of points that I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises, and might want to consider. An annual report on the state of our health and the state of our NHS, presented to Parliament before each Budget, would pick up on the points that have been raised about cross-departmental impacts on health. We should have a prospective assessment of the impacts of the Budget and the Finance Bill on poverty and inequality, and subsequently on health and the NHS. That can be done; others are doing it. We should have a strategy to identify and address health equity issues in the NHS. We have seen a bit of that through covid, in the inequity around the use of oximeters. We should introduce something like “Improving working lives” for our staff. That had a massive effect on staff when I worked in the NHS. We need a clear commitment to the 1948 principles of the NHS, under which it is funded from general taxation, and a funding allocation based on need.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The findings in Lord Darzi’s report are shocking, but Liberal Democrats—there are many of us here today—find that they echo the hundreds of thousands of conversations we had with people on the doorstep across the country throughout the election campaign. In too many ways, the NHS just is not working as it should, and that is a tragedy, because we all cherish the NHS and want it to succeed. It is one of our country’s greatest inventions and a great Liberal idea. It is one of the things that makes us proud to be British.
We all owe so much to the NHS and the incredible hard-working staff who have kept it going under the most intense pressure imaginable. Despite their heroic efforts, there is no doubt that we have a major crisis in the NHS. Let us not forget, because it is so important—these things are intrinsically linked—that we also have a major crisis in care. The message that the British people sent at the general election in July was clear: fixing the health and care crisis must be this Government’s No. 1 priority.
Before I turn to the Government’s plans, it is worth reminding ourselves of the scale and urgency of the challenge. Far too many people wait weeks to see a GP or NHS dentist, if they can find one. Far too many wait months or even years to start vital treatment for serious conditions. Far too many wait for hours in pain and distress for an ambulance to arrive. I recently spoke to a constituent, Emma, whose 11-year-old daughter Charlotte suffers from a medical condition that means she is red-flagged, or a category 1 priority patient, in the case of a medical emergency. Unfortunately, Emma and Charlotte were recently involved in a car crash. Charlotte urgently needed an ambulance, but after two hours of waiting, her father decided to take her to hospital in the back of his car. She starts her journey to senior school this autumn. Her family have had to devise their own response network to keep her safe and secure, and to allow her to attend school in confidence. Our ambulance service failed Charlotte and her family when they were in crisis, and we cannot let that continue.
The problems do not stop there. Across the country, almost 6.5 million people are stuck on hospital waiting lists. That is one in every nine people in England. Two million of them have been waiting for more than six months. Over the past year, more than 100,000 people have waited more than two months to start cancer treatment after an urgent referral. In my constituency of North Shropshire, almost 20% of urgent referrals took more than 43 days and 10% took more than 62 days. The target is 28 days. It is truly heartbreaking. We know that every day counts when patients are battling cancer.
Young people needing help with their mental health are waiting months and even years to access child and adolescent mental health services. There is no help for them until they are in crisis. As if all that was not bad enough, we have hospitals that are literally crumbling. There is a maintenance backlog of £11.6 billion. Buildings are decades past their use-by date. It is shocking but, as my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I know, far from exceptional. Most of these problems go back decades. The truth is that Governments of all parties have failed to put enough capital investment into the NHS. They have failed to face up to the challenge of an ageing population and, crucially, they have failed to tackle the care crisis, with one honourable exception: the Care Act 2014 was passed by Liberal Democrat Ministers a decade ago, with cross-party support. Sadly, it was ripped up by the Conservative Government after 2015.
The failure and neglect of the Conservative Government left the NHS teetering on the brink. There were so many grand promises—6,000 more GPs, 40 new hospitals and cross-party talks on social care—but they were all fantasies. In Shropshire—which is not an outlier—the Royal College of General Practitioners found that the average GP is seeing 475 more patients than they were in 2016. Patients and their loved ones have been let down so badly.
When the scale of challenges across health and social care is so enormous, it would be easy to succumb to pessimism and defeatism—doom and gloom—but we cannot afford to do that. The patients of today and tomorrow cannot afford for us to do that. This moment demands the same urgency, ambition and vision that drove the creation of the NHS all those years ago. We very much hope that the Government will show that ambition. I welcome the Secretary of State’s recognition of the fundamental importance of shifting more focus to primary care—to GPs, dentists, mental health practitioners and community pharmacists—for our young people.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
As the newly appointed Liberal Democrat spokesperson on mental health, I was really concerned to see in the report that mental health is about 20% of the NHS’s burden yet receives only 10% of its funding. Certainly in Winchester—it will be the same for nearly all hon. Members in the Chamber—mental health, and especially the mental health of children, is one of the most commonly brought up subjects.
I know that the Secretary of State agrees that mental health and physical health need to be treated with the same level of importance, but I urge us to recognise that we cannot treat it with the same level of importance if the level of funding does not accord with the demand it is putting on the service. It is not just about funding; it is about making sure that the mental health support that is needed is there in schools, in social care and for people struggling with debt. So many non-medical factors contribute to mental health that we need a cross-departmental look at how we support people’s mental health.
Helen Morgan
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and we put mental health and access to primary care and health prevention front and centre of our manifesto for that very reason. I encourage the Secretary of State to take our plans where they are complementary to his and run with them. We are happy to have our ideas plagiarised—we will welcome it.
Welcome as that focus is, some of what we have heard gives me cause for concern. First, some weeks ago the Prime Minister suggested that investment can come only after reform. I warn the Secretary of State that I do not think that that will work. The reforms that our NHS needs cannot be done on the cheap. Improving access to primary care means investing in more GPs, more NHS dentists and more community pharmacists. Boosting productivity means investing in better IT systems and bringing hospitals up to date with the new facilities they need. I agree that it cannot be just more investment without reforms, but nor can it be just reform without more investment. We need that investment now. The reports that we have heard of potential cuts to spending in the Budget are deeply concerning. I urge the Secretary of State to guarantee today that they will not happen.
Finally, I am afraid that there still seems to be nowhere near enough focus or urgency when it comes to care. We simply cannot fix the crisis in the NHS without fixing the crisis in care. Right now, more than 12,000 people in hospital are ready and well enough to go home but stuck there because the care they need is not available. That is awful for them and their families, and it is awful for the NHS that 12,000 beds that should be getting used by patients who need them and allowing better patient flow through hospitals are being held up because the care system is in crisis. I urge the Secretary of State again not to put this off any longer but to set up a cross-party commission now so that we can agree a long-term solution to ensure that people get the care they need, when and where they need it, and that carers are properly supported, too.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I support what the hon. Lady is saying about a having cross-party group look at social care, which is a sensible long-term thing that we need to do, and discharges from hospital are an important part of that. Does she agree that discharges from mental health units are also an important part of that? On a recent visit to Basildon hospital, I saw that discharges were not happening in mental health units. That is perhaps as much of an issue in mental health social care as it is in older people’s social care, which the House is more attuned to.
Helen Morgan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There is a general problem with care in the community of all types not being there for people. We have people in places where they will not get better as quickly—in some cases, their situation may be deteriorating—because that care is not available. Mental health provision in my constituency is absolutely appalling. People register with a doctor over the border just to access better mental health care. I could not agree with him more.
In conclusion, the Darzi report is shocking, but it is not surprising based on the experience of my constituents. Poor access to primary care—whether that is GPs, dentists or early mental health intervention—is leaving people in pain and distress. Long waiting lists and crumbling hospitals are leaving people unable to get back to work, with their situation deteriorating, and the crisis in social care—the elephant in the room—is depriving people of their independence and leaving them in hospital when they could be at home. The new Government must make fixing the NHS and care their No. 1 priority. Liberal Democrats will be here to provide constructive opposition to ensure that they do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Ben Goldsborough to make his maiden speech.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a profound honour to rise as the newly elected Member of Parliament for South Norfolk. The privilege of representing the people of the constituency is not one that I take lightly. I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to ensure that their voices are heard and their needs addressed.
At the outset, I will take a moment to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr Richard Bacon, who served South Norfolk for over two decades. Mr Bacon’s tireless commitment to the constituency—particularly his efforts to champion the cause of self-build homes—has left a lasting legacy. His work in advocating for those who wish to take control of their own housing future has empowered many in our region and across the country to realise their dreams of home ownership.
One of the joys of representing South Norfolk is the opportunity to stand up for its wonderfully unique places, each with a name as memorable as the community behind it. From Newton Flotman to Saxlingham Nethergate, Tacolneston and the intriguingly named Three Cocked Hat, our constituency is a patchwork of distinct and vibrant villages. It is often said in jest that things are “normal for Norfolk”—we all know what the connotations are—but I want to challenge that label. In fact, if we look closely at what is happening in South Norfolk, we will find it is anything but normal, but in the best sense of the phrase. We are home to some of the most cutting-edge research and innovation in the world, all based at the Norwich research park right in our own back yard. I was so pleased to hear what the Secretary of State said on innovation, science, and research and development because in South Norfolk we have organisations in those fields who will be delighted to hear it.
The Quadram Institute is at the forefront of research into our food science and gut health, shaping the future of nutrition and medicine. The John Innes Centre is world renowned for its plant science and microbiology, the Sainsbury Laboratory continues to lead the way in plant pathology and molecular biology, and there is Tropic—an ambitious company that started in Norfolk which is engineering a new generation of tropical plants, resilient to both disease and looming threats from climate change. Its work is benefiting not just South Norfolk or even the UK; it is having a global impact, ensuring food security and agricultural sustainability for future generations. Heck, Tropic’s work means that in three or more years, we may be eating bananas that were grown in Norfolk—not something that many people would have imagined. Far from being normal, South Norfolk is actually a hub of scientific innovation and global leadership in fields that define the future of our planet. Dare I say, this is something of which we can be tremendously proud.
It would be remiss of me not to mention another gem of South Norfolk: Lotus Cars, which is a symbol of British excellence in engineering. From its headquarters in Hethel, Lotus has been creating iconic sports cars for over 70 years, celebrated for their precision, innovation and performance. Lotus continues to push the boundaries of automotive engineering, with its latest models keeping South Norfolk at the cutting edge of global motorsport and design.
I recently had the privilege—perhaps the thrill—of being let loose on the Hethel test track with the stunning new Lotus Emira. That was my best Jeremy Clarkson impression, by the way. I will not be entering the British Grand Prix anytime soon; I can promise you that, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I know. I am pleased to report that both the car and myself, as a newly elected Member of Parliament, left the site entirely intact, much to the relief of the Lotus team, and probably that of local Labour organisers worried about another by-election.
The work done by Lotus is about not just fast cars but pioneering technology that has implications far beyond the racetrack. From lightweight materials to advanced aerodynamics, Lotus continues to be a leader in innovation that drives not only motorsport but the broader automotive industry.
One of the greatest privileges of representing South Norfolk is the opportunity to champion the incredible businesses, community groups and people who make it, in my humble opinion, the best place to live in the country. Let me start with Huggers in Long Stratton, a plant-based coffee shop—yes, you heard me right, and it does sell lovely food—that has taken the town by storm. The millionaire’s shortbread cake there is the best and simply to die for.
Then there is Urban Jungle in Costessey, a haven for those with a love for the weird and wonderful in house plants and tropical plants. After all that plant shopping, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have to check out the fabulous coffee shop. Members may notice that there is a theme with some of these shops.
In Loddon, we have Rosy Lee’s Tearoom, which is a real gem. It is like stepping into a tearoom run by your gran, basically—full of warmth, character and the best tea and cakes around—but more than that it is a hub for the community and a place that cared deeply for those in need during the covid-19 lockdowns, ensuring that no one was left behind in those difficult times. It truly embodies the best of us.
I also want to give a special mention to the Wymondham Community Outreach Project, which is run by Arnie and an incredible team of volunteers. They work tirelessly to ensure that those who are struggling to get by have access to food, clothing and—perhaps more importantly—friendship. Their fantastic book bank ensures that everyone has access to a good book, because they understand that nourishing the mind is just as important as nourishing the body.
Last but no means least is Spurgeons in Brooke. If anyone has not tried its sausage rolls yet, they are missing out, because they are truly extraordinary. The butcher there is second to none and its local produce is some of the best found anywhere in Norfolk. It is businesses like these and the people behind them that make South Norfolk such a vibrant, welcoming and thriving place to live. Each of them contributes to the fabric of our community, providing not just the goods and services but the places of connection and support that bring us together as neighbours and friends.
My values were forged in the heart of East Anglia, shaped by the lessons learned from my parents. My mum Sara, a hard-working shop worker, and my dad Wayne, a stable lad—yes, those jobs still exist in the 21st century—instilled in me principles that have guided my life, which I hope to bring to this House. They taught me the importance of honesty; of giving your all, no matter what the task; and of never losing sight of your aspirations. Perhaps most importantly, they taught me to treat people with respect, whether they are a colleague, a constituent or someone I have just met. These are the values that shaped me, and I pledge to uphold them and serve the people of South Norfolk with them.
As I take my seat in the House, I do so with a clear sense of responsibility and deep commitment to the people of the constituency. There are two areas that I am particularly passionate about and that will be at the forefront of my work in Parliament: standing up for the families of children with special educational needs and disabilities, and seeking much-needed improvements to our justice system.
First, supporting SEND families is a cause close to my heart. Far too often, families face unnecessary battles to secure the right support for their children. The system, which should be there to help, can sometimes feel like an obstacle put in their way, leaving parents exhausted and children without the resources they need to thrive. I will work tirelessly to push for reforms in SEND provision so that it is fair, timely and accessible. Every child deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential and every family deserves to be heard, supported and empowered.
Secondly, I am deeply committed to the reform of our justice system. While we can be proud of many aspects of British justice, there are still serious issues that need to be addressed. Victims of crime too often feel let down by delays and an overburdened system, and communities are frustrated by the lack of swift and fair outcomes. I will work to ensure that our justice system prioritises victims’ rights, tackles delays and restores public confidence. We must also ensure that rehabilitation and reformation are at the core of our system, so that those who have served their time have real opportunities to contribute to society once more. These are the challenges that I intend to take with me on this journey through Parliament, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to make them a reality.
I believe that South Norfolk has a bright future, and I am eager to work with colleagues in Government to ensure we address the pressing issues of our time, from housing and infrastructure to education and healthcare. The people of South Norfolk deserve no less than our full commitment, and I pledge to give them just that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. As the Front-Bench contributions went on for so long, Back Benchers will now be limited to three minutes, and I ask that maiden speeches be limited to five minutes to squeeze in as many people as I can. I call a tieless Dr Luke Evans.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have removed my neck collar, which I am allowed to do, but if Members see my head wobbling, I ask them to intervene and I will put it straight back on. I welcome the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) to his place. With the respect that he talks about and commands, I am sure he will be an asset to the House.
I come to the debate with a slightly unique perspective, and three minutes is very little time to make my point. I have been a doctor since 2007; I sat on the Health and Social Care Committee for three years; and, most recently—and probably most obviously—I recently had spinal surgery on my neck. However, that is not my only foray into the NHS: I have had both knees and my shoulder operated on and my appendix out, and I ended up in intensive care with bilateral pneumonia after that, so I have seen a fair amount of it.
Dr Evans
Absolutely. In this debate, health is a political football. It always strikes me that there is a rising tide across the western world, and at the four points of the nation. In Scotland, the NHS is run by the SNP; in Wales, it is run by Labour; in Northern Ireland, it is also separate; and we had the Conservatives, who have now handed it over to Labour. All of them are struggling, and we would do well to remember that. I came into politics not to change the world but to solve that—that sounds cheesy. In my last two minutes I have a set of suggestions—as any good doctor would do, I will look at the short term, the mid term and the long term—to try to improve it.
We could start with a root and branch review into prescribing, which is one of the most wasteful things in the NHS. On top of that, it is worth looking at the European working time directive, which hampers doctors when they study. Overnight, that could increase the ability to see more patients by a couple of percentage points. I spent nine months waiting for my operation, and there were a number of appointment letters. I had the ability to understand them and work my way through them, but a root and branch review of communications—the simple bread and butter of the NHS—would be very welcome. Comparable data across the nations, to see what goes on, is so important.
For the medium term, I would like statementing when people go into the NHS. Everyone knows how much it costs when they go to America—£40,000 for a ski accident. It costs that much here, and people would do well to remember that when they do not turn up to their appointments. On the IT system, we focus a lot on patients but I would like more focus on the staff and how they can use IT. I would like capping of GP lists—a sensible way, now that we have a workforce plan in place, to grow our staffing.
Finally, for the long term, in the 20 seconds I have I suggest a national service for SEND, taking education and health together to deal with mental health. Some 40% of the child and adolescent mental health services referrals in Leicestershire relate to autism and ADHD. That is a real problem that could easily be solved. In my final five seconds, I suggest an NHS centre for clinical excellence to share best practice. It is not good enough.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans).
The report is a tour de force from Lord Darzi, and I thank him for his work. The Secretary of State rightly commissioned the report as a benchmark for future improvement. I was a member of the Health Committee from 2010 to 2015. Given the evidence we heard, there was no alternative but to pause the Bill—the Committee played an important role in that. Chapter 10 of the report sets out the structure. Lord Darzi points out that the 2012 Act was three times the size of the original Act setting up the NHS. The 2022 Act moved into integrated care, and in paragraph 15 on page 121, he raises some concerns about how the ICBs—integrated care boards—operate, and their accountability. Could there be a review into how they operate? Paragraph 37 highlights that trust chief executives’ pay is based on the turnover of the organisation, which encourages trusts to
“grow their revenue rather than to improve operational performance.”
Some are even paid more than the Prime Minister.
The flow of patients is important, which is where working with local authorities is so important. We can move planes around the world, but it seems we cannot move people out of hospital. The Select Committee visited Torbay, which was set up in 2009. We followed Mrs Smith from a single point of contact all the way through. As Lord Darzi said on page 77, collaboration is not the same as integration. On page 5, paragraph 13, he points out that too great a share of the money is spent in hospitals rather than in the community. On page 81, he said that “GP…contracts are complex” and doing the right thing for patients is the wrong thing for GP income. He said, “That cannot be right.”
Our mantra should be “prevention, prevention, prevention”. In our report, we said that public health should be moved into local authorities. As Lord Darzi said, health visitors are dropping. He also said that the NHS is missing an opportunity to intervene early. We had Sure Start, which is where health visitors were focused. He talked about clinical negligence. Some £2.9 billion— 1.7%—of the budget is spent on settling claims. Can the Secretary of State pursue the duty of candour and ask each trust to look at whether they can move cases into arbitration?
Sadly, disparities by ethnicity make very grim and sad reading. Paragraph 24 refers to the median age at death as 62 for white people, 40 for black people, 33 for Asian people and 30 for those from a mixed background. There was supposed to be a chart in the report, but it is not there. Will the Secretary of State look at producing it?
Lord Darzi’s report gives the Secretary of State and the health team an important opportunity to re-set the NHS. It is the envy of the world and free at the point of use. As Lord Darzi said, we cannot afford not to have an NHS.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a true privilege to be standing here among the green Benches, not only as the Member for Esher and Walton but as the first Liberal MP for my constituency for over 100 years, and its first female MP.
The biggest issue on the doorstep in my constituency is undoubtedly the state of the NHS, so I am pleased to make my maiden speech in this debate. First, however, it would be remiss of me not to point out that Esher and Walton are only two of the towns I represent. My constituency also includes the Dittons, the Moleseys, Claygate, Hersham, Hinchley Wood and Oatlands. I am proud to have called it my home for almost 20 years and it is where I raised my four children.
My constituency is also the playground of the kings and queens of England. Esher and Walton spans the former hunting estate of Henry VIII, which stretched from Thames Ditton to Oatlands Palace, where his daughters Mary and Elizabeth sometimes resided and Charles I was imprisoned. As a result of Henry’s forest, our constituency is almost 60% green-belt land. In the Government’s planning reforms to provide the homes we desperately need, these areas must also be protected.
It was the ease of travel to London via the River Thames, when boats were faster than horses, which led the monarchs to Esher and Walton. Sometimes, our trains into London feel as slow as being on horseback. I look forward to pushing for improvements to our railways, but we are a river community. The Thames provides our border with London, and the chalk stream, the Mole, runs through our constituency and is now one of the most polluted rivers in England. My constituents are so exercised by the sewage pouring into our rivers that they have been explicit about sending me to this place to help sort it out.
Our rowing clubs share their disquiet, not least because they do not want their Olympians getting sick. Molesey boat club sent four members to Paris this year, as did Surbiton hockey club—it is actually in Long Ditton—which sent 11 and has over 1,000 youth players. Every weekend in Esher and Walton, grassroots youth football clubs gear up to welcome over 5,000 players registered. The great Walton and Hersham FC boasts the youngest owners in world football, and so interlinked is football in our community that the five Claygate Royals youth teams are named after Claygate’s five pubs. We are a hub of children playing sport, which matters for their health and wellbeing, and that brings me back to the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to tell you a story from my constituency. During the general election campaign, I met on the doorstep a couple unloading their car. I apologised for disturbing them as they were unpacking their shopping. “Not shopping,” they replied, “We are unpacking our son’s belongings. He died.” They went on to tell me that this young 19-year-old man had taken his life while at university. “He met you,” they told me. “He said he would vote for you because you were speaking out on mental health and special educational needs support for young people.”
His mother told me that she counted herself lucky that she had managed to support her son for the years at school because she could afford interventions and therapy. She worried about those children stuck on NHS waiting lists unable to access the support that he had had. In Surrey, there are almost 7,000 children on mental health waiting lists, with average waits of almost eight months. I meet parents on the doorstep whose special needs children are at home, rather than at school, for months and sometimes years, sliding into depression because they cannot access adequate provision.
I promised that young man’s mother that if I was elected I would continue to shine a light on this issue, and I can think of no better way to do so than in this debate. Our children and young people are in trouble, and we must fix it. As a start, we need to put mental health care on an equitable footing with care for physical health. In 2024, that is long overdue; let this new Parliament be the start of it.
I am, of course, very aware that I stand here on the anniversary of the 7 October attacks. I want to add my voice in remembering all those who have lost their lives or are still held hostage, and those across the region who are displaced and suffering or have been killed. As the new Liberal Democrat spokesperson on international development, I urge the Government to use all their levers to get humanitarian aid into the region as winter approaches. I will be pushing this House to renew our leadership in international development by restoring the 0.7% commitment of gross national income to UK aid.
My constituents are outward-looking. They are used to having a Foreign Secretary as an MP in my predecessor Dominic Raab, and I pay tribute to his work—particularly his introduction of the British National (Overseas) scheme, which my party had long called for and which has given my constituency a wonderful new British Hong Kong community. Following 15 years working overseas, I am committed to contributing to the resetting of our standing in the world, recognising our international obligations and participating fully in our international institutions, which will include restoring a closer relationship with our closest neighbour, Europe.
I bring to this House the brilliance of the people of Esher and Walton, and their struggle. As someone once said, politics done well changes lives. It saves lives too, and, in this still new Parliament, I intend, with hon. Members and Friends, to set to work.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), to whom I am physically close in the Chamber and geographically close back home in Norfolk.
I am delighted to be able to deliver my maiden speech as the new Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk. I have the pleasure of representing this fantastic part of the country—the place where I was born, and where I went to school and college, bought my first house, and started my business. Until a few years ago even keen political observers could have been forgiven for not quite knowing exactly where South West Norfolk was, but I can certainly pay tribute to my predecessor, the right honourable Liz Truss, for putting us firmly on the map.
Our largest market town is Thetford, where I am from and where I had the honour of serving as mayor. Some Members may be familiar with the popular “Dad’s Army” series, which was largely filmed in Thetford—we are the original Walmington-on-Sea. If Members ever get the chance, the Dad’s Army Museum is well worth a visit, and no trip to Thetford is complete without being photographed sitting next to our life-size Captain Mainwaring statue. There are a number of “Dad’s Army” quotations that I am sure will be relevant to my role in this place. I have already said to myself many times, “Don’t panic, don’t panic!”, but I sincerely hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not give you cause to address me as “You stupid boy!”
South West Norfolk is beautiful. We have wide-open fields, forests and rivers, and a fantastic history. However, as in so many rural areas, under the surface there are challenges. I am acutely aware that one third of all children in South West Norfolk live in poverty, and there are parts that are in the top 10% for indices of multiple deprivation. Health inequalities persist, with Norfolk regarded as a dentistry desert. There is a crisis in adult social care, with far too many examples of poor-quality care provision. We have a mental health trust with long-standing challenges and placed in special measures, and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn is riddled with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, literally held up by more than 5,000 metal and wooden props. The challenges are stark, and these are some of the many issues on which I have pressed the Government and will continue to do so.
I think it is fair to say that I was not expecting to win my election. As a result, there are many people wondering, “Who is this person from South West Norfolk?” I do not come from a political family, but I care passionately about my local community, which is why I decided to put myself forward and join the local town council aged 22. I have taken advice and guidance from many fellow councillors over the years, but one lady in particular, Thelma Paines, mentored and guided me, and I owe much of my political upbringing to her. Sadly, Thelma passed away in 2022 and therefore did not see me reach this place, but I certainly would not be here without her encouragement and support. When she stood down as a local councillor, she would still telephone regularly, with her customary, “Listen up, duck; I’ve got something to say.”
While mentioning role models, I must take a moment to mention Baroness Gillian Shephard, our Member of Parliament from 1987 through to 2005. If there is one local MP I would like to emulate, it would be her—a fantastic example of a good constituency MP who was knowledgeable of the area and rooted in the community.
Being a Labour councillor in rural Norfolk can be tough. Fortunately for me, I had family on my side—yes, of course with support and encouragement, but I had an advantage over my rivals. My dad was the youngest of 13, and my mum had seven brothers. With nearly 40 aunties and uncles, and over 100 cousins, I am sure that I owe at least my first election victory to my grandparents’ love for one another and the resulting votes some years later.
It is because of my experiences with my own family and, more specifically, with my father that I made the decision to switch from being a local government candidate to standing for the first time in a national election. It is entirely appropriate, but also somewhat difficult for me, that I find myself here today delivering my maiden speech in a debate about our NHS. In 2013 my dad, Trevor Jermy, had a life-altering stroke aged just 55. He was an engineer. He worked hard from the day he left school at 15 and became an accomplished welder fabricator. Frankly, there was not much that my dad could not fix.
Strokes come in all shapes and sizes. My dad, having shown no warning signs, suffered a major stroke. The physical aspects were painfully easy to see and difficult for a man so used to using his hands, but there was psychological damage too. As a family, we saw up close and over a number of years the awfulness of the current process for applying for personal independence payments, dehumanising work capability assessments and how little we as a country value the contribution of carers. Disabled people and their families continue to come under repeated attack, most recently in Norfolk with changes to the minimum income guarantee.
After 10 further years with my dad, he became unwell. We tried to get him a GP appointment, which, as for so many, was difficult. When we eventually managed to get him in front of a doctor, he was sent straight to A&E with pneumonia. Then he contracted covid. The pneumonia, combined with covid, was too much for his already fragile state, and he was placed in a medically induced coma. As a family, we spent every day for the following two months visiting my dad in intensive care at West Suffolk hospital. Because of the infection risk, he was in a quarantined room and only one of us was allowed in each day for a maximum of an hour, and in full personal protective equipment. His 65th birthday passed, as did Christmas and new year. When the time came to try to wake him, we were devastated to discover that he had had a further stroke while in the coma. Some more weeks passed, but my dad never regained the cognitive and physical abilities that he had just a few months earlier, and he passed away on 29 January 2023, aged just 65.
During the long time that my dad spent in hospital, I saw painfully up close so much of our NHS. I saw ambulances routinely queuing up, the accident and emergency department always busy, and the hospital buildings looking old and tired. I saw how few staff were available during the week, and at weekends the situation was worse. I saw how his catheter bag was left for longer than it should have been, and of course, I saw the impact of this whole nightmare on my mother and the rest of our family. It was at that point that I decided that enough was enough and that, if I could, I should try to do something about it. That is when I decided to stand—not particularly because I wanted to win, but because I wanted to raise the issues. I wanted someone to acknowledge how bad things had become and how we could not carry on like this.
I have been struck by the majesty of this place since I was elected; it is utterly awe-inspiring, and I do not think I will ever quite get used to it. For all the pomp and the politics, this role carries with it a huge burden and a huge opportunity. We cannot fail to succeed. We must do better. We must at all times remember why we are here, because people in this country, particularly the most vulnerable, are absolutely relying on us to succeed, and I hope to do what I can to make their lives that little bit better.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) on her deeply affectionate speech? Her constituency is a place that is close to my heart, my grandparents having resided in Claygate for a number of years. I also congratulate the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), and I am sure his father would be hugely proud of how he spoke with great affection for his home constituency.
On 5 July this year, 76 years to the day since the NHS came into being, my mother was involved in a serious road traffic accident. But for the skill and care of the health service, she may well not have survived. Many of those who cared for her were my former colleagues in the major trauma service at University Hospitals Birmingham. I know that the care they provided was not an exception; it was not a case of going a little further for a former colleague. No, this was yet another example of the brilliant and dedicated care that our healthcare professionals provide every day.
While we rightly acknowledge and praise the endeavours of all our healthcare workers, we must not put the NHS on such a pedestal that it becomes a sacred cow. While we can all appreciate the hard work and dedication of our NHS staff, it would be unwise and a mistake to construe those same workers and the institution as one and the same thing. There is a real risk that such a religious fervour develops around the institution of the NHS that its growth and development are stifled. We have reached a point where any constructive criticism of the organisation is deemed to be levelling the same criticism at the staff who keep the wheels grinding through every shift.
The NHS was built to provide episodic acute care. Now it is heavily dominated by the management and treatment of chronic conditions. The hospital-centric model that presently exists is arguably outdated, and a paradigm shift to a more preventive, community-based model should be pursued. For far too long it has been the workforce who have risen to the challenge, rather than the organisational structure itself. The principle that our health service should care for everyone regardless of their personal wealth is profoundly important. To undermine that would be to disrupt the foundations upon which it is built. However, we would be doing the NHS a disservice if we failed to have an honest debate about how we improve it.
In the short time that I have remaining, I wish to raise the issue of the over-centralisation of decision making. We have ended up in a position where clinicians and managers on the frontline are less empowered and trusted to make decisions and deliver for their patients. Too many decisions are made at the centre, which leads to overly complicated and often conflicting layers of approval and process. Ultimately, by enabling risk to be held by other parts of the system, local decision makers will be more empowered, decisions will be made in a more timely manner and a greater sense of trust will be established.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Members from across the House will have their own experience of the NHS, but in my case, after caring for my late sister Margaret, who was diagnosed with a glioblastoma brain tumour in 2021, I can say with regret that the NHS failed her, forcing us to travel to Germany when she was at her sickest in order to find some treatment that might extend her life.
In his summary letter published before the report, Lord Darzi told us that he was “shocked” by what he had found, but the 3,200 people who are diagnosed with a glioblastoma brain tumour every year are not shocked. They know just how bad things are. The report has told us that the UK has higher cancer death rates than our European neighbours. For patients with a glioblastoma brain tumour, that is news to no one. In comparison to 33 similar countries, the UK ranks 25th for five-year survival rates. Life expectancy for somebody diagnosed with a glioblastoma is just nine months. There has not been a new treatment in the NHS for more than 30 years, and the diagnosis is still a death sentence.
In 2018, after Tessa Jowell sadly passed away with a glioblastoma, £40 million of ringfenced Government funding was promised for brain tumour research. Of that £40 million, just £11.3 million has been spent. Six years on, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research cannot even get the money out of the door. That is a real failure of Government. In June 2024, just before the election, a roundtable discussed how to spend £15 million of this money, and I have been trying to find out what it decided. Last week, I received a letter from Professor Lucy Chappell, the NIHR’s chief scientific adviser. Disturbingly, she told me that the NIHR largely funds research based on the importance of the topic to patients and health and care services, value for money and scientific quality, but it does not
“allocate funding for specific disease areas.”
The pharmaceutical industry does not work on glioblastoma. If the NHS also does not, who will? Do we keep on baking cakes?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I have worked in healthcare for most of my career and, as I said in my maiden speech, I think we need an honest discussion with the public about how we fund, provide and deliver healthcare in England. I worked in the NHS for seven years prior to my election, and I worked every day to improve clinical outcomes and patient care, including in the surgical hubs mentioned by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins).
I can assure the House that, although it has significant challenges, the NHS also has significant opportunities, including the opportunity for us to reshape it not only to meet the needs of today but to ensure its survival for future generations. Lord Darzi’s report, like many others, makes it clear that, although it is not broken, the NHS is at a tipping point. His report is wide-ranging, but it could not cover everything. For example, post-natal female care received little attention, but it is essential to ensuring a universal standard of post-birth care for mothers and children.
Despite significant investment from the previous Government, we must be honest with the public not only about the true state of the health service, both nationally and locally, but about the difficult choices that lie ahead. First, we need to rethink how we deliver healthcare closer to home and more efficiently. Expanded partnerships with the private sector, whether in diagnostics, elective surgery or mental health services, can relieve some of the burden on NHS facilities. By fostering public-private partnerships, we can enhance capacity and efficiency while ensuring that the NHS remains free at the point of use.
Technology and innovation are essential to transforming the NHS. Artificial intelligence, digital records and telemedicine have enormous potential to improve outcomes and reduce costs, but the NHS lags behind in digital transformation—the catastrophe of Labour’s IT system casts a long shadow.
Equally, we must have an honest conversation about patient choice and responsibility. The NHS has historically promised to be everything to everyone, but we must ask ourselves if this is realistic. Encouraging patient choice could drive competition and improve service delivery, but we also need to ask patients to take greater responsibility for managing their health, particularly in areas such as preventive care and chronic disease management.
Finally, funding is key to this debate. For too long we have relied on promises of increased funding without fully grappling with how we can sustainably finance the NHS. More money is part of the solution, but where should that money come from? I want an NHS that is free at the point of use, but we need to explore social insurance models, encourage private investment or potentially increase taxes. These are tough questions, but they must be answered. We need a radical rethink of NHS bureaucracy.
In conclusion, although the NHS is one of the major achievements of our time, now is the time to take action to reform it.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), and for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), on their wonderful maiden speeches.
I first wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, Richard Graham. Richard represented Gloucester and its residents for 14 years, and I thank him for his service. In the last Parliament, he worked to make spiking a specific criminal offence—something I am proud that this Government will deliver.
It is the most incredible privilege to stand here on behalf of Gloucester residents and to make my maiden speech in this debate, and it is particularly appropriate for three reasons. First, my local NHS hospital, Gloucestershire Royal, has played an important part in my family’s life. It was where my wife and I spent our first night with our little boy, who turns one later this month. I have also spent much of my professional career representing NHS trusts up and down the country, and I have heard at first hand some of the challenges they face, particularly in the recruitment and retention of frontline key workers, to whom I am sure we all owe a personal debt of gratitude. It is also appropriate because I know how many families in my constituency are struggling to get the NHS care they need and will recognise many of the findings in Lord Darzi’s report. Seeing a GP, going to the dentist for a check-up or arriving at A&E in an ambulance and going straight through the doors—those might seem like the basic requirements of a functioning health service, but for my constituents they have become a luxury.
Gloucester is a city rich with potential. We are a city small in size but giant in stature. We have a proud history stretching back to the Roman colonia of Glevum, one of the administrative capitals of Roman Britain. We are one of only three cities in the UK to have hosted a coronation, and our mighty cathedral soars above the city skyline. Younger Members of the House will recognise the cathedral’s cloisters as part of the magical world of Hogwarts, while older Members may recognise our city and our tailor as part of the magical world of another famous Potter—Beatrix.
Last month, we celebrated Gloucester Day, which marks the end of the siege of Gloucester, in which our city stood tall when all hope appeared lost. You can still find brilliant examples of our wonderful heritage across the city, perhaps on a visit to the Folk of Gloucester or on a tour with the Gloucester Civic Trust. We also have a proud military history, from the Glorious Glosters to RAF Quedgeley, which is now Kingsway; and our historic docks, recently designated a heritage harbour by the Maritime Heritage Trust, are home to the brilliant Soldiers of Gloucestershire Museum.
Gloucester also stands out as a place of great innovations: the vacuum cleaner, the ferris wheel, the first jet aircraft and, of course, Viennetta were all pioneered in our great city. But our potential to be great is not confined to the history books—and no, I am not just talking about the country’s finest rugby team, Gloucester-Hartpury, who have won the premiership women’s rugby title two years in a row. The seeds of change were sown in recent years—first under Parmjit Dhanda, Richard’s Labour predecessor, and then under Richard—with the regeneration of the Quays, the Forum and the exciting new university campus, which is due to open next year. But we can and we must go further; plans for the redevelopment of Podsmead and Matson must be brought to life, and brownfield sites across the city turned into the social housing of the future. This Government’s mission to get Britain building can and should unlock our city’s potential.
However, it is not in development that our city’s greatest potential lies; that potential is, of course, in our people—the brilliant people of Gloucester, who are community-minded, fiercely proud and quite happy to tell me exactly what they are thinking. As the new MP for Gloucester, I know that although potential is found in all residents in our city, opportunity is not. I entered politics because I see the potential of every child in Gloucester, and I want to fight to ensure that opportunities like the ones I had growing up in a working-class family under the last Labour Government are open to every single family like mine in our city. When I visit schools in my constituency, I see the next generation of solar and wind engineers, the next cohort of developers and cyber-security experts, and the carers, nurses and doctors who will look after me when I am old.
Gloucester is a diverse city, with over 70 different languages spoken on Barton Street alone—a city that stood united during the uprising of racism and Islamophobia we saw elsewhere in the country this summer—but more needs to be done. At a recent meeting of the Gloucestershire Race Collective, I promised to use my position in this House to give voice to the concerns of our diverse communities in Gloucester, and to work with this Government to tackle rising levels of racism and Islamophobia in our country.
As I work with this Government to deliver on their mission to provide opportunities for everyone in my constituency, regardless of their background, I hope that those opportunities will strengthen the already incredible bonds that bring our city together. Those bonds are best demonstrated by some of the amazing community organisations and charities working in our city, like Gloucestershire Gateway Trust, whose Bridging the Gap programme helps break down barriers to work and gets local people into sustainable employment; like Gloucester Feed the Hungry, whose warm welcome, hot coffee and delicious samosas put a smile on the faces of so many in our city; and like the Holly Gazzard Trust, which is tackling domestic abuse and stalking, turning that family’s personal tragedy into a safer future for all. There are many more such organisations—I could go on all day, but I am conscious of time—that demonstrate the very best of our city: a community that is driven to help others to achieve their potential.
In closing, I make a simple promise to the constituents of Gloucester and the community that I am so proud to serve: I will work tirelessly to deliver a better future for our city. It will be a future in which everyone can access the NHS care they need and every child has the opportunity to thrive; a future that celebrates our heritage, our potential, our diversity and our community—our Gloucester.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Ian Sollom to make his maiden speech.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) on an excellent maiden speech. He packed an awful lot into just over five minutes and set the bar very high for me. I am aware that I am being watched by you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is an immense honour and hugely humbling to address the House for the first time as the first ever MP for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. The new constituency perfectly encompasses the heart of Cambridgeshire. It has countryside that includes some of the most fertile farmland in the UK and the rich ecology at the edge of the fens. It mixes ancient and rural villages with new towns and new communities—and, of course, there is the magnificent market town of St Neots, the largest town in Cambridgeshire. It is a source of great pride that our town has been recognised in the name of a constituency for the first time. Having been entrusted with making that newfound recognition count, I am sure that the House will appreciate hearing a great deal more about St Neots from me over the coming years.
St Neots, which sits alongside the Great North Road, gained its name as a site of pilgrimage. We have welcomed visitors throughout the centuries. In recent times, the whole constituency has gained a proud record of welcoming those who have chosen to make it their home, particularly those who moved from the London overspill to St Neots and the new village of Bar Hill in the 1960s. There are also more recent major developments on the eastern edge of St Neots and the northern edge of Cambridge. There is the new town of Cambourne, which celebrates its 25th birthday this year, and the even newer town of Northstowe, which will become the largest new town in the UK since Milton Keynes. It is exciting to see new residents shaping vibrant communities, creating new traditions and supporting each other.
In a very literal sense, these new communities are why I am here, representing a new constituency, and why I pay tribute not to one predecessor but three: Jonathan Djanogly, Lucy Frazer and Anthony Browne. They all served the communities in my constituency that they represented with dedication and commitment, and served our national interest as, at various times, Members of the Government.
My being here also starkly highlights some incongruities of growth in Cambridgeshire. In creating my constituency, and taking the number of Members representing Cambridgeshire and Peterborough from seven to eight, Parliament has deployed more democratic resources to Cambridgeshire. However, many other resources remain unchanged or lag far behind where they ought to be, whether that is funding for the police, fire and rescue services, education, social or council services or, most pertinently in this debate, health services.
Lord Darzi’s report pulls no punches in articulating the dire state of the national health service, but in St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, the problems are exacerbated by a funding model that has taken little account of the growth in our population. That is felt most acutely in primary care services; it is really challenging to get access to GPs and dentists. I urge the Secretary of State to put that right at the earliest opportunity. Moreover, I urge him to follow Lord Darzi’s recommendations by piloting new, innovative multidisciplinary models for neighbourhood care in the NHS in our new communities in St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. Such innovation is something that my constituency would surely welcome, and as a scientist by training, I would welcome it, too.
I have focused in this speech on my constituency and my constituents, because it is my greatest source of pride to represent them here, but my background in physics—I have a PhD in cosmology—is something that I am also proud to bring to this role, even if I did think that I had left the study of black holes behind me some time ago. I am of course already the longest-serving member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, but I hope that the dedication, integrity and judgment with which I have pledged to serve my constituents will see me hold that record for a considerable time to come, making a real difference to the people of my constituency, and working with Members across this House to make a difference to the whole of the UK.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Is a real pleasure to follow the new hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). I am sure that he will be a rising star on the Liberal Democrat Benches. It is a pleasure to follow all hon. Members who have made their maiden speech today.
I am really grateful for the analysis that Lord Darzi has set out for us. The NHS has never been under such duress, nor have its staff, but following a diagnosis, we need a prescription. That is what I want to talk about today. We live in an ageing society, and while we celebrate the medical advances since Labour was last in power—in diagnostics, treatments, digital and technology—we know the urgency with which we need to apply them. Transformation has to be central to the agenda. I congratulate the Secretary of State on his focus on the NHS bringing about the transformation that is needed.
However, before we can look at that, we need to look at the financial flows in the NHS, which are not working, and the governance structures. I am not talking about reorganisation; I am talking about having one controlling mind in the right place in the service, overseeing the system. At the moment, there is too much focus on secondary care. That is sucking resources and work into that part, and driving inefficiency. Moving services into primary care is the key to unlocking the productivity and savings that are needed. It will improve health as well.
In the short time that I have, let me point to two examples in my community. First, in mental health, 30 Clarence Street is set up to be open access, so that there are no more long queues to see mental health practitioners, and multidisciplinary, with the public sector and the voluntary sector working hand in hand to meet people’s needs. I invite the Secretary of State to come and see that service, because it is what we should be doing across our NHS. Two more hubs are to be set up in my constituency, leading the way on mental health. Then there is the work of Nimbuscare in primary care settings; it is pulling out from the NHS all the services that do not need to be in the secondary part. It is unplugging the backlog at the front door of the health service, while ensuring that we are looking after people at the back door. That is the transformation that our health service truly needs. I wanted to share those examples, and set out how they can be extended to build the NHS of the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Susan Murray to make her maiden speech.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. It is a pleasure to speak after the many excellent maiden speeches we have heard, including from the hon. Members for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) and my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). That took a bit of time, but it is important that those excellent speeches are acknowledged. I enjoyed listening to them all.
It is a great privilege for me to stand here today representing Mid Dunbartonshire, and the communities that are close to my heart. I have lived there for 30 years, and it is where both my sons went to school. Mid Dunbartonshire is in Scotland, in case Members had not noticed. It is a new constituency, following boundary changes this year. It sits 100% inside the East Dunbartonshire council area, as did the old constituency of East Dunbartonshire, but it now includes Lennoxtown and Milton of Campsie to the north and some of Lenzie to the east. I am delighted that these towns are now in the constituency I represent, but my sorrow is that it does not include Kirkintilloch East and Twechar, which are also dear to my heart and where I have been a councillor since 2017. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) will look after the community there, and it was good to hear her highlight the problems with local bus services in her maiden speech.
It goes without saying that Mid Dunbartonshire is the best constituency in the UK. Local towns are regularly promoted as the best place to live in the UK—Bearsden in 2021 and Kirkintilloch in 2024—and in 2017 “Woman’s Hour” revealed East Dunbartonshire as the best place in Britain for women to live. Incidentally, that was when Jo Swinson began her third term as the Liberal Democrat MP for East Dunbartonshire, so I thank Jo for all her work in the constituency. I also want to recognise her successor, Amy Callaghan, and particularly the personal challenges that Amy overcame during her time as an MP. She has shown such courage in her service to the community, and I wish her well in the future. I also thank Stuart McDonald, who was the MP for the newer part of the constituency. I know that he is held in very high regard and with much affection in that area.
I am pleased to speak in the debate on Lord Darzi’s report, because I know only too well the challenges that individuals and families have to face when our health lets us down. In 2006 my husband had a brain haemorrhage, which changed our lives in an instant. I became his full-time carer and could not continue in my profession, and he was never able to return to his career. From being comfortably off, life changed to watching every penny. Without the support of our family, we could have lost our home, and we were very fortunate. Friends and our community helped me to survive and get on with life. I cannot praise NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde enough. My husband spent months getting well enough to come home from hospital. Perhaps we were lucky with the timing, because at that time the excellent, talented and caring staff had the resources, which I have seen decline ever since.
I worked in the NHS before a career in medical marketing. I know the NHS from working in it and with it, and from my experience of visiting my husband. Latterly, I have been aware of the integration of health and social care through my role on the council. I know the pressures that good, kind, caring professionals are under to become as efficient as possible, and they are absolutely doing their best.
Looking back, that was the beginning of my involvement in politics. I was thrown into the space that our society refers to as “community”. I know why it is important for Government to fund local authorities and communities and to give them real power. They prevent costs to the NHS every day by stopping the revolving door of treatment, discharge home and relapse back into treatment, and they support self-care and wellbeing. They are our CPS—not the Crown Prosecution Service, but our community prevention service, which pays back investment in spades by preventing costs.
What makes Mid Dunbartonshire special is its people and communities. Like in other places, during covid the community stepped up to support each other, and groups are still helping with shopping and patient transport. There are groups of volunteers fighting climate change, reducing social isolation, providing mental health support and peer support, supporting carers, providing financial advice, helping with housing problems, looking after community buildings, preserving our heritage, knitting for peace, and promoting fair trade, performance art and more—tackling problems at home and internationally. Mid Dunbartonshire people care and take action. From listening to other maiden speeches, I know that that is happening all over the UK. Liberal Democrats want to harness that power for good.
One message that came across loud and clear on the doorsteps was that residents in Mid Dunbartonshire are tired of voting against things; they want to vote positively for things. Thomas Muir of Huntershill in Bishopbriggs was a famous son of Mid Dunbartonshire. At the end of the 18th century, he was a strenuous advocate of equal representation of the people in the House of the people, where I stand today. He said:
“I have devoted myself to the cause of the people. It is a good cause. It shall ultimately prevail. It shall finally triumph.”
The fight for fair votes prompted revolution at the end of the 18th century, and Thomas Muir was found guilty of sedition and transported to Australia for his efforts. In the 19th century, it took three reform Acts of this House to slowly extend voting rights for men. In the 20th century, the Representation of the People Act 1918 gave voting rights to some women and to men aged over 21. But it was not until 1928 that all adults had the right to vote. Today, in the 21st century, the call for better democracy continues.
The turnout in Mid Dunbartonshire at the last election was almost 72%, but many constituencies had a turnout in the low 40 per cents. The result shows a clear failure to engage a huge number of voters. I call on the Government to consider carefully the mandate that the result gave them, to treat every potential voter with dignity and respect, and to make the change to give every vote an equal weight, no matter where it is cast. This is an opportunity to end self-serving and self-obsessed politics, and to truly introduce the politics of service.
I will join my colleagues in this place in scrutinising Government proposals and working constructively with them to improve the quality of life for my constituents and all residents of the UK who make up the rich diversity of our communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Luke Murphy to make his maiden speech.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to rise today to deliver my maiden speech as the Member of Parliament for Basingstoke. I congratulate the hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today, not least my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy). His dad would be very proud.
I recognise the work of my predecessor, Dame Maria Miller, who represented Basingstoke for 19 years. Dame Maria was the first woman to be elected to Parliament in north Hampshire, and she worked hard to see more women sitting on these green Benches and to promote women in all walks of life. Nationally, as Minister for Women and Equalities, and as Chair of the Select Committee on Women and Equalities, she worked to champion shared parental leave, flexible working and support for transgender rights.
In the early hours of Friday 5 July, Basingstoke made another first by voting for change and returning its first ever Labour Member of Parliament. That is not a privilege that I will ever take lightly or for granted, but it is one that I am committed to making the most of for the constituents, town and villages that I represent—and for the country, too. I will support the new Labour Government in delivering the change that people voted for, not least on the subject that we debate today: our NHS.
Nor is this a privilege that I would ever have expected growing up. It is true that my grandparents rubbed shoulders with Members of this House and the other place—including Harold and Mary Wilson, one of Mr Speaker’s predecessors, and various Lords and Ladies—but that was because my grandparents cleaned the mansion blocks in which they lived on Victoria Street. I hope to do Bessy and John Murphy and Elsie French proud. It is because of their extraordinary hard work and that of my parents, Liz and Sean—a carpenter and an IT manager who left school at 15 with no qualifications—that I have been able to make it to this House today.
My parents’ hard work and dedication to my sister’s and my education ensured that we were the first in our family to go to university, and we have both sought to ensure through public service that others are offered the same opportunities. My sister Jude served as an Army officer, doing two tours of Afghanistan, and now I am serving as the first ever Labour MP for Basingstoke, because I have always believed that it is Labour Governments who have done the most to ensure opportunity for all. I firmly believe that people in Basingstoke voted for their first Labour MP this year for the same reason that so many people chose to move to our town and the surrounding villages: because they sought better opportunities for themselves and their families.
Basingstoke has long been favoured as a place to move to for families and businesses alike because of its location and good transport links. Around the town, the constituency boasts delightful countryside and picturesque villages such as North Waltham, Deane, Oakley, Steventon, Malshanger and Wootton St Lawrence, and it has a long and proud history. Our market, held every Wednesday, was fixed by a royal charter over 800 years ago. The town had an important role in the civil war, with Oliver Cromwell himself turning up to end a siege, and Jane Austen danced at assemblies held locally. She would no doubt have been proud of the work of fiction we heard from the Opposition Benches earlier, though I doubt she ever had to undertake such a rapid edit of a piece of work as I have this evening.
Basingstoke has also suffered moments of notoriety. In the late 1600s, it was for burying the same woman alive twice—a lesson for us all in this House to never write off our opponents, lest they make a stunning comeback—but it was the Basingstoke riots of 1881 that made national news, after a group rioted against processions of the Salvation Army because they feared its clampdown on what it called the demon drink. Those riots led one newspaper to describe Basingstoke as a
“benighted little town which appears to be chiefly inhabited by a race of barbarians”.
That episode perhaps provides some valuable lessons for today: do not believe everything you read in the papers, and consider any public health measures wisely. I am sure the Health Secretary is listening keenly.
Since the 1960s and the planned London overspill, Basingstoke has been transformed almost beyond recognition from the old market town. Now effectively a thriving new town, Basingstoke is home to many significant businesses and world-class employers including the AA and Eli Lilly, but it is not just the big players: from renewable energy start-ups such as Tomato Energy to independent coffee shops and restaurants such as Willows and the Gabardine, thousands of small businesses form the backbone of our economy, powered by the institutions that are shaping the minds of tomorrow, including Queen Mary’s college and Basingstoke college of technology.
One of the key strengths of Basingstoke is its sense of community and the diversity within the town. We have vibrant and active Hindu, Nepali and Irish communities, and that strong community spirit is also evident in the incredible work of our local charities and voluntary organisations, such as Home-Start, Basingstoke NeighbourCare and the Café Dome. It is their passion, dedication and generosity that make Basingstoke such a special place to live, and I pledge to support their efforts in any way I can.
Nowhere will I work harder than in support of our NHS, the subject of our debate today. I have seen at first hand the power of the NHS and the increasing strain, mismanagement and decline of the past 14 years. My dad has relied on the NHS for almost his entire life: diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of 17, he has suffered with complex and chronic illness, especially in recent years. I have seen the NHS at its best, saving his life twice after two stays in intensive care just last year. I will always be grateful for the care that the doctors, nurses and other NHS staff gave him, but after many hospital visits, I have also seen how much the system struggles to cope with providing high-quality care for people with multiple long-term conditions.
In the election campaign, no issue was more prominent in my conversations with voters in Basingstoke than their being denied the health service that they rightly believe they deserve. I am proud of this Government’s focus on building an NHS fit for the future, and I want to restore the fundamental promise of the NHS for everyone in Basingstoke: that it will be there when we need it. Securing the return of the family doctor is a popular and much-needed policy locally, and I mean to ensure that we deliver it, just as I will continue to campaign for the delivery of our much-needed new hospital.
As a Labour MP, my guiding principle will be to fulfil the promise of this Labour Government in restoring opportunity for all, whether that is through the NHS, education or tackling climate change. Opportunity is why so many people have made Basingstoke their home over the years, it is why they voted Labour for the first time just over three months ago and it is what my parents and grandparents worked so hard for, for my sister and me. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak today, and I thank the people of Basingstoke for giving me my opportunity to serve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Adrian Ramsay, who has two minutes, and I can then squeeze in one more speaker.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the new hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and hear about his pride in his constituency.
Our NHS provides amazing life-saving, dedicated care every day, but we also know that people are too often let down. Too many patients languish, often in pain, on long waiting lists. In rural constituencies such as mine, people often have to travel lengthy distances to access treatment. Lord Darzi points to systemic and chronic under-investment caused by austerity in funding and capital starvation. Resilience was stripped from the NHS before covid, and we owe it to those whose lives were lost or changed forever by the pandemic never to repeat these same mistakes and to do things differently. However, the Chancellor’s arguments about tough decisions and a black hole of £22 billion are alarmingly similar to those made by the previous Government. It is good to see the Chancellor signalling some movement on fiscal rules, and I hope this logic will apply to supporting our public services, which are a crucial investment in our future.
Putting wellbeing at the heart of what we do should help us navigate how we support the NHS. Bad planning, poor housing, weak transport and divisive social policies have a huge impact on health outcomes, for example. So I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments and he has been bullish about reform, but he has not been specific about exactly what he means by private sector involvement in the delivery of NHS services. There are real reasons to keep delivery of the NHS public, and not to outsource it to private providers. The Secretary of State has made statements about using the private sector to reduce waiting lists, but he has not explained whether he considers this to be a short-term plan while the NHS is being rebuilt, or a permanent policy. Lord Darzi’s diagnosis was helpful and the emphasis on prevention is hugely welcome, but to deliver it we require bold action and investment.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Fixing the NHS is our great task and our solemn promise, for there is much to fix after 14 years of managed chaos and decline under the neglectful eyes of our mostly absent predecessors. The candid assessment of the state of the NHS from Lord Darzi is truly alarming, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, it presents an accurate diagnosis of our difficulties. The report makes clear many of the problems of resources, management and structure, but today I would like to speak up for medical research, of which this country has such a proud record.
We all know of the catastrophic potential of infection, witnessed so very recently during the covid pandemic. Indeed, like many of us new Members, I too caught covid right here in this House in the crush to hear the King’s Speech. I do hope that hon. Members of a certain age, such as myself, will remember to get vaccinated. However, let us remember Jenner, who devised vaccination, Lister, who pioneered antisepsis, and Fleming, who discovered penicillin. These British scientists leading the fight against infection were probably responsible for saving more lives than any other people in the long history of medicine.
Last week, we learned of the first successful trials from Oxford of vaccines for ovarian cancer, and we will see many amazing advances in the year to come. Today, we can be excited about molecular genetics, artificial intelligence and the huge power of our people’s NHS data to unravel so many of the mysteries of modern medicine. I know that our Government will develop bold plans to repair the embattled NHS, but on this day I urge our brilliant new Government to pledge to do their utmost to support vital NHS medical research, which carries such promise.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Thank you so much, but you must not continue speaking when I am standing. I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I am mindful of the need to be brief, but I wish to congratulate the hon. Members for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), and for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) on excellent maiden speeches.
When I first heard that the Government had commissioned Lord Darzi to conduct a report on the NHS I wondered two things: why has this report been commissioned, and why has a former Labour Minister been asked to do it? The answer to the first question is still somewhat unclear after this debate. Much of the information is publicly available, and Labour had access to the civil service for six months before the general election, as is routine to help with planning. Before the election, in its manifesto Labour claimed to have a plan, and the Secretary of State said that he and the Government have a 10-year plan to reform and modernise the NHS. In the draft speech that I brought to this debate I was going to say that I assume that is the case, so where is that plan and when will it be published, but during the debate the Secretary of State said that he will soon meet to engage with patients and staff who will write the plan. Does it exist, or is it yet to be written? Given that Lord Darzi specifies that policy suggestions are outside the remit of his report, and notwithstanding the amount of time and dedication he has put into it, what primary purpose does it serve? Is it simply a political statement to cover the right hon. Gentleman’s plan and an increase in taxes in the Budget when it comes?
Dr Johnson
I will not because there is not much time. A potential answer to the second question of why a former Labour Minister has been asked to conduct the report is its silence on a number of issues, for example on increasing the number of medical students. I could not find any reference in the report to the five additional medical schools that were commissioned and opened by the former Conservative Government, and whose first new doctors have recently graduated. Indeed, I found no mention of the NHS workforce plan at all.
My constituency mailbag, no doubt much like that of Members across the House, is full of letters from elderly people who are frightened that their homes will be cold this winter, and that they will become ill, or perhaps even die, as a result. It is notable—again, perhaps this answers my second question—that despite being published two months after the Government’s announcement about the winter fuel allowance, the Darzi report appears to be silent on the subject. The chief medical officer said that,
“cold homes and fuel poverty are directly linked to excess winter deaths”
in his annual report from 2023. Is it remarkable that this report by a former Labour Minister does not mention cold homes? Perhaps it does not recognise the impact of such a decision because no impact assessment has been made.
On 29 July, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate she had made of the impact that her winter fuel payment changes would have on the NHS. Her answer implied to me that that was something that had not been given enough consideration. On 5 September I submitted a written question to the Secretary of State, asking whether he would make an assessment of the winter fuel payment changes on a range of factors relating to the NHS and the health of elderly people, including hospital admissions, deaths, GP appointments and so on. The answer to whether he will do something or not is clearly “yes”, “no”, or “I have already done it”, but it seems the Government struggled to answer that question and I would be grateful if the Minister could do so today: will the Secretary of State make an assessment of the various effects of the changes to the winter fuel allowance and the consequent cold homes on the NHS and the health of elderly people?
Earlier, the Secretary of State said that investment without reform would reduce productivity. He even said that it was “killing with kindness.” Actions, however, speak louder than words, so what substantial productivity gains come with the junior doctors’ 22% pay rise? None. What productivity benefits arise from a significant increase in the wages for train drivers? None. The NHS and the Government are now facing potential future industrial action from groups seeking similar pay deals. The Government’s willingness to take money from pensioners and give it to already well-paid train drivers suggests that such union demands will be successful, further creating a vicious cycle of industrial action that will ultimately be damaging to patients.
I fear that the Labour party sees the Darzi report as a political bludgeon rather than as a blueprint for any meaningful reform. There are undeniable challenges within the NHS—something that I as a doctor see—and we must be honest about them, but instead of a constructive conversation on policy, Labour brings partisan attacks to the table. We now need real leadership, specific reforms, and the courage to make the tough decisions that will keep the NHS suitable for generations to come.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. We should all be grateful to Lord Darzi for his rapid and comprehensive review, although we still do not seem to know at the end of this debate whether the Opposition agree with the diagnosis or not. Essentially, it is evidence of their record, and they do not like it.
This has been a passionate debate with colleagues from all parts of the House addressing how 14 years of failure have damaged their constituencies, let down the people they represent and broken the NHS. Lord Darzi’s report is as breathtaking as it is distressing, whether it is discussing the chaos unleashed by Andrew Lansley’s top-down reorganisation, the plunge in productivity and patient satisfaction, the disproportionate impact of the pandemic compared with countries across the world or the failure to modernise ways of working. It beggars belief how the previous Government allowed that to happen on their watch. Behind every page of that report, we should remember the real-world suffering caused by the neglect. It is a record of missed opportunities and squandered potential.
Those things are all the more galling for me, as someone who has worked in the NHS and who still cares passionately about its survival. In fact, the reorganisation was so bad that it led me to stand for Parliament. I would not be here today, were it not for Andrew Lansley. The House can make of that what they will. When I worked for the NHS under the previous Labour Government, I saw at first hand the power of politics to improve the system. I saw a health service delivering the shortest waiting times and highest patient satisfaction in history, and since then I have seen it decline in my constituency and the effect that has had on my constituents. When the system lets them down, they have no other options. They cannot afford to go private, they do not have the assets to sell and their families are in the same boat. Health inequalities and inequality of access led me to join the health service, and the Lansley reforms drove me to become an MP. That is why I will not rest until we have completed our health mission to restore the fundamental promise of our NHS: that it will be there for all our constituents when they need it. The charge sheet is too long for me to make too many comments on it.
In the short time I have, I will address the maiden speeches in particular. I worked with my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) in opposition. I was so delighted to hear that he had won the day after the election. He talked about the global reach of South Norfolk and in particular productivity at the University of East Anglia, which I went to as a student 40 years ago this week, astonishingly. It makes a huge contribution to the economy of South Norfolk, and I know that he will be a good champion. I wish him good luck on SEND and justice. South Norfolk is lucky to have him.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) gave a lovely history of her constituency. She moved us all with the tragic story of the death of her constituents’ 19-year-son. She has kept her promise to that mother already in her place today.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) is a worthy successor to his predecessor. He rightly highlights poverty, particularly in rural areas, and he spoke so eloquently about his father, his care and sadly his death. That is an experience that many people will recognise from covid and will be moved by. I am pleased he is using that experience in this place. His dad and Councillor Thelma would be very proud of him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) —I am delighted to have another new Labour Member in the south-west—did a great campaign while having a young family. His passion and pride for Gloucester shone through, whether that is the Romans’ military innovation or that Viennetta comes from Gloucester, which I did not know—shame on me. He wants to achieve for all the people in the rich diversity of Gloucester.
The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) is the first and longest-serving Member for his constituency, and long may that last. I look forward to his explaining black holes to us all.
It is not a thing, but the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) certainly wins the award for suited people coming to represent their constituents. She spoke movingly about her predecessor and the cost of caring for her partner.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) spoke movingly about his family’s hard work and dedication that led him to this place. Cromwell and Jane Austen would be very proud of his editing capabilities.
There is an old Irish joke about somebody travelling down from the city to a wedding in the countryside. He cannot remember how to get there so asks a farmer for directions. The farmer says, “I wouldn’t start from here.” None of us wants to start from here, but this is where the last Government left us, with a broken NHS, a social care system on its knees and an economy failing its people. That is why early next year the Government will publish a 10-year plan setting out how we will deliver the three big shifts that will make the NHS fit for the future.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the choice before us today is to reform or die. There are no quick fixes. But as Lord Darzi reminded us, the NHS’s “vital signs are strong”. We can tap into the immense reservoir of dedication and talent in our universities, life sciences sector and, above all, the NHS. Getting the NHS back on its feet will be a team effort. Working with patients and the public, alongside 1.5 million NHS staff, we will rebuild our public services, fix the foundations of our economy—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We did manage to get in 16 speakers even though we had a short amount of time due to Front-Bench contributions.
Hamas Attacks: First Anniversary
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing this important Adjournment debate. Today is the anniversary of Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel. It was a pogrom in which at least 1,195 Israelis and 79 foreign nationals from some 30 countries were murdered, over 4,800 people were injured and more than 250 men, women and children were taken hostage. It was the worst terrorist attack in Israel’s history and the bloodiest day in the history of the Jewish people since the Holocaust.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. It is worth pausing to reflect on the fact that the atrocity was so bad and so many people lost their lives at the hands of Hamas because Hamas intended for that to be the case. In the year that has followed, so many innocent people have lost their lives, suffered and been displaced. Will he join me in condemning Hamas and its evil actions, which took place on 7 October?
Jon Pearce
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention and completely agree that Hamas is a terrorist organisation that set out that day to murder as many innocent civilians as it possibly could. Talk of statistics risks robbing the victims of their humanity and precious individuality. I want to touch on some of the incredible stories from that day.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate; I spoke to him beforehand. I bring to his and the House’s attention a lady I met when I was in Israel the week after Easter: Amanda Damari, who spoke yesterday about her daughter Emily, who was kidnapped. She has lived that kidnapping every day. Does he agree that we salute the bravery, the courage and the determination of those families to have those hostages—their friends and family members—home to enjoy life once again?
Jon Pearce
I agree with the hon. Member that the courage of the families of the hostages is remarkable. So many in the House will have spoken to those families. Their strength and resolve is extraordinary and empowers all the rest of us.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with his time in this really important Adjournment debate. I, too, had the opportunity to meet Mandy Damari, who wanted our Government to acknowledge that her daughter Emily is a British citizen and requires the support of her Government to do everything they can to allow for her release as a hostage.
Jon Pearce
I very much thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I, too, have spoken to Mandy, and she was clear that her daughter is a British citizen. There are four other individuals being held hostage who are connected to Britain, and they also need to come home as soon as possible.
I want to touch on some of the other groups from that day: the group of pensioners on a day trip in the Dead sea who were gunned down in Sderot after their minivan developed a flat tyre; the young partygoers massacred at the Supernova music festival, some of whom, like many women elsewhere that day, were subjected to
“unspeakable violence perpetrated with shocking brutality”,
according to the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict; and the 12-year-old British-Israeli twins Yanni and Liel, who were murdered alongside their great aunt and their grandfather at Kibbutz Be’eri. So little of Liel’s body was recovered that some of her toys were buried instead. Liel and Yanni were two of the 15 Britons murdered on 7 October.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I will never forget the smell of smoke that hung in the air when I visited that kibbutz in March this year. It will stay with me forever, as will the feeling of isolation as I stood at the site of the Nova festival. The silence was broken only by families mourning. I hope my hon. Friend will agree with me that while today we have heard calls for ceasefires and aid, what is most important in this debate is that we continue to call for the hostages to be returned to their families.
Jon Pearce
The clarion call from this Parliament is “Bring them home.” Hamas were indiscriminate in their killing and in those that they dragged back to their terror tunnels in Gaza. They range from nine-month-old Kfir Bibas and four-year-old brother Ariel to 85-year-old Shlomo Mansour. Shlomo survived the 1941 Farhud pogrom in Iraq and emigrated to Israel at the age of 13. On 7 October, Shlomo was kidnapped from his home at the small, quiet kibbutz of Kissufim.
Last month I met Shlomo’s granddaughter, Noam. I also met Eviatar David’s mother, Galia, and brother, Ilay. On 7 October, 23-year-old Eviatar was seized at the Supernova festival. His family and friends hold weekly dance and jam sessions in Tel Aviv’s Hostages Square to raise awareness of his continuing plight. I also met Sharone Lifshitz, the daughter of 85-year-old Yocheved and 84-year-old Oded. On 7 October the couple were taken from their home in Kibbutz Nir Oz. Yocheved was freed after two weeks, but Oded remains in captivity. Oded has spent his life campaigning for peace and Palestinian rights.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate on this profoundly sad occasion. I wish to draw attention to a thread that has gone through everything he said, which relates to the nature of the communities on the Gaza border that were attacked. One of the tragic ironies is that this was an attack on communities that were almost all kibbutzim and moshavim. These were idealistic communities founded on a co-operative ethos, the residents of which practised what they preached about co-existence and peace. I visited such communities in peacetime. They are bucolic and idealistic. The people there spoke about sending money across the border to people they knew in Gaza through third countries, in order to support them. They organised transport to hospitals for people from Gaza. They were people straining every sinew to bring about peace and who believed in a two-state solution. I cannot stop thinking about the horrors that were visited on them that day. I thank my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to honour the memory of the people who suffered on that day.
Jon Pearce
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and could not agree more with his experience of the kibbutz. In July 2023 I visited Kibbutz Kfar Aza, which was founded by the Mizrahi refugees from Morocco and Egypt in 1951. The kibbutz is so close to Gaza that it is possible to hear the mosques’ call to prayer. Over lunch with the kibbutzniks, they told us about the ever-present danger of rocket attacks and the terror tunnels that Hamas had attempted to dig nearby. They also spoke of their compassion for the ordinary people of Gaza just a couple of miles away.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
I also visited Kfar Aza just a few weeks before the horrific attacks by Hamas on 7 October. The visit had a profound impact on me, especially in the light of what followed just a few short weeks later. I listened to Emily Damari’s mum Mandy at the memorial in Hyde park yesterday, pleading with us all who were present to do something to help her daughter. As a mum to an Emily, who is exactly the same age as her Emily will be now, I am here tonight to ask if my hon. Friend will join me in pleading with the Minister and our Government to work night and day to ensure that Emily and the other 100 hostages still being held in unimaginable horror in Gaza are released as soon as humanly possible.
Jon Pearce
I join my hon. Friend’s call for the hostages to be returned at the soonest possible opportunity.
The kibbutzniks we spoke to used to stage an annual festival in which they would gather to fly kites adorned with the words “peace”, “shalom” and “salam” at the nearby border. Last year, the annual kite festival was set for Saturday 7 October. As always, the Kutz family, whose brainchild the festival was, had prepared the kites, but there were no kites or messages of hope and peace that dark day. Instead, Aviv Kutz, his wife Livnat and his teenager children Rotem, Yonatan and Yiftach were murdered in their home by Hamas terrorists. They were found in a bed, with Aviv’s arms around his wife and children. Their unflown kites were found nearby. The family were among more than 60 kibbutz residents who were massacred that day. This has been a horrifying and harrowing year of suffering. As many have said, we must do all we can to bring the fighting to an end as quickly as possible, with the hostages home from Gaza, aid into Gaza and a path to a long-term and sustainable peace.
The impact of that terrible day has been felt 2,000 miles away in what the Prime Minister has rightly described as the rise of vile hatred in our own communities. Antisemitic incidents have reached their highest total. Nearly seven in 10 British Jews report that they are less likely to show visible signs of Judaism. Nearly half say that they have considered leaving the UK because of antisemitism. Jewish children are unable to wear their uniforms on their way to school. Jewish students are intimidated on their campuses. Jewish places of worship are defaced and graffitied. This is intolerable in modern Britain.
I know that a number of Front Benchers would have wished to speak in this debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), who have been steadfast in their support throughout the last year. I am sure that the whole House will join me in saying that we stand with and by our Jewish fellow citizens in the face of this hatred. The 7 October atrocities showed humanity at its worst, exposing once again what Holocaust survivor Sam Kaltman termed the thin and fragile “veneer of civilisation”. But, as the late Martin Gilbert argued, even on the darkest days there are sparks of light.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate on the anniversary of the attacks, and for delivering such an eloquent speech. As we mark a year since the appalling attacks, I proudly add my voice to the Bury Faith Forum and the Bury Council of Mosques in emphasising our shared bonds of faith and humanity, and in calling for a sincere, lasting resolution for Israel and Palestine that begins with the safe return of hostages and an immediate ceasefire. Does my hon. Friend agree that even in these darkest of times, the smallest shard of light shines brightest, and that that light is the release of the hostages; a ceasefire; a sustainable, peaceful, secure Israel; and a sustainable, peaceful Palestinian state?
Jon Pearce
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I completely agree that following the despair we have seen over the last year, there has to be light at the end of the tunnel. The work done in his constituency to bring together communities across the country will be vital.
I want to end by talking about Emily, who a number of Members have mentioned. I think we have all been touched by the campaign that her mother Mandy continues to run in her name. She says that Emily has never lost touch with her British roots; Emily loves Spurs, Robbie Williams and Cadbury’s chocolate buttons, and makes a fine cup of tea. Emily’s family have not seen her for 366 days. She was violently kidnapped from Kibbutz Kfar Aza. Her beloved puppy was shot and killed in her arms as Emily was dragged from her home in her pyjamas. Hamas has refused the Red Cross access to Emily and the other hostages, but news of Emily came during last November’s hostage release. In the tunnels, those who were released said that Emily had been singing a song to the young girls every morning, called “Boker shel kef”—“It’s a great morning”.
Emily has not given up hope. Her family has not given up hope, and we must not give up hope. We must bring home the British hostages—Emily, Eli, Oded, Avinatan, Tsachi—and all the hostages. We hold in our hearts all the hostages, all those whose lives were lost on 7 October, those who mourn them, and all those innocent Israelis and Palestinians who have endured pain, sorrow and grief over the past year.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) for securing this timely debate, and to all hon. Members who intervened and are attending this debate. I give particular recognition to my hon. Friend’s work as the recently appointed chair of Labour Friends of Israel. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer), the Minister with responsibility for the middle east, was of course due to respond to this debate, but he is participating in commemorative events related to this subject, so it is my privilege to respond on behalf of the Government.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak for his candid, at times shocking, and powerful speech, in which he set out the human stories at the heart of the terrible events of 7 October. With him, I pay tribute to the courage and resilience of the families of all those who lost their life, and all those who are still held hostage. A year since the worst terror attack in Israel’s history, we remember all those killed at the hands of Hamas in that barbaric attack, their families and their loved ones, and condemn those responsible. Without doubt, it was the bloodiest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust, a day we should never have seen, and would rather we never needed to mark. Distressingly, for some families, the nightmare persists, as their loved ones continue to be held by Hamas. Let me be clear: that is utterly unacceptable. They must be released immediately.
As the Prime Minister said in his statement earlier today, and as has been mentioned by many hon. Members this evening, one of the hostages who still remains in Gaza is Emily Damari. She is, as we have heard, a British citizen who was brutally attacked and kidnapped on the morning of 7 October. A year later, as we have heard, she is still held by Hamas, surrounded by the death and darkness of the tunnels that continue to haunt her loved ones. As we have heard, Emily’s story is just one of the painful reminders of the suffering that many families—some British, some British-linked, and many, many more—continue to endure at the hands of Hamas. Their pain is our pain. We continue to demand the immediate and unconditional release of Emily and all the other hostages. My hon. Friend gave many, many other examples. Those chilling examples are proof of Hamas’s cruelty. Our thoughts today are with all those who lost loved ones on 7 October and those still cruelly held by Hamas.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring to the attention of the House—we have all seen it in our communities—the deeply worrying rise in antisemitism and hatred across the world, including in this country. There is no place for this hatred in our communities and society. Let us be clear: Hamas wanted to not just attack Israel but send a signal to Jews everywhere. It wanted them to feel scared and unsafe, regardless of where in the world they happened to be. The global rise in antisemitism following the attack highlights the need for urgent collective action to eliminate this abhorrent ideology for good. That is why the Government are resolutely committed to working with the Jewish community to address the challenges that it faces in the UK and, indeed, across the world. I have heard from Jewish communities in my city of Cardiff about their fears and their lived experience of antisemitism and hate. I have also met representatives of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Community Security Trust and many other organisations, and I pay tribute to their work.
Today the Foreign Secretary and the Minister with responsibility for the middle east met members of the Jewish community to outline the Government’s support for them, and to remember and honour the victims of 7 October. I am proud that this year the UK holds the presidency of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; that allows us to demonstrate our global leadership in combating antisemitism and promoting Holocaust remembrance, research and education.
Tragically, since that dreadful day, we have seen intolerable death and destruction in Gaza. More than 41,000 people have now died, and over half of all identified bodies are those of women and children. We reiterate that no matter how difficult the circumstances, all parties must act in accordance with international law, but the fact that this conflict is continuing and intensifying by the day is a matter of deep concern to Members in all parts of the House. It should compel us to redouble our efforts to achieve an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and to pursue the path of politics and diplomacy, because that is the best way to get the hostages out and to stop the devastation for all. We are particularly concerned about the restrictions on humanitarian aid, with winter approaching. Those restrictions must be lifted, so that the UN and humanitarian agencies can do their jobs safely, in accordance with the UN mandate.
Let me turn to what is happening in the wider region. The latest escalation, involving Lebanese Hezbollah and the Iranian attack on Israel, is yet another blow to regional stability, and we are deeply concerned about the significant number of civilian casualties. The UK was the first G7 country to call for an immediate ceasefire between Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel, on 19 September, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that we stand with Israel and recognise its right to self-defence in the face of Iranian aggression. Iran’s malign role in the region is moving the region further towards escalation, and we call on Iran to step back from the brink, because we must avoid this conflict spiralling out of control and into a wider regional war.
Let me say something about how the United Kingdom is responding, which will cover many of the points raised this evening. Let me first reassure all Members that we continue to work with partners across the region to secure the release of all remaining hostages, including British nationals and those with a close connection to the UK. That has been a priority since day one of this Government. The Foreign Secretary has visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories twice, and the Prime Minister has spoken to both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. They have also met the families of those being held by Hamas, and the Prime Minister hosted a commemoration event last week to honour their resilience and undefeated spirit during these challenging times.
The UK will remain a vital security partner to Israel as it faces threats from Iran and its malign partners in the region, who are pursuing its annihilation. We will also play our full diplomatic role in ending this conflict and creating a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. An immediate ceasefire is an absolutely necessary first step towards that goal. In response to the humanitarian crisis, we trebled our aid commitment to the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the last financial year, and we will maintain significant funding for trusted aid agencies on the ground. We lifted the UK’s funding pause on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, following robust action taken to ensure its neutrality, and released £21 million to support UNRWA’s humanitarian appeal in Gaza and its provision of basic services.
We need calm heads and an urgent focus on a negotiated political solution to end this cycle of violence, so that Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese civilians can return to their homes and live in peace and security. Together with our allies, the United Kingdom remains determined to steer the region towards a path of peace and reconciliation, and we have a two-state solution at the heart of our approach.
In conclusion, a year on from Hamas’s horrific attack on 7 October, the United Kingdom remains firmly committed to Israel’s defence and security. Those killed, injured and taken on 7 October and since, and their families, will be in all our minds, especially today. This escalating regional conflict is in no one’s interest, which is why we are calling for an immediate ceasefire. Finally, I reiterate that we will continue to use every diplomatic lever to bring that about and secure the release of hostages in co-ordination with our partners. We all want to see them brought home.
Question put and agreed to.
Protection of the Amazon rainforest
Portishead railway branch line
Proposals for the A21 level crossing at Robertsbridge
Written Corrections
Ministerial Corrections
Education
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Qualifications must deliver on our missions, enhancing and spreading opportunity, and growing our economy. The last Conservative Government botched the roll-out of T-levels and defunded them. That is why this Labour Government have announced a pause and review of qualifications reforms, to support skills growth and students, and to bring certainty where there has been chaos.
[Official Report, 9 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 547.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson):
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Qualifications must deliver on our missions, enhancing and spreading opportunity, and growing our economy. The last Conservative Government botched the roll-out of T-levels and wider qualifications defunding. That is why this Labour Government have announced a pause and review of qualifications reforms, to support skills growth and students, and to bring certainty where there has been chaos.
SEND Provision
Bridget Phillipson
It is certainly the case that there is a big workforce challenge, and making sure that we have specialists in critical areas is a central part of making sure children and young people can access the support they need. Our school support staff will play a crucial role in that, which is why Labour will reinstate the school support staff negotiating body. We will make sure that teachers have more training alongside support staff, in order to deliver better support and education for our young people, and this year we are investing over £21 million to train 400 more educational psychologists.
[Official Report, 9 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 556.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Education:
Bridget Phillipson
It is certainly the case that there is a big workforce challenge, and making sure that we have specialists in critical areas is a central part of making sure children and young people can access the support they need. Our school support staff will play a crucial role in that, which is why Labour will reinstate the school support staff negotiating body. We will make sure that teachers have more training alongside support staff, in order to deliver better support and education for our young people, and from this year we are investing over £21 million to train 400 more educational psychologists.
Housing, Communities and Local Government
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Norris
Colleagues have talked about buying, selling or remortgaging homes. We have seen improvements in that space, but we remain vigilant. We will continue to hold particularly the 10 largest lenders to account following their commitment to lend on properties even where remediation is not yet complete. They must keep that promise.
[Official Report, 11 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 928.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris):
Alex Norris
Colleagues have talked about buying, selling or remortgaging homes. We have seen improvements in that space, but we remain vigilant. We will continue to hold particularly the 10 major lenders to account following their commitment to lend on properties even where remediation is not yet complete. They must keep that promise.
Written Statements
UK-Thailand Enhanced Trade Partnership
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
I am pleased to announce that the UK Thailand enhanced trade partnership was signed and launched on 18 September in Bangkok.
Thailand is south-east Asia’s second largest economy. The total trade in goods and services between the UK and Thailand was £5.9 billion to the end of Q1 2024.
The UK-Thailand ETP is a non-legally binding memorandum of understanding, which creates a framework to enhance trade, investment and economic co-operation between the UK and Thailand. The new partnership is designed to boost trade and investment across 20 priority areas including automotive, tourism, investment, digital trade, financial services, and education.
The partnership is underpinned by a comprehensive workplan guided by the priorities identified through consultations with businesses in the UK and Thailand. Its delivery will be overseen by the UK-Thailand Joint Economic and Trade Committee, which will monitor progress and agree updates to the workplan guided by ongoing business consultation.
This partnership further supports this Government’s commitment to economic growth through providing a strong commitment and underpinning actions to further enhance our strong bilateral trade relationship with Thailand.
The UK-Thailand enhanced trade partnership text is available online on gov.uk.
[HCWS105]
Late Payments and Long Payment Terms
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
Late payments and long payment terms continue to be a significant issue for small businesses and the self-employed across the UK. In 2022, small businesses were owed on average an estimated £22,000 in late payments from the businesses they supply. As well as the direct costs to businesses through lost and late revenue, there are also indirect costs, which include a reduction in productivity through lost time chasing late payments and forgoing investment and growth opportunities. We are determined to foster a strong payment culture in the UK by bringing the payment performance and behaviour of large companies more clearly into focus.
Therefore, we are announcing that we will lay secondary legislation in this parliamentary Session to make it a requirement for large companies to include information about their payment performance in their annual reports.
This measure will help increase transparency around the payment practices of large businesses and bring them into focus for boards and investors.
Introducing secondary legislation however only represents our first step. The Department for Business and Trade will also launch a public consultation within months on additional legislative measures to address late payments and long payment terms. We will take action as needed to ensure improvements in payment times, especially for small businesses and the self-employed.
We will also be launching a new fair payment code to be overseen by the Small Business Commissioner—a voluntary code of best practice for companies committed to fair and fast payments. This will replace the existing Prompt Payment Code, with a clearer and more measurable set of ambitious commitments and will be a further lever to improve the UK’s business payment culture by shining a light on the best performers.
Secondary legislation has also been laid today to amend the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 and the Limited Liability Partnerships (Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance) Regulations 2017, to require qualifying companies and LLPs to publish certain information on their practices, policies and performance with respect to retention clauses in any qualifying construction contracts with suppliers. This measure will help increase transparency around retention policies and performance, and encourage improved payment practices.
This package demonstrates this Government’s determination to tackle the scourge of late payments, meeting the commitments laid out in our manifesto and plan for small business.
These initiatives will ensure more businesses are paid on time—ultimately increasing productivity, improving cash flow and driving growth.
[HCWS106]
Post Office Capture Software: Kroll Associates Report
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
Earlier this year, concerns were raised by parliamentarians and postmasters about the Post Office’s Capture software, which was rolled out by the Post Office to some branches in the 1990s, and pre-dated Horizon. The concerns were that Capture software had bugs which may have caused shortfalls, leaving postmasters to pay the Post Office back, with some postmasters said to have been prosecuted as a consequence.
Responding to those concerns, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade committed on 9 September to publishing the results of forensic accountant Kroll Associates’ investigation into the Capture system as soon as we received its report. Kroll has now completed its investigation, and I published their report on Monday 30 September. The report is available on www.gov.uk and I have also placed a copy in the House Library.
Kroll Associates investigated the Capture software system, examined the available evidence from postmasters and others who have been working with postmasters to uncover the issues with the software. Further evidence from the Post Office was given to Kroll towards the end of their investigation. Considering this, Kroll has produced an addendum to this report which will be published shortly.
I am very grateful to the postmasters and postmasters’ families who spoke to and provided evidence to Kroll during the investigation. I recognise in some cases that this meant revisiting very distressing memories. I am grateful to those who attended the ministerial-chaired roundtable hosted by the Department for Business and Trade. I would also like to thank the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board for its continued work on redress issues, in particular Lord Beamish for helping to shine a light on the issues related to Capture.
In the report Kroll concluded there was a reasonable likelihood that Capture could have created shortfalls for sub-postmasters. Kroll has not identified any available evidence that Post Office Ltd’s audit, investigations or legal teams took into account known issues with Capture arising from bugs identified in various versions of the software in the course of their work.
I recognise that this report and its conclusions will be of considerable interest to postmasters and their families across the country. The Government will thoroughly examine Kroll’s report into the Capture system and its impact on postmasters. We will update the House on next steps in December.
[HCWS100]
Royal Navy: Behaviours
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
This Government are committed to improving service life for our dedicated service personnel. This includes addressing any experience in our armed forces which falls short of the standards we expect. The Secretary of State for Defence made clear in his first address to the Ministry of Defence that we will have a culture that values all, and we will have zero tolerance for any abuse, in the military or the civil service.
That is why today, I am updating the House on the findings of an investigation into misconduct in the submarine service. This investigation was commissioned by the Royal Navy in October 2022 as a result of allegations of misconduct made by a former female submariner. The investigation has now concluded and has found evidence to prove that misogyny, bullying and unacceptable behaviour did occur amongst a range of ranks and rates during the period 2014-2020.
This is appalling and should have never happened. I sincerely apologise for the treatment that the victim experienced during her time as a submariner, and I commend to the House her bravery in coming forward. Those that have chosen to serve deserve better. The First Sea Lord has also offered his personal and unreserved apologies to the victim for her treatment.
Action is under way to address the findings of the investigation. First and foremost, I can confirm that the Royal Navy has conducted misconduct proceedings, and action has been taken against several individuals up to and including discharge from the service.
The investigation also made 37 recommendations to address practical and cultural shortcomings which must change. The First Sea Lord has accepted these in full and implementation is under way. These changes include proactive welfare checks for submarine crews pre and post deployment, to understand the experiences of the crew; changes to training and the submarine command course; and increased outreach from the Royal Navy Police so that personnel are aware of the routes available to them should they wish to raise a complaint.
Further detail on the investigation, including its findings, recommendations and how they have been implemented has been published on the Ministry of Defence website. The executive summary and redacted report will be placed in the Library of the House. However, changes made so far are not limited to the submarine service. In parallel to the investigation itself, the First Sea Lord instigated a wider review of the Royal Navy’s working culture. As a result of this, the Royal Navy has appointed a commadore as its head of culture and a team to support driving cultural, behavioural and leadership improvements across the entirety of the Royal Navy.
Misconduct such as that identified in this investigation is unacceptable and has no place anywhere in Defence. While progress is being made, there is more to be done. I will hold the First Sea Lord, the Royal Navy and the submarine service to account for delivering the change this investigation has identified. I have requested a formal review of progress in six months.
More widely, the MOD has established a programme for raising our standards that builds on existing work to instil a positive working culture and uphold the standards of behaviour that we expect. The programme focuses on communications and training, underpinned by work to test the action being taken and make sure that unacceptable behaviours are being eliminated from Defence.
Work is under way by the new ministerial team to look at what action has been taken to raise standards and tackle unacceptable behaviour so far across the Ministry of Defence and the whole of the military; assess what impact this action has had; identify where we are still falling short; and ensure where we learn lessons and establish good practice this is shared across the whole of Defence.
Furthermore, I will personally oversee the programme of change through our external challenge panel: a group of experienced subject matter experts in organisational change that have been brought together to hold this Department to account for action on these issues, and ensure we have strong ambition and independent testing of our programme.
It is only by delivering on this commitment that we will enable Defence to better reflect the nation it serves and protects, and draw from the best of British talent, to deliver operational outcomes in an increasingly uncertain world.
Poor practices and behaviours in the past that may have been normalised in some quarters are unacceptable, and they have no place today. We will learn from this, and I will provide further updates to the House on action taken across Defence in due course.
The leadership of the submarine service has my, and the First Sea Lord’s, full support to deliver the changes needed.
The attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2024-10-07/HCWS103/.
[HCWS103]
Semiconductor Facility: Newton Aycliffe
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
On Friday 27 September, the Ministry of Defence bolstered the UK defence supply chain with the acquisition of a key semiconductor factory in Newton Aycliffe, County Durham.
This factory is the only secure facility in the UK with the skills and capability to manufacture gallium arsenide semiconductors. These types of specialist semiconductors are used in a number of military platforms, including fighter jet capabilities. It is therefore crucial for our national security that this facility remains suitable for UK defence needs.
This acquisition will not only safeguard the future of the facility, which is critical to the defence supply chain and major military programmes and exports, but also secures up to 100 skilled jobs in the north-east of England.
Semiconductors are vitally important for the functioning of almost every electronic device we use and are equally as important in military platforms. This Government recognise the strategic importance of semiconductors as a critical technology for the future and a significant enabler of the Government’s growth and clean energy missions.
The semiconductor factory in Newton Aycliffe, which has been renamed Octric Semiconductors UK, has been acquired by the Government from its previous parent company Coherent Corporation who were looking to sell or close the site.
I visited the facility on the first day of ownership accompanied by the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland). The site and the people working there are doing incredible things for defence, for which I thank them.
This Government intend to invest in the company over the coming years, ensuring the nation’s security while boosting UK defence industrial capacity, expanding export opportunities and supporting our mission to deliver growth. These investments will ensure the facility is capable of producing gallium arsenide semiconductors as well as more powerful semiconductors in the future.
Work has already started to implement best practice governance, providing the appropriate financial oversight to secure the company’s future success.
[HCWS102]
Energy Infrastructure Planning Projects
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath OBE), made the following statement today:
This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by Ecotricity (Heck Fen) Ltd for the construction and operation of a solar photovoltaic electricity generating station situated in Lincolnshire.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it.
The statutory deadline for the decision on the Heckington Fen solar park application was 27 September 2024.
Ecotricity (Heck Fen) Ltd has requested that the Secretary of State extends the statutory deadline to allow time for further negotiations with landowners and to ensure the necessary permissions can be obtained. I have decided to set a new deadline of no later than 24 January 2025 for deciding this application for these reasons.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS99]
Flood Response: September 2024
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Just over 1,000 properties flooded in late September after double the monthly average of rain fell across central and southern England. Devastating impacts were felt in communities across Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Buckinghamshire and north-west London in particular. Our deepest sympathies are with those whose homes and businesses have been damaged, whose lives have been upended, and who are now facing months of disruption and upset. The Government reiterate their thanks to the Environment Agency, local responders and many others who worked tirelessly to help communities across the country deal with the impacts.
The condition of flood defences has declined in recent years through a lack of investment. This was compounded when no more funding was made available by the previous Government to repair damage from last winter. Asset condition is now at 92%, its lowest point since 2010, with approximately 60,000 properties at higher risk. The Environment Agency has allocated £36 million this year to do the most urgent repairs from last winter’s flood events.
Despite this, over 22,000 properties were protected by existing flood defences. Assets have stood up well. The Environment Agency has not had any reports of asset failures that have resulted in flooding. There may be some unseen damage to defences, which the Environment Agency will inspect and assess once the river levels have subsided. My Department will be carrying out a post-event assessment with resilience partners to identify where lessons can be learned.
Protecting communities from flooding is a key priority for this Government. The Government are determined to turbocharge the delivery and repair of flood defences, improve drainage systems and develop natural flood management schemes. That is why we held the first meeting of the Government’s newly established flood resilience taskforce last month. The Government set up the taskforce to improve co-ordination of the national and local flood response and strengthen preparedness ahead of the winter flood season.
We are investing over £1.25 billion this year to scale up national resilience through building new and improving existing flood defences. The Government are reviewing the investment programme to get it back on track after the pace slowed due to the impacts of inflation and delays with the supply chain. Decisions on future spending will be made at the spending review later this month.
The Environment Agency’s Flood Action Week is running from 14 to 20 October. The campaign has simple messages and aims to increase awareness of the risk of flooding and what individuals and communities can do to prepare.
Together, the Government’s work to improve co-ordination of flood response, strengthen our preparedness and invest in our flood defences will better protect communities from flooding right across the country.
[HCWS104]
British Indian Ocean Territory
(1 week, 1 day 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)
On 3 October the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius reached an historic agreement on the exercise of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory/Chagos archipelago. The agreement secures the strategically important UK-US military base on Diego Garcia.
The base on Diego Garcia is critical to national and international security. It has enabled the UK, the US, and our allies and partners to combat some of the most challenging threats to global peace and security, including those from terrorism, organised crime, and instability.
However, since its creation, the British Indian Ocean Territory and the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia has had a contested existence. It has been challenged through various international courts and tribunals, threatening the long-term, secure operation of the base. In recent years, this threat had risen significantly. A legally binding decision against the UK seemed inevitable. It was only a matter of time before the UK would have had to choose between breaking international law or negotiating from a position of weakness and risking national security. The situation was also impacting our relationship with the US, which did not want the legal uncertainty and strongly encouraged us to strike a deal.
In recognition of this, two years ago, the previous Government began sovereignty negotiations. Despite 11 rounds of negotiations, substantive and difficult issues remained.
This Government inherited unfinished business. We were not prepared to put the security interests of this country or our partners at risk. We therefore prioritised an agreement that fundamentally protected UK national interests, respected the interests of our partners, and upheld the international rule of law. The resulting agreement fulfils these objectives.
It is strongly supported by our partners, including the United States. President Biden issued a statement “applauding” this historic agreement within minutes of its announcement. Secretary Blinken and Defence Secretary Austin have also voiced clear public support. India and the African Union have also hailed the agreement. The agreement strengthens our arguments when it comes to issues like Ukraine or the South China sea.
Under the terms of the agreement, the United Kingdom will agree that the Republic of Mauritius has sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory, also known as the Chagos archipelago. In return, Mauritius will authorise us to exercise their sovereign rights needed for the long-term, secure and effective operation of the joint military base. The agreement covers an initial period of 99 years, with the UK having the right to extend.
For the first time in over 50 years, the base will be undisputed and legally secure, able to operate to its full strategic capability without risk of challenge. The agreement will mean that the UK and US will continue to operate the base well into the next century.
We have full Mauritian backing for robust security arrangements, including preventing foreign armed forces from accessing or establishing themselves on the outer islands. The base’s long-term future is more secure under this agreement than without it.
The agreement also addresses the wrongs of the past. This Government deeply regret the way Chagossians were removed from the islands, and the way they were treated thereafter. Chagossian interests were at the heart of the agreement. For the first time since the establishment of the base, the Republic of Mauritius will be able to implement a programme of resettlement to the islands other than Diego Garcia. The UK and the Republic of Mauritius have also committed to support the welfare of Chagossians. The UK will finance a new trust fund for the Republic of Mauritius to use in support of the Chagossian community and remains committed to supporting Chagossians in the UK.
Recognising that relations with our overseas territories are of great interest to this House, Members can be assured that this is a unique agreement that has absolutely no bearing on wider UK Government policy regarding our other overseas territories. Our sovereignty of the Cyprus sovereign base areas, Gibraltar, the Falklands or any OT is not up for negotiation. Each overseas territory has a very different history and they cannot be compared. The UK remains committed to our overseas territories family.
This agreement will be underpinned by a financial package which will be proportionate to the importance of ensuring international security.
This agreement ushers in a new era in relations between the UK and the Republic of Mauritius, two close partners with deep and enduring ties. We intend to intensify co-operation on a wide range of shared priorities, including security, the environment, and economic growth. This will include co-operation to protect the archipelago’s unique environment.
The agreement is subject to the finalisation of a treaty which the Government intend to complete over the coming months. Further details will remain confidential until the final version of the treaty has been signed by both sides. Following signature, the Government intend to bring forward a Bill to make the necessary amendments to current legislation to implement the agreement. Parliament will also have the opportunity to scrutinise the treaty in the usual way under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CraG). Both processes are required to take place before ratification.
[HCWS109]
Annual Capital Investment for Research Call
(1 week, 1 day 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)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Patient Safety, Women’s Health and Mental Health (Baroness Merron) has made the following statement:
Today I am pleased to announce Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) funding of nearly £30 million through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) for capital equipment, technology and modular buildings to support NHS trusts in England to deliver high-quality research to improve the health of the population.
This large-scale investment will support 36 NHS trusts to develop and deliver research which aims to reduce early death from major conditions and improve access to high-quality health and care. The funding will increase NHS capacity to deliver commercial clinical trials which bring innovative medicines to patients earlier and maximise our potential to lead the world in clinical trials. This includes investment in modular buildings to expand the footprint for research in hospitals, many of which are in rural and coastal areas. It is important that everyone, regardless of where they live, can access the latest innovations in the health and care system through research.
Funding is going to NHS trusts the length and breadth of England, from Harrogate to Plymouth. A mobile research unit in Hull will increase participation in trials in East Yorkshire; and modular buildings will expand capacity for clinical research in Bradford, Essex, Exeter and Derby.
Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust is receiving funding for a mobile X-ray unit to increase their capability to carry out trials that are normally only available in large research units. This is a huge step forward for a district general hospital, bringing research closer to the communities which they serve.
Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust were successful in their application for funding for equipment which applies red and near infrared light to injuries or lesions to improve wound and soft tissue healing. This will allow children to participate in studies at their regular clinic, reducing travel and reaching underserved communities.
Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust and East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust will expand their capacity for commercial trials in conditions such as dementia with a stand-alone pharmacy space and a pharmacy dispensary, respectively, to enable studies in new medicines. The Royal Marsden have received funding for equipment to increase capability and capacity in advanced therapy areas in oncology across commercial and non-commercial portfolios.
This significant funding will support cutting edge research to improve population health and support commercial research delivery in NHS settings for both the benefit of patients but also the economic growth of the country, positioning the UK as an attractive place for innovative companies to invest in research.
While the equipment or technology is primarily for research, when not in use in this way, equipment such as MRI Scanners will be used for clinical care. This will bolster the capacity of the health system to carry out procedures such as diagnostic testing to inform care and reduce the time taken to treatment, maximising the benefit from this investment.
[HCWS107]
Legacy of the Troubles
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I wish to provide an update to the House following the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal’s judgment in Dillon and others regarding the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act; and on the appointment of Sir John Evans as the Chair of the Robert Hamill inquiry.
The Government are absolutely committed to implementing mechanisms to address the legacy of the troubles that fully comply with human rights. My previous written ministerial statement, laid on 29 July 2024, confirmed that the Government, as part of their ongoing commitment to repealing and replacing the Legacy Act, had formally abandoned all grounds of appeal against the section 4 Human Rights Act declarations of incompatibility made by the Northern Ireland High Court in relation to the Act. This included the immunity provisions, providing important clarity for families that the immunity scheme and other offending provisions would not take effect. I also confirmed the Government’s intention to propose measures to further strengthen the independence and powers of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
On 20 September, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in Dillon and others. The Court recognised
“the wide powers of ICRIR and the benefit of having investigations placed within one body which is well-resourced”,
and further noted that the ICRIR has
“unfettered access to all information, documents and materials as it reasonably requires in connection with a review” (https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICA/2024/59.html, Paragraph 210).
The Court concluded that such powers
“cannot be criticised, nor should they be underestimated” (https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICA/2024/59.html, Paragraph 210).
However, the Court of Appeal also made further declarations of incompatibility in relation to the Legacy Act to those made by the High Court. One of these was in relation to the current prohibition on civil proceedings—another policy pursued by the previous Government that this Government have already committed to reversing.
The other declarations of incompatibility relate to effective next-of-kin participation where an inquest was previously assigned in order to discharge the state’s article 2 procedural obligations, and the role of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in relation to public disclosure of information https://www.judiciaryni.uk/judicial-decisions/summary-judgment-re-dillon-and-others-ni-troubles-legacy-and-reconciliation-0
The Government have already made clear their intention to propose measures that allow legacy inquests previously halted to proceed, should that be the preference of families. Notwithstanding this, the Government take these further declarations of incompatibility very seriously, and it remains my priority to ensure that the ICRIR can provide human rights compliant investigations in all relevant cases.
The Court largely upheld the High Court’s findings in relation to article 2 of the Windsor framework, which, as I noted in my statement to the House on 29 July, introduces legal uncertainty about what protections are afforded by article 2, and how legislation applies across the United Kingdom.
This is a complex and wide-ranging judgment with significant implications. The Government are therefore carefully considering their findings to inform a decision on the way forward. I wish to make it clear to the House that any such decision will be without prejudice to the Government’s absolute commitment to addressing legacy issues in a way that is fully human rights compliant, and with the fullest possible transparency within the framework that rightly exists to ensure that those who work to keep the citizens of the United Kingdom safe are themselves protected from harm.
As set out in my statement of 29 July, the Government have begun preparations to lay in Parliament a draft remedial order under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to remedy the original declarations of incompatibility made by the High Court, including the immunity provisions. In light of the additional declarations of incompatibility made by the Court of Appeal, I am reviewing this process and will update the House in due course.
This Government take their human rights obligations—and their responsibilities to victims and survivors of the troubles—extremely seriously. As part of the Government’s commitment to repealing and replacing the Legacy Act, I continue to undertake consultations with interested parties regarding a practical way forward that can command support across communities in Northern Ireland and beyond. I said previously that this process will involve difficult conversations, and that is proving to be the case in my engagements so far, which have been sometimes challenging but always insightful. I am encouraged by the willingness of those I have met to date to engage constructively. I look forward to further discussions in the period ahead.
Separately, I am pleased to announce the appointment of Sir John Evans as chair of the Robert Hamill inquiry. A chair of the inquiry is required in order for the inquiry report to be formally passed to me for publication. Due to the passage of time since the report was completed in 2011, it was necessary for me to appoint a new chair of the inquiry, as the former chair, Justice Sir Edwin Jowitt, is unfortunately unable to continue in the role. I send him my very best wishes, and thank him for all he did in his time as chair.
Sir John was a panel member when the inquiry was in operation, and worked closely with Sir Edwin on the report. Sir John brings a wealth of experience to the role as a former Chief Constable, and I know he will do everything in his power to ensure the inquiry report is published soon.
I will remain in close contact with Sir John ahead of the inquiry report being passed formally to me in order to arrange for the necessary legal and security checks to be completed. While I will do everything I can to ensure the report is published as soon as possible, due to the passage of time since the report was completed, it is imperative that these checks happen before publication.
I want to pay tribute to Robert Hamill’s family for their patience and their dignity as they awaited the conclusion of relevant criminal proceedings. I will make a further statement to Parliament when the report is published.
[HCWS108]
Tackling Global Challenges: R&D Programme
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is focused on improving people’s lives by maximising the potential of research and development, science and technology to drive economic growth and wider societal benefits. It is our ambition to accelerate innovation, investment and productivity through world-class science, research and development. In line with this goal, the UK’s association to Horizon Europe, the world’s largest internationally collaborative research programme, empowers UK innovators and scientists to collaborate with colleagues from across the EU, as well as with other associated countries.
From 2028, the 10th Research and Innovation Framework Programme will replace Horizon Europe. It will be tasked with harnessing excellence-based research and development to support delivery of European security, sustainable prosperity and competitiveness.
On 26 September, DSIT published a position paper setting out the UK Government’s views on the potential shape and direction of FP10. We have published this position paper to support the work of the EU and member states in developing an impactful programme that delivers research and development across all disciplines of the highest quality to the benefit of all participants. A copy of the position paper was deposited in the Libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
The Government want to strengthen ties with our European neighbours and explore areas where we can boost our shared prosperity and security through mutually beneficial agreements. This includes ensuring that UK scientists, innovators, businesses, and institutions can collaborate with partners across Europe and beyond.
Given current geopolitical realities, we believe now is the time to address global challenges through collective action. We believe that through genuine openness, EU member states, the UK, and other like-minded countries can pool resources to effectively tackle priorities that affect us all. This includes using the power of research to harness emerging technologies, and in turn boost productivity and competitiveness. Our clear position is for FP10 to be based on openness and excellence, and to ensure the continuation of proven instruments within Horizon Europe.
In the paper, we advocate for an FP10 which:
Maintains excellence at the very core of FP10 to harness the full potential of Europe’s research and innovation capabilities across the entire research pipeline.
Enables the equal participation of like-minded associated countries in all areas of the programme from its very inception, with barriers removed to ensure collaboration on critical technologies between like-minded partners. Maintaining the principle of openness to those who share common goals and values will support the best research and collaboration to tackle these shared challenges.
Preserves the three-pillar architecture in Horizon Europe, maintaining stable and predictable support for proven elements within Horizon Europe to continue supporting discovery research, international collaboration opportunities and applied innovation. Through a careful balance between curiosity-driven research and applied research and innovation, FP10 should remain flexible and responsive to future global challenges.
We very much welcome opportunities for future discussion with researchers, innovators, businesses, institutions, the European Commission and EU member states as FP10 develops, given our many shared priorities.
We will, of course, be interested in potentially associating to FP10, assuming it is open, relevant, and provides good value for researchers and taxpayers.
[HCWS101]
Planning
(1 week, 1 day 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 is necessary to extend the deadline for a decision on the application by National Highways under the Planning Act 2008 for the A122 (Lower Thames crossing) development consent order.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, a decision on an application must be made within three months of receipt of the examining authority’s report, unless the power under section 107(3) is exercised to extend the deadline, and a written ministerial statement is made to Parliament announcing the new deadline.
The examining authority’s report on the Lower Thames crossing development consent order was received on 20 March 2024. The current deadline for a decision is 4 October 2024, having been extended from 20 June 2024 by way of a written ministerial statement dated 24 May 2024.
The deadline for the decision is to be further extended to 23 May 2025 in order to allow more time for the application to be considered further, including any decisions made as part of the spending review.
The decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant the application development consent.
[HCWS110]
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Deaths of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the deaths of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, on Tuesday 1 October, and the noble Lord, Lord Leitch, on Friday 4 October. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the families and friends of the noble Lords.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start proceedings, I thought it would be useful to again focus, with the support of the usual channels, on the importance of good discipline during Oral Questions. As I have said many times before, the clue is in the title. The Companion is clear that questions should be short and confined to no more than two points. Crisp, clear and succinct is, I believe, what the House wants. While the majority of noble Lords follow this, we have seen a trend towards longer contributions and more questions becoming like short speeches. This restricts the time available for other Members to question Ministers, which I know is a source of frustration. I therefore ask that we continue with the overall discipline of short, focused questions to maximise the time available.
The same discipline applies to Ministers as well. The House rightly expects Ministers to give crisp, clear, succinct and to-the-point answers. I have reminded all Ministers of this; I have also made it clear to their private offices.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, in the spirit of what the Government Chief Whip has just said, I totally agree.
European Union
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to build a closer relationship with the European Union.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I beg—briefly—to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
We have already begun working to reset the relationship with our European friends and neighbours. The Prime Minister met with President Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels on 2 October, and they agreed to strengthen the UK-EU relationship and our mutually beneficial co-operation, and on the importance of holding regular UK-EU summits. This is not about renegotiating or relitigating Brexit but about looking forward and realising the potential of the UK-EU relationship.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for her comments. We really do need to reset our relationship with the European Union. Things such as free movement, movement for young people and working with the European Investment Bank have to get to the top of our priority list. Can we put this nonsense of not liking Europe behind us and get down to business?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The previous Government said they would get Brexit done; they did not think about what would happen afterwards. This Government want to and will make Brexit work.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, we are no longer a member of the European Union, but we are a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which was created in the vision of Winston Churchill. Last week, colleagues in Strasbourg heard the report that the Council of Europe Development Bank had loaned £1.2 billion across Europe. We did not get a penny in the United Kingdom because we are not a member, so will we join the Council of Europe Development Bank?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will take the proposal back to the department.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the Minister should agree that in the cultural area the UK should have much closer relations with the EU. Although the language has changed, we have not yet seen any action at all to address the specific concerns of the arts and creative industries. When will that happen? Every passing week represents lost opportunities and revenues for many artists and creatives who continue to face huge difficulties in Europe.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
There is a genuine commitment and determination from the Government to address this. I thank the noble Earl for his question on this point.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister talked about our relationship with the European Union, which was the subject of the Question, not just with Europe vaguely. While the efforts by Ministers and the Prime Minister to improve the mood music by visiting national capitals is of course good background work, it is noteworthy that, after meeting the Prime Minister, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said, in effect, “No cherry picking” —as she did to the previous Government. What is the Government’s strategy to improve our trade and our economy by cutting the Brexit red tape stifling our businesses?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is important to recognise that the mood music is hugely important and has been very much welcomed by the EU. The meeting that the Prime Minister held will be followed by further summits and meetings. As I am sure the noble Baroness understands, this is a precursor to making sure we get things moving.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has spoken about the importance of Ministers meeting. The Parliamentary Partnership Assembly did a lot of good work in the previous Parliament to give a relationship between the United Kingdom Parliaments and the European Parliament. Can the Minister confirm that this assembly will be reconstituted in the near future, as it has proved very useful in the past?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
To keep my answer as succinct as my noble friend the Chief Whip suggested: yes.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I concede that it is not now the time for a big bang approach, but is there not a danger of being overcautious at a time when our public are ready for a more open approach?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We need to recognise that the public were clear that they voted for Brexit, which is why this Government are not seeking to relitigate or renegotiate the entirety of the Brexit deal—but we do want to make Brexit work.
Lord Deben (Con)
Is it not true that we are culturally part of Europe and that the culture connections are very important, but that at the moment they are held up because of the “Wrecksiteers” and their attitudes to all this? Can we please get on with this and not fuss about?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord does not think that we are fussing about. Culturally and geographically, this country is clearly part of Europe. I think the Question specified the EU, which is why my responses have related to that.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Does the Minister share my concern that the divergence between the product standard requirements in the UK and the EU is of increasing concern to UK businesses, as it escalates the cost and the bureaucracy involved in compliance?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is the type of issue that this House will look at in some detail in the coming months, not least with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which will come before this House tomorrow.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister update the House on any recent discussions that Ministers may have had with our partners in the EU on the issues of illegal migration? Can she confirm whether the Government will seek a closer relationship with the EU to tackle this important problem?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Absolutely. I have a long list—which would deviate from the diktat from my noble friend the Chief Whip—that outlines a number of conversations that have happened. Migration is a shared challenge. We desperately want to strengthen our relationships with European partners to smash the gangs, and that includes strengthening our relations with the EU and its agencies. In recent weeks the Prime Minister and other Ministers have engaged with key European Heads of State and Ministers on this issue, discussing how we can work together to smash the gangs and tackle irregular migration through a whole-of-route approach.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Although of course we want the warmest possible relationship with the European Union, can my noble friend take this opportunity to reiterate what the Prime Minister has frequently said in recent months, which is that there will be no question whatever of us rejoining either the customs union or the single market?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Prime Minister has been unambiguous on that point, and that is not up for debate.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, do the Government support the free movement of young people between Europe and the UK?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The UK has no plans for an EU-wide youth mobility scheme. There will be no return to freedom of movement, and that includes in relation to school trips. Although the UK recognises the deep importance of cultural and educational exchanges between the UK and other nations, any discussions and decisions relating to our policy on school trip travel have to be made with due regard to the proper functioning of our immigration system.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, what role will the European Political Community, which is quite new, play in this new togetherness and reset?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The European Political Community summit at Blenheim Palace on 18 July strengthened our relationships in Europe and included discussions on Ukraine and migration. At that summit we also secured support from 44 countries and the EU for tough new action against Russia’s shadow fleet of ships that evade oil sanctions, so actions are coming out of the EPC.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is the policy of the current Government to deal with individual countries in the European Union, and indeed the European Union as an institution, with warmth rather than a touch of frost?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Absolutely. I would like to reassure my noble friend that we will do that. As we mark the anniversary of the despicable attacks by Hamas on Israelis, and when we also have war in Europe, a warm and close working relationship with our friends and neighbours is vital.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
Left on the cutting room floor throughout the Brexit negotiations was a framework for security and foreign policy co-operation. It was not addressed in either of the big agreements. Can the Minister tell us what the Government’s attitude towards such a framework would be now and whether they are doing anything about it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
European security is our foreign and defence priority, and that includes a commitment to Ukraine and NATO as an upholder of international law. The Government’s policy is to seek an ambitious new UK-EU security pact, which will strengthen co-operation on the threats we face and enshrine a new geopolitical partnership.
Bus Fares: National Cap
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to continue the national £2 cap on bus fares, which is scheduled to end on 31 December.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Making fares more affordable for bus passengers is one of the Government’s top priorities, as we know how important it is for those passengers. The Government are looking at the future of the national bus fare cap as a matter of urgency and considering the most appropriate and affordable approach for the future of the scheme.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Minister must know that if a decision is not made very quickly, almost immediately, the bus companies will not be able to implement the policy from 31 December. Is this another one of those questions which is caught up in the pantomime of chaos in Downing Street? Why should passengers suffer because the Government cannot make a timely decision?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Honestly, I do not recognise any of the pantomime within the Department for Transport. This is one of its top priorities. Extra resource is being put into the department to deal with it. The department knows how important it is that local authorities working with their partners can deliver this and how popular it is. But the noble Lord is right that the scheme finishes in December 2024. The outcome was delayed before the election, but I can assure him that the department is treating this as an absolute top priority.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the numbers travelling by bus outside London have declined significantly in recent years. As a priority, we need to get young people back on buses because they need access to those buses for jobs and education. Does the most appropriate and affordable scheme that the Minister refers to include a standard reduced youth fare, or even a scheme for free fares for young people?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The most important aspect in taking this forward is that it is for local determination. The money going to local authorities is not ring-fenced; they are able to look at different schemes for their particular localities. In areas where youth schemes have been brought in, they have been very successful—look at how Greater Manchester is moving forward, with an increase in passengers. I hope we can roll it out across the country.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Minister say if the Government are taking any particular action with respect to coastal and rural communities? The noble Baroness remarked that young people need access to travel to get to work, and yet the infrastructure is completely destroyed in some of these areas.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Rural communities come up all the time when we are talking about bus services. I have lived in the wilds of the Yorkshire Dales in the past and I know exactly how important it is. But the important thing is that local determination can highlight priorities, and we know how much the bus cap has helped rural communities over the last few months. This is something that will be of great concern as we consider how we take it forward.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, most of the money that comes to the bus companies in income is derived from the public purse. Will the Minister make sure that we get value for money for the taxpayers and stop bus companies ripping us off?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My noble friend hits on a very sensitive and important issue. Value for money must be driven throughout any scheme that we come up with, and that is one of the top priorities of the work that is happening as we speak.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said that the department was working very hard to get a solution to this important problem. Can she put a better timescale on that, given that there are only a few weeks to go before the current funding scheme comes to an end? Are the Government holding this for a nice, hopeful announcement on Budget Day?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Of course the Budget is an important consideration as we go forward, and we know that it is coming up very soon. I assure the noble Lord that work is carrying on at the moment. More capacity has gone into the department to deal with this; it knows that the clock is ticking and how important it is that a decision is made.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the previous Government recognised that in rural areas it is sometimes very difficult to have a traditional bus service. That is why we invested millions of pounds in demand-responsive transport. Will the new Labour Government look favourably on that mode of transport?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
At the moment, all options are on the table. The noble Baroness will remember our conversations during Covid about working with the operators and the local authorities. There are so many aspects of this, and nothing is off the table. We are looking at the history and at how we can take things forward.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, for once, we have had a sensible suggestion from the Opposition Front Bench? Does she agree with me that reducing the £2 fare to £1 and extending it, which would help passengers and bus companies, could very easily be paid for by taking the £2 billion or so needed from the roads budget? This would enable the noble Lord who asked the Question to rattle on again about the war on motorists.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I think it is above my pay grade to talk about the outcome of the Budget discussions that are taking place. This is a critical moment, with the Budget at the end of October. All these factors must be taken into account in looking at value for money and how we can get the best bus services. We must not forget that the reason we are doing this is for the passengers. Buses are so important for our communities. They are lifelines for people going to work and meeting up with their loved ones; they are an essential service which I am afraid has fallen foul of the price of profitability in too many cases.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend try to ensure that, when a decision is made on what kind of bus subsidy we have, there is a long-term element to it? It is very difficult for bus companies and their passengers if the services, frequency and fares change every few months, as they have done in recent years.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that suggestion. I will certainly pass it on to the department for consideration.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that there are no plans to take away special arrangements for elderly passengers on buses or other forms of transport?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I assume that the noble Baroness is referring to the English national concessionary travel scheme. We have absolutely no plans to withdraw it, reduce it or means-test it.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My noble friend said that all options are on the table, which I welcome. Of those options, would she consider using her influence to ensure better co-ordination between buses and railways? I can give her nightmare examples of a lack of co-ordination. It would smooth things for passengers and improve the use of buses.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I completely agree with my noble friend. There is no point in having a regular train service if passengers cannot reach it by bus. It is always about the consideration of the last mile of a journey. If people get into their cars, they tend to stay there. It is a very important aspect that has been picked up by looking at the bus open data service. Bus companies sharing their data has been an enormous problem—anyone in the north of England knows that that helped prevent us bringing in an Oyster-style ticketing service across the north. It is crucial that we get this right and that all companies are obliged to share the information.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Could I press the noble Baroness further? She has given a very positive answer on concessionary fares for the elderly, but her response does not actually give a commitment to continue the £2 fare. Could she give a more positive answer about the timetable and an assurance that there will be no cliff edge from 31 December this year, particularly for young people and those living in rural areas who do not benefit from the concessionary fare, which has played such a positive role in rural transport?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I hope I made it clear that the success of the scheme is well recognised. We have to look at all aspects to make sure that it is sustainable going forward and that we do not have to return to this in the future. So many people depend on this and it is very popular. Of all the schemes that have come into place, this one is very well known; the public actually know about it and this has led to an increase in patronage. People have changed their habits from using other forms of transport to using the bus. In my view, it has been a real success.
Ethiopia and Somalia
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Ladyton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of diplomatic tensions between Ethiopia and Somalia, and the implications for regional stability.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, tensions between Ethiopia and Somalia remain heightened and are affecting the region’s prospects for growth and stability. Further escalation is a concern. Alongside partners, we continue to urge all parties to avoid escalation and actions that threaten stability.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, experts on the region conclude that, thanks to the expansionist ambitions and recklessness of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia, the Horn of Africa is on the brink of war. Taking advantage of anti-Ethiopian sentiment, al-Shabaab is stepping up its recruiting and fundraising efforts. What steps is the international community taking to de-escalate tensions between the two principals and to minimise the risk of an upsurge in al-Shabaab terrorism, especially given the recent co-ordination between the Houthis and al-Shabaab?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend is right to raise this and we are deeply concerned about the prospect of escalation. We support any moves to encourage dialogue and de-escalation. In August, my noble friend Lord Collins raised this with Somalia’s President, and the Foreign Secretary and Minister Dodds both discussed it with Ethiopia’s Foreign Minister. My noble friend Lord Collins is visiting Ethiopia again this week for further discussions, and Ministers recently raised our concerns with Somali and Ethiopian counterparts at the UN General Assembly.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, in addition to tensions driven by Ethiopia’s desire for sea access via Somaliland, Egypt’s hostility to Ethiopia is now mounting because of the issue around the Blue Nile dam? Does she agree that the last thing that the Horn of Africa needs is another calamitous conflict, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said? How are we working with the African Union and our allies, especially those in Uganda and Kenya, to avert such a catastrophe?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As the noble Lord indicated, we are concerned about many aspects of the increase in tensions, including in Somalia, Eritrea and Egypt. We applaud the work of UN security forces so far; we want it to continue and will work to support it in any way that we can. The position of the Government more broadly is to support any form of dialogue that will de-escalate this, and to ease tensions through conversation.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, in the previous Government, I led on the issue of preventing sexual violence in conflict. Tigray has incredible and abhorrent stories of sexual violence. The previous Government dispatched a team to collect evidence and ensure that perpetrators are held to account, and I would welcome an update on that. I stress again the importance of appointing a special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict; the United Kingdom led the world on this and I hope that the new Government continue in that respect.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I note the noble Lord’s support for a special representative on sexual violence. There will be announcements about that. He is absolutely right to raise the issues of Tigray and sexual violence, and of food insecurity in the region, which we are equally concerned about. All this gets resolved only through dialogue and de-escalation, and that is what the UK seeks to support.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, conflict over water is likely to intensify so, following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, what is the Government’s assessment of Ethiopia damming the Blue Nile? That obviously has beneficial effects for the Ethiopian economy but negative effects for the Egyptian economy, fuelling conflict. What kind of resolution can be brought forward here?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We completely understand why Egypt and Sudan would be concerned about access to water through the Nile and the dam, but the only way that this gets resolved is through dialogue between Ethiopia and Egypt, and we support any work that can happen to resolve this in as amicable a way as possible in the circumstances.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, Somalia is in great disarray. By contrast, the former British protectorate Somaliland is stable, and a model in that part of Africa. What are the prospects of the African Union accepting independence, just as it accepted Eritrea’s independence from Ethiopia?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The United Kingdom’s position is consistent and clear that, notwithstanding our long-term relationship with Somaliland, it is absolutely an issue for Somalia to resolve. I cannot be clearer about that. We respect the territorial integrity of Somalia and the steps that it will take to resolve this issue itself.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, in our helpful debate on Sudan just before the latest Recess, it was generally agreed that the maintenance of a degree of stability in the Horn of Africa was important to the security of the Red Sea routes, which are of key importance to the UK. Can the Minister therefore assure the House that the Government will approach this region on a strategic basis as a whole, rather than treating the different crises piecemeal?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is a very important point and is what I have been trying to get across—that you cannot separate some of these disputes, whether long-standing or more recent. As the noble and gallant Lord said, they need to be dealt with strategically and holistically, because the security and stability of the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa more generally depends on us taking that approach.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Minister referred to the whole issue being dealt with holistically and strategically. Perhaps she did not have the opportunity to answer one part of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the African Union. Have Ministers spoken to the African Union about this on their very welcome diplomatic travels? If so, what response have they had?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As the noble Baroness will know, the African Union has been very helpful in trying to support the resolution of these issues—specifically on security in Somalia in relation to al-Shabaab. We welcome and support that. We will continue to work with the African Union in this regard.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, what conversations are the Government having with the Somaliland Administration about the potential agreement for a port with Ethiopia? There is a regional organisation in east Africa called IGAD, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. Is that a body that we can work with to try to calm down some of these tensions?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We want to work with any partners who will be helpful and active in trying to de-escalate the situation and relieve the tensions. We have been active in providing funding for the port but, as the noble Lord knows, the issue here is not just about whether Somaliland should have a port. This is about the ambitions of Ethiopia to gain access to the sea. That is causing tensions, which in turn is involving other nations in the region, which takes us back to the point made earlier about making sure that we do not look at these issues in isolation but are mindful at all times of the impact that these discussions have on the wider region.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, highlighted how al-Shabaab will take advantage of the tensions in the region. Will the Minister outline how the Government are continuing the important international efforts to ensure that al-Shabaab and other extremist groups do not take that advantage?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is absolutely right. It is one of the key reasons why we are being quite so active in this space, why my noble friend Lord Collins is there this week, why the Foreign Secretary and Minister Dodds have had so many conversations with Ministers in Ethiopia and Somalia, and why we will continue to support the security services on the ground. The mission is up for renewal at the end of the year, and we support work to see it continue for as long as necessary.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
As a result of the pre-existing conflict there are 1.1 million Ethiopian, Somali and Eritrean refugees in Sudan. As a result of the conflict in Sudan, they are now stranded twice over. Human rights organisations have concerns that the Ethiopian and Somali Governments are not providing support for returns. Will the Minister for Africa raise the status of refugees on his visit to Ethiopia this week?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Collins will raise all the relevant issues of concern surrounding Ethiopia and Somalia. Again, I point out that, whenever you have this level of instability and tension, these kinds of issues inevitably start to emerge. They are of concern not just to us in this House but to many people living in our communities. I am sure that my noble friend will raise them.
Commission on Justice in Wales
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to implement the recommendations of the report of the Commission on Justice in Wales, chaired by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, the commission’s report, published in 2019, is substantial and makes 78 recommendations, a significant number of which are for the Welsh Government to consider. There are some recommendations that the Ministry of Justice is either already delivering or has agreed to take forward, including better disaggregation of Welsh data. However, the report’s principal recommendation to devolve justice to Wales goes considerably further than what is in the current Government’s manifesto. Our manifesto made commitments to explore the devolution of services to enable them to be more locally responsive, and as part of that strategic review we will look into probation as part of wider devolution across England and Wales. We will also work with the Welsh Labour Government to consider the devolution of youth justice. Overall, we will work with the Welsh Government to ensure that we deliver justice in a way that best serves the people of Wales.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, this month marks the fifth anniversary of the Thomas commission report, which called for the devolution of policing and justice to Wales. The Welsh Labour Government endorse this recommendation in their programme for government for 2021-26. Meanwhile, we have just heard that the UK Labour Government plan only to “explore” devolving youth justice and probation to Wales. Will His Majesty’s Government follow the calls of their Welsh Labour colleagues and take real action by devolving justice and policing to Wales?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The Welsh Government highlighted, in their May 2022 report Delivering Justice for Wales, the progress that they had made in implementing the Thomas commission recommendations that fall to them. They also commented that implementing the recommendation was delayed partly because of Covid-19. The commitment to pursue the case for devolution of justice and policing was included in the Welsh Government’s programme for government for 2021-26. However, as I made clear in the original Answer to the noble Baroness, the UK Government are not pursuing that option of complete devolution. We want to work in a constructive way on the initiatives that I have outlined to try to make the best possible benefit for the people of Wales.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, why would it not be sensible and cost-effective at least to have a Welsh division of the High Court of Justice sitting permanently in Wales to monitor and construe the legislation of the Welsh Senedd and the administrative acts of the Welsh Executive, with increasing expertise from both lawyers and judges in Wales?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
A lot of matters that are the responsibility of the Welsh Senedd are also cross-border issues. We are talking about police, courts and the way the court system behaves; probation is another example. My understanding is that this matter has been considered and keeping the arrangements as they currently are is seen to be beneficial for both England and Wales.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, was not the consideration that the Minister referred to a moment ago mainly undertaken under the auspices of the previous Conservative Government? Is now not the time that it would be appropriate to look again at this? Given her remit to look at the relationships with Cardiff and Edinburgh, would this not be a suitable matter for Sue Gray to look into?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am the Minister of Justice for devolution and the various countries within the UK. The manifesto has made it clear that we want to work in practical ways for the benefit of the people of Wales. Two points that I made in my initial Answer to the noble Baroness were on probation and youth courts. I know that a number of very positive examples of practice in Wales are better than the average within England and Wales. We want to build on what is positive that is already happening rather than look at the overall devolution of these powers.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, any observer of Welsh politics these days will not fail to have noticed that the Welsh NHS has 22,000 people on its waiting list awaiting operations, the Welsh education system is the worst in Europe, the Welsh Government are about to spend roughly £150 million on 36 additional Members, and there are vanity projects such as 20 miles per hour everywhere. Does the Minister really believe that the Welsh Labour Government can cope with the complexities of any aspect of the criminal justice system being devolved?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I notice that the noble Lord is addressing the House from the Back Benches, whereas I understood that he had a Front-Bench position. He is shaking his head, so I apologise. To answer his question, we want to work constructively with the Welsh Government. I personally will be visiting Cardiff and Newport before the end of this month, and I know that many of my colleagues have ministerial visits; we want to work constructively with the local Ministers.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
Can the Minister please confirm that, as the newly appointed envoy for devolved nations and regions, Sue Gray should have an oversight of the implementation of this sort of devolved policy? If that is not the case, will he please advise the House what she is going to be doing?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The simple answer to the noble and learned Lord’s question is that I do not know the answer to his question.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
The subject is a complex one; the report was lengthy. Do the Government intend to set out in detail why the report was wrong? It would be very useful to have a chapter-by-chapter explanation of why what was recommended unanimously by a completely apolitical group of experts is thought to be wrong.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord’s report was a large piece of work. As I said in my initial Answer, it is for the Senedd to take forward the vast bulk of the recommendations, and the UK Government are acting on some of the recommendations and are continuing to act particularly on the disaggregation of data. The Labour manifesto made clear that the principal objective of the noble and learned Lord’s report is not one that the current Government share. We want to work in practical ways for the benefit of Wales, and the examples that I gave of youth justice and probation are good examples of that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who noted that the Labour Government seem, as in many things, to be following the path of the Tory Government, and picking up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, if the Government wish to maintain the union, given that there is rising evidence of interest in independence in Wales, would it not be a good idea to explain clearly to the people of Wales why, as the noble and learned Lord said, the Government are going against this report of independent experts that was very carefully considered?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
It is worth saying that Welsh lawyers and Welsh law firms benefit from being part of the internationally-renowned English and Welsh legal system, and the Welsh people have consistently voted against devolution—the noble Baroness looks confused, but that is the context within which we are dealing with this question. We are clear that there are profound benefits from keeping a combined legal system for England and Wales. A couple of practical examples are in the context of prisons, where there is no women’s prison in Wales nor any category A offender prison. That is not a cost to Wales, but it is beneficial to the combined system as there are savings to be made through not repeating, for example, women’s prisons in different parts of the country. The benefit is there, and we want to protect it and manage the system for the benefit of the people of both England and Wales.
Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill
Monday 7th October 2024
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill 2024-26 View all Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 3 September 2024 - (3 Sep 2024)
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to present the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill for Second Reading today. Public ownership will allow us to end the failed franchising system which has inflicted misery on passengers through delays, overcrowding and poor service—a system in which far too many conversations are about how the railway works or, more often, does not work, and too few are about what the railway is for. At its heart, the railway is there to allow people and goods to move from A to B, which is vital in supporting jobs, housebuilding and quality of life. Railways are central to the Government’s missions to kick-start economic growth and break down barriers to opportunity, as well as helping us move towards net zero.
We need to change the whole culture of the railway to place all passengers back at the heart of the system. This Bill will ensure that trains are run for the benefit of the British public, not for the profits of shareholders around the world. I will be clear: there is a great deal of work ahead to reverse three decades of failure, fragmentation, inefficiency and waste. Bringing the railway infrastructure back into public ownership after the failure of Railtrack in the early 2000s was a helpful step, allowing the infrastructure manager to collaborate better with train operators, but it was just one small step. Two decades later, the system remains far too fragmented, and that is costing the taxpayer dearly.
This Bill will mean that we can finally have trains that are run for the public by the public. It is narrow in scope and serves just two main purposes. First, it will enable us to bring rail passenger services back into public operation as the default option when contracts end, not just as the last resort. Secondly, it will allow us, and our counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh Governments, to keep them in the public sector rather than having to put them back out to tender.
The Bill is just the first step—although a very important one—towards a much wider programme of reform. The need for reform could not be more obvious. In recent times, the franchising system has delivered record high levels of cancellations, frequent overcrowding, a frankly bewildering ticketing system and hugely disruptive periods of industrial action. The list goes on.
Reform of the railways has cross-party support. In fact, it originated in 2018 when the Conservative Government commissioned Keith Williams to carry out a root-and-branch review of the whole railway system. His review confirmed just how fractured and fragmented the railways are. As did the Blake Jones review, which I co-authored at the same time; I am afraid I too have contributed to the plethora of reporting on this matter.
The manifestos of all three political parties acknowledged the need for reforms to address this fragmentation. We all agree that things cannot continue as they are. There is strong public support and a clear democratic mandate for public ownership, so I sincerely hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House can put politics aside to get behind this Bill as a vital first step towards fixing our broken rail network.
That is why we have brought in this public ownership Bill as an urgent priority, and we will introduce a railways Bill later in this Session to bring about a much wider programme of reform. This will include setting up Great British Railways to act as a directing mind and put the whole railway back into the service of the travelling public and freight users.
In this debate, I am sure that some noble Lords will question the case for public ownership. In addressing that head-on, let me highlight one noticeable change for the better that did come about under the previous Government. They appointed no fewer than four public sector train operators to take over from failing private sector companies. They must agree that public ownership is a good thing, as they kept LNER in the public sector for six years and Northern for four. The devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales also support public ownership. They are right behind this Bill because it will avoid the need for them to put their publicly run services back into private hands.
Publicly owned operators exist to serve the interests of passengers and taxpayers, not to maximise profits for shareholders. The Government’s holding company, known as DOHL, has a proven track record of picking up the pieces after private sector failure, transferring services to public operation smoothly and without disruption for passengers or staff, and then starting to turn those failing operations around. LNER was one of the first operators to fully restore services after the lockdowns, with patronage last year exceeding pre-pandemic levels. It has led the way on fares reform, simplifying the confusing array of ticket types and improving the management of train capacity on the east coast main line. TransPennine Express has dramatically improved its reliability since joining the public sector. In its worst periods early last year, more than one in five services—over 500 a week—were wholly or partly cancelled, either in advance due to train crew shortages or on the day for a variety of reasons. This is now down to around 500 a month.
The newly stood up shadow Great British Railways has a strong mix of skills, expertise and experience from the top of the rail industry and will be held to account by its newly appointed chair, Laura Shoaf. DOHL, whose chief executive is part of shadow Great British Railways, has previously managed the successful transfer of services, engineering functions, back-office functions and thousands of staff members. It already has work under way to bring in the additional capacity and expertise that it will need as DOHL takes on more services.
As well as delivering better services, public ownership will save a fortune. Once franchise services are all back in public ownership, where they belong, we expect that the taxpayer will save between £110 million and £150 million a year in fees which currently benefit private companies and their shareholders. Finally, public ownership will pave the way for the wider railways Bill and for Great British Railways, which will bring together track and train in a properly integrated way for the first time in three decades. GBR will have a relentless focus on meeting the needs of the passenger and the freight user, while also driving best value for the taxpayer.
While extolling the virtues of public sector operation, I also want to acknowledge the vital role that private businesses will continue to play in our railways. As now, there will be huge opportunities for the many successful and innovative businesses within the rail supply chain. The operation of rail freight services will remain in the private sector, helping to free up our roads and put us on our way to net zero. There will be a continuing role for open-access passenger services alongside publicly run services, where they bring benefits and add value to the network. In view of the dire state of public finances, it would not be responsible to bring privately owned rolling stock—trains and carriages —back into public ownership, but GBR will take a coherent, long-term approach to our future rolling stock needs, helping to secure better value from the private rolling stock market than was possible under franchising.
There was some debate in the other place about the availability of performance data to enable public scrutiny of individual train operators’ performance. However, we are not lacking in information about operator performance: there is plenty of evidence that it has not been good enough. There have been particular concerns about the poor standards of service provided by Avanti and CrossCountry, which I am happy to address head-on.
As a result of decisions made by the previous Government, the core term of Avanti’s contract expires in October 2026, while CrossCountry’s expires a year later. We cannot bring these contracts to an end before those dates unless the relevant contractual conditions for early termination are met. So the Government will continue to monitor operators’ compliance with their contracts closely; the Secretary of State, as passenger-in-chief, has made clear that she will not hesitate to take further action where appropriate. Ministers have already met Avanti and CrossCountry and their Network Rail counterparts to challenge them on poor performance and demand immediate action to deliver improvements. The Secretary of State has also put in place a formal remedial plan for CrossCountry.
Noble Lords may question why we intend to bring services back into public operation as existing contracts expire, rather than starting with the poorest performers. That is a good question, but this is the right thing to do because it is the way to avoid paying compensation to the outgoing operators for ending their contracts early. Our blueprint for rail reform, Getting Britain Moving, published before the election, was clear on this commitment.
I reinforce that reform does not end with the Bill. This is just the beginning. As I alluded to earlier, this Government plan to introduce a wider railways Bill, which will include provisions for establishing Great British Railways. Consistent with the Secretary of State’s commitment to move fast and fix things, in advance of that Bill, she has already established Shadow Great British Railways to improve services for passengers, unlock barriers to delivery and move the rail network towards greater financial sustainability. Made up of leaders from DG Rail Services Group under DfT, Network Rail and DfT’s holding company for public sector train operators, it will signal a new way of working together to deliver a simpler and better service.
Shadow GBR will also be responsible for designing Great British Railways and will play an important role in improving the reputation of the railway with customers. It will build and exemplify the culture and ways of working in rail that we want to take into Great British Railways. The wider railways Bill will be for future debate in this House and elsewhere but I dare say that noble Lords will want to express some of their views on these matters today. I welcome those contributions. We are keen to ensure that we take the time to hear and understand views from interested parties, including noble Lords. As we refine our detailed plans for the wider Bill, I am sure that the Government will have more to say about these plans in the weeks ahead.
To conclude, this Government will put our rail system back on track to deliver for passengers and support our growth and opportunity missions, with clear strategic direction and proper integration and co-ordination. This Bill presents an unprecedented opportunity to begin reforming the railways in such a way that it will benefit generations to come. The passenger and the taxpayer have for too long been at the mercy of the private companies that operate our railways. This Bill is the first step in ending the decades of failure that have become synonymous with rail travel in this country. There is much to be done; once up and running, Great British Railways will be able to put the passenger and freight user front and centre, seizing opportunities for renewed economic growth, innovation, accessibility and a sector that we can be proud of. Public ownership is a vital ingredient in our plan to fix our railways. I beg to move.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, a recent KPMG survey of more than 1,300 CEOs globally in 11 key markets and industry sectors revealed that nearly 80% of those CEOs believe that hybrid employees will return to full-time office work by 2027. The survey covered companies with annual revenues of over £375 million, with one-third exceeding £7.5 billion. These are companies with large workforces. Amazon’s recent policy decision is a good example of the return to the office. The momentum towards in-office work will only increase; that is just one reason among many why it is essential that we have a rail system that works for everyone, regardless of where they live or what they do. A thriving railway is a crucial tool for driving prosperity across Britain.
It was 31 years ago that the Railways Act enabled the private sector to run franchised passenger railway services. For this Bill now to make provision for those services to be provided by public sector companies represents seismic change and will need line-by-line parliamentary scrutiny—not least in this House, where there are so many experts in the field and we can deliver a platform for passengers from which growth and success can flourish with a gold-standard railway network.
It is not in dispute that there is urgent need for rail reform. The current franchising model is not working. Passenger services are not at the standard they need to be and, post pandemic, the sector is a burden to the taxpayer. The country wants change and we have cross-party support, but that support is for the right change. Nationalising train operating companies is not necessarily the correct answer; it throws up as many questions as it does answers.
I shall first address service reliability and availability. From April 2023 to March 2024, there were 7.6 million delay compensation claims closed by the train operators —a 30% year-on-year increase. What benchmark will the Government set themselves for 2025-26, when the first franchises will come into the public sector, and what year-on-year improvements in compensation claim reduction will the Government commit to for the first five years of operation? Between April 2024 and June 2024, only 70% of recorded station stops in Great Britain were arrived at on time. This compares with circa 92% in Switzerland and 88% in France. So what benchmark will the Government set themselves for 2025-26 and the ensuing years?
Just recently, the European Commission confirmed in a study of its own the benefits of competition in passenger rail. Prior to the pandemic, the railways ran more than 21,000 services on an average day, which represented a 30% increase to that before privatisation. By what year will the Government commit to providing that same level of service to passengers?
Moving on to infrastructure investment and cost benefits to both taxpayers and passengers, which are essential to the success of this project, government investment in the sector has quadrupled since privatisation and in recent years we were successful in winning around £1 billion a year of investment from private funding. To provide a truly great service for passengers, the sector must have continuous investment, so I ask the Minister to confirm what funding agreement she has negotiated with His Majesty’s Treasury to ensure that the money is there. How much has she agreed will actually be available? It would also be interesting to know why rolling stock companies are not being nationalised so that the Government could achieve vertical integration to increase efficiency, reduce costs and boost control, all of which will benefit the taxpayer.
Train operators were net contributors to the Exchequer from 2010 to 2018 but fell into deficit after 2018. The impact of Covid on the sector has been devastating and it now costs the taxpayer £2.6 billion to cover the day-to-day running of train operating companies, which contrasts markedly with the £373 million in day-to-day running costs in 2019 and 2020. If we assume that the move back to the office continues in line with the KPMG survey, we can hope that day-to-day running costs will decrease for the taxpayer in correlation with increased footfall on the train network, but, for clarity, that cost benefit reduction will not be due to this Bill.
The Government have said that the Bill will save the taxpayer millions of pounds so, under the proposal, the management fee and performance-based fee for private sector franchise train operators will disappear. However, unprofitable services are currently subsidised under the existing agreement; this will still be required under a public sector company. Not only that but the subsidy may well increase and there could be costs with franchise extensions and associated dealings. Management still has to run the railways and will be receiving a salary and, instead of a performance-related bonus, perhaps a government-backed final salary pension scheme, which could end up costing the taxpayer more than the performance-related fees. All these elements combined could be why the new Bill required a money resolution.
Rail partners, which obviously have a vested interest, will nevertheless be in possession of a mass of information. How does the Minister answer their point that full nationalisation is a political and not a practical solution which will increase costs over time? Just to reassure the many parties, including noble Lords in this House, who have concerns about the costs for the taxpayer, will the Minister explain, in rough numbers, where the cost savings will come from and what the net benefit to the taxpayer is on a yearly basis versus the current set-up, while discounting the improvement in the balance sheet from the lessening impact of Covid working-from-home policies over time?
Next, I shall focus on risk management. The Government want to remove the privately owned train operating companies that have been working the network for 31 years. I apologise, as this might seem like a basic question, but who exactly is going to replace them? Will the Government be able to find more skilled and knowledgeable staff than those already working in the sector? Will they appoint new chief executives, chief financial officers and boards of directors who will be responsible for the running of the companies? If yes, will the Minister provide a timetable for when the recruitment search will begin for the relevant key staff? How will those key staff be incentivised to control costs and grow the rail network for the benefit of passengers?
The Financial Times has also reported concerns from rail industry bosses that the scale and complexity of nationalising the remaining franchises could put pressure on the Department for Transport operator of last resort. How will the Government ensure that DOHL is sufficiently resourced to deal with this? What hiring plans have been made and what budget has been secured for the new headcount?
Finally, I come to accountability and governance. For these new public sector companies to be successful, they will need to be accountable to shareholders—the shareholders being the taxpayer. What performance, financial management and innovation metrics have been agreed by the Minister to ensure that both passengers and taxpayers are receiving value for money and will not be negatively impacted by spiralling costs in the sector due to a lack of experience, a lack of expertise or both?
In the same way that powers will be given to the OBR to make judgments on any major taxation or spending announcements, will the Minister commit to giving the same powers to the Office of Rail and Road to conduct an impact assessment for the Bill to confirm that it makes economic and operational sense and will not be to the detriment of either passengers or the taxpayer? Will the ORR also be given the authority to assess all aspects of the performance of public sector companies awarded public service contracts?
We know the Government intend to establish a powerful new watchdog: the passenger standards authority. Can the Minister explain why it is not being delivered as a part of the Bill? In the past, previous Governments have introduced temporary legislation with the intention of bringing forward additional reforms, but the wider reforms have not materialised. Will the Government take this precious chance to deliver a comprehensive package of railway reform rather than focusing solely on this interim Bill?
We have an opportunity to make our rail system the envy of Europe so please let us do it the right way, which will bear fruit for generations to come.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, this Bill was forecast in the Labour Party’s manifesto. We have no quarrel with the need to take drastic action to make the railways work better for passengers, freight business and the taxpayer. State-run organisations can be run efficiently, and we will help to see that they do; we will also help see that, in the case of the railways, passengers and freight users are the main focus of policy.
The Railways Act 1993 left the railway with an expensive and bureaucratic organisation where too much of the effort was focused on blaming others—as instanced by Keith Williams in his original report—for shortcomings in service provision and a regulatory structure which, in common with other privatised industries, was not fit for purpose. We hope it is the Government’s intention to review the role of the road and rail regulator, which has concentrated its efforts on promoting competition and has neglected most of its other statutory duties. The basis for calculating abstracted revenue by open access operators has not been sufficiently challenged, and the regulator’s responsibility for safety has departed without sufficient regard for the widely accepted as low as reasonably practicable principles.
The legal structure devised by the rail regulator gives access rights to operators, protected in law, which prevent the optimisation of the timetable. While it is acceptable that freight has protected status, it should be incorporated in a rational timetabling process optimising scarce infrastructure resources. In my opinion, reform of the regulatory process is essential to the success of GBR. Without control of the regulatory arrangements, it will continue to be the case that major investments—like the £4 billion being spent on the east coast route—will not achieve improvements.
It has become apparent that no one can make timetable decisions that produce faster journey times, as there are so many conflicting paths and no rational ways of resolving these conflicts. As a result, there have been no major revisions to the timetable since 1991. A revised timetable for all routes would give priority to London-bound services, after which would come interregional services and then local services. That would be easily understood and can be built into a co-ordinated whole, giving good connections throughout the railway to other rail and bus services. The control organisation supervising railway operations needs overhauling to eliminate much duplication and end the focus on the blame game, changing it to one that concentrates on failures.
Complaints are made about the rolling stock companies. We do not expect these to be taken into public ownership, although, in common with other state-owned assets, they were sold far too cheaply and largely debt free to an immature market. However, allegations about fixing the market have not been upheld and, with fresh entrants into the business, there is every reason to believe that the market will become more competitive. The rolling stock companies should have a place at the table when designs are developed, as well as the supply side of the industry and some representation from goods designers, as was the case with British Rail.
We await with interest what the Government will propose for fares and charges. We want our railway to be busier. For this to happen, we need to charge cheaper fares and provide more capacity. In many cases our trains are too full, to the extent that people avoid using them, which cannot be right environmentally or economically. We want our railways to offer a “turn up and go” capability, not one that charges high fares to travellers who have to make urgent journeys at the last minute and who face having to stand because insufficient accommodation is available.
There are a few more issues on which we want clarity from the Government, in the Minister’s reply or in subsequent legislation. I know that the Government have in their possession proposals for a modest programme of infill electrification, which would mainly benefit freight but would also bring benefits on the passenger side. This should include modest extensions to the existing third rail systems which the previous Government allowed to be halted.
Other proposals would show that the Government are looking to the future, such as electrifying the Midland main line; the work on the Felixstowe to Nuneaton route that is so sorely needed in the freight industry; and the provision of a flat crossing at Newark. This, together with the re-signalling now taking place and the elimination of wasteful paths for five-coach trains that should be formed of 10 cars at least as far as Doncaster, would create at least two and possibly three more paths each hour on the east coast main line, as it needs to build on its place as the premier route between London, the north-east and Scotland. This would not need an immediate cash handout, but the design work and preparations in the supply industries would be immediate and would let the railways know that the Government are listening to them.
Lastly, I turn to the decision made by the last Prime Minister in respect of HS2. There is simply insufficient capacity in the system to plug the gap left by this announcement, and early clarification of the Government’s position on this is necessary.
We will hear a number of maiden speeches, to which I look forward, including one from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who is an expert on transport. I hope we shall listen to them all.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend Lady Blake to the Front Bench and congratulate her in leading the Second Reading of this Bill so well. In my view, she has a lot to contribute to transport. After years of experience as leader of Leeds City Council, she saw at first hand how, over the decades, we have grossly neglected public transport investment in our metropolitan areas outside London. This must change, and I hope it will change under the Labour Government.
I support the Bill. I have no ideological bias in favour of public ownership. My bible as a social democrat many decades ago was Tony Crosland’s The Future of Socialism, which totally persuaded me that there was no virtue in public ownership per se. Therefore, these issues have to be addressed in a pragmatic way. I was always sceptical of rail privatisation. The general argument for separating the natural-monopoly elements of business from the operating elements is a sound one economically; it works in telecoms, for instance, where the infrastructure has vast capacity. But that is not true of the railways. There is not infinite capacity in the natural monopoly, and someone somewhere has to decide which services get priority and which do not.
If I might say so, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, gave an excellent speech in which he outlined some of the major failures of the 1990s privatisation. The railways need a guiding hand, and on this side of the House I fully supported the conclusions of the Williams review. If I might put it this way, it was a bit rich for the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, to say that we want to see the comprehensive reform of the railways. The truth is that his Government sat on the Williams review for five years and did very little about it, because some Back-Benchers thought that it sounded a bit too socialist. I think he should recognise that Labour here is trying to pick up from the mess that the Conservative Government have left.
Some people will say that, yes, they support the Williams review but it does not necessitate public ownership throughout the system, that we lose the benefits of competition, and all that. As someone who has now been a Member of this House for getting on for 15 years and has gone up and down the west coast main line virtually every week, I must say that we had a reasonable service with Virgin, but we have had a disaster with Avanti. I do not understand how anyone can think that this has been a good example of the private sector contributing to public service.
In fact, since Covid, we have not had a competitive railway in any sense. What we have had is the most centralised system of management of the trains in recent times. The Department for Transport lays down the costs for every service and the Treasury collects the revenues. The franchise operators have very little incentive to make any improvements of any kind; all they want to do is collect their fees. We need a fresh start and I think that this Bill gets us part of the way to it.
The only part of my noble friend’s great introduction to this Bill that I paused at was her announcement that we might have to put up with two more years of Avanti. I would like to know why. Can we please see what the contract is that the Government feel they cannot withdraw from? Can we see what performance standards the last Government set for Avanti and whether they are being met? As a Government, let us not hesitate too much about taking drastic action. I know that my noble friend Lord Adonis, when he was Transport Minister in 2009, was advised by the department and its lawyers that it was quite impossible to take LNER into public ownership at the time. He said, “Well, what’s the risk that they’re going to sue?”, and went ahead with it. I cannot see the public rushing to support Avanti if it is deprived of its franchise.
I have some detailed points on the Bill that I think are important and on which I hope we can have a decent discussion in Committee. They are concerned mainly with new Section 30C, on the definition of what kinds of public service contract and public service company are allowed to operate on our public railway. One of my concerns—it relates to what I said earlier about my noble friend Lady Blake and her experience in Leeds—is whether combined authorities and mayors would be able, under the remit in new Section 30C, to run services in their metropolitan areas. It would be a shame if we had in our minds the wonders of the British rail model of the past, because I do not think that it was very wonderful. We need a much more decentralised structure for our public railway, and we need to find the mechanisms to make that decentralised structure work.
My second point is that I do not see any ideological objection to public/private partnerships in running the railway. Let me give an example. You might have a situation where a private company was prepared to commit to electrification plans for a particular line that would not be in the public sector investment plan. My view is that we should allow public/private partnerships on a net additionality rule. If they are going to bring more investment into the rail system, what on earth is the case for not allowing them to do so?
With those points, I say that it is clear that this is a good start—but it is only a start. The whole scheme of reform has to be worked on very hard by the department and its Ministers in the coming months, but, in the meantime, I welcome the Bill.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who was the opposition spokesman in your Lordships’ House in the last Parliament and therefore may have played a role in the conception of the Bill—although sadly he has been denied any part in its delivery. I am grateful to the Minister and her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for the briefing they gave to noble Lords during the Recess, and for the exposition from the noble Baroness of the reasoning behind the Bill.
You wait a long time for an ex-Transport Secretary and then three of them turn up at the same time. I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Grayling, who has held two of my previous jobs, Transport Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons. I was also briefly one of his juniors when I was a Minister in your Lordships’ House and I enjoyed working with him. He brings with him a wide range of ministerial experience to reinforce the Opposition Benches in your Lordships’ House. I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon.
Turning to the Bill itself, the Government have inherited a complex set of challenges with the railways after the pandemic bust the franchising model. It simply overturned the industry’s finances, upended travel patterns and has led to increased and unsustainable taxpayer support. However, in moving to the more sustainable system that we have heard about this afternoon, it is important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The structure which I hoped to put in place in the 1990s had three key benefits, all of which we risk losing. It took investment in rolling stock off the public sector balance sheet and created a market of train operators to replace a public monopoly, and its business model forced the industry to look outwards towards its customers, not inwards to the sponsoring department, leading to inbuilt incentives to grow the market. With that new structure, private operators reversed decades of decline in passenger traffic. It helped to double passenger numbers, increased services by a third and turned an operating deficit under British Rail into a surplus for taxpayers, paying a dividend of £3.8 billion to the Treasury from 2010 to 2019.
By contrast, the Sunday Times told us yesterday that the subsidy for Southeastern, which is now in the public sector, is four times what it was prior to the pandemic, when it was in private hands. Passenger safety improved after privatisation and closed branch lines were reopened. We need to put those facts into the public domain while we debate the future of the railways. It seems to me that the challenge before us is to try to retain those advantages within the new structure.
I will take them briefly in turn. First, on the public sector balance sheet, I had the benefit of negotiating with the Treasury for investment in the railways both before and after privatisation. Before, I would go along to a Star Chamber composed of colleagues who I thought were my friends but turned out not to be, and I made the case for investment in rolling stock as best I could. They would say, “George, we’re really interested to hear from you, but we’ve just had the Secretary of State for Defence, who wants more soldiers, we’ve had the Home Secretary, who wants more policemen, we’ve had the Health Secretary, who wants more doctors and nurses, and we’ve had the Education Secretary, who wants more teachers. Politics is about priorities and we’re very sorry, George, you can’t have your new train set for Christmas”.
After privatisation, there was no dialogue with the Treasury at all about investment in rolling stock. The capital markets responded to the business case that I made, and we got the investment which we needed. That is one benefit that we are about to lose, given the path on which the Treasury and the Government are now embarked.
The franchising costs of the operators now run by the DfT score as public expenditure. At the moment, those franchises do not have much time to run, so the sum is relatively small, but when GBR is up and running all rail investment will score as public expenditure; that is potentially £13 billion which the Government do not have to find at the moment. Amazingly, if you look under the heading “Financial implications of the Bill” in the Explanatory Notes for the Bill, you will see that there is simply no mention of that whatever. Nor in the other document, Final Stage Impact Assessment, is any mention made of that under the heading “Impacts on government priorities”. But any spending Minister knows that, when he looks at his or her capital budget, it is crucial whether that investment is public expenditure or private. If the Transport Secretary is unsuccessful against the bids for doctors, nurses, policemen and teachers, there are implications for the reliability of services, which we have heard about, and for the supply line, which the Minister mentioned—that is, those who supply the rolling stock in this country.
The second advantage was to bring in other successful transport operators—people who run bus companies, airlines, shipping or successful operators from overseas. Their skills were applied to running the railway and so break the British Rail monopoly. If British Rail was not as good as Ministers felt it ought to be, there was nothing we could do about it; there was no one else who could run a service. Privatisation created this new market of train operators bidding for franchises; many good people within British Rail moved over to the new train operators, and welcomed the freedom that privatisation had given them, particularly the freedom of manoeuvre that came with it. Just as other European countries are moving over towards the model that we now have, this country is taking a backward step to a public operator with an outright prohibition in the Bill on the use of private contractors.
The structure which we chose also avoided national strikes of train drivers. Each individual franchise operator negotiated individually with the trade unions and, by and large, they reached agreement. National bargaining with a single employer, as proposed, could mean that any future pay disputes have a greater impact on passengers. Others may talk in this debate, or certainly in Committee, about the implications of employment changes for the thousands of railway workers who now work for the train operating companies who will move over, presumably to a single contract at some point within GBR, with all the implications that has for negotiation for the workforce.
The third innovation was an incentive to grow the market, to look outwards towards the customer. Once a company had won the franchise, the only way that they could increase its turnover and profit was by winning more customers. But when I was Transport Secretary, it made little difference to British Rail whether it had more customers or fewer; it just meant it got more or less subsidy from the Secretary of State. Franchising created that incentive to look outwards at the market, not inwards towards the department. By contrast, the new contracts introduced by the Government leave operators with little commercial freedom or ability to help growth—a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. Given the financial challenges facing the Government, it is counterintuitive to ban the only part of the rail system with a track record of driving growth and reducing subsidy for taxpayers. Nor is public ownership a panacea for all the problems —passengers mind about performance and price. Over half the delays in the system are caused by Network Rail, which has been in the public sector for two decades. On price, is the Treasury going to find the money to keep rail fares down? It is just worth remembering that, on privatisation, rail fares were capped at RPI minus one, a policy that was reversed by the incoming Government.
A final word about fragmentation—a word that was used a lot by the Minister. The final impact assessment says that the Bill aims to reduce industry fragmentation. A common criticism of privatisation is that we have ended up with an industry that is fragmented and should be brought together. I understand that argument, but it should be treated with some caution. The most popular and safest form of public transport is by air, yet you could not find an industry that is more fragmented. The airlines do not own the aircraft, they do not own the airports, they do not run the national air traffic system, they do not do the baggage handling or the catering. Some airlines do not even employ the pilots but get in self-employed pilots. I prefer to use “specialised” to “fragmented” in describing a transport industry. I challenge the assertion that an industry which is fragmented or specialised is less efficient than an integrated one.
The Bill will probably go through but, as a political midwife, I hope that the Government will see whether some of the progeny of privatisation might be saved.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, whether on this or other subjects where he and I have an interest. I extend my thanks to him for the help that he gave to me and my co-author in putting together material on the privatisation in one of three books on railways and politics. In one of them is a very fetching picture of the noble Lord and his family taking their cycles by train and promoting the railway. I am grateful to him for that. I have two current interests to declare, as chair of the Great Western Railway stakeholder board and as president of the Heritage Railway Association.
I welcome the Bill for one reason above all others. I hope that its appearance so early in the parliamentary Session demonstrates the scale of the Government’s commitment to the railway and their determination, not influenced by political dogma, to ensure that the railway plays a greatly enhanced role in the nation’s transport system and is again, in the words of the noble Earl, the envy of Europe.
When the railway was privatised back in 1993, it was intended by the then Government to break the BR monopoly—as the noble Lord, Lord Young, just confirmed in his speech—and to create a framework for competition to drive efficiency. That never happened. It ignored the fundamental truth that railways are not a competitive sport but a team game, requiring the seamless co-operation of many players to work together properly and efficiently. A competitive structure overseen by lawyers, regulators and civil servants is not the way to run an efficient railway attuned to the needs of its passengers and freight customers.
Reconnecting train operators and infrastructure management under a single organisation should bring efficiency in how things are planned, apart from avoiding the expense of lawyers and delay attributors. I welcome the establishment of Great British Railways, in shadow form at least, and congratulate Laura Shoaf on her appointment as chair of the shadow body. She has a great track record in the West Midlands; I wish her well in her new job.
The creation of GBR also gives us the chance to restore some financial and economic disciplines that have not been a feature of the present set-up, and that cost so much more than British Rail did. It is a difficult balance to strike, not least because the playing field in transport has been so uneven. Successive Governments approved the annual increase of rail fares above inflation almost every year in recent times, while in contrast the annual fuel duty escalator has not been used since 2011, so motorists have received tax breaks over almost 13 years. Subsidies for electric cars have encouraged a further shift from public transport to driving. This is not a war on motorists. If anything, it is the disadvantaging of the most fundamental and important element in the transport structure.
It is not just with road users that the railways find themselves competing on unfair terms. By far the most polluting and environmentally unfriendly form of passenger transport is domestic aviation. In a report published by the think tank Transport & Environment UK last month, it was shown that, if a fair equivalent to the fuel duty paid in other sectors were applied to domestic aviation, up to £6 billion a year could be raised. Had High Speed 2 not been progressively scaled back and that railway built to provide a new fast intercity service, particularly to Glasgow and Edinburgh, there would have been a genuine modal shift from domestic flights to the high-speed railway, as has occurred in all the European countries that have had the foresight to build a high-speed rail network.
Even without HS2 going to Newcastle and Edinburgh, there has been a large modal shift to the railway. Pre-Covid, the proportion travelling by rail from London to Edinburgh was 35%; the latest figure today is 57%. Much of that growth has taken place on LNER, and I congratulate it, but the introduction of open-access Lumo services has also played a considerable part.
During the privatisation process, no thought was given to how the social benefits provided by the railway would be paid for. Back in the day, BR understood these benefits and how to offer them as part of the service for which it received the passenger service obligation grant. Busy trains provide low-carbon travel, with emissions even lower when the train is powered by electricity. They reduce traffic congestion and pollution by reducing the number of cars on the road. They can be part of a different lifestyle, encouraging people to walk to the station or use the bus, rather than avoiding exercise by taking the car from the house without walking at all.
Trains connect people and reduce the problems that are experienced in remoter parts of the country. We have already seen how communities such as Okehampton have benefited from being reconnected to the network: passenger numbers are more than twice those forecast and there have been huge benefits to local society. Trains are safer than hazarding your life on the road network, where 1,700 people die annually still. The standards applied to road design and accident investigation are weak and way behind the focus on safety that is a central part of railway culture. Trains are a lifeline for young people who cannot afford private transport or do not want to pollute by using cars or aircraft. They are also essential for the elderly and particularly those who should no longer drive, even if they cling on to their cars.
Despite some problems at older and smaller stations, the railways have opened up a much better lifestyle for those with impaired mobility. One of the biggest changes in the last 20 years has been the large increase in the number of people travelling in or with wheelchairs or who are receiving assistance at stations. Privatisation made no financial provision for these benefits and, unsurprisingly, the private companies were not able to provide all of them without some financial support.
Train services are not like a standard commodity, such as buying soap powder or a tin of beans. They are a careful compromise between providing the best service possible with perhaps 200 different preferences by the passengers who use them. They are also a compromise between fastest journey time or high frequencies and best connections with other trains and other forms of transport.
Contrary to what was believed back in 1993, competition has always been between modes, rather than between train operating companies. For almost the whole period since privatisation, the railways have been working in a difficult environment with constant changes in demands by previous Governments and micromanagement by civil servants. To their credit, the better train operators have managed to make this complex system work and, particularly pre-Covid, tried to improve journey times, provide enough rolling stock for a growing number of passengers and build positive relationships with rail user groups, local authorities and local bus companies. They have been able to draw on funds to help achieve local improvements through initiatives such as the customer and community improvement fund.
Open access operators have, as my noble friend the Minister made clear, been left out of the scope of the Bill. This is sensible—the numbers are small, but they fill a gap in the network that was never filled though franchising. Similarly, heritage special train operators, including those using steam locomotives on the main line, are not covered, which will be a great relief to them given the substantial regulatory burden that they already have to take into account and the significant operating challenges they face, particularly at the moment in sourcing coal for their locos.
I agree that the rail freight operators are best left as they are, but some direct support by government might be required to provide rail freight terminals where they are needed, and there needs to be protection from predatory pricing by juggernaut operators, particularly where overseas companies pay no vehicle excise duty and avoid fuel duty by filling their tanks abroad.
Decarbonising road freight is a huge problem, but on rail it can be achieved relatively easily through extension of electrification and other sustainable forms of traction such as battery power. Getting traffic off our roads and on to the railways is absolutely the right thing to do from an environmental standpoint and is massively popular with the public as well.
Opinion poll surveys show substantial support for the Government’s nationalisation proposals, provided that they are not accompanied by huge fare increases. One of the most important and welcome changes will be an end to the present wholly unsatisfactory arrangements where the Treasury is in control of tactical policy and minimising costs is the primary objective. There needs to be an understanding across government that railways are an opportunity, not a problem, and are an essential part of any national growth strategy.
We look forward to the second railways Bill next year to complete the transformation and to put railways at the heart of the nation’s transport infrastructure. Meanwhile, I welcome this Bill and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Blake of Leeds on taking charge so well today, and I look forward to working with her and with my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill during its later stages in this House.
If the House will indulge me, I will conclude with the final words of my third book on railways, Signals Passed at Danger, which I referred to earlier and which is available in all good bookshops. My co-author and I wrote:
“The railways’ capabilities are manifest when the management of the railways is restored to those competent to operate them, with a clear strategy and funding agreed to deliver the outputs of that strategy”.
Let us hope that the Bill is a first step towards achieving that.
Lord Grayling (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great privilege and honour to make my maiden speech in this House, having moved up the Corridor after 23 years on the green Benches, and to do so following two distinguished figures in the transport world, the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Young. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, he and I served together briefly during my time in the department; he knows a huge amount about this subject. It is a particular pleasure to do so sitting alongside my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, who was the formidable Deputy Chief Whip when I arrived in the Commons as MP for Epsom and Ewell in 2001, who became a good friend sitting alongside me in Cabinet and was, of course, my predecessor as Secretary of State. In many ways it is also a relief to be here, because I have the privilege and honour of having been the only person to serve as both Lord Chancellor and Lord President. That meant that I was constantly introduced at events as “Lord Grayling” and spent quite a lot of time explaining to people that I was not. It is a relief, having arrived here, that I now am.
I would like to express my thanks to all of those who have assisted me in my first few days in this House—in particular to Black Rod and her staff, to the clerks, doorkeepers and members of the House staff who helped me with my introduction and with getting used to this place. It was a particular pleasure to have two very old friends as my supporters when I was introduced: the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, who was elected to the Commons on the same day as me in 2001, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who has the misfortune—or fortune, depending on your view—to have been introduced to the Conservative Party by me in our mutual home area of Epsom.
It is a particular honour to be appointed to this House, and one I shall always be grateful to the former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak for. In my last few years in the Commons I focused particularly on two issues, and I hope to do the same in this House. The first is international conservation, something I am very passionate about, which in my view is crucial to the future of the planet and of mankind, and also to the future of the aviation sector in this country, which is the other area I have focused on particularly. To some people there may appear to be a contradiction between those two things, but an end to aviation would mean an end to the tourist trade, which eases poverty in so many places and, in particular, is so vital to supporting and sustaining conservation efforts around the world. If there were no tourists, much of the conservation effort in the developing world would not be there. It is my intention to continue to work in these two areas in this House. In particular, I am looking forward to being part of the debate on the sustainable aviation Bill. I am very grateful to the Government for having followed the work that I and others did in the Commons before the election in looking to bring forward that Bill quickly. I urge them to get on with it; it is extremely important.
As a former Lord Chancellor, I very much recognise the need to uphold the rule of law in this country. It is one of the things that makes us strongest as a nation. It is one of the things that has created one of the world’s most highly regarded legal systems. In this House I see one or two familiar faces from my time as Lord Chancellor. I should also say that it is the role of this House and of Parliament to challenge and sometimes disagree with the view of the courts. That constructive tension lies at the heart of our democracy. It is part of the strength of our democracy, and it should never be lost.
As a former Lord President and Leader of the Commons who co-chaired, with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, the first Joint Committee on the restoration and renewal programme, I also intend to play an active part in pushing for us to get on with that. It is far too many years since we started that process. I find it very frustrating that eight years later we still have not made progress. It is vital to the future of this historic building. We are all guardians of an essential piece of our history here, and it is our duty to make sure that it is sustained, maintained, improved and protected for future generations. We must do that.
As a former Secretary of State for Transport, I could not pass up the opportunity to make my maiden speech in today’s debate. I am very pleased to see the Minister in her position. We know each other well from my time in government when we debated the future of transport in Bradford. I very much hope that her time in government will lead to real work. Bradford is a great city that needs better transport links, which I wanted to see and was moving towards trying to achieve. She was part of the review process after the 2018 timetable issue, and I was always grateful to her for the work she did then. Of course, she and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, are now going to have to deal with the challenges of overseeing an industry in which somehow it is always the Minister’s fault if something goes wrong. I particularly remember being blamed by one of the unions, which called for my resignation after a freight train derailed in the morning peak, causing massive delays in south-west London. I am afraid that kind of joy lies ahead for her, and I do not think these reforms are going to take away the reality that the buck still lands on the Minister’s desk, however much they might wish to change that.
Clearly there are disagreements across this House and the other House about the best way forward, though I think there is no division between us about the fact that franchising has run its course in its current form, or rather the form that it existed in before the pandemic. Change was needed, which is why I commissioned Keith Williams to do his review. Whether the approach the Government are taking is the right one is a different question, because—I have to say to the Minister—I do not believe that the issues on our railway today are about ownership. The reality is that the people who have been running the railways are going to be the people running the railways in future. The issue is all about capacity and constraints. Frankly, we have had too many trains on too little space, and it just does not add up. Trying to get many trains through our busiest junctions at peak times has been an impossibility. It is what has caused so many of the delays, and that is what is going to carry on happening. Ultimately, if the Government are to deliver what they say they are going to deliver, they will have to invest in extra capacity as well.
The second issue is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, renationalisation brings the railway back into competition with other areas of government at Budget time. Ministers must not close the door to private investment in the railways. If they do, they will find that services do not improve, costs do not come down and capacity challenges remain. If they shut out the private sector from the railway, in my view they will come to regret it. But that is all for another day. The debate will continue, not just on this Bill but on the Bill that the Minister has said will come before this House, and the House of Commons, in due course.
I finish by reiterating that I regard it as a huge privilege to be here, and it is good to be alongside many friends on different sides of the House. I very much look forward to taking part in debates here in future. It is an honour and a privilege that I am very grateful to have been given.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register of interests, as chairman of Transport for the North and as a board adviser to Xrail. It is a great privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Grayling; I congratulate him on such a splendid maiden speech.
We were both appointed to the Cabinet in September 2012. Because it was an unexpected reshuffle—or one that had been kept quite quiet—I was told that we could not act in our positions until we had our seals of office. Of course, we were to receive our seals of office from Her Majesty. I was told that she was in Balmoral, while we were in London, and she was not coming to London—so we found ourselves making our way up to Balmoral one Monday morning, and having a Privy Council meeting there.
I was given my seals of office as Secretary of State for Transport first; they were in a very small box. Following me was my noble friend Lord Grayling, who had become Lord Chancellor. After he took his oath, Her Majesty looked at him and said, “Your seals of office are over on the side there. You can pick them up yourself; they’re too heavy for me to lift”. That was a very special occasion for us both. Unfortunately for my noble friend Lord Grayling, he then had to pick up all the mistakes that I had made in my four years as Secretary of State for Transport because he followed me into that position. I hope I did not leave him too many problems, but I certainly left him a few. With that story, I welcome him to the House, congratulate him and commend his speech today.
So that is three ex-Transport Secretaries almost in a row, as the old saying goes. As my noble friend Lord Young pointed out, because of the problems faced by the rail industry we perhaps forget what it was like pre-privatisation; that sometimes needs to be taken into account. There were approximately 700 million passenger journeys a year then. After privatisation took place, in the year before the pandemic, there were 1.8 billion passenger journeys. After what had happened before, you would not want to spend any time at places such as St Pancras, King’s Cross or London Bridge stations. They were horrible, dingy places. Transport had not been ignored by the Government but other priorities, such as health, education and defence, got more of a hearing from the Exchequer. It worries me, and the Government have to guard carefully against going back to that position.
I accept fully that this proposal was in the Labour Party’s manifesto and that it is therefore going to happen. However, we have not yet seen the main railway Bill, and will not do so for a little time yet. There are a number of questions to be asked about that because the balance between freight and passenger and the accessibility of both the freight industry and passenger transport—this was referred to in a way by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner—is going to be an important one.
I have always thought there should be a guiding mind for transport who is accountable. I thought that it should be mine because then I would agree with what I have been saying, but I assure the Minister that any guiding mind is still going to have to use the same capacity on the railways that we have today. That is one of the biggest issues. It was of great regret to me that the previous Government, in cancelling the second part of HS2, made a big mistake. HS2 was never about speed; it was always about capacity on the network. If we want to see more people travelling on our railways and more freight on our railways, we have to increase capacity. That is a key issue but this Bill does nothing at all in terms of capacity on our network. It talks more about the mechanics, but they will still have to use the same facilities that are required now. That will be one of the biggest challenges for the Government.
There is also the question of the transfer of liabilities. When we see the final Bill, it will be fascinating to see what happens in relation to transferring liabilities of pensions and different salary costs across the whole industry. It is interesting that, while we in this country are eventually going to go back to a single operator, in Europe, countries such as Spain, Italy and France are embracing on-rail competition between operators and competitive tendering to increase services, deliver newer trains, grow passenger numbers and reduce subsidies. Perhaps they looked at what we saw happen in this country on the railways over a period of time: a massive increase.
One of the reasons why the railways have become a lot more politically controversial, in a way, is that many more people are using them. Since the pandemic, we have seen quite a big change in the way in which the load of passengers is changing over the week. There is now a lot more use of the train service by passengers at weekends. Part of the problem is that, with the oldness of our railway infrastructure, any Network Rail engineering works taking place tend to be done on weekends because that used to be the time when fewer passengers were using them. That is not the case any more; it is one of the issues that will have to be addressed. There are still a lot of unanswered questions as far as both this Bill and the later one that we are told will come sometime next year are concerned. We need to see how the latter will address some of these issues, in particular investment.
The other area where the UK is changing is greater devolution to our regional cities. There will always be issues in terms of the big intercity lines: the line that goes from London up to Scotland; the line that goes from London to Manchester and on to Scotland; the line that goes down to Wales; and the line that goes down to the south-west. Those will always be of national significance and where the Secretary of State will perhaps want to have the most input, but what about local services in the West Midlands, in the city regions and in Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle, where much more devolution has taken place? How do we involve those devolved authorities as well? That is going to be one of the most important parts that we have to address.
Overall, we have seen huge investment take place in our railways. My noble friend talked about his involvement in the restoration of the Houses of Parliament and wanting to see that work. I came across an interesting fact at the weekend: when Sir Charles Barrie first got the contract to build the Palace of Westminster in 1835, he said that it would cost £725,000 and take six years to build. It cost three times that and took 30 years to build; he was dead by the time it was finished. The way we are dealing with restoration in this place, I sometimes think that all the people on the restoration committee will, I am afraid, suffer the similar fate of never seeing it completed.
However, investment in our railways is not short-term; it takes a lot of planning and a lot of pre-work enabling that planning to take place. A lot of the expense is increased if that pre-work is not done; we have seen many examples of that. This is the start of a debate; we have not yet heard all the answers from the Government. This is a manifesto commitment Bill. We will, I think, want to press much further on some of the more detailed issues when we see the next railways Bill. I know that there are two more maiden speeches coming, from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Cryer; we look forward to hearing them later.
I know how important the whole subject of good connectivity is to the Minister, particularly as far as Leeds and its neighbouring cities are concerned, and to the people for whom she spoke when she was the leader of Leeds City Council. These issues are wider. If we can move forward in a way that involves the private sector, we are much more likely to see greater investment take place. I worry about some of the implications of what is coming from the Government at the moment and worry that we will not see that private investment taking place in our transport, which, overall, has served the country incredibly well over the past 25 years in which we have seen major changes in our railway system.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, to her position in this interesting debate. She is smiling at me; that is good progress.
The first question has to be this: is change necessary? I answer: undoubtedly yes. I was very close to the development of the franchising regime, not because I had a direct interest but because the railway I was responsible for at that time was but a signature away from being engulfed in it. On detailed examination, it seemed to me a piece of doctrine that somehow the railways had to be privatised. The question was: how the hell do you do it? Well, they managed to create a process of privatisation without competition. In order to make up for that, it has to be massively regulated. There is nothing the private sector likes more than gaming the regulator; indeed, in many ways, that is what has happened. In addition, there was no single mind optimising performance.
So, yes, we need change. This is the right first step, but that is all it is. It is necessary because of the upcoming franchise decisions but what is before us is incomplete for managing the necessary change in this industry. So far, we have no clarity on the mission. What is the railway for? In the document that my party produced for the election, Getting Britain Moving, there are lots of words about making a better railway but that is simply too imprecise. Simply listing all the things that are incomplete does not accept the reality that the problems of any complex organisation, particularly the railways, are the trade-offs.
The trade-offs in the railway are between capacity, reliability—both cancellations and delays—and cost. Making those trade-offs is a complex exercise. If we are to get the best out of this change, there will be a requirement to understand how to optimise and, in particular, how to contribute to the various missions. Clearly, the contribution has to optimise growth, since growth and efficiency are necessary for the future of this country, but, if we simply optimise growth, we miss out two other important areas.
The first of those is levelling up. If you take the railway as it is now and ask it to optimise growth, you will almost certainly end up spending your money in the south-east and around London. A particular criterion—a particular political statement—will need to be made that biases investment away from the south-east towards early investment in capability to allow levelling up to take place. The second area is the whole issue of social benefit. In this country, we must recognise that part of government’s role is to look after the young, the old, the sick, the poor and those who live in disadvantaged places, particularly the problem of urban areas. Maximising social benefit, the levelling-up agenda and the growth and equality agenda all have to be offset against one another and optimised. To do that, there has to be much more clarity in the decision-making processes.
If decision-making processes are not clear, you get drift—a lack of responsibility and focus. The new Bill must be much clearer about those processes. I hope there will also be a recognition that making each decision on its merits simply is not good enough. My railway was relatively small compared with the national railway, but the number of decisions one had to make was enormous. We overcame that only by developing a process of criteria-driven decision-making, where we had a big debate at executive level and then at board level on how to trade off the various forces and areas of improvement that were necessary.
Crucially, the next Bill has to have clarity about the mission. Part of that must be a relationship with other areas of public transport. It is particularly important that, when we concentrate on the railway, we do so in an environment where the other modes are considered—in particular, that all too often under-supported and valuable mode called buses.
I do not ask the Minister to answer any of the questions that I pose, but I hope she will recognise that there are much more difficult decisions to be made on the next Bill, and that we can discuss it at that high level of criteria, focus and relativity. I hope that we will not fall back on giving Ministers powers to decide. We included those things in the Bill, and it has very significant government involvement. Perhaps we could even have some pre-legislative scrutiny and certainly debate. All I ask for from the Minister today is an acceptance that we have to work on these difficult strategic issues for the railway. We need to know how the Government plan to address these issues and it is essential that Parliament is involved in them.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour and a privilege to speak in your Lordships’ House for the first time. Over the last few weeks, I have taken time to listen to and observe the House at work. I have been impressed by the quality of debate and contributions from all sides on matters as diverse as prison reform, the ongoing situation in Sudan and cycling, as well as in this debate.
I place on record my thanks for all the help I have received while settling into my new role. In particular, I thank the doorkeepers—who continue to help me as I wander the corridors, lost—the clerks, the librarians and the catering and security personnel, as well as the party staff. I am also grateful for the mentorship of my noble friend Lady Randerson, for the support of my noble friends Lady Kramer and Lady Doocey in my introduction, and for the support from noble Lords on all sides of the House.
I bring to this House 26 years of elected service at local and regional level, having spent 12 years as a councillor in Newington ward in the London Borough of Southwark—and having been deputy leader of this inner London borough—and 16 years as a London-wide assembly member and chair of the Transport Committee, focused on improving transport and policing in our great capital city. I am a proud Londoner, and I will continue to champion our great city through my work in this place.
In one recent short debate, I was momentarily taken back to City Hall, along the river, with the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Hendy, Lord Ranger and Lord Moylan, all speaking about transport in London. While this House is new to me, many Members are old colleagues, and I look forward to working with them across the House, as we did at the Greater London Authority. Of course, I look forward to continuing to question the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, in his new role as Minister for Rail, and the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, as Minister for Gambling—some things will never change.
I turn to the debate. My focus in any transport debate is on the passenger, not the train set. Passengers want a reliable, affordable, frequent and accessible railway service. They are agnostic about who is running it, as long as it gets them from A to B. Look at the success in London of the Overground service and the Elizabeth line. Most passengers would not see them as any different from the Underground, but they are run under a concession model by private companies and branded as public Transport for London services. Internationally, there are many railway models combining the public and private sectors. In France, Germany and Italy, railways are publicly owned, with a separation between the track and the trains. In Japan, known for its punctuality, rail is nearly completely privatised. So there is not one perfect railway model.
Back in 2011, the McNulty review claimed that many of the objectives of privatisation had not been achieved, including reducing government involvement in railway matters. In efficiency terms, benchmarking —as far as that is possible—always shows that UK rail costs far more than that of other European countries. Previous work by the International Transport Forum suggests that rail reforms in the UK did not achieve lasting improvements in cost efficiency and that competitive tendering did not achieve a reduction in train operating costs.
Although this legislation is focused on public ownership as a solution, my focus—and that of the Government, I am sure—is on driving up standards to enable more people to use our railways. The successes of devolution in London and elsewhere, such as Merseyrail, are significant. I would like explicit assurance from the Minister that existing devolved rail services will remain and, in addition, that the Bill will not prevent further metro railway services being devolved to Transport for London, or other combined authorities and metro mayors, where devolved rail can help transform regions and ensure a modal shift to public transport.
As we have heard, passengers must be put at the heart of these rail reforms, with a passenger watchdog body with real teeth established in shadow form alongside these changes to ownership. I hope the Minister will provide details on plans for a passenger standards authority. One pressing issue is reviewing fares so that they are simpler and transparent, and so that there is certainty for passengers when they travel.
I would also like to understand the Government’s thinking around the freight sector, which needs to use our rail infrastructure and is an essential part of our green transition. No one believes that the current franchising arrangements are working for passengers, particularly with so many franchises failing and now being run by public operators. The Williams review made clear recommendations some years ago to address the shortcomings, and we have all been waiting for action and legislation for some time.
Transforming our railways is long overdue, and I welcome this legislation as a stepping stone for a new passenger-focused railway. The devil will of course be in the detail, and I look forward to working on this over the coming weeks, just as I look forward to my future work in this House.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, as she has made what I think all would agree was an exemplary maiden speech. It was concise, knowledgeable and full of interesting insights, and brought with it a passion about passengers from her experience in London—Londoners—and passengers wherever they happen to live in our country. As we heard, she served as a member of the London Assembly for 16 years, as chair or deputy chair of the transport committee. During that time, she achieved the respect and admiration of people not just in our party or the assembly but across London and in the industry. I know that her wealth of knowledge and experience will be a great asset to the work of this House. We extend our warmest wishes to her and look forward to her future contributions in this debate, on transport generally and on regional government, and, above all, still as a champion for London.
It reminded me that I made my maiden speech during the passage of the Transport Act 2000. As I look around, I see a handful of gnarled veterans of that debate—and I include myself in that. Starting off with all the nervousness that you have when you make a maiden speech, I was not helped by the Minister saying, “My Lords, we have five former Secretaries of State speaking in today’s debate”. Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who was one of them, leaned over to me and said, “Well, just look at what a mess we all made of it”. He knew how to put me at my ease.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I have absolutely no ideological aversion to private sector involvement in public services. There are instances where it can work very well, but the problem with rail, as we have seen with other services such as water, is that we end up creating a pretend market, a sort of proxy for something that does not exist, which leads to incentives for behaviours that often do no serve the public well, as either taxpayers or passengers. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, had it when he described it as “gaming the regulator”. A lot of that goes on—and the fact that four services out of 14 are now run by the Government as the operator of last resort is a testament to that.
As far back as 2018, as we have heard, many in the industry were calling for a total rethink of the franchising model that had been established in 1993, and that included the operators themselves. I think that there is widespread agreement that change is needed but, unfortunately, what we do not seem to hear, other than in today’s Bill, is a vision for what that change might look like. There is an opportunity here to explore, as we go into Committee, what other options might look like.
We have created a tangled web of different players with planning, delivery and oversight powers in the railway, which has led to a system that in some cases has given passengers a woeful experience. The interfaces between all those different organisations have caused expensive inefficiencies and a real lack of transparency, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. However, there are good operators. I am fortunate enough to live in an area served by Greater Anglia, which is one of the very best in the country. Ironically, it is one of the first that will go under the terms of the Bill.
I think that we all agree that there should be a clear and coherent plan for the railway in which it can operate effectively as a mode of transport but also deliver wider objectives such as economic development and net zero. The “guiding hand” principle underpinning Great British Railways is the right idea and commands widespread support.
But surely it would have made sense to have established that first, then allow the experts within it to determine the best way of delivering its objectives. For example, they could recommend other models of private sector involvement such as the concession model, which, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has worked very successfully in London on the overground and the Elizabeth line. Putting this Bill first has closed off all those options.
It is quite hard to judge the four clauses in the Bill, because it is the framework within which it sits that will determine the extent to which it is successful, and we will not know that until we get the big Bill at some point next year. I have a lot of questions for the Minister. I understand that they will probably not receive a reply this evening, but other noble Lords have touched on the same subjects. First, I am not clear still about how the guiding hand is going to work at the same time as the day-to-day operations being run by government. Clearly, we want to be able to make sure that they are coherent and work together, but we cannot have day-to-day management sitting with exactly the same people who are making the strategic decisions; it will simply not work.
Will there still be a role for the Rail Safety and Standards Board, and how will its independence be maintained? It is interesting that in all the discussions we have had so far, nobody has mentioned safety. It is worth reflecting on how safe our railway is and what it takes to keep it so; that is something we really need to take good account of. I would also like some thoughts about the Office of Rail and Road, to which other Members have referred.
It is still not clear to me who is going to ensure fair access for freight, and devolved and open access services. I think people welcome the Minister’s commitment to keeping them, but we need to be sure that they are going to be able to operate effectively, particularly with the capacity constraints that the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, and others have referred to. I would also appreciate some clarity about the relationship with local government as planning and transport authorities. As the Government’s thinking on regional governance is evolving, would it not make sense, as many noble Lords have said, to think about some of them running local rail services, in the way that happens in London and with Merseyrail?
I have a few more questions. What assessment is being made of the staffing requirement for taking these franchises in house, ensuring the right mix and level of skills, from the operational to the strategic?
Currently, mainline stations are operated by Network Rail and the rest are run by the operators. How can we be sure that the essential improvements that are needed for smaller stations currently run by operators do not end up at the back of the queue? Indeed, if the noble Lord, Lord Young, is correct and the investment dries up, there might be a problem of any improvements.
While I welcome the establishment of the passenger standards authority, it will not be in place until the major railways Bill has passed. The process of renationalising passenger services will have started well before then, so how can we be sure that the voice of passengers will be heard right from the outset?
Finally, clarity about the timetable for this is essential. I understand the noble Baroness’s point about contractual obligations and having to take them in the order in which they fall, but is she absolutely sure? Public confidence in this process will be severely dented if a good operator, such as Greater Anglia, faces the axe before a terrible one, such as Avanti. I just ask her to think about that.
With a flight of fancy, 27 September next year will be the 200th anniversary of the opening of the Stockton to Darlington railway. Would it not be great to see a proper renaissance of our railways?
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, as a fellow gnarled veteran, speaking in this debate with so many maiden speeches vividly brings back the nerves of some 27 years ago. I have to say that the standard of those maiden speeches has improved significantly, as have those of the responders, and I congratulate them all.
I congratulate the Members of this House who have engaged in this Bill, particularly my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who made the powerful point about access to the capital markets for privatised industries and the challenges, both political and commercial, of no longer being able to access those markets. However, my interest in this debate looks at how public/private sector partnerships can and must work in this sector. My intention is to share my experience and try to inform the debate, and particularly to respond to the challenge of how we improve rail services in the devolved areas and cities, as was put forward to us by the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin.
I declare my interest as chair of Amey, a provider of full life-cycle engineering, operations and decarbonisation solutions for transport infrastructure and complex facilities. Amey, as many in this House know, has a major involvement in the rail sector in the UK.
I thought it would be helpful to show what it takes for public ownership, when engaged with private sector infrastructure management, to work effectively, creating a classic example of future models in line with the consequences of this Bill. So I have chosen an example in Wales, where arrangements will not change from those that worked effectively under the last Government.
In October 2020, the Welsh Government announced that a franchise was to be transferred to a publicly owned Transport for Wales Rail, following significant falls in passenger numbers and revenue due to the Covid-19 pandemic. All staff, rolling stock and services operated by KeolisAmey Wales were taken over by the nationalised operator on 7 February 2021.
However, as part of the original agreement, Amey continued to be responsible for infrastructure on the core valley lines, where the South Wales Metro upgrade is taking place. In addition, Keolis and Amey continue to assist and work with the nationalised operator to provide improvement services on the franchise, such as rolling stock and ticketing services. The contract aimed to deliver much-needed investment in the Welsh network, including investment in trains, the modernisation of 247 stations, and the new build of five new metro stations, along with hundreds of extra services from Monday to Friday and a major push for extra Sunday services.
As stated by the Government, the Bill will extend to Wales and Scotland while recognising that cross-border rail services are a reserved matter. To provide more information on the project, the core valley lines network, which radiates out from Cardiff up the valleys and accounts for 155 train miles in Wales, carries 56% of all Welsh and Borders Transport for Wales passage services each day, where commuting into the Cardiff capital region is set to grow by 144% by 2043. To be busier—as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said—is the objective of all concerned. It is a working example of how the public sector can run the rail services and achieve the objectives of the Welsh Government through engaging the private sector as a delivery partner.
This summer, I was invited to address a meeting of the directors of the Office of Rail and Road. I am pleased members of that board will be visiting the Cardiff-based core valley lines project later this month to see how the model can bring sufficient benefits to passengers and all the parties involved in the running of this service; above all, how it can be safe and well regulated.
The starting point lies with the Welsh Government. They have created a clear political structure to embed their vision of a customer-centred, high-quality, safe, integrated, affordable and accessible transport network to meet the aspirations of the Welsh people, for it is they who will benefit. Transport for Wales, therefore, had to set out a clear remit, which it did; it adopted the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act. The objectives of the national strategy Prosperity for All were embedded into the project, and the principles set out in the Active Travel (Wales) Act created the operating framework within which the infrastructure manager of the CVL network operates.
Transport for Wales has devolved franchising powers from the Department for Transport. The TfW procurement process for the operator of the Wales and Borders rail franchise work included the transfer of the CVL network from Network Rail to the Welsh Government. The project is interesting and unusual. It is most interesting, because it can become a case study for what the Government intend to achieve in the future.
The procurement brief is critical to the success of these projects, but it was structured around output and underpinned by the legal status of the future generations Act in Wales. Rather than a technical specification, the brief was
“better access to jobs and services, more frequent and faster services, better quality, and environmental improvements”.
It was pioneering work with Transport for Wales that required moving the core valley lines from an ageing network to a contemporary, electrified, metro-style service. Acting as an end-to-end infrastructure deliverer, manager and operator, we had to design the innovation solution, and manage and operate the new and existing assets on a day-by-day basis. The Welsh Government wanted much more than an infrastructure project. They identified the need to provide a catalyst for transforming the economic and social prospects of south-east Wales.
A major challenge was designing the project to meet the needs and challenges of the historic railways of Wales. This task was particularly demanding due to the ageing infrastructure, where historic structures along the route, such as bridges and tunnels, were too low for standard electrification methods. Traditional solutions, such as demolition or track lowering, were impractical, costly, environmentally demanding, and time-consuming. By working with Amey’s consulting division, we were strongly encouraged by the Welsh Government to develop new technologies to keep over 50 bridges in place by introducing non-live overhead cable sections to allow trains to switch to alternative multimode power capabilities, such as battery and OCS, to enable trains to transition through current-free sections, making discontinuous electrification possible. This current-free intermittent technology allowed over 50 bridges to stay in place.
This has changed how companies in the sector, such as ours, respond to public sector entities. It has led to stronger public/private partnerships. It means getting to know your client earlier, understanding the challenges better, responding to ESG issues as a priority, working closely with local communities, and putting the environment and the natural world in which we work at the top of the agenda, as in the trans-Pennine route upgrade, which the Minister mentioned in her opening speech and which will benefit our jointly beloved city of Leeds.
In response to the demand of the Welsh Government and public sector ownership, the private sector is capable of working within a contractual framework to reduce costs and carbon emissions, avoid the challenges of obtaining consents for listed structures, and provide a new model for UK railways, offering a framework for similar projects around the UK. The transfer of the CVL infrastructure from Network Rail’s ownership to being managed and operated by a private company is a UK first that combines the four key objectives of decarbonisation and energy efficiency, infrastructure resilience and safety, a nature-positive approach with full engagement with local communities, and net-zero priorities—a first which I hope will be carefully studied by the Minister and her department in the context of their plans for the future of passenger railway services in this country.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Blake on a brilliant opening speech and on her long-lost work in Leeds and elsewhere to get better transport services there, and I hope she will be able to continue to do that. It is also a pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and my noble friend Lord Cryer to your Lordships’ House, and to speak among so many experts in transport. It just shows how much parliamentarians love their railways. They want to contribute the best to them and have a variety of different solutions to the present problems.
So I think it is worth starting and carrying on our discussion by reminding ourselves what the railways are there for: reliability, low fares, if possible, capacity, a reduction in delays, and of course investment. I was amused by the reference of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to some of the “gnarled old people” in your Lordships’ House. I am one of them: I was here before her and I recall, as she will, the creation of the Strategic Rail Authority, which lasted for two or three years. Then it was abolished, because Ministers asked the SRA to do things that it did not want to do, and there was an argument. That was 25 or so years ago and we have got to reflect on the relationship between ministerial interference and how the structure of the railway keeps having to be changed to make better use of ministerial interference—or not.
How much ministerial interference should there be? Until recently, how many Questions have we had about ministerial involvement in buses or coaches? There have been very few, but we have railway questions very frequently, and in the other place it is the same. There is a serious problem with long-distance coaches in Cornwall, where I live. One of the providers, National Express, has withdrawn a London airport service to Cornwall, which stops people going to Heathrow to catch a plane without having to take a taxi into Exeter or something. But nobody is saying “National Express should keep doing this and do they need a subsidy?” So I think we have to keep it balanced and I hope that the new structure, when we see it properly, will actually do that without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
One of the things that has come up again and again in this debate has been what the priorities should be if there is a shortage of investment, which clearly there is. Is it local services or long-distance services? I will not mention HS2—we all know what has happened there—but there is a need for investment in many smaller railways. My noble friend Lord Faulkner mentioned one in Devon, but there are many others around the corner. It is also a question of how you judge the cost-benefit analysis of these things. As other noble Lords have said, it is extraordinary when the Department for Transport has to fund all the railway-related expenditure and the capital costs, and the Treasury gets the revenue. That needs to change very quickly and I hope my noble friend will say something about that. I doubt that needs legislation but, if it does, it needs to come quickly.
The other interesting and very important issue that we need to discuss is the role of the private sector. I hope it is not dogma that is driving the present Bill —I do not think it is. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said earlier, the private sector actually sometimes brings good value for money. In yesterday’s Sunday Times, it was interesting to note that, before Covid, the Southeastern franchise got a £231 million subsidy in 2021, up from £132 million while it was still privatised.
You can have different examples everywhere, but I hope that we can look at these things and at the benefit of investment not only in the franchises and open access but in getting some competition. I was in Germany a couple of weeks ago looking at some railway issues, and I observed the German railway company Deutsche Bahn, which is often held up as a role model of a vertically integrated rail body. Maybe the Government here think that we should follow the Germans’ role on this. But according to the press report a couple of days ago, two-thirds of the long-distance trains reached their destination on time, which was a new record low, and the company reported a loss of over €1.2 billion—I do not think that my noble friend will want to have a loss like that—coupled with a debt of €34 billion. What is interesting is that they are mainly the intercity services, whereas many of the local services in Germany are franchised out, some to UK operators. The general feeling is that they get much better services from them than we might expect.
Other issues need to be addressed sometime in the next six months, either before the new Bill or in this Bill. Ticketing is a disaster at the moment. There are various different ways round it that people have suggested, but there is a general feeling that it is too complicated and expensive and that it needs simplification. Maybe my noble friend will be able to tell us how much money will be saved when all the franchise operators become state-owned.
The other thing that the railways have suffered from dramatically in the last few years is strikes. People do not want to mention it, but it is interesting that the state-owned, or state-controlled, passenger franchises were unable—or not allowed, depending on what you think—to negotiate with the trade unions, whereas the open-access operators and the freight operators were able to do so, and I believe that there were no strikes there. Does that mean that the new government-controlled operator will do it better? I do not know, but it needs looking at. As a noble Lord said earlier, we need to, I hope, have some devolution of the passenger operators to give control over things such as remuneration, services and rest-day working, so they can negotiate without it all going back to Whitehall.
The last thing I will cover a little is freight. Other noble Lords have spoken about freight but, as they may know, I used to be chairman of the Rail Freight Group. First, investment is needed to get freight going. If you have Great British Railways deciding which trains go where—and if it is also in charge of capacity, which may be on the cards—where does freight come in? The answer is: it will come bottom of the pile.
Secondly, on some of the connecting lines that freight uses are not used by passenger trains, a very small amount of electrification would enable the freight trains to be electric hauled all the way. Apart from saving on greenhouse gases and everything else, that would make it much more efficient. I hope that the Government will look at that in the next few months and see how it can be done. The one that is spoken about all the time is Felixstowe to Nuneaton, but there are many others. A small amount of electrification is needed, and I hope that it could be done much more cheaply by a Network Rail that is maybe under different management and more efficient—we have heard nothing about Network Rail so far today, but we will see.
Finally, what really made me very happy, when I was in Berlin at that railway conference exhibition, was that there was a new freight locomotive owned and developed by GB Railfreight, one of our rail freight companies. It is a brand-new development, because it is tri-mode—electric, diesel and battery—which is exactly what everybody wants. Along with Beacon Rail, GB Railfreight has invested in this, took it to Berlin and showed it off to the world. That is good, but its needs a bit of support in the home territory, so that it can actually grow its business alongside the passenger trains.
In conclusion, I congratulate my noble friend on her opening remarks. I look forward to what she will say in response to the very many speeches she has heard. I look forward to the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it was a real pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. We overlapped for eight years on the London Assembly, and I guarantee your Lordships that they have seen the softer side of her today. When I was introduced to the House, they found it difficult to find anyone who knew me, because I was a London representative, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke up for me. She warned the House that I take no prisoners, and I think that that applies to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, as well. That is a real asset to our debates here, so I look forward to her next contribution.
I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, who is not in his place at the moment. I will have a quiet chat with him about the fact that, if you had fewer tourists, you would need less nature recovery—but that is probably a job for another day.
On this Bill, I support the idea of public ownership. It is excellent that Labour has gone slightly back to its roots, and I think that it is doing the right thing by taking back control as each of the railway contracts comes up for renewal—that is good. The Green Party opposed privatisation in the first place, and we do not have much criticism of the mechanics in this Bill, given that it seems to be heavily based on the rail renationalisation Bill championed by our former Green Party MP Caroline Lucas more than a decade ago. I thank the Government for picking up Green Party policy, albeit 10 years later.
These contracts are expensive, and the train companies are already discredited. When rail was nationalised, we had 15% of trains running late, but at least the fares were rated as among the cheapest in Europe. Since then, the percentage of late trains has doubled, and rail users are paying the highest fares in Europe. Plus, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out, each franchise does its own thing, with passenger confusion over ticketing, websites and delayed compensation. Before finalising plans, perhaps the Government could think about taking some advice from the people who actually pay their way and buy tickets on a daily basis: for example, The Man in Seat Sixty-One might have some very useful advice on how to make things easier.
Alongside that rise in fares, the taxpayer subsidy has grown from under £2 billion to around £12 billion. Both taxpayers and fare payers are thoroughly fed up with their money going into the pockets of shareholders rather than improving the service they get. Public ownership makes sense, but I do not understand why this impeccable logic applies only to railways; surely the Minister’s comments also apply to all other forms of privatisation of essential services. In the next five years, for example, nearly all the big NHS contracts are up for renewal, so will Ministers apply the same logic to them and save this money by bringing them back in-house? The NHS is paying £2.1 billion per year on PFI schemes. The NHS budget is expanding, and yet we are getting less back because of the growing role of the private sector. I have heard a lot from this Government—and from the previous one—about value for money, but those rules go out the window when we look at PFIs. Taxpayers have spent £80 billion on NHS PFI schemes that only got £13 billion of actual investment; that does not seem like a good deal.
Public ownership of rail is a good thing, but what difference will it make to passengers? I hope it will enable Ministers to directly reduce fares and have a real impact on traffic reduction. In the years between climate change becoming a recognised issue in the early 1980s and the husky-hugging era of Prime Minister Cameron, the cost of motoring fell while rail and bus fares rose rapidly. Season ticket fares are often 80% higher than they were before privatisation, and longer-distance fares can be twice as high as they were. This is not the record of a country serious about climate change, and we have failed to reduce emissions from the transport sector.
This Government, like the last one, tell us that there is no money. However, during my time on the London Assembly, which other Members of your Lordships’ House might remember, we worked with the mayor on promoting the congestion charge and the ultra low emission zone. That generated the extra revenue that helped to keep fares lower and provided some of the money needed to build new Tube and rail lines. Politicians of all parties knew the value of having a public transport system that worked and was fairly cheap to use, but only a few of us were willing to raise that money for investment by saying that the polluter should pay more. In fact, there was a classic comment from the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who said that the only people supporting his congestion charge were businesses in the City and the Green Party.
Portugal has just introduced a £20 monthly rail pass for all its services. That is the kind of vision we need here in the UK from a publicly owned rail system. It would take ambition and money, but we could make the polluter pay by finally taking the brake off the fuel duty escalator that new Labour introduced.
The Government have taken positive steps to give local authorities the power to regulate buses, so the next logical step is to give the metropolitan mayors a big say in how rail works with bus and tram services, to be the better option in large areas of the country. We need democratic control of the railways, not decisions driven by Whitehall and, even worse, the Treasury.
Privatisation of rail has given us higher fares and generated a fat profit for all the state-owned German and French rail companies, which took advantage of UK taxpayers. I congratulate Labour on bringing this to an end. But why not end the disastrous mistake of water privatisation that will cost £12.5 billion in this Parliament alone, only to pay shareholders and creditors, but which will still result in waterways full of faeces, agricultural run-off, other chemicals, drugs, paint, bleach and plastic? If water companies collapsed, we could buy them for pennies and run them ourselves.
On public ownership of the energy system to deal with the huge jump in household bills, we could end the scandal of record-high standing charges that do nothing to discourage energy use and which hit the poor really hard. Rail companies have made a good profit, but British Gas has made a tenfold profit over the last year, and the likes of BP and Shell have doubled and trebled profits. Public ownership could end those excess profits and bring down prices for consumers.
The public can see these injustices and the way this system of privatisation eats up taxpayer cash and consumer monthly payments. It holds back public investment in our economy and, instead of new hospitals or railway rolling stock, our money buys new private jets for the super-rich. The public want more public ownership, and I hope the Government start listening to voters rather than lobbyists and party donors.
To sum up, my speech is a mix: “Well done, Labour, but why stop there?”
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I think that on behalf of my noble friend I can thank her for her explicit support of this piece of legislation, but perhaps she will need to wait for another date for a response to the rest of her speech. It is a pleasure also to welcome my noble friend Lady Blake of Leeds to her place on the Front Bench today and to commend her on an excellent opening speech. I am pleased too to welcome both the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to your Lordships’ House. I watched them while they were making their respective maiden speeches; it is perfectly clear to me that they have both secured the ear of the House, and I look forward to their contributions in the future.
It will be no surprise to anybody that I rise in support of the Bill before your Lordships’ House. It is legislation for which the Government have a direct mandate and which commands a great deal of public support. Perhaps most importantly, the Bill is pragmatic, protects the taxpayer from the penalties incurred by ending franchises precipitately, and offers greater flexibility for the deployment of rolling stock.
Perhaps I should start by declaring an interest like my noble friend Lord Liddle. I am a regular passenger on Avanti West Coast, the worst-performing train operator in the UK. I could end my speech with that statement, given the chronic frustrations hazarded by anyone intrepid enough to venture on to one of Avanti’s services. Almost 60% of its trains were late in the second quarter of this year, and cancellations ran at double the national average. I mention this not merely to describe my own experience of travelling on our rail network—I am sure that many other noble Lords have worse stories to tell than I have—but to emphasise the asymmetry of performance between the different franchisees.
Conversely, there are franchises that have performed rather well. As we were reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, Greater Anglia, for instance, has some of the highest punctuality rates in the industry, has invested £1.4 billion in rolling stock and, since Covid, has consistently generated a financial return to the Treasury. West Midlands Trains has invested £1 billion in its fleet, with half its current trains replaced with new vehicles built in the UK.
With this asymmetry of performance in mind, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government plan to take a purely chronological approach to renationalising, ending different franchises in order as their contracts expire, or does she envisage a more targeted approach where the performance of different franchises is taken into account? It would be somewhat quixotic to start this process by bringing Greater Anglia into public ownership as soon as its contract expires, which is imminent, while Avanti continues for years to run a grossly underperforming service. Surely we should take performance into account and ensure that those passengers suffering from the least effective service see changes first. From the fact that the Government, through the terms of the Bill, have given themselves discretion to focus on the worst-performing routes and operators first, I infer that such a course of action is at the very least under active consideration.
In addition to that question, I draw the attention of my noble friend the Minister to the briefing we all received from Transport UK in advance of today’s debate. That briefing contains specific questions and supporting amendments for debate in Committee and the later stages of the Bill’s progress. In particular, I would be grateful to know, first, what she envisages by way of reporting obligations to Parliament in respect of the future performance of publicly owned train operating companies, and, secondly, whether the Office of Rail and Road will be required to assess the ability of a publicly owned company to operate a franchise effectively in advance of contracts being awarded. If so, will the details of such assessments be made available to Parliament for effective scrutiny?
We have heard and will hear “privatisation” and “nationalisation” invoked today but, as it stands, passengers have the worst of both worlds. We have a system run by private companies for profit which, at the same time, rely on implicit and explicit public subsidies, some of which end as dividends for the franchise holders, nobody else gaining. We are all aware that the former British Rail enjoyed a somewhat ambivalent reputation. But in 1989 British Rail was recorded as being 40% more efficient than eight comparable European railway systems; rolling stock was an average of two years younger in 1996 than it was in 2013; and British Rail’s punctuality rating, at 90% PPM in 1995, has only once been exceeded in a calendar year since privatisation—and that was in 1996.
The shadow Secretary of State suggested during Second Reading in the other place that this legislation is ideologically motivated. Leaving aside the dissonance of such an accusation issuing from a party which has been setting ever more rigorous tests of ideological purity of itself since Brexit, I believe that the motivation behind this Bill is far simpler—it is that the railway system across Britain does not work. Our railways are a cautionary tale for the rest of Europe. Despite EU directive 91/440 promoting rail privatisation, as we have heard from other speakers, European nations have looked at our system and decided to stick with a state-run operation.
Depending on your means of comparison, we have either the highest rail prices in Europe or prices that are among the highest. We have a fragmented ticketing and timetabling system that works in the interests of franchise holders rather than passengers. Subsidies run at twice pre-pandemic levels, while tickets have risen by around 25% in real terms since the privatisation experiment began. The legacy of privatisation on our railways is more government subsidy; more expensive tickets; endemic industrial dissatisfaction; and HS2, that artery of levelling up, repeatedly promised before being questioned and then cancelled.
There are some, thankfully not apparent in our debate today, who suggest that privatisation has worked and that we must merely persist with this experiment in the face of observable evidence. I will remind them of the words of John Maynard Keynes who, when tasked with an apparent inconsistency, responded:
“When my information changes, I alter my conclusions”.
This Bill is before your Lordships’ House today precisely because the public have all the information they need; they are dissatisfied with the cost and unreliable standards of service on our railways and know that we need fundamental change. Two-thirds of the public support renationalisation, and that figure rises to 73% among those who regularly use the railway network. It is no coincidence that those most frequently exposed to the reality of our railways are precisely those who support them coming back into public ownership.
At this juncture, I would like to remind your Lordships’ House of an historical advocate for state control of the railways. Given the shadow Transport Secretary’s apparent belief that this is a nakedly ideological measure, I am somewhat surprised to be claiming Winston Churchill as a socialist ideologue; he may have been at one time in his life. In 1919, he gave a speech in Dundee in which he explained that:
“So long as the railways are in private hands they may be used for immediate profit. In the hands of the State, however, it may be wise or expedient to run them … develop industry, place the trader in close contact with his market, and stimulate development”.
Compare that with the notes to the King’s Speech, in which the Government described the changes that this Bill would make. They described a system in which the railways would
“serve the interests of all users and the taxpayer, rather than focusing on maximising financial returns to private-sector operators”.
The aesthetic difference between these two passages may be pronounced, but the sentiment is absolutely identical.
Critics have suggested that nationalisation is somehow an easy option. On the contrary, as my noble friend has been reminded today, the Government will take on enormous responsibilities. As more franchises come back into public ownership, the Government will be held directly responsible for people’s journeys; shortcomings in respect of service and punctuality, fare costs and overcrowding will be laid at their door. If that is an easy option, I would be intrigued to hear such critics define a grave political risk. The fact that this Administration are prepared to countenance such political risks is surely testimony to their disinterestedness and their freedom from selfish motives, which therefore allows freedom to act fairly in seeking to improve our rail network. I shall support this Bill as it journeys through your Lordships’ House and gives effect to the mandate the Government were given at the general election.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, who is not here, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who is, and the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, who still has to speak to us—I am sure I can congratulate him on his speech, although I have not heard it. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, did not take any—oh, whatever it is.
Lord Balfe (Con)
Maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, does not take prisoners either, but she always does it with a great degree of humour, and we are pleased to hear her speak. I remind Members of my presidency of BALPA, the pilots’ union, which is not exactly a rail union but is in the transport sector.
I will carry on from where the noble Lord, Lord Browne, finished, because Winston Churchill not only supported nationalisation in 1919 but, when he came back into office in 1950, did nothing to undo the actions of the Attlee Government. In fact, he specifically said to Walter Monckton, who was his Minister of Labour, that he must not upset the rail unions; so, Churchill, to an extent, was fairly consistent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said that we had had three decades of failure; I point out that half of them were under the Labour Government, but we will pass over that and look forward. I do not agree that it has all been failure. I fully support the manifesto commitment, and I am not going to vote against it or anything. However, I have lived those last three decades in the city of Cambridge, and I have observed that we have a new railway station, with another one half built. We have three separate train lines, one running to King’s Cross, one running to St Pancras and one to Liverpool Street, and thanks to the way the franchises have been distributed we have never been without trains, because if one goes on strike the other goes to work. Also, of course, the number of passengers has gone up tremendously. I admit there are downsides to all this but let us not think that it is been a complete mistake, because it has not.
I would like to ask about, and draw a line under, the future of investment in rail when we move forward from where we are, because the history of rail and road investment has, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, been one of constant Treasury interference and investment decisions being based not on what is needed for the service but on how you split up a pie between defence, health, education, infrastructure, transport, et cetera. That is not a way, as they say, to run a railway. I hope that we can get round to some better system of allocating capital expenditure. I know this because in my part of the world we had years of campaigning by Members of Parliament from different parties for the widening of the A14 road. It did not come up against any transport needs; it kept on coming up against the Government’s capital allocations. When we look at the transport and railway needs going forward, we need to look carefully at this.
The final set of points I want to make are about this legislation. It was very clearly in the manifesto. I say to people on my own side: do not keep bringing the unions into it. The fact that there were long-standing disputes, particularly with ASLEF, was a sign that Conservative Ministers did not manage to solve them, as much as anything else. Just as a hobby, because I am a rather sad person, I printed out all the donations that were received by the various parties. Apart from the fact that the Conservative Party had £44 million, against the Labour Party getting only £34 million, with the Liberals getting just under £10 million, individuals contributed £20 million to the Labour Party’s donations; trade unions contributed £7.3 million. Of the individuals, one lady, Mrs Anna Lisbet Rausing, gave the Labour Party around £1 million.
I do not deny her that pleasure, but the railway unions gave the Labour Party £143,000. That is the clothing allowance of the Cabinet. Let us be realistic about this. The unions certainly have influence in the Labour Party—partly because our party does not treat them very well—but they certainly do not buy the party. I can speak from having been in the Labour Party as well as the Conservative Party. On this, I say, “Do come off it”. The fact of the matter is that there has been tremendous demand for change in how the railways are run; that has been present for probably the last 10 years.
What we have here is the beginning of a new era. Not everything is right; I certainly want to see some serious consideration given to the way in which capital investment will be put out. I would also like to know how the Minister and the unions will relate to each other. If there is not going to be a pay body, how will they go forward? The Minister is not going to sit in the office and say, “What shall we do today? Let’s listen to the unions’ pay demand”. There must be some sort of structure and body to look at how the pay awards are given, as there has been up to now. I would like to know how we are proposing to go ahead in the future with that very difficult area.
Finally, if a train driver earns £60,000 or £70,000 a year, they are doing a highly skilled job that requires training. They are driving a train that costs millions and which is full of lives that could be lost if they make a mistake. They are well worth the money. I have always resented the fact that there is a certain middle-class thing where, if you do not have a pen and a piece of paper and sit at a desk, you somehow are not worth a decent salary. That is rubbish. Most of the railwaymen I know work hard for the money they get and deserve every penny of it. We should remember that. I am not saying that we over-reward them, but we should not get jealous and tied up because we give hard-working people decent salaries.
Lord Cryer (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
Thank you—my Lords, I nearly said, “Thank you, Mr Speaker”. That is what comes of spending 20-odd years at the other end of the Corridor: you develop certain conditioned reflexes, as many of us know.
I start by offering my thanks to Black Rod, her staff, the clerks, the doorkeepers, the security services, the police, many members of staff and Peers for the help, support and warmth that they have given me since I came to this place on 9 September. I also thank my two supporters, my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lady Smith of Basildon. My noble friend Lord Kennedy and I have known each other since roughly 1986; the exact date is lost in the mists of time, it is that long ago. My noble friend Lady Smith and I were elected in the Blair landslide of 1997. She was the MP for Basildon. I was the MP for Hornchurch for eight years before I lost Hornchurch to James Brokenshire, whom many of you will remember. James and I became friends—at least, I like to think that we were. Sadly, James died very young at the age of only 53. I was then the MP for Leyton and Wanstead for 14 years. Leyton and Wanstead is probably one of the most mixed constituencies not just in Britain but on the face of the planet; if you pick a particular community, it probably has representatives in Leyton and Wanstead.
During nine of those years, I chaired the Parliamentary Labour Party. It is good to see my opposite number, the noble Lord, Lord Brady, in his place. He chaired the 1922 Committee for 14 years, I think. It is fair to say that, during the first half of my tenure as chair of the PLP—during the previous leadership of the Labour Party—chairing the PLP had its interesting points on Monday evenings at 6 pm in Committee Room 14. During the second half, in the run-up to 2024, life got a bit quieter and more boring for me—but maybe a bit livelier for the noble Lord, Lord Brady.
I cannot speak today without mentioning the anniversary of 7 October. A year ago, there was the deadliest attack on the Jewish community that the world has seen since 1945. It was right up there with the activities of the Nazis and the pogroms perpetrated on Jews across the globe and down the centuries for all that time. However, before I finally get on to the Bill, which I will do, we must remember that anti-Semitism has been on the rise in this country for some time. It is getting broader and deeper. If you do not believe me, just look at the figures produced by the Community Security Trust. It is there for all to see.
I do not enjoy saying this but I point out that anti-Semitism seeped into the pores of the Labour Party—my Labour Party—for a number of years under the previous leader. Nor do I enjoy saying that, as chair of the PLP, I found not just an unwillingness to tackle racism among the then leadership of the party but an obstruction to those of us who wanted to tackle the anti-Semites and kick them out of the Labour Party. I remember once being shouted down at a party meeting because I suggested that, on balance, it maybe was not a bad idea to kick racists out of the Labour Party. Regardless of what happens in the next few years, Keir Starmer deserves every credit—and always will—for tearing anti-Semitism out of the Labour Party by its roots, to use his phrase. He will always have my support and my loyalty for doing that alone, regardless of the other things he has done to great success. Even so, it remains a source of anger and resentment that we had—I emphasise “had”—members of the Labour Party who supported Hamas, Hezbollah and the clerical fascists who run the regime in Tehran. I will return to anti-Semitism and racism generally another day but, for now, I turn briefly to the Bill.
The railways have had a central part in my life since I was born, really. My dad was a founder of the Keighley & Worth Valley Railway in the 1960s; it was one of those railway lines that was closed under Beeching, which I view as a disastrous period in British transport policy. He set up the Keighley & Worth Valley light railway. He then—I do not know how—persuaded EMI to film “The Railway Children” on that railway. He then got himself a job as the technical director on the film, then got the entire family jobs as extras on the film. My sister and I never saw the money but that is another story. It was an absolutely extraordinary experience. It was pointed out to me a while ago, in the run-up to the previous general election, that that general election was the first in Britain since 1970 in which a cast member of “The Railway Children” was not standing as a parliamentary candidate in the election campaign—so that is something to conjure with.
I support this Bill and have always supported the public ownership of rail. However, worse than the privatisation of the railways was the fragmentation of the railways. There are two quick historic examples that I can pray in aid. The Governments of the 1920s generally tended to subscribe to free market economics and, to some extent, politics. Yet, in 1921, the then Government passed the grouping Act, which brought more than 100 railway companies together into the big four railway companies, because it was seen that fragmentation was not working. The railways were literally grinding to a halt in many cases.
I will finish with this example. Arguably the biggest fan of the free market to occupy 10 Downing Street was William Ewart Gladstone, yet even Gladstone thought that the fragmentation of the railways in the 19th century was a mistake. Perhaps it was not a mistake originally, but in 1844, before he was Prime Minister, when he was a Secretary of State in the Peel Government—some of your Lordships will know this —he presented the Railways Bill to Parliament. What noble Lords may not know is that that Bill originally provided for the public ownership of the entire rail network.
The Bill was important, because it ended up being the first Bill to be introduced that represented government intervention in rail transport. It provided the parliamentary train which meant that working-class people across Britain could afford to take at least one rail journey a day. That was its intervention, but it originally had provisions for public ownership. Gladstone abandoned that as Secretary of State, because in those days the whipping system in the House of Commons was not as firm as it is now. There were semi-independent MPs, and he decided that he could not get it through the House of Commons, so he watered it down and moved on to introducing purely the parliamentary train. Nevertheless, if public ownership and a more homogenous network were good enough for WE Gladstone in 1844, they are certainly good enough for us in the 21st century.
It is a huge honour and a privilege to deliver my maiden speech today in front of my friends, many of whom I have known for many years in the other place and, to some extent, in this place. I look forward to future debates.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Cryer and to congratulate him on a superb maiden speech, which informed and entertained both sides of this Chamber. I am delighted to say, and I am sure I speak on behalf of colleagues from both sides of the Chamber on this, that despite his early fame in the film world, the attractions of Hollywood did not drag him away from a political career and he stuck to his parents’ views and principles. I will come back to Bob and Ann in a moment, but my noble friend’s career, as a Member both of the other House and of this House in the years to come, shows equal talent to that of his mother and father.
My noble friend was elected in 1997 in that Labour landslide—unusually, with his mother. That was a fairly unusual combination: fathers and sons occasionally get elected, but mothers and sons rarely do. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Ann, his mother, who fought a long, and for her sometimes unpleasant, battle on behalf of women who were being exploited in various parts of the country. The championship that Ann showed will be and is being followed by her son, and I know that she is enormously proud of his elevation to this House.
Going back to my noble friend’s experience in the other place, he became the longest-serving chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, which is enormously to his credit. Those on this side of the House, particularly those who have spent some time down the Corridor, know just how fractious meetings of the Parliamentary Labour Party sometimes are. It shows the strength and character of my noble friend that he was not just elected but re-elected chair. There were instances of—I should not say it—skulduggery when we elected the chair of the PLP, but my noble friend was respected enough to hold off against any plots against him and to be re-elected. He quite rightly reminded us of the difficulties that our party suffered under its previous leadership, and the fact that he played such a prominent and courageous role in opposing anti-Semitism in the higher ranks of our party is, again, greatly to his credit. I know I speak for both sides of the House when I say that we look forward to hearing him again in the future.
I also congratulate the two other maiden speakers. I know the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, because I have taken an interest in transport for many years. I cannot say that I have entirely agreed with him over the years, but I thought that his contribution today was excellent. I particularly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who also made a superb maiden speech. She greatly enhanced her reputation right from the start by her knowledge of the subject that we are discussing today—transport.
I also congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her appearance during this debate. I hope I do not cause her too much embarrassment when I say that I do not share some of the good feeling of many of my colleagues about the Bill. I do not think it tells us very much. It was 2021 when the Great British Railways project was brought before us following the publication of the Williams-Shapps report. Here we are, three years later, and all we have to show for it is the total bill for GBR so far, which I understand is about £61 million. I have no idea what that money is being spent on and what will happen in the future, because this is very much a skeleton Bill.
I spent my working life in the railway industry, as my father did. I have bored noble Lords from both sides with some of the stories from my past. I started on the railways in a signal box, as a teenager in the late 1950s. I qualified as a signalman at 18. I have to say —my late father would agree with me on this—that working for a nationalised railway in those days was not all it was cracked up to be. In those days, the railway industry was dependent on Treasury largesse, but many of us spent our time, as I did, in signal boxes built by the Victorians, some of which are still working and are perfectly safe. They were built to last, unlike some of the modern equipment on the railway system.
However, the fact that we in the railway industry never had the opportunity or the finance to modernise until recently made me feel that perhaps an injection of money from elsewhere—from the private sector, if you like—might benefit it. I listened with interest to the contribution of a former Secretary of State in the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. He outlined graphically and aptly the difficulties in trying to persuade the Treasury, against all other financial pressures, to put money into the railway industry. However, we managed it on two occasions over the years, following the 1955 modernisation plan and with some of the modern equipment that has been installed since.
The fact is that we competed for scarce resources against hospitals and schools, and against one’s colleagues. I chaired the Channel Tunnel Back-Bench committee in the other place, when many of my colleagues from the parliamentary party said, “What do you want to waste money on that for? I need a hospital in my constituency”, “I need to repair schools in my constituency”, or, “There is a finite amount of money available and I want some of it for my constituents”. That is a perfectly legitimate stance to take, but it indicates the difficulties of depending entirely on His Majesty’s Treasury for finance.
Look at what happened immediately after the 1994 Act. The concept of privatisation and the way it was implemented was crazy, and I said so at the time. I understand that John Major, then Prime Minister, wanted to privatise the railway based on old-fashioned regionally based companies. He was a bit sentimental in that way. What was his comment about old maids cycling to church on a Sunday morning? Some of the old maids in the Cabinet at that time were not prepared to allow him to privatise on that basis, so we got the rather nonsensical and fragmented system that we have at present.
However, at least initially, a lot of money came into the railway industry that would never have come had matters been left to the Treasury. There were lots of new trains. The crazy system was such that millions of pounds were made and taken out of the industry by those running the companies that provided the trains, but many of those trains did end up on our railway system.
I was speaking recently to a gentleman known to many noble Lords on both sides of the House, Christopher Austin, the former British Rail parliamentary affairs officer who retired upon privatisation in 1994. I asked him whether in 1994 we would have got the Treasury to agree to the amount of investment into the new trains that took place, and he said, “No, we wouldn’t have done: we would have been scratching around”.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Liddle on his contribution earlier. I went to see his boss in the late-1970s about the renewal of the classic diesel multiple units that were introduced in the 1950s. He said, “I’d love to be able to say that we can find the money to renew them, but we can’t at the present time”. Because of that, those classic diesel multiple units from the 1950s were eventually renewed in the 1980s on the basis of Treasury parsimony, if you like—the Treasury certainly had a big input—which said that, for every three-car classic diesel multiple units that you have inherited and are now past their sell-by date, you have to replace them with two-car diesel multiple units, and so we got the sprinters and pacers. We have only just got rid of the pacers. Anybody who has travelled on them will know full well that they were known by drivers as “threepenny bit wheels”—noble Lords will remember the old-fashioned threepenny bits. Travelling on them, hearing them screeching around curves, was more third-world than modern-day history. That was a result of the parsimony. It was asked at the time by BR management whether a similar number of seats should be provided as the trains being abolished. They were told, “Just put the seats closer together”, and the result was the discomfort of those cut-price trains, some of which we still have at the present time.
My noble friend understandably had some harsh words to say about franchising. But what will happen in this city, for example, where TfL franchised its railway system, and with Chiltern Railways—in my view the one success of the whole privatisation process, where a line that was being run down by British Rail now provides two trains a day to Birmingham and an extensive commuter system? Again, BR management did not want to close these down, reduce the services and stop early-morning and late-night trains, but it was given a block amount of money every September and told “Run the railway with that money and don’t come back for any more”. My noble friend the Minister when she comes to wind up will say that this will not happen in future as far as the Treasury is concerned, and I will believe her. Well, I will try to believe her—let us put it that way—because it has never been noticeably generous, and I will need some evidence that it will be so in future.
I say again: look at the big cities. How will we provide train services in and around those big cities with one national rail system making decisions here in London? Many of our metropolitan mayors want the right to implement their own train services in their way, and that is a model that does not fit too well with nationalisation as a whole. So, although I wish the Bill well, we will certainly return to these issues in much more detail when we see exactly what plans His Majesty’s Government have for the railway industry.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have much enjoyed listening to this afternoon’s debate, partly because of the excellent maiden speeches we have heard, and to have been present when the noble Baroness the Minister has been having her first big step-out on to the stage. Unlike almost all the other speakers, I do not consider myself an expert on the railways. I rise as somebody who has spent a great deal of time travelling on the railways, and that is the basis of my comments.
It is true, and I declare it, that I am president of the South Tynedale Railway, which runs for approximately 8 kilometres north from Alston towards Haltwhistle, which is about five or six miles beyond where we currently end—once we get to Haltwhistle, we are on to the British national network and the world is our oyster. Also, although I cannot in anyway emulate the vivid reminiscences of the noble Lord, Lord Snape, as a very small boy I changed the signals in the signal box at Bassenthwaite Lake.
As I got on the train this morning in Penrith, near where I live—it arrived two minutes late and arrived in London two minutes early—I realised, and I am not alone here by any means, that for the first few years I travelled on the railway the trains were pulled by steam engines. Just as the source of power has changed, so has the ownership of the railway system and the trains running on it. Over that period, the service has been variable. Under British Rail, I had good experiences and ghastly experiences. Under the privatised rail system, I have had ghastly experiences and good experiences. We want to be even-handed in our criticism of what might have taken place in the past. People might think it eccentric, but I am just going to put in a word on behalf of Avanti. It has had terrible press and a lot of justified criticism, but it is trying to get better and is improving the service, and that should be recognised, because if a rail service becomes a completely demoralised army it will end up delivering worse for the public.
The real problem with the politics of the railways—I use that phrase in a general, non-specialist sense—is that it is rather like the English football team: the less you know, the more emphatic are your views about what needs to be done. What we are talking about here is the implementation of a manifesto commitment of the new Government. Of course there is a commitment, but there is also an awful lot of detail that needs to be filled in before things actually happen. The reality of railways is that it is all very complicated. At the point of delivery it has to be delivered by experts, regardless of who owns the system, just as the National Health Service has to be delivered by trained, qualified doctors and medical staff, supported by specialist private sector businesses, science and technology. In addition to that, our rail services have to be delivered in the national, not a partisan or party-political, interest, regardless of ownership and regulative frameworks.
We all know that there are a whole series of criticisms, deficiencies and problems that relate to the railways system in this country today. Much of this results, either directly or indirectly, from our current wider national malaise of concentrating too much on consumption and not carrying out sufficient investment. That is something that we need to address nationally.
As a number of speakers have said, the Bill does not have all that many words in it compared with other Bills we consider in this House. We are assured that it presages real change that will bring improvement. What we cannot let it become is a kind of blank cheque to give the Government completely free range. What I think the public and Parliament want and need is a convincing explanation of how it will all happen and evolve. Soundbites are no good. For example, where I come from in Cumbria, where I have been chairing the local enterprise partnership, the railway system is a very important part of the infrastructure of that county and the businesses in it. The future prosperity of Cumbria materially depends on rail connection.
An important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is that if we do not get it right it will waste, and therefore cost, a great deal of money. That is something we must make sure we avoid if we possibly can.
As I have said, I do not know the answer to many of the problems facing our rail system, but we all need to know the kind of ways forward to deal with them that are being proposed by the Government.
In the debate on the King’s Speech, I said I was agnostic, as I am, about the forms of ownership of and control over our railway system. What I want is simple: I just want it to work properly. This approach was more vividly described some years ago, in a different context, by Chairman Deng, who said, “I don’t care whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice”. What I would like to hear from the Minister is not that she can give us an assurance that the new cat is a good mouser but rather how it will catch the mice, how much it will cost and how many it will manage to get.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is my great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon and my noble friend Lord Cryer to this House. I thank them for their excellent maiden speeches, which have given us plenty to ponder and think about. I look forward to their future contributions and to joining them for a cup of tea or coffee as well.
The privatisation of the railways has been a failure, although it has managed to secure an entry for Prime Minister John Major in the annals of privatisation. It was a service which Margaret Thatcher was not willing to privatise because of the huge problems, but John Major was desperate to get an entry in the annals of privatisation, so here we are. In 1994, when the old British Rail was broken up into more than 100 companies, it was one of the most efficient in Europe. It had one of the cheapest fares per mile in Europe and a punctuality rate of 86.4%; it was receiving, at that time, an annual subsidy of £1.7 billion. The ideological break-up of British Rail resulted in the fragmentation of the system, the neglect of the long-term and the multiplication of administrative structures. Suddenly you needed 100 boards of directors, 100 accounting systems, 100 HR systems, 100 sets of auditors and 100 sets of accountants, and all that inevitably pushed up the costs of the privatised system.
Even worse, there was no real competition. I use the c2c line when I come to the House. There is no competition: I have absolutely no choice and I have to pay whatever it demands. Today, I had to stand all the way from my home in Essex to London because there are simply no seats, and the wifi was non-existent. There is nothing I can do about it; I am just a captive customer.
Thirty years after John Major’s excursion into privatisation, train companies have a punctuality rate of 70.1%, the UK has one of the most expensive train fares in Europe, and last year the subsidy was £11.9 billion. I will not say anything about catering and the awful sandwiches on long-distance routes at the moment, as many noble Lords have possibly experienced.
Any move to curtail privatisation is most welcome, and I support the Bill. That said, I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to clarify. Clause 1 states that passenger services will in future be provided by a public sector company. How are these public sector companies to be made accountable to the people? I recommend that at least 50% of the board of directors of this public sector company, which could well be a number of companies akin to the railway boards that we used to have, should be directly elected by customers. Customers should also vote on executive pay, not only of those companies but of the regulatory boards. That way, people can exercise some influence. They cannot be taken for an easy ride and cannot be ripped off on a regular basis by suboptimal services. I hope the Minister will be able to give some commitment to that form of democratisation.
I also have a question about how the new public sector company is going to acquire the necessary rolling stock. Let us look at the current situation. Rolling stock is not owned by train-operating companies; they lease it from rolling stock companies and pay an exorbitant amount of rent. Last year, some £3.1 billion was paid in leasing payments by train operating companies to roscos, or rolling stock companies. Just three rolling stock companies—Angel Trains, Eversholt and Porterbrook—control about 87% of the market, and they have a profit margin of 41.6%. That is exorbitant. There is absolutely no justification for that kind of profit margin because the payments are absolutely certain—they are paid either by customers or taxpayers. I hope that the Government are getting ready to investigate profiteering by these rolling stock companies and put an end to the gravy train that has been operated.
These three rolling stock companies are foreign owned and registered in Luxembourg, which means they are obviously not paying taxes there. There are only two reasons for companies to go to places such as Luxembourg: one is secrecy and the second is tax avoidance. There is no other reason whatever for going to such places. Last year, these roscos paid a dividend of £409.7 million, and in the past decade they have paid more than £2 billion in dividends. This dividend is typically 100% of their pre-tax profits, and no tax is paid on those dividends either because the recipients are outside the UK. I hope that the Government will not continue with these roscos, and perhaps the Minister can confirm that. The Government have choices: they can purchase rolling stock directly from the current manufacturers and eliminate all intermediaries, such as the current roscos; they can create their own leasing company and eliminate these roscos; or they can bring the manufacturing of trains and rolling stock under one roof to consolidate them. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain which route the Government are planning to take.
Judging by the statement made by the Transport Secretary in the other place on 29 July, perhaps the Government have something else in mind. She said that the rationale for the current Bill is,
“the failure of privatisation to deliver reliable and affordable services for passengers”.
She added:
“It also makes financial sense, saving tens of millions of pounds each year in private sector fees. That money can now be reinvested in the railways. Running the railways in the interest of passengers and taxpayers, not to the benefit of shareholders, also makes operational sense”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/7/24; col. 1074.]
That statement was echoed by the Minister earlier, so I assume that it is reasonable to expect that the current roscos will not remain in control or operation and that the Government will not be leasing any trains from those companies. I hope the Minister can confirm that. If my interpretation of that statement is erroneous, I would like to hear that as well.
In addition, can the Minister say what will happen to freight services? Why are they not being brought into public ownership? They are highly lucrative as well.
Finally, I ask the Minister to end what train companies call dynamic pricing. Actually, there is nothing dynamic about it; it is simply a way of fleecing customers. Two of my friends from Australia visited London and, on the spur of the moment, decided that they would like to visit Exeter. A quick search online for an economy class return the next day quoted them £700 each—that is more than a flight to China. Needless to say, they did not travel by train. I wonder how many other tourists have refrained from visiting wonderful parts of this country as a result of this kind of fleecing and how many business trips have been put off. There is absolutely no excuse for this. Can the Minister assure the House that public ownership of passenger services will end this abusive practice? We need a fixed price, regardless of the time at which anybody travels, not £700 returns to Exeter. That is just criminal, and I hope somebody gets prosecuted for it.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who, as usual, brings his accounting experience to make us think about things in a slightly different way. It has also been really good to hear three maiden speeches. The noble Lords, Lord Grayling and Lord Cryer, spoke from very different perspectives but their experience and knowledge shone through and we look forward to hearing more from them in the House.
It was a real pleasure to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Pidgeon. I have known her for some years too, and her expertise on transport in the Greater London Assembly was second to none. She is a tireless campaigner on improving transport for people, making it more reliable and more accessible. That is how we got to know each other. I believe that she will make as strong a mark in your Lordships’ House as she did in the GLA.
Other noble Lords have already demonstrated their knowledge of the structure of the current railway system and expressed their views on this first step of ensuring that public sector operators can be awarded contracts without us having to go to private ones. I want to focus on a key element of Labour’s paper Get Britain Moving, which is not particularly evident in this Bill but which I think is vital. It will not surprise noble Lords to hear that this element is accessibility and assistance services.
Get Britain Moving has a key thread of accessibility and ensuring that assistance is available to all passengers who need it. Indeed, accessibility is in three of the five missions in the paper: “Get Britain building again”, “Get the NHS back on its feet” and “Break down barriers to opportunity”. The contrast with the Bill that we are talking about today, its Explanatory Memorandum and the final-stage impact assessment could not be more stark. Accessibility and assistance are virtually invisible.
The Minister may say that they will come later, but the problem is that, in Clause 2(2)(b) of the Bill, the provision of services means that there will be no improvement in accessibility unless there is a specified change, because it talks about transferring existing arrangements over. If access arrangements at the moment are unsatisfactory and not meeting the law under the Equality Act 2010 provisions for disabled people, will the Government ensure that any new provision of services does meet these legal access requirements?
Why does it matter? The last Government and the present Government have kept talking about Great British Rail services, but the reality is that every part of the rail service structure that disabled passengers need to use is struggling. Transport for All and Disability Rights UK campaign constantly on this. Some of this is the responsibility of the train operating companies and some the responsibility of Network Rail.
I am so glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is in her place. Most noble Lords will have heard that, a few weeks ago, she was left on a train at King’s Cross late at night. No one came to assist her. She had to get out of her chair, crawl from the floor of the train on to the platform, lift her chair down on to the platform and then get back into it. As she says, despite everyone being horrified—I agree with her on that—this happens every day to disabled people. For those like me with electric chairs, pulling chairs off the train is not an answer. When it has happened to me, twice, at King’s Cross late at night, I have had to work out who to ring. I cannot ring the police as it is not urgent. I cannot ring 111; no one will answer until next week. I cannot ring the station because nobody answers the phone. What do you do at midnight? The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, came to my rescue on one of those occasions. She tweeted the chief executive of LNER and he managed to find someone to come and find me. She is a star.
But it is not just about understaffed assistance services. It is also the infrastructure at stations, including lifts and the lack of level boarding. The Campaign for Level Boarding rightly points out that the new Thanet Parkway, opened a year ago this July, still does not have level boarding and does not have full-time staff at the station. The purchase of different types and styles of trains means that every station has to use multiple ramps and some train operating companies no longer have staff other than the driver on trains to help you get off when there are no staff at the station. Disabled passengers were promised TUAG—turn up and go—years ago. The cuts and poor infrastructure mean that we have a much worse service. These days, even if we have booked in advance, we are often told when we turn up at a station, “We will absolutely do our best to get you on your planned train but we are very short-staffed; it may not be possible”. This is madness.
Ten days ago, I had to travel from Watford Junction to York for a regular meeting. I always allow more time between Euston and King’s Cross in case of delays. When I arrived at Watford Junction there was a fatality on the line, no trains were going anywhere and the staff, despite dealing with the emergency, managing a distressing situation, found me to tell me to go to St Albans on the Thameslink line instead. They undertook to let King’s Cross know that I would miss my train to York and asked staff at King’s Cross to help me get on another train. It was difficult, because they are often fully booked.
When I got to St Albans, it transpired the lift from the entrance to help get me to the middle platform was out of order. So, to get to it, I had to go to back up to the main road, over the railway ridge and down the other side. I could not cross over where everyone else did because there was no dropped curve. So I had to go down to the traffic lights, cross the road and go back up to the other entrance to St Albans station, through the ticket barrier, all the way down the platform to the far end to the lift.
The staff said the next train was in seven minutes and asked if I could make it. The answer was that I could not. So, while I was chatting to staff waiting for the next train to St Pancras, they informed me that the lift at St Pancras was not working, either. I had to go on to Farringdon. When I got to Farringdon, I got out and asked the lovely assistance person, “So I go up and come down the other side?” He said, “No, you can’t do that because there is only one lift at St Pancras. It is the same one that’s out of order. You have to go out of the station, find the Underground and find the assistance staff, who will take you down to the Circle Line and you get off at King’s Cross”.
By this stage, my blood pressure was going through the roof. I certainly missed the train that was planned for York, but the one wonderful thing that happened when I got to King’s Cross was that not only Euston but Watford had rung King’s Cross and they had checked to find me a space on every possible train in that gap. So I did not make the beginning of the meeting, but I got there for the end. All the staff at every stage were wonderful: encouraging, supportive and as helpful as they could be.
This is not unusual. My story is exactly the same as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. We know that this happens to people every day. The lift at St Pancras has been out for weeks. This is affecting thousands of disabled people wanting to get to work. The new Government rightly say that they want to see more disabled people getting into work. We cannot get to work. This is vital.
The New Civil Engineer newsletter on 2 September noted that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, who cannot be in his place and who was then chair of Network Rail, had said that Access for All was underperforming, with underspending on accessible capital works including £65 million of funding between 2019 and 2024 for accessible capital equipment at stations, including lifts.
In February, the German travel booking company Omio found that the UK ranked among the least accessible railway nations and reported
“alarming inadequacies for individuals with disability in national rail transport”
in the UK. Part of the problem is that Network Rail operates regionally and, with the TOCs having their own standards and their own systems, there is no consistency in provision.
By the way, the long-awaited Access for All portfolio sponsorship office has been delayed again. We are all still waiting for the DfT-commissioned AtkinsRéalis accessibility audit of all the over 2,500 stations, which was one of the recommendations in the Williams-Shapps plan for rail in 2021. So can the Minister outline how the Government will assure us that, as a matter of urgency, their priorities so ably discussed in Getting Britain Moving are put into action for this Bill before any franchise transfer happens? Because, until then, disabled people will not be able to rely on our rail system.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I have been pre-empted in much of what I wished to say by my colleague, the speaker before last—but that pleases me.
The period following the First World War saw a rapid process of consolidation, or grouping, as it was called, which created what were described as the “big four” companies. These were the Great Western Railway, GWR; the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, LMS; the London and North Eastern Railway, LNER; and the Southern Railway, SR. The companies were created by the Railways Act 1921, which came into effect on 1 January 1923. A quarter of a century later, on 1 January 1948, the companies were nationalised to form British Railways as a result of the Transport Act 1947. However, during the Second World War they had been effectively united when operating efficiently under the direction of the Railway Executive Committee, albeit that there had been no investment during that period.
Many regard the interwar years as the golden age of the railways, notwithstanding their poor economic performance; throughout that period, the LNER never made a profit. During that period, the engineering works at Crewe, Derby, Doncaster and Swindon provided the locomotives and rolling stock for their parent companies. They also profited from exporting their products in quantity to Africa, India and South America.
The romance of the railways was sustained by the magnificent main line express trains such as the “Flying Scotsman” of 1923 and the “Mallard” of 1938, which were both LNER locomotives designed by Nigel Gresley. Also memorable was the LMS “Coronation Scot” of 1937. That romance was in the mind of John Major when he oversaw the denationalisation of British Rail, which began in 1994 and was virtually complete by 1997. He relished the revival of the names of the big four. The process resulted in seven, later 25, rail franchises. The number is now down to 17, albeit that there are fewer controlling companies or consortia. These include companies partly or wholly owned by various national rail operators, including those of Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Canada.
Since the beginning of privatisation, many of the train operating companies have ceased to exist, for reasons that include the withdrawal or expiry of the franchises, the bankruptcy of the firms or their mergers. In 2004, Labour, on perceiving the inefficiency of the system, decided to reduce the number of franchises to align them with the structure of Network Rail, which maintains the railway infrastructure. The costs of the fragmentation and disorganisation of our rail system that have resulted from its privatisation are evident from comparisons that can be made with the efficient, nationally owned rail systems of some European countries.
The privatisation of 1994 saw the creation of a separate organisation charged with the maintenance of the railway infrastructure. That was Railtrack, which operated from 1994 until 2002. It owned the track, signalling, tunnels, bridges, level crossings and all but a handful of the stations. Many of the operations were outsourced to other companies. The consequence was that the infrastructure fell into disrepair and the state of the rail track was blamed for two major train accidents. The company was eventually taken into public ownership under the title of Network Rail.
Another problematic feature of the privatisation has been the creation of the so-called rolling stock leasing companies, or roscos, which own the locomotives and carriages that are leased to the franchise owners. There are six rolling stock companies operating in Britain, as we have heard, three of which own 87% of the rolling stock. They are owned by consortia, structured in complicated ways, which embody a large proportion of foreign capital. These consortia derive substantial profits; according to a document of the RMT rail union, between 2012 and 2018 the roscos passed a total of £1.2 billion in the form of dividends to their parent companies or consortia.
These companies are motivated to prolong the life of the rolling stock. It is notable that the average age of the rolling stock rose from 16 years in the first year of privatisation to almost 20 years in 2017-18. The rolling stock companies have no obligation or incentive to maintain a steady and co-ordinated stream of new orders for rolling stock. Their failure to do so has been to the detriment of our native manufacturers, which have also passed into foreign ownership and been subject to a series of takeovers and closures. The roscos might continue to lease their trains and rolling stock to a nationalised rail network for as long as they are serviceable, but there is no reason why they should be relied on to purchase new equipment. Such purchases should be made exclusively by Great British Railways, the new publicly owned authority.
All the major political parties have called for the reintegration of our rail system, albeit that the Conservatives have been coy about calling it renationalisation. The process will entail a massive reorganisation, which will take time. The current Bill, which is the first small step, does little more than relieve the Minister of the obligation to invite competitive tenders from parties proposing to run sections of the system. Placing the system under a coherent central direction which can address strategic matters will relieve the Minister for Transport of the continual interventions, described as micro-management, that have been necessitated by the disjointed nature of the privatised system. This will enhance the efficiency of the operations. At the same time, it should facilitate regional planning within a wider national framework, which should be able better to meet local transport needs.
It has been observed that the process of renationalisation, as far as it concerns the train operating companies, will be virtually costless. The franchises will fall into the Government’s hands when they expire. Already ScotRail, Welsh railways, the east coast main line, TransPennine, Northern, Southeastern and the Caledonian Sleeper are in public ownership. The Department for Transport currently controls these train operators via rail transport’s operator of last resort, which is known unaccountably by the initials DOHL. Someone might explain that to me; I cannot find what those initials signify. Although it is proposed that the expiring franchises will fall under this umbrella, there is an allowance in the Bill for the extension of franchises in case DOHL finds itself overwhelmed in coping with its new acquisitions.
It seems that there is no intention at present to nationalise the rolling stock companies, presumably because to do so would be too costly. However, control must be exercised to ensure that there is a steady stream of orders to support the train manufacturers in the UK. The three firms that are manufacturing trains in the UK—Alstom, Hitachi and Siemens—are in foreign ownership, and each can fulfil its orders by manufacturing its trains elsewhere. The Government must guard against the ever-present danger of losing our train manufacturers.
Britain was the original railway nation—it began its railway exactly 200 years ago—but, since its privatisation, the nation has been in danger of losing ownership of its rail system. The hope is that we can repossess it, at least in part. The system has been widely subject to a predatory profit motive. By alleviating that, one can expect a better return for taxpayers’ and passengers’ money. Even greater gains are in prospect, which should come from reducing the inefficiencies of a disjointed and dislocated system.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con)
My Lords, this Bill and this debate are primarily about passenger railway services but, with the permission of the House, I shall say a very few words about a closely connected form of transport. As a resident of the Isle of Wight, I will talk about the ferry companies serving the island. One of those companies is Wightlink, which, as some noble Lords may know, was part of British Rail before it was privatised. The new Government say that one of their key priorities is to have a much better integrated UK transport system, and there has been much talk in this debate about putting the passenger first, but so far only rail and buses are included in their plans. Why not ferries too?
The UK is a collection of islands, so ferry travel is essential for many, but cost is also a key consideration, including for families deciding whether to visit islands. Noble Lords may be surprised to hear that, when visiting the Isle of Wight, non-residents of the island are sometimes charged as much as £300 per vehicle in super-high season for a return journey lasting 45 minutes. I suggest that the Government should intervene to ensure minimum service levels, with price caps and subsidies where necessary. I have personal experience of the lack of joined-up timetabling between the rail company—South West Trains—and the ferry company serving the Isle of Wight, especially at night and in the winter.
On the Isle of Wight we have—and will continue to have, without government intervention—a situation where rail and bus services on the mainland and on the island are connected by a private ferry company loaded with a lot of debt but with few operating obligations. Buses and trains are currently subsidised so why should Isle of Wight residents and visitors to the island have to pay unsubsidised fares that are sometimes exorbitant, as we have heard? I hope that the Government, when considering what to do with passenger railways, will also take a close look at the ferry companies servicing our islands, particularly the Isle of Wight, for the sake of the passengers.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, who is not her in place at the moment, for her introduction, which explained this Bill to me rather more than what was evident from the text. I congratulate all three Members on their maiden speeches. My noble friend Lord Cryer is not in his place but I remind him, given his praise of Gladstone, that, according to Gilbert and Sullivan, the parliamentary train was an extraordinarily slow beast; he should bear in mind that that was not quite the flashy new railway we hope to introduce.
Like my noble friend Lord Liddle and various other noble Lords, I have an ideological commitment to a nationalised railway system. I believe that the railways, together with the water sector, are the worst examples of privatisation. Others I can live with but, with those two, I cannot. This week, we see the preliminary Bills on both. We are not going for the nationalisation of water, as I understand it—I had hoped otherwise—but we are going to make some radical changes. We need to: both of those models of privatisation have utterly and completely failed.
My recollection of the comparison with British Rail is not the one on which I heard the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, expand. My pre-Beeching memory of British Rail as a lad was that the railway down to the south-west was dual-tracked, regular, uncrowded and cheap, while the food was actually quite nice. These days, none of those things applies; indeed, South Western Railway has decided to abolish food on trains altogether and the journey is much less pleasant. We may not be able to go back to those halcyon days but I hope that we have a coherent policy for the subsequent stages of this return to a nationalised system.
I will not comment greatly on those terms—I had a lot of questions I was going to ask, but most of them have been asked and I hope they will eventually be answered—but, on the central issue, the only way in which to get the railway system to work is to have some degree of controlling mind and some degree of consistent management across the various bits. It does not matter how many entities there are, how many private companies there have been at various times or how many public companies there are going to be; somebody somewhere has to oversee the totality, both of the infrastructure and of the running of the system.
On most journeys of more than a few miles there is a change. Most passengers are utterly frustrated by the way in which the railway timetable is run, by the system for booking seats and buying seats on the day, and by the way in which there is no integration between the different parts of the network. That needs to be addressed. It can be addressed only by a relatively integrated oversight, and I believe that has to be within the public sector. I agree with the Government that the majority of cases need to see a public sector authority there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to the passage of the Transport Bill of 2000. I was a junior Minister on that Bill with my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston. We did not include nationalisation in that Bill. My noble friend Lord Prescott did have inklings in that direction, but the Treasury and No. 10 turned him down. Instead, we invented the Strategic Rail Authority, which did not work. We now need a system that works. I hope that the subsequent stages of the renationalisation of the railways sees a system that works.
Two issues have hardly been mentioned, except indirectly. My noble friend Lord Balfe—I call him my noble friend because we are both officers of BALPA—mentioned the industrial relations side. The workers have not been mentioned to any great degree, yet we have one of the most skilful, long-standing and long-serving structures of employment in the railway industry. We have one of the most heavily unionised sectors of industry, which has been badly mismanaged by Governments of all sorts and by private companies in the past. We need a new start in industrial relations in the railway industries. That is not just a question of making sure that the leaders of the unions are not too left-wing; I do not believe the unions—or at least their membership—are that left-wing. They just want to play a positive, constructive part in the running of the railways.
Many years ago, when I first worked for the TUC and was made secretary of the transport committee, I was told that the previous general secretary of the TUC, George Woodcock, had wanted the transport committee to end up with one union for the railway industry. We did not quite get there, and that was in 1970, but we could now have a relationship between the nationalised entity, the trade unions and the individual companies which looks forward for strategy, for planning and for engagement of the workforce, which has never been seen properly in the railways since the very early days of British Rail.
The other group, of course, are the consumers, whom we have talked about. I have also been a consumer champion. We have never seen a strong consumer organisation for the railways. Transport Focus does its best, but we need to have a representation of the voice of consumers in the future of the railways that is properly financed and supported by the industry and the Government. At the moment, all that consumers are left to do is to be frustrated—I was going to use a different word—by the way in which their complaints are dealt with. What they want is an organisation which has the strength to convince the management to alter the system in favour of consumers. At the end of the day, the passengers are vital to the railways, and the railways ought to recognise the importance of keeping the consumers happy and making sure that the system works for them. If we do not do that, we do nothing.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very wide-ranging debate. We have strayed across the world, as far as Japan, and as far back as Gladstone. It is worth mentioning that Gladstone was born before rail systems were invented. It has been an excellent and well-informed debate. How could it be otherwise, as so many speakers have had considerable experience in the rail industry? A whole gallery of ex-Secretaries of State have spoken as well.
I must start by congratulating those noble Lords who made their maiden speeches today, including, of course, the insightful contribution from my noble friend Lady Pidgeon. Her considerable experience as chair of the transport committee of the Greater London Assembly will clearly add considerably to our analysis in this House of the transport challenges we face. I also congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Cryer and Lord Grayling, on their contrasting approaches to the issues.
Contributions from these Benches have made it clear that the Liberal Democrats are agnostic about who owns what within the rail system. Our priorities reflect the concerns of the travelling public—indeed, of the public who would like to travel but all too often find that they cannot, because current systems are too expensive, too slow or too unreliable to be a viable option. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about the possibilities of public-private partnerships. The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised a very valid question about how to unlock private investment in a nationalised railway system.
We strongly support the Government’s intention to overhaul the system as a priority, but we are concerned that they have chosen to focus on re-nationalisation as a starting point. Their chosen method—allowing each franchise simply to die away at the end of the contract period—may superficially seem a clever way of enabling a relatively low-cost renationalisation but, as other noble Lords have said, it will still come at a price because it will create uncertainty, not least for staff. Ironically, the worst performing train operators, for example Avanti, may by chance be allowed to survive much longer than much better operators such as Greater Anglia. My noble friend Lady Scott made this point. We are in danger of having to wait over four years before some vital aspects of reform can be implemented.
My noble friend Lord Bradshaw once told me about working for British Rail through the years of stagnation, as staff waited for privatisation and worried about their jobs. The Government are in danger now of repeating that, but in reverse. Most of us here are old enough to remember that the old British Rail was not a shining example of success. It is important to remember that our rail system now carries twice the number of passengers; it is a very different beast, so we cannot simply go back to the future. Undoubtedly, the first stress the Government will face is to reconcile the terms and conditions of staff as they bring together very different working practices across the train operators. I ask the Minister: how do they intend to implement TUPE in a way that is affordable to passengers and taxpayers? How will they ensure that they keep the best staff when redundancies are inevitable?
As we look across Europe, there is a wide range of ownership patterns, although most countries have a mixed market, as we do here in the UK. The UK is not out of step on ownership; where we are out of step is on reliability, cancellation levels and fare levels. We have, as many noble Lords have mentioned, by far the most expensive rail journeys in Europe. UK fares are the highest, and the cost to taxpayers in subsidies is 30% higher than in any other country.
I say to the Government: the public do not care who owns our railways. They just want a good, reliable service with a simple fare structure that is value for money. Can the Minister give us details of government plans to reform fares? I appreciate that this is something for the future, but the Government must surely have plans in place. Fares need to be frozen in order to start providing a better deal for long-suffering passengers. Privatisation per se is not the problem; as several noble Lords have mentioned, it is fragmentation.
Compare this system with Transport for London, as my noble friend Lady Pidgeon did. Transport for London operates as a co-ordinated service but with a great deal of private sector input. All London buses look the same and operate to the same standard model, but they are run by different companies. The people of London I have talked to are blissfully unaware of that, because of the system. As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw said, the current UK railway system, introduced under privatisation, was overly bureaucratic and focused on the blame game. It is not about ownership but the way it is structured and the internal reaction between the parts of the whole.
During this debate, noble Lords have raised many unanswered questions, and my noble friends have drawn attention to what we regard as the key issues we are looking for answers to, and which the Bill, of course, does not begin to provide. My noble friend Lady Scott raised the issue of safety, which is not a problem on our current railway system but must not be ignored for that reason. The Government appear to believe that open access can continue alongside nationalised services. We need a detailed explanation of how that will work in the future. Who will decide what open access services can be provided?
My noble friend Lady Pidgeon raised the issue of devolution. As Liberal Democrats, we believe strongly that local areas generally know best what services they need, so we want transport devolution to thrive in the new system. We will be looking for cast-iron guarantees that renationalisation will not lead to even more Whitehall-centric control and decision-making than we already have. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred to the concentration of power in the current system.
My noble friend Lady Brinton raised vital issues of disability access. In this shake-up, we must not allow to pass by the golden opportunity we have considerably to improve access for people with disabilities. We must use this opportunity to spread best practice.
If we are to move to a greener Britain, rail freight has to prosper, yet the freight sector is untouched by this Bill. We need to hear more about government plans, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, emphasised the need for investment in freight.
How will the British Transport Police be funded in the future? Currently, it is funded by the TOCs. What about stations? Currently, they are largely, but not exclusively, leased to train operators. Possibly the strangest omission from the Bill and the Government’s stated plans is what happens to the roscos, which, as many noble Lords have mentioned, have been earning extremely high profits, despite all the problems facing the rail industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, told us the story of the transformation in Wales. As a Cardiff resident, I agree wholeheartedly with him that significant changes are happening in Wales—it is a useful story that noble Lords should look at in detail—but I stress that it has needed considerable investment.
In conclusion, from these Benches we congratulate the Government on finally starting to tackle the mess on our railways. It is a national embarrassment that the country that invented rail travel can no longer manage to build a new line to modern specifications —I refer of course to HS2. Since the Williams report, the previous Conservative Government twisted and turned, dithered and delayed, and wasted billions of pounds by doing virtually nothing. Great British Railways should have been fully up and running by now, and a simpler fare structure should also have been fully implemented—but we have seen no progress. Instead, they got hooked on being the motorists’ friend and talked only of how much they were subsidising the railways.
I hope that the new Government will change the rhetoric and talk instead about investment in our railways. That means investment in our economy, which simply cannot grow or function properly on our crowded islands without better rail infrastructure. We need that for both passengers and freight, and we need investment in our environment to reduce carbon emissions. That should be done by extending our rail infrastructure.
Renationalisation was a Labour manifesto commitment, and we accept the Government’s right to implement it. But, by asking the questions I have outlined—and some more—we will seek to probe the crucial details of the Government’s vision for rail and to find out how it will work in practice. We hope that constructive probing will improve the final result.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate all those who made their maiden speeches in this debate. They made excellent speeches and will make a great contribution to the House in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Cryer, referred to 1920s capitalism. I look forward very much to having a drink with him one evening, I hope, and discussing the very different attitudes that capitalism had to free markets in the 1920s. I remember that Lord Ashfield, who chaired and brought together the London Transport system in the private sector over a period of 30 years, could hardly bring himself to use the word “competition” in his shareholder letters. If he did, it was always coupled with the adjective “wasteful”, normally following the verb “eliminate”: “We must eliminate wasteful competition”, he said quite nakedly to his shareholders. His attitude to free markets and that of Mrs Thatcher must be regarded as two very different aspects of capitalism, not easily confused.
I also welcome the Minister to her place, and I thank all who contributed to the debate. It is invidious to mention any names, but I want to select the speech of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who set out with great lucidity the problems that privatisation was meant to address. If privatisation has to a degree failed, by whatever measure we choose to apply to it, his essential point was that the problems have not gone away. They are essentially the same problems, and the Government will have to come up with different solutions to them. So far, we have seen nothing of that.
We can all agree that reform of the railways is necessary to some degree. The last Government initiated that process with the Williams review, which contained many detailed recommendations—on fares, ticketing and other matters, for example—that I imagine will appear in the promised rail reform Bill next year, or whenever it appears. Given that it is several years since Williams reported, I am surprised that the Government need a further year to bring that Bill forward. My fear is that, as with the last Government, the complexities involved may be so great that we never actually see it and that, importantly, today’s Bill, far from being an interim measure, could end up being a sort of permanent state.
The Williams review was widely welcomed cross party, and the part of it that is most relevant to this debate and the Bill is concerned with the structure and franchising of the railways. As referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, the model envisaged by Williams was based on a successful model used by Transport for London for all its services, other than London Underground, which is directly provided. That model differs from the current arrangements for national rail. The key difference is that the fares risk is carried by Transport for London, in contrast to the rail privatisation model, which sought to transfer that risk to the train operating companies. That aspect of rail privatisation has never worked well, because it turns out that fares risk is closely linked to the economic cycle: as the economy booms, more people take trains and, if there is a recession, fewer people do so and the fares fall. That is a well-demonstrated economic phenomenon, but the train operating companies are totally incapable of managing it; they cannot manage the economic cycle.
As each franchise has been renewed over time, we have seen the Department for Transport agreeing contracts and franchises whereby more and more of the fares risk remains with the Department for Transport and, therefore, with HM Treasury. This process was brought to its ultimate logical conclusion by the pandemic, when there were no fares at all and all the fares risk was transferred to the Department for Transport, where it has largely remained under the contracts that have been renewed since then, even as passenger numbers have picked up, with the fares going straight to the Government.
By contrast, the TfL model leaves the private sector responsible for managing the risks that it is actually equipped to manage. For trains, buses and trams, this means having them in the right place at the beginning of every day, pointing in the right direction and with the appropriate staff on them, to an agreed standard of cleanliness—all the things that train operating companies are good at managing. If they fail to manage them properly, they receive a financial penalty. This system demonstrably works, which is no doubt why its adoption on national rail was recommended by Keith Williams as a former TfL board member, as indeed am I.
However, that was not what the unions wanted. I do not like to bring the unions into this after the minatory comments of my noble friend Lord Balfe—I am actually quite friendly towards trades unions—but I want him to reflect for a moment that one of the objectives of the unions and one of the consequences of the Bill is that, if there is a national strike on the railways in the future, his ability to get to Cambridge by one of the three alternative lines that currently serve him, and which allow him to escape the effects of a strike on one line, will be taken from him. He would be marooned in Cambridge and unable to put his services at the disposal of your Lordships’ House if there were a national strike, which is of course the power that the trades unions would like to be able exercise.
That part of the Williams prescription has been junked, and instead the phrase “single employer” has crept into the debate, appearing in Labour documents. There is to be a single employer with single terms and conditions; that is a very different thing from Williams and does not have cross-party support. We are moving from a tried and tested system, recommended by Williams and tried and tested by TfL, to one that is not tried and tested at all—or, if it was, it was in the period of the Attlee Government and the 1950s. The Government run the risk that the logo of Great British Railways will be the curly British Rail sandwich, which some of us are old enough to remember.
The logic behind the Bill is not without merit—there is a case for it—and it is that the network effects of the railways require a single controlling brain, but that single controlling brain largely exists at the moment. Following the scrapping of the Strategic Rail Authority, it sits explicitly in the Department for Transport, which awards the franchises, runs the system and is the controlling brain. The creation of Great British Railways is an admission that the Department for Transport has failed in that role. But having a single controlling brain does not necessarily mean that you need a single operating arm, as TfL illustrates.
There are logical inconsistencies in the Bill’s approach, the first of which relates to devolution. If there is an argument for a single brain to control a single national network, how does that fit with devolution? As several noble Lords have asked, how does it fit with a system whereby, in London, the most congested and busiest part of the network, you will have two competing networks? You will have a network run by TfL, using the private sector, and a network run by Great British Railways, often with services on the same tracks, from which the private sector is going to be banned. How can the private sector be unacceptable on some services on those tracks but perfectly fine on others?
The Government have no coherent answer to the question about London or what they are going to do. They could say that they will just leave it alone and not do anything with it, but of course the mayor has been accreting responsibility to himself for additional lines in London over time and he wants more—and there is an argument that he should have more. Are we to see a moratorium on the movement of responsibility for lines from Network Rail to the mayor? Is it all going to be frozen just as it is? Are we going to allow that process to continue, or are we going to reverse it in the interests of having a single controlling brain and the logic that exists behind Great British Railways? We have absolutely no idea. Even if all the services provided by TfL were not provided by the private sector, the logical question of having two different brains would still arise.
The other problem is to do with open access. The Government say that they are in favour of open access, but logically they should not be if they believe in a single brain and a single operating arm. Many of us are sceptical about whether they are truly committed to open access. On the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham pointed out, in the European Union open access has been pursued with great vigour in recent years under European Union law that has mandated it. Incidentally, the direction that we are going in is a Brexit bonus—I do not think that the Government have fully appreciated the difficulties that they would have had with this enactment if we were still a member of the European Union.
We have a report here, published only in August by the European Commission, on the benefits that have accrued from open access. It finds that
“where competition is more mature, the following effects could be noticed … Lower fares … Potential cost reductions … Increased frequencies”
and improved services. Specifically on fares, the report says:
“On average ticket prices have decreased by 28% on the selected case studies due to a non-incumbent operator entering the market”.
The Government have decided to turn their back on all that. Perhaps the cool reception that the Prime Minister had when he met Mrs von der Leyen not so long ago followed his explaining to her that he was about to exclude from access to British railways the many European companies that operate on them already and might want to bid for services in future. That might explain a great deal—I do not know.
As the debate has made clear—the Government have not really denied it—this is a rushed Bill. The result of that, as we are told in the impact assessment that accompanies it, is that there has been no time to look at alternative models. It says:
“The Bill has been prepared to enable swift delivery of a Government manifesto commitment”—
not to improve matters for passengers—
“As such, it has not been practicable for the Department to undertake the usual long-listing process”
of options that might be legislated for instead. That is what we are getting: a rushed Bill with no alternative solutions. Yet the debate today in your Lordships’ House has indicated an appetite for that.
I have tried to address the broad principles underlying the organisation of the railways. It has been suggested that this is a trivial and tiny Bill and that all the serious discussion will happen in a year’s time, or whenever the rail Bill comes. But actually, as the debate has made clear, this Bill is pregnant with huge consequences for the future, which is especially true if it gets pushed off further and further into the future. Even if the Government meet their timetable and have a Bill in front of your Lordships’ House 12 months from now, it will still take several years to implement it in practice. What we are setting up today could be the shadow arrangements that we live with for many years—but we have heard no serious discussion from the Government about issues such as performance monitoring and accountability.
I have mentioned devolution and open access. We do not understand where the investment is going to come from in future, a question repeatedly asked by noble Lords. At the end, the noble Baroness on the Lib Dem Benches brought in the important question of industrial relations and terms and conditions, but we do not know how that will work when people are TUPE-ed across to government employment. What is the cost of that going to be and how is it going to be affordable? Furthermore, what is the consequence of bringing the pension liabilities of the train operating companies over on to the government balance sheet, and what effect will that have on public finances?
There is an opportunity for us to discuss all those things in Committee, and I look forward to doing that when the time comes in a couple of weeks.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has participated in this very rich debate. I pay particular tribute to our three excellent maiden speeches. Well done to all three noble Lords. The reputation of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, on the London Assembly comes before her; I know that she is a fearsome scrutineer, and I very much look forward to working with her.
I have to be honest: the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, has brought back some very painful memories. The last one concerned Leeds Bradford Airport—he was so positive about us getting a station next to it. Unfortunately, as I am sure he is aware, it is still on the drawing board. It reminds me that when I became leader of Leeds City Council, I had no idea how much of my time would be taken up discussing rail. Transport, yes, but rail: it was quite an extraordinary time.
I really welcome my noble friend Lord Cryer and thank him for his wonderful speech. Of course, coming from West Yorkshire, I took my kids on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway. I worked very closely with my noble friend’s mother, for whom I have the hugest admiration; she is such a strong and powerful advocate of support for vulnerable women in particular.
Before I move on, I want to reference the narrow scope of the Bill. Of course, we will explore many of the issues in Committee, but I ask for patience: a lot of the debate will take place on the main Bill when it comes forward. As we have heard, this is one of the first major pieces of legislation from this Government, delivering a manifesto commitment, and I feel very privileged to speak for the Government at Second Reading. I am very grateful to all Members who have given their support to the Bill, while raising very pertinent questions. I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, my noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lord Liddle, and many others. Of course, I am also very grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Hendy.
Going back to the beginning of the debate, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for exposing the problems and all the good points he made. I thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner for recognising that the Bill’s being introduced so early in the legislative cycle is a real demonstration of the Government’s commitment. Obviously, we would like to continue the briefing sessions we have had thus far. Several speakers have questioned the case for public ownership, and we acknowledged and expected that. I will keep making the point that the privatised railways are simply not delivering for passengers or taxpayers. We cannot keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.
I am afraid that a culture of failure has been tolerated, although I acknowledge that there are exceptions, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. Our approach has clear public support. Just last month, a YouGov survey found that 66% of people nationally agree that railway companies should be run by the public sector, and only 12% favoured private operation, as referenced by my noble friend Lord Browne. As we have heard, there is broad consensus about the need to end the current fragmentation and refocus the whole railway system on serving passengers and freight users. The Williams Rail Review, which we have heard about, commissioned by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, shared these aims, and Keith Williams himself agrees that public ownership should deliver better integration.
My noble friend Lord Liddle hit the nail on the head regarding the delays in implementation: simply too many years have gone by with no action. We have had so many reviews, and now I am delighted that we are here talking about how we can start to move things forward. I have outlined some of the progress that has already been made in public ownership, turning around the performance of franchises that have failed in private hands. Public ownership means that the whole railway can pull together for the benefit of passengers, instead of different companies, as we have discussed. Public ownership will also pave the way for the wider railways Bill and for Great British Railways, properly integrating track and train. I do not think we can repeat this point enough. This would simply not be possible under franchising, or even under the concession model operated by Transport for London, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
I shall give a few examples of what an integrated, publicly owned railway might mean in practice. First, we are looking at decisions about when to close the railway for essential maintenance—this can be so chaotic. It needs to be planned in a joined-up way, taking account of the needs not only of the engineers and those doing the work, but also the needs of passengers, minimising both the cost and the disruption involved.
Secondly, it will allow us to fix the delay attribution regime, which has created a wasteful industry of arguing over who is to blame for delays and moving money between Network Rail and train operators to compensate. Great British Railways will focus on identifying and tackling the causes of delay, making services more reliable.
Public ownership will allow us to address the overcomplicated fares system. We have heard several comments about the fares system today. It confuses passengers, erodes trust and actually turns people away and prevents them taking the services that they could and should take. It will help us avoid repeating the unintended consequences of franchising. As an example of the waste and inefficiency, I point out that at least four passenger train operators each has its own train crew depots in Newcastle alone, duplicating the costs of mess-rooms, management teams and other overheads. Keith Williams’s review found that there were around 75 different types of passenger train. This is an inefficient way to run any transport system and means that there is no consistency for the passenger. Such examples are repeated right across the system.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner gave a great exposé of what needs to be done to achieve modal shift: how we actually persuade people to get out of their cars or not to take the domestic flight. On integration, railways have been in a difficult environment for so long. Again, I was very pleased to meet my noble friend in Leeds for the first time, at the Middleton heritage railway—his passion for that came through in the debate today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, raised important points about the accessibility of the railway and the inconsistent assistance offered by different train companies. I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, speak on the subject before: her passion and determination to make progress are touching and informative, and I really that hope everyone stopped to listen. Another unintended consequence of the fragmented system is that it can be so much more difficult than it needs to be, especially for disabled people. She raised important points about accessibility and, most importantly, the inconsistent assistance offered by different train companies.
Although there has been some improvement over the last few years—for example, the new two-hour booking window for assistance and the Passenger Assistance app—the proliferation of different booking systems means that, too often, customers still do not get the assistance that they have booked, and certainly do not get the assistance they deserve. This issue exists across all areas, including the number of different train designs, which all require different adjustments from disabled people. Over time, public ownership will allow us to meet passengers’ needs in a more coherent, consistent way.
I was disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, was unable to attend the beginning of this Session, but I am delighted she is here today. Her extraordinary commitment is a testament to the power required to bring the change we need. I know the Rail Minister has met with her about her recent experience, and I pay tribute to her for raising the public profile through what happened to her. It is so important that these stories are told, heard and, most importantly, acted on. As we know, the train operator concerned, LNER, is conducting a formal investigation into that specific issue. I also know that the Secretary of State and the Rail Minister will take a keen interest in ensuring that the findings are fully and swiftly acted on.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Will the Minister agree to meet both of us to discuss other issues, such as the apps and the inconsistencies between the train companies? Things are not quite as shiny and rosy as she was describing them.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My apologies. I was not trying to make things out to be shiny and rosy; I was just trying to say there was a proliferation of different types. I would be delighted to meet with both noble Baronesses.
I also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that Clause 2 simply provides that services must be secured by awarding a contract to a public sector company. It does not prevent us from improving services or terms if needed. There is nothing to prevent services being changed for the better when they come under public operation.
We have heard a great deal about actual performance. I will pick up on the aspects raised by several Members today. The noble Lord, Lord Young, made comments about strikes, for example. Every time the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, speaks, I think we pay tribute to his experience with the unions and the issues they bring. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, also asked questions on this subject. The approach has to be to work with the trade unions rather than against them. As the experience of the last few weeks has shown, we have already drawn a line under two years of industrial action, allowing train operators to get on with delivering the improvements that are so badly needed. It is not rocket science and it needs to be recognised and taken seriously.
We have heard about the impact on private investment. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, raised his concerns about this. I do not believe the premise that the approach will stifle private sector investment. Since the start of the Covid pandemic, the costs of operating franchise passenger services have been borne by Government, not by private train operators. That means that private operators no longer fund their own running costs or investments. We have to really ask ourselves how much real private investment is coming in at the moment, and of course we need to encourage it where we can. I have already highlighted the financial savings to the taxpayer from no longer paying fees to private operators. Public ownership will improve services while reducing the cost to the public purse. I absolutely acknowledge my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s comments about value for money.
I draw attention to my noble friend Lord Liddle’s comments about transparency, oversight and scrutiny. I reassure him that the contrast is published so it can be seen. I am more than happy to circulate a copy to anyone who would like to see it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, raised the issue of staffing when services transfer. To operate services successfully in the public sector, it is vital that existing staff transfer with them. The regulations—commonly known as TUPE—are designed to achieve this outcome, preserving key terms and conditions for staff as they transfer. These regulations will apply to future transfers from private to public operation, as they have done previously. There might just be a small number of people who do not transfer, as we have heard—for example, if they are seconded into a train operator from another employer. This process, combined with the expert staff already working in DOHL, will ensure that both strategic and operational roles are filled by people with the right experience to succeed. We have heard fears expressed around continuity, and I hope my answer undermines that point of view. Continued access to the railways pension scheme will also be assured, as it has been in previous transfers to public sector operation.
Many points have been raised in the debate about the Government’s plans for reform beyond this short Bill, including the arrangements for Great British Railways. I know that Ministers will enjoy debating these issues further with noble Lords and others as we develop our plans and once the further railways Bill is before your Lordships’ House. Although that debate is for the future, I am grateful for the views expressed today. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that the appetite for this debate is real and urgent; we can feel the great enthusiasm for moving the agenda forward.
I also reference the comments made by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe around growth and how we can bring all these issues together. The issues that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised about sustainability, ecology and other environmental matters will be fundamental.
I will give some more reassurance: Great British Railways will be operationally independent, with day-to-day decisions made by professionals and experts, not politicians. It will not mark its own homework. Our proposals will ensure sound oversight, and we will consult on them so that noble Lords and others can consider them and share their views. The Office of Rail and Road will continue in its role as safety regulator, building on its world-leading record in this area.
Let me also reassure my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that we are proceeding with this Bill first so that we can start the process of bringing train services in-house. As I have said, it is expected that the Bill will come forward in this Session when parliamentary time allows. It is a priority. Again, I reassure my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe of the wider issues that will come together when we discuss this.
There has been a great deal of concern about freight. The Bill sets out specifically to end the franchising of passenger services, so it has no impact on rail freight. However, there is a crucial future role for freight businesses, so the railways Bill will require Great British Railways to enable the growth of rail freight. The Secretary of State will set an overall freight growth target to ensure that it remains a key priority.
Many issues were raised about this not being centralised and the fact that devolution is absolutely critical. I will comment on my noble friend Lord Whitty’s concern about passengers as consumers. The proposed passenger standards authority should help to reassure the voice of passengers, as we have said all the way through.
I think we have dealt with the constraints of the contracts put in place for poorly performing operators, such as Avanti. I assure the House that the Secretary of State will not hesitate to act if the contractual conditions for early termination are met. We cannot burden the taxpayer with the cost of compensating private operators for otherwise ending their contracts early.
I am absolutely sure that we will come back to discussing rolling stock in Committee. I recognise the concerns raised and comments that have been made. I thank my noble friend Lord Hanworth for his contribution and reassure my noble friend Lord Snape that we are not bringing rolling stock back into public ownership.
Once again, I thank all those who have spoken today for their thoughtful contributions. It has been encouraging to hear the broad consensus in favour of industry reform to put the passenger and freight user back at the heart of our railways. I am pleased to be here today to get the reform on track. This Bill will allow us to start bringing services back into public hands, providing the strongest possible foundation for our wider programme of reform.