House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
In 12 weeks, this Government have hit the ground running for our 2030 target by ending the onshore wind ban in place for nine years under the Conservative party, consenting to more nationally significant solar projects than in 14 years of the last Government, and overseeing the most successful renewables auction in history compared with the Conservatives’ disastrous auction round that crashed offshore wind. This is a Government in a hurry to meet our mandate from the British people, and we are just getting started.
Dr Opher
I thank the Secretary of State for his really rapid action to reach our 100% sustainable goals by 2030. It has developed a real excitement in this country, and the people I speak to are genuinely behind this action. In Stroud, we are developing a community energy programme of putting solar panels on every school and public building that agrees to it. What steps is he taking to support solar on schools and public buildings, and can he ensure there are no barriers to progress?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of both rooftop solar and ground-mounted solar. I can tell him that, as part of Great British Energy’s plans, we want to work with local schools, local hospitals and, indeed, local leaders to have a solar panels programme, because this is a way to rapidly decarbonise and to save money off bills.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Cantonian high school in my constituency of Cardiff West will be the first Cardiff school to be operationally net zero in line with Welsh Government standards, while the building work itself will feature a significant reduction in embodied carbon. Fairwater community campus will be a collection of highly energy-efficient buildings that are powered from renewable energy sources, helping Cardiff to deliver on its One Planet strategy, which outlines the city’s ambition to mitigate climate change. Will the Secretary of State join me in celebrating the development, and agree with me that this sort of collaborative vision is required to deliver on our net zero commitments both here and in Wales?
Mr Speaker
Order. Just to help everybody, the hon. Gentleman is meant to go through the Chair, but he was looking at the Secretary of State. As good looking as the Secretary of State is, it is easier if the hon. Gentleman speaks to me, and then I can pick up what he says.
Ed Miliband
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker—and you, too, if I may say so. [Laughter.]
I congratulate my hon. Friend, but particularly the Fairwater community campus on the work it is doing. I think he highlights a very important issue. By helping to decarbonise public buildings, including schools, we help not only to cut our carbon emissions, but, crucially, to save money for those schools that they can then use for frontline services.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
The previous Secretary of State commissioned the Department to produce a full economic costing for getting to a fully decarbonised renewables-based grid by 2030, as the Secretary of State wants. That is obviously the sort of information that should be placed before the House so that we can have an informed discussion. It may be a good thing to do, but we should obviously know what the cost is. When will the Secretary of State publish that information?
Ed Miliband
Of course, that work is ongoing—in fact, I think the right hon. Lady the shadow Secretary of State has written me a letter about it—and we will be announcing our plans in due course.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
In my constituency, two major offshore wind farms are currently being developed: Morgan and Morecambe. I recently met nearly 100 farmers who will be directly affected by the cabling corridor and the substation plans for the cabling route to connect to Penwortham. I am working with the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on a potentially better route through her constituency, which would mean a major economic development revitalising an industrial area that has been looking for a major energy project for some time. We are jointly writing to the Secretary of State, and may I ask if he would commit to working with us on at least assessing that potentially alternative route for the cabling corridor?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman—and he knows this—will obviously want to stand up for what he sees as the best benefits for his constituency. I will be cautious about what I say, because there are proper procedures for planning decisions, including my quasi-judicial role. I will make this general point to the House, because I think this may well be a recurring theme during questions, but if we want to get off the dangerous exposure to international fossil fuel markets, which we were left with by the last Government, we need to build the grid. Every solar panel we put up, every wind turbine we put up and every piece of grid we build will help to deliver energy security for the British people.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Not only is the Secretary of State a very good looking fellow, but we in this House all know that he is an incredibly hard-working and very open Minister, as indeed are his whole team. So I know that the reason he has not replied to my letter of 11 September is that he and his team will be working their socks off to get a full and open answer to all my questions. He has already made reference to one of my colleagues and said that he will produce “in due course” a full systems cost analysis. May I stress that it is incredibly important that we in this House have that systems cost analysis as soon as possible, so that not only can we analyse his ambitious plans for carbon-neutral targets, but we can also explain to our constituents exactly how much it will cost them in their bills to deliver his target?
Ed Miliband
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman a little about the situation that we inherited from the last Government, because it is very relevant—obviously, he was not a Minister in that last Government. We inherited a situation where there was no plan: no plan for their target of 95% clean power by 2030, no plan for their target of clean power by 2035, and no plan to avoid a repeat of the worst cost of living crisis in generations. This Government are developing a plan and will publish it in due course.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
This Government believe that we can only ensure climate security for further generations in the UK if we lead globally. That was the message of the Prime Minister at the United Nations General Assembly with our world-leading 2030 clean power plan, no new oil and gas licences, and playing our part in reforming the global financial system. Next month I will be attending the COP29 talks in Azerbaijan to stand up for Britain’s interests.
Johanna Baxter
It is brilliant to see the Secretary of State commit to putting climate diplomacy back at the heart of Cabinet, and I know he will bring a great amount of experience to that role. Sir David Attenborough has repeatedly warned that our planet hangs in the balance, so will my right hon. Friend explain to the House what he will do to ensure that Britain is once again a main player on the world stage in tackling the climate emergency? Will he meet me and representatives from my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire South to discuss the work that they are doing on rewilding, in an effort to play their part in tackling the climate emergency?
Ed Miliband
It sounds like my hon. Friend’s constituents are doing important work. She is absolutely right. The last Government used to say that we have only 1% of global emissions, as if that was a sort of excuse for inaction on the world stage. We see it differently. We see that only by leading at home can we provide the platform to lead internationally. This Government have in a few short months put Britian back on the world stage on climate, and we will be working with our best endeavours to ensure that we tackle the situation we have inherited—I am afraid the world is miles off track for keeping global warming to 1.5°.
Chris Vince
Thank you Mr Speaker—I’ve done the training. I welcome the Secretary of State’s warm words about our leadership on international climate issues, which is in stark contrast to the previous Government’s failings. I also publicly welcome his recent visit to Harlow college—less said about the racing game, which he won, the better. Does he agree that it is only thanks to the commitment shown by the new Government to drastically deliver on climate change issues that we can lead on a world stage?
Mr Speaker
Neatly done, although it was a little long. Come on Secretary of State.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend did very well, and I agree with him. Part of the problem with the last Government—I do not doubt that there were people making good endeavours—is that when we do something different at home to what we preach internationally, such as say we are going to power past coal by opening a new coalmine, people say, “Well, you are saying one thing and doing another.” Consistency is the absolute foundation for global leadership.
Paul Waugh
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to our international obligations, whether that is clean power lines or our own strong domestic climate policies that will help areas such as Rochdale, with billpayers in recent years facing the grim possibility of high bills. This will make a huge difference, and the obvious comparison with the previous Government is there for everyone to see. Will he outline to the House what further steps he is taking on the global stage at both COP29 and COP30 to increase our global reach on climate?
Ed Miliband
I will say one thing in particular to my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister said at the United Nations General Assembly that we will be unveiling our nationally determined contribution—our target for 2035—at COP29. We are doing that because the danger is that the world settles into a low-ambition equilibrium when it comes to tackling these issues. By having a 1.5º aligned target, we hope to set a good benchmark and a good example for the world.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Climate Change Committee has said that there should be no more than a 25% increase in airport capacity, compared with 2018 levels, if we are to achieve net zero by 2050, yet current planned and recently approved airport expansions will allow for a 50% to 70% increase in demand. Can the Secretary of State explain why Ministers in the Department for Transport are considering giving a green light to a third runway at Heathrow? How on earth will that allow the country to meet its net zero targets?
Ed Miliband
The beauty of carbon budgets and the system that was introduced when I was last in government—to be fair, it was carried on by the previous Government of the past 14 years—is that they do at least in theory constrain what the Government do. It is very important that we take carbon budgets seriously in our plans. The plans we inherited from the last Government were way off track for meeting our carbon budgets, which is what this Government will do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State to his place. Climate change is real; it is not a myth. The quicker that everyone understands that, the better. Can I pose a question to the Secretary of State on rewilding? There are some suggestions among experts that rewilding by planting trees on moor and heather might not be the most constructive way of utilising rewilding. Has he had an opportunity to look at the issue of rewilding on moors and heather, which I understand that many experts think is detrimental?
Ed Miliband
I take the hon. Gentleman seriously on these issues, and I undertake to write to him or to have one of the Ministers write to him. I make the general point that rewilding and nature-based solutions are an essential part of tackling the climate crisis.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
International trade deals are a great way of using our leverage to make sure we advance our agenda on things such as tackling climate change. The previous Government let Britain down massively, conducting trade deals that let us down on farming, on food production and especially on climate change. Will the Secretary of State ensure that this Government use the creation of new trade deals to advance our agenda on tackling climate change?
Ed Miliband
Yes, and that is something I am already discussing with my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment of Rachel Kyte as his climate envoy to support his work with international partners? Before her appointment, did the Secretary of State declare to officials her links with Quadrature Capital, which donated £4 million to the Labour party? Also, did he declare her links to the Green Initiative Foundation, which gave him £99,000? A yes or no answer will suffice.
Ed Miliband
All the proper processes were followed by the Foreign Office, which was in charge of the appointment. I have to say that this is a very sad reflection on the Conservative party. Rachel Kyte is an esteemed person who is recognised for her leadership, and all the Conservatives can do is fling around baseless allegations.
Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
After nine years of the disastrous, bill-raising ban on onshore wind in England, this Government overturned the ban in our first 72 hours in office. We have also set up the onshore wind taskforce to restore the pipeline of projects destroyed by the last Government. In the recent renewables auction, almost 1 GW of onshore wind was secured at prices that make it among the lowest-cost power sources to build and operate.
Mr Amos
When will the Secretary of State bring forward proposals for community benefit for those living alongside wind and solar farms to greater incentivise the permitting of wind and solar farms, including Ham solar farm in my constituency? Will that include a minimum level of compensation for the communities affected?
Ed Miliband
I am sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman says. We are working on proposals on community benefit. I believe that when communities host clean energy infrastructure, they should automatically get benefit from it. I am also sympathetic to what he said about minimum levels of support. We are discussing that with industry at the moment and will come forward with proposals soon.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
The energy shocks of recent years have laid bare the exposure of our energy system to the international fossil fuel market. That is why we have started a mission to reach clean power by 2030, to end that reliance and ensure that the British people never again go through the sort of cost of living crisis that they have faced in recent years under the Conservatives.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
People across Hendon have paid the price for the previous Government’s failure over the last 14 years to invest in our energy system. Does the Minister agree that the only way to get us off the rollercoaster of high bills is to invest at pace and scale, as the Government are doing through our clean energy mission?
Michael Shanks
I completely agree. The only way to permanently protect hard-working families and businesses from the high energy bills from which many are still suffering is to get ourselves off our reliance on the volatile fossil fuel markets. That is why we are rolling out at pace and at scale the clean power necessary to do so, which not only gives us energy security but creates good jobs, brings down bills and helps us to tackle the climate crisis.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The Secretary of State will be aware that 25% of the UK is situated on top of coalmines, which can provide geothermal energy to heat houses and businesses in places like Ashfield. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can make that work in coalfield communities?
Michael Shanks
I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question—which I must say is somewhat of a surprise. I will absolutely meet him to discuss that. We have been clear that any technologies can be part of the solution and, if that can be part of the picture, I will meet him to discuss the options and the technology more generally.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the ways in which we can increase energy security is through community-owned and co-operative energy schemes. They give greater control to local people, who get a say in where profits go, and crucially they build resilience from international energy markets. Will the Minister say a bit more about where community-owned energy will fit into the energy security plan?
Michael Shanks
I thank my hon. Friend for that incredibly important question. Community energy has so many benefits in our energy mix, including giving communities a stake in our energy future. We also know that there are many social and economic benefits that come from that. We are committed to our local power plan, which will deliver investment in community-owned projects. Great British Energy will have a key role to play in supporting communities, capacity building and in that initial funding to help them deliver these projects.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Could I invite the Minister to meet a cross-party group of MPs from the east of England to discuss how the review conducted by the electricity system operator can contribute to energy security and in particular to look at how undergrounding high voltage direct current cables could be cheaper in the long term than pylons and more efficient for achieving net zero? Will he agree at least to have a meeting with us on that basis?
Michael Shanks
I am always happy to have meetings with any right hon. and hon. Members across the House on a range of issues, so I will take that away. The evidence suggests that undergrounding is five to 10 times more expensive and that actually it can have more of a damaging impact on nature and natural habitats than pylons. The important thing with all of this is that this is nationally important structure, which is necessary for us to get to the targets that we want to get to. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes that seriously, and I will meet him and others, but we have been clear as a Government that we will build this infrastructure if it is necessary.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
The Government have two key missions: to become an energy superpower, and to grow the economy. Great British Energy will help us deliver on both those missions. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), will be taking the Great British Energy Bill through Committee today, and I am excited for the job creation potential in our industrial communities. From engineers to welders, and from electricians to project managers, Great British Energy will be powered by people across all the nations and regions of this great country.
Luke Myer
I welcome the Minister’s response and last week’s fantastic announcement about track 1 carbon capture investment in Teesside. Teesside has extraordinary potential for green jobs, whether in sustainable aviation fuel with Alfanar or in carbon capture, hydrogen and so much else. Does the Minister agree that only with Labour’s plan for clean power by 2030, Great British Energy and our national wealth fund can we create well-paid long-term jobs in the industries of the future?
Sarah Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for his support. I doubt anybody would disagree with him on the benefits of our announcements on carbon capture and storage, which will create 4,000 jobs in the short term, with carbon capture more broadly creating up to 50,000 jobs over the next decade or so. [Interruption.] The Opposition Front Benchers chuckle, but I wonder whether, instead of dismissing that number of jobs, they might welcome them alongside Government Members. Alongside carbon capture, Great British Energy, our national wealth fund and our British jobs bonus, we are putting in place the levers to encourage growth across our country, and the Climate Change Committee estimates that up to 725,000 net new jobs could be created in low-carbon sectors by 2030.
Mrs Brackenridge
Does the Minister agree that GB Energy is a fantastic opportunity for Wolverhampton North East to capitalise on the opportunities for research and start-ups on our forthcoming green innovation corridor and to put Wolverhampton North East back where we belong: at the heart of industrial growth and British industry?
Sarah Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend: it is a fantastic opportunity. Publicly owned Great British Energy will partner with industry to help us to deliver our mission of clean power by 2030. I have been reading about the green innovation corridor, and I am interested to see what it will deliver. Working in partnership with the private sector, we can rebuild jobs across the west midlands and far beyond.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree with the head of the GMB union that the Government’s plans to ban new licences for oil and gas will result in exporting jobs and importing virtue?
Sarah Jones
I agree with the GMB in its warm congratulations for our announcements yesterday to deliver carbon capture and storage across the country. We are of course working closely with our trade union colleagues. It is interesting: in opposition, the Conservatives suddenly quote the unions, when they refused to even meet them in government. We work very closely with the GMB and all our trade unions to ensure that we have a just energy transition and that we are creating the jobs and skills of the future by becoming a clean energy superpower.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
We know that people are worried about their energy bills going into the winter and that, for a growing number of people, energy is simply unaffordable. We are absolutely determined to take this affordability issue and tackle it head on. There are many different ideas about what a social tariff could look like, and it means different things to different people. We are clear that we will tackle the affordability question and look at the full range of options available to us. But our priority—my priority—this winter is to ensure that families struggling with bills have support through our warm home discount scheme, and to work with energy suppliers to provide support.
Debbie Abrahams
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her response. I absolutely recognise that energy prices over the last few years have escalated, putting particular pressure on households with low incomes and also those with high energy needs, such as disabled people and pensioners. I agree that the warm home discount scheme is valuable, but it is limited and I am concerned for people with high energy needs but on low incomes, who might fall foul of the system as it stands.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have been working flat out with energy suppliers to ensure that they are providing additional support to families who will struggle with bills this winter. In August, I met all the suppliers, and there was a shared commitment to do everything we can to support vulnerable households. We have been working with them, the industry body, Ofgem and Citizens Advice to ensure that there is a proper package of support in place this winter so that we can support families who we know are struggling with their bills.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Would it not have been better to put that proper package of support in place before the Government withdrew the winter fuel allowance from so many pensioners?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are having to clean up the mess that the Opposition left us. Yes, we have means-tested the winter fuel payment, but we have also been clear that we will do everything we can do to support vulnerable households. That is why we have extended the take-up of pension credit and the household support fund, and we are working flat out with energy suppliers to provide additional support to all vulnerable households this winter.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her work. Warm home prescriptions can target that support towards elderly people and those with underlying health conditions, saving our NHS as well as keeping people warm over the winter. The pilot has shown real benefit. Will she meet me to discuss that and other options to keep old people warm this winter?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We want to work with anyone who will help us reach vulnerable households. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to look at the full range of options available.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Ofgem’s review of standing charges options paper closed for submissions on 20 September. Can the Minister offer any hope for bill payers in Scotland that they will stop being penalised with the highest standing charges on these islands? When will we see lower charges?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We as a Government are committed to getting down standing charges. Ofgem has consulted and will report back in due course.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
We are running to deliver our warm homes plan, which will upgrade homes across the country to make them warmer and cheaper to run. We will set out the full plan in the spring, but at the heart of it will be an offer of grants and low-interest loans to support families to invest in insulation, low-carbon heating and home improvements. Critically, alongside that, we are committing to boosting minimum energy efficiency standards for private rented homes and social housing, to tackle fuel poverty.
Joe Morris
I thank the Minister for her answer and for her commitment to the warm homes plan. I congratulate her on the announcement over the conference recess to end the scandal of cold, draughty homes in the rental sector, which particularly affects people in my constituency in towns such as Haltwhistle, Throckley, Newburn, Hexham and elsewhere. Does she agree that often the very poorest in our communities are forced to live in those cold and draughty properties, and it is important that we cut bills and give those families energy security?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I agree. One in four households in the private rented sector is in fuel poverty. We need to bear down on bills. Our commitment to improve and boost minimum energy efficiency standards will lift 1 million renters out of fuel poverty. We are determined to do this alongside our bigger package to deliver clean power by 2030, which will drive down bills for everyone.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
People across my constituency are worried about how they will afford to heat their homes this winter. I was shocked to hear the former Energy Minister, now shadow Minister, admit that his Government should have gone “further and faster” on insulating homes, which will certainly help. Does the Minister agree that this is an admission of failure by the previous Conservative Government, who have left working people to pay the price? Can she reassure my constituents that this Government will do better?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I completely agree. The legacy left to us by the last Government was woeful. Ordinary people—families across the country—have paid the price of that legacy. We are clear that we will do and must do better. Our warm homes plan will kickstart the upgrades that we need across the country so that we can deliver warmer homes that are cleaner to heat.
Dr Huq
Millions of cold, draughty homes need updating UK-wide, so it is great to hear that there will be a proper plan, rather than the itty-bitty approach of spraying bits of money here and there. In the plan, will the Minister look at the fact that there is no national retrofit advice service in the UK? Can the Government rectify that? They could take a leaf out of Sadiq Khan’s book, because his service in London has helped 24,000 households.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a critical role for national advice to ensure that people can access support and know the range of interventions available to them. We will be looking at that as we look at our warm homes plan. We are very clear that it will be a comprehensive plan that will deliver the upgrades we need to see across the country.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
One of my low-income pensioner constituents had a solar panel installed on their home through a Government scheme. However, they are now facing an issue with birds nesting in it, which is causing a huge amount of problems because the scheme does not come with protection. Will the Minister agree to meet me about this constituency issue, because it is really affecting one of my older constituents who, sadly, has also just lost her winter fuel payment?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Yes, I will agree to meet to discuss the range of things we can do.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I very much hope the Secretary of State and his Ministers agree that if we are serious about energy security and net zero, we must be serious about energy efficiency. What steps are they taking, in addition to working on insulating existing homes, to ensure that the promised 1.5 million new homes are built to net zero standards, have solar panels on the roof, and are fully insulated so that every new home is a warm home?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have an ambitious plan to build more homes. We want those homes to be fit for the future. We will put out information in due course on the standards we want across those homes, but we have an opportunity to do insulation, energy efficiency and homes that are fit for the future, at the same time as building the homes we need.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Local authorities play an important role as trusted sources of knowledge and expertise, and guide householders, for example, to trusted installers, but they need the resources to do that. Will the Department devolve some resources to local authorities to fulfil that important role?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We see local and regional government playing an absolutely fundamental role to reach homes that we need to upgrade, but also to help us deliver the scale of ambition we want. Local and regional government will be a key part of our warm homes plan.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Keeping vulnerable people warm and lowering their energy bills is, I am sure, something we can all agree on across the House. Insulating homes is a key part of that puzzle. We welcome the news that we will see the warm homes plan in spring. However, does the Minister agree that ahead of this winter we need an emergency home insulation plan, particularly for the vulnerable, along with allocated funding? Does she have any idea of the amount and allocation of funding in this Parliament that there will be for insulating homes?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are really clear that as we develop our plans we absolutely need to get on with the job of upgrading homes. We have announced our warm homes local grant and our warm homes social housing fund, which are targeted at low-income families, because we know there is a job of work to do. We are committed to an additional £6.6 billion to invest in our warm homes plan over the course of this Parliament.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
We are committed to accelerating the just transition for workers in Britain to boost our energy security and ensure good, long-term jobs, especially in North sea communities. We will work with them and other industrial regions to develop a plan, ensuring those workers are the people who decarbonise our country.
Carla Denyer
I thank the Minister for her response. Unfortunately, the unjust transitions we are seeing in Grangemouth and Port Talbot are a damning indictment of the lack of a proactive approach to a just transition over the last few years. Tomorrow at the Treasury, over 50 major unions and climate groups will be calling for a new approach to the energy transition where, instead of just de-risking private profit, there is a governmental ringfenced funding package for North sea oil and gas workers, including help with skills and job creation. Will the Secretary of State or Ministers please meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that those ringfenced funds are secure, so that we can stop betting on the industry to do the right thing?
Sarah Jones
Last week was the historic week when 142 years of coal-fired electricity generation came to an end, and this week we have announced the new era of carbon capture and storage. We will work in a different way from the last Government, adopting a proactive approach to ensure that the transition works for people and that we create new jobs as well. At Grangemouth we provided a package of support for workers, and at Port Talbot we managed to negotiate a better deal than the last Government. We will use all the levers that we have—Great British Energy, the national wealth fund, the British jobs bonus and the office of green energy jobs that we have set up—to ensure that we get the transition right.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State and the Minister will know that civil nuclear has a higher employment multiplier than any other form of zero or low-carbon energy generation. As part of the transition from high-carbon sectors, what specific measures are the Government taking to retrain workers and transfer skills into the nuclear energy industry, thus ensuring that they benefit from job creation in this growing sector in my constituency and throughout the country?
Sarah Jones
Obviously the last Government did nothing about nuclear in 14 years, apart from coming up with a plan. We will ensure that nuclear is an important part of our country’s future, and we will be working to provide the right skills and jobs in the right places to deliver that.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
We are halving the development time for new transmission infrastructure through reforms of planning, supply chains and other areas, delivering the grid capacity that is needed to achieve clean power by 2030 and meet a doubling of electricity demand by 2050.
Tessa Munt
Communities are doing their very best, and lots of people are trying to help each community to power itself. My own village has its community solar project, which was fully funded by local residents. There are non-profit organisations which have dealt with local schemes by putting solar panels on schools with an element of community ownership, and there are individuals who try but are faced with extortionate costs for connection to the grid. The grid was really designed for big old power stations rather than smaller power creators trying to plonk power into the system. What can the Minister do to encourage National Grid to pivot, and help communities and individuals to create their energy nearer to their homes?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the importance of community energy projects throughout the country. We want to see many more of them, but we have inherited a grid that needs significant upgrading, and we are now working apace to ensure that that happens. Part of the work that I have been doing with National Grid and others involves trying to identify the next steps that are needed to shorten the connections queue, and also to make it more affordable for smaller community projects to connect. There is an important role for partnership as well, with some of the bigger renewables projects giving part of their connections queues to smaller ones, and that is already happening in some parts of the country. There is no doubt that there is much more to do, but we are, as I have said, working apace to try to move this forward after 14 years of inaction.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), the lack of national grid capacity is holding back the UK’s push towards renewable energy. There are numerous examples of projects that have been delayed because they are waiting to be connected to the national grid, or because connection is too expensive. In my constituency, we cannot even connect the solar panels and batteries for the ambitious plan to decarbonise and electrify the refuse fleet for South Cambridgeshire district council. The projects that have been delayed include the building of new homes, which is crucial at present. Can the Minister explain to us how we are to reach this stage on the scale and at the pace that is needed?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady is right to highlight those issues. The connections queue, in particular, is a huge challenge, with more than 700 GW waiting to join it. The last Government did some work to establish how the queue could be prioritised, and we will now implement that, but we need to go further. It is clear that by 2030 we will need to build four times as much new transmission network as has been built since 1990. This is a project to rewire the entire country, to improve the current connections availability, and to work with everyone, including the new national energy systems operator, on the road map towards 2030.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Michael Shanks
The latest contracts for difference round secured a record 131 renewable electricity projects across Great Britain. This will deliver a total capacity of 9.6 GW, enough to power the equivalent of 11 million homes. The Energy Secretary will continue to work with industry to explore how the contracts for difference scheme, and other energy policies, can be expanded even further.
Abtisam Mohamed
I commend the Secretary of State for his excellent work since he took office in accelerating clean electricity generation in the UK, and I commend the fantastic team he has with him. The Minister is right to say that there is a clean energy imperative if we are to tackle the climate crisis, boost our energy security and reduce our bills. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that this Government encourage and take advantage of the significant opportunity around community energy, and will he meet me and representatives from my constituency of Sheffield Central to discuss how we can boost the growth of community energy?
Michael Shanks
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is absolutely right to say that, in order for us to meet our 2030 ambitions, we will need a whole range of different options. Community energy is a critical part of that, helping to deliver energy security and lower bills. Crucially, it also gives communities a stake in the energy future. That is why one of Great British Energy’s five objectives is to support the delivery of a local power plan, which puts local communities, combined authorities, local authorities and others in the driving seat in restructuring our energy economy. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and others to discuss this issue further.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Contrary to what one of the Ministers said earlier, the last Government brought about one of the largest revivals in nuclear energy in 70 years in order to provide clean electricity generation, yet we hear precious little from the new Government on their plans for nuclear; we hear only their plans for inefficient technology that will destroy the countryside. Why are they so anti-nuclear, and when are they going to get on with delivering nuclear energy?
Michael Shanks
I will give credit to the Conservative Government on one thing: they were very good at making grand announcements. On delivery, however, they were much poorer. Looking at a whole range of things—carbon capture being a very good example—they had lots of warm words but no delivery whatsoever. On nuclear, they had lots of warm words but no delivery whatsoever. In 14 years, how many nuclear power stations were built under the Conservative party? None. We will get on with doing the work.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
If we want to see an increase in clean energy generation, we need more announcements such as the one we saw last week on the development of carbon capture, usage and storage. Although that is incredibly welcome and a sign of determined action from the new Government, there is still more to be done. Perhaps the Minister can give an indication of when he anticipates he will be able to announce progress on track 1 extension, and share some information on track 2, because that would secure thousands of jobs in the Humber region.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that in the three and a bit months that we have been in government we have moved at pace to deliver the largest renewables auction in history and to make last week’s announcement on carbon capture. We are working through the next stages of the process at pace, and we will have further announcements in the weeks ahead.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that it would be better to have the right electricity system in 2032 or 2035 than to have the wrong one because of an artificial target, which may be undeliverable by 2030?
Michael Shanks
I could be wrong, but I think the right hon. Gentleman previously said that his own Government’s plans on onshore wind in England were not the right approach to take. I agree with him, which is why we lifted the onshore wind ban. The reality is that whereas the previous Government used to talk the talk on climate action, we are the ones now delivering—and delivering an energy system fit for the future.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
One way to increase clean electricity generation in the United Kingdom would be to invest at pace in new nuclear. We left government with a clear plan to get to 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050. Does that target remain?
Michael Shanks
This is the whole point about the Conservative Government, and it is why we have inherited such an economic mess: they made a series of announcements, with absolutely no funding to back them up. As you would expect, Mr Speaker, I pay close attention to the Conservative party conferences, and the hon. Gentleman made a very astute point, which I am happy to repeat for the benefit of Hansard and the House: “After 14 years of Conservative Government, we are now in a position where it’s more difficult to build critical infrastructure than it was when we came into power”. I could not have put it better myself.
Andrew Bowie
Our record on nuclear speaks for itself. We launched the small modular down-selection process and Great British Nuclear, and invested £200 million in new advanced nuclear fuels. We consulted on a new route to market for advanced modular reactors and new technologies, and granted a development consent order for Sizewell C. There is concern that there is a go-slow in the Government right now, so when can we expect a final investment decision on Sizewell C? Will it still be this year?
Michael Shanks
I was not aware when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State changed the titles of the ministerial portfolios that we had moved away from having a Minister for consultation, but it seems that all the hon. Gentleman was doing in his time in office was launching consultations. We are going to get on with delivering and we are moving at pace on the whole of the electricity system, including on nuclear, and delivering on the things that he failed to do.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
As well as our measures on onshore wind, solar and renewables, this Government have begun legislating for Great British Energy and setting out our plan for proper standards for private and social renters to take 1 million families out of fuel poverty, and on Friday we announced deals to kick-start Britain’s carbon capture industry. All of this will deliver our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. It is right for bills, right for energy security, right for jobs and right for climate leadership.
Tracy Gilbert
I welcome the actions outlined by my right hon. Friend, particularly the recent announcement that GB Energy will be headquartered in Aberdeen, with satellite offices in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Can he outline the role that he expects the satellite offices to take? Given the investment already under way in the port of Leith for a number of renewable companies, as well as the prospects for the supply chain and manufacturing, will he consider Leith as the location for the Edinburgh site?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to our announcement on Aberdeen as the headquarters of Great British Energy and the important role that it will play, and also to the importance of the satellite offices. I know from my visit to her constituency of the huge potential of her area on these issues, and we want to drive jobs throughout the supply chain through Great British Energy.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Secretary of State promised in the general election to cut everyone’s bills by £300 by 2030—a pledge he will not repeat now that he is in office. In fact, one of his first acts has been to snatch the same amount away from millions of pensioners in poverty. The right hon. Gentleman likes to preach, to politicise and, dare I say it, to patronise, but I have one simple question for him. To the millions of pensioners who are worried about their heating bills this Christmas, will he apologise?
Ed Miliband
The people who should be apologising are the last Government, who left this country in a total mess—a £22 billion black hole. I have to say to the right hon. Lady that she does have a brass neck. She said of the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), whom she is backing in the leadership contest, that she “tells the truth”, and what did the right hon. Member for North West Essex say? She said:
“I have people in my constituency telling me that they don’t need the winter fuel payments…Why do we not have a…mechanism for means-testing?”
That is her position.
Claire Coutinho
There we have it: no apology; no recognition that it is the right hon. Gentleman’s Government’s decisions that are going to leave pensioners in the cold this winter. He has to acknowledge this: from the trade unions to the CBI, from blue Labour to Blairites and from the left to the right of his party, people are sounding the alarm that his ideological approach will see jobs lost and bills go through the roof. Even his old pal Ed Balls does not think that GB Energy is going to deliver the green transition, and I read this morning that the Prime Minister’s brand-new chief of staff is a sceptic of the Secretary of State’s approach. The Secretary of State is increasingly isolated in his party, so when will he do the decent thing and set out the full systems cost of his approach, so that the British public can see what he is going to do to their bills?
Ed Miliband
Oh dear, oh dear. The truth is that after three months of this Government, people have breathed a sigh of relief that there is finally a Government with a plan for the country. [Interruption.] I think the right hon. Lady should listen to what her own ministerial team has been saying about her. The former networks Minister has said that their infrastructure approach is hopeless. The former Energy Minister says that the onshore wind ban was “always mad”, and Lord Callanan said that the right hon. Lady had kicked the solar consents “into the long grass”. If I were her, I would be hoping for just one thing from the next Tory leader: a shadow Cabinet reshuffle.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that that issue is holding back projects across the country, which is why we have tackled it from day one. We are attempting to release network capacity, which can then be reallocated to accelerate the connection of viable projects. There is a lot of work to do, and we are building on what the previous Government did to prioritise the queue and to build the necessary infrastructure that should have been built over the past 14 years.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Ed Miliband
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Nuclear is an essential part of the energy mix. We are mainly going to have a renewable system, but nuclear is an essential accompaniment. I fully support all the projects he mentions.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Whether it is our ending of the onshore wind ban, the CCUS funding we announced last week, our plans for Great British Energy or our warm homes plan, we are hitting the ground running to deliver our clean power mission. The Conservatives spent 14 years dithering and delaying, leaving ordinary people to pay the price, but we will get on with the job of delivering energy security so that we can secure financial security for families, good jobs and climate action.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady raises a question about the problems of grid connection that is familiar to many Members. We are building on work done by Nick Winser, the former electricity networks commissioner, and we want to go further to tackle the problem of grid connections once and for all.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
My hon. Friend asks an important question. Of course, we and the Opposition have fundamentally different views. We believe in an industrial strategy that will help to deliver our supply chains. We believe in Great British Energy, and we believe in a sovereign wealth fund, which so many other countries have and the previous Government failed to deliver. We will make sure we have resilient supply chains that create jobs, deliver energy security and maximise the economic benefits of the transition.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue that I am afraid was not solved by the last Government. We are working at pace with National Grid, and I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), will be happy to talk to him further about the work we are doing.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Michael Shanks
Batteries will play an important part in the short-duration storage required for the energy system we are building for the future. It is a question of balance. Communities will be engaged in the consultation process, and I will be convening a roundtable with providers of battery technology and other short-duration storage in the next few months to learn both from projects that have worked well and from projects on which we could do better in future. I will happily share any information from that with my hon. Friend.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady raises the important issue that, as a country, we are massively underpowered on community energy. As part of the GB Energy local power plan we will be trying to change that, learning from countries such as Germany and Denmark, which do much better than us. We will certainly look at the issues she raises.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The clean power by 2030 mission shows the clear intention of this Government to get on with the just transition. Energy workers in Falkirk, Grangemouth and across the central belt are rightly concerned about jobs. Between 2013 and 2023, under the previous Government, jobs in the UK oil and gas sector halved. Unfortunately, some of the Opposition parties have opposed the stream of funding for clean infrastructure and jobs of the future that will come from an increase in the energy profits levy on the record profits of oil and gas giants. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time Opposition parties started putting their own plans forward on how they would get on with the just transition and deliver clean energy jobs at a critical time for workers and the climate?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises the important issue that what will define the future for North sea workers is whether there is a plan for future jobs in offshore wind, carbon capture and hydrogen. There was no plan from the previous Government; this Government are absolutely determined to ensure a just transition for those workers, using the power of Government and a proper industrial policy to make it happen.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
On petrol prices, for the past 11 years the Government froze fuel duty; they cut it in 2002 and then froze it again. The Government instructed the Competition and Markets Authority to carry out a review, and we came up with the pumpwatch scheme. A consultation was undertaken in January, but when I wrote to the Government in September to ask about its results, they said they were looking at it and would consider it in due course. Is the scheme a priority for the Government? If not, in what other ways will they ensure petrol prices are kept low at the pump? Are they going to freeze fuel duty?
Ed Miliband
I will not comment on the Budget, obviously. We are very sympathetic to pumpwatch—it is important that there is a fair deal for consumers at the pump.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Exeter city council has worked hard to install solar panels on council homes to ensure that social tenants can benefit from lower bills and participate in the green transition. Can the Minister set out what more we can do to ensure that all tenants benefit from new green technologies?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises such an important issue. Across the House, we can have different views on ground-mounted solar, but we need to do more on rooftops and to ensure that tenants, for example council tenants, benefit from such technologies. That is a huge priority for us and we are working on it with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Scottish Government regarding the major planning application for an offshore wind farm between Scotland and Northern Ireland, which may well have significant implications for the Giant’s Causeway world heritage site?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I have to be careful in what I say about planning issues, but he should rest assured that I have frequent conversations with my counterpart in the Scottish Government and, no doubt, that is one issue we will be discussing.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Warwick and Leamington must be one of the sunniest places in the United Kingdom given the flurry of applications we have had for solar farms. There is a “loss of amenity” caused by one application, but if that community were prepared to welcome onshore wind turbines, of which we have none in Warwickshire, rather than a solar farm, would the Secretary of State or the Minister agree to support that? Will they meet me to discuss the issue?
Ed Miliband
Every planning application and development consent order is assessed on its merits. Importantly, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), is polishing a land use framework, which has long been needed in this country. It will set out the balance between food security, the use of renewable energy, the restoration of nature and the role of farming. I hope that will help with some of the issues that hon. Members are facing.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), have spoken passionately about the need to upgrade the national grid, but do they recognise the concerns of people across the east of England, including in the Witham constituency, about what that means for their local communities? The Under-Secretary has said that he will meet Members of Parliament, but I ask him very politely whether he and representatives and Ministers from the Department will also meet members of the communities that are affected by this matter.
Ed Miliband
I know from the questions that I have received from the Opposition that the right hon. Lady has been a tireless advocate on these issues. I do understand the concerns of local communities about clean energy infrastructure, which is why I am so keen on the idea of community benefit. It is important that communities receive benefit for hosting that infrastructure. We must have a discussion about this matter in the House and across the country. If we are to end our exposure to international fossil fuels and the kind of the cost of living crisis that we have seen over the past few years, which has devastated communities across Britain, this infrastructure does need to be built.
Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)
Last week’s announcement on carbon capture and hydrogen in my constituency demonstrates that we now have a Government of substance, not of hollow slogans. What discussions have the Secretary of State and Ministers had with the trade unions to ensure that we build those facilities with unionised labour?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. After 14 years of failure and inaction, we now have a Government who believe in working with our trade unions, who have the backing of our trade unions, and who want to work to create good jobs in the industries of the future. Our announcement on carbon capture, which was groundbreaking and world beating, will deliver just that.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Institution of Civil Engineers has called for a spatial energy plan to utilise new and emerging technologies to facilitate future net zero infrastructure planning. Will the Government look to bring forward a spatial energy plan and meet me to discuss that?
Ed Miliband
Yes, we will be bringing forward a spatial energy plan. That is one of the responsibilities of the National Energy System Operator. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: we need a plan for the system. We can have a plan for the 2030 system done by the NESO and, indeed, a wider strategic spatial energy plan, which will be crucial for the country.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
The warm homes plan is excellent and much needed in towns such as mine, but on warm homes grants for insulation, during recess I met a large number of constituents who had been victims of failed insulation and cowboy workmanship under such Government schemes. Some are living in horrific conditions with useless warranties. Is the Minister aware of their plight? Will she ensure that regulation is strong enough, and will she meet me and victims to make sure that this never happens again?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are aware of those cases of bad insulation and we are clear that we need to get a firmer grip on them. To persuade everyone that we should be insulating and upgrading all of our homes, we need the highest standard possible. I agree to meet him to discuss this matter further.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
In my constituency, a new solar farm at Barkham is being delivered that will provide clean energy for more than 4,000 homes and provide a funding boost for Wokingham borough council. It will be connected in 2026, but there were concerns that connection to the grid could be delayed by 11 years. What steps will the Minister take to reduce similar delays, and does he think that the Government can meet their net zero targets if the new renewable energy infrastructure cannot be quickly connected to the grid?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. A similar point has been raised by many hon. Members across the House. This issue affects areas right across the country. We are doing what we can at the moment to prioritise the connections queue, so that the most important projects, or those most able to be delivered, can move forward. There is much more that we can do on that, but, fundamentally, we need to build much more network infrastructure in the first place so that we can speed up and reduce the cost of these connections for schemes such as the one he mentions.
Point of Order
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am concerned that the Government have not always been consistent with the explanations that they have given of their policy in relation to arms exports to Israel. In particular, some of the explanations that Ministers have given in this House are inconsistent with accounts that have been given elsewhere, including in the other place. My noble friend Lord Howard is also pursuing this matter in the other place. This is a critical foreign policy matter involving a close ally. Mr Speaker, have you had any indication that the Foreign Secretary intends to come to the House to make a statement on this matter and to clear up any misunderstanding that might have arisen as a result of discrepancies between what we have been told and what Ministers have said elsewhere?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of that point of order. As he well knows, the Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of ministerial remarks, either in this House or elsewhere; but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted his comments, and I am sure they have been taken on board. I do not think we have heard the end of this yet, so I am sure, as I know the right hon. Member well, that the Opposition will not give up at this stage.
Opposition Day
VAT: Independent Schools
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:15 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 190 / Noes: 363 - Question accordingly negatived.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets that the Government has decided to impose VAT on independent school fees; believes that educational provision should not be taxed; regrets that the Government is rushing to implement this change part-way through an academic year; calls on the Government to exempt from the VAT charge fees paid in respect of children of military and diplomatic families, all children who have an Education, Health and Care Plan, or who are in the process of applying for one, all children on SEN support, Centres for Advanced Training and schools in the Music and Dance Scheme, all children at schools whose fees are lower than the average per capita funding for a state school place, and children at religious schools of denominations for whom there is no faith school provision in the state sector; further calls on the Government to postpone imposition of the VAT charge for schools in areas where state schools in the relevant key stage are already on average over 95% full; also calls on the Government to postpone imposition of the VAT charge for fees paid in respect of children who have started a public examination course, to September 2025 for pupils currently in Year 11 or Year 13, and to September 2026 for pupils currently in Year 10 or Year 12; and calls on the Government to publish a full impact assessment of the effects of this policy on independent schools and the state sector ahead of the Budget.
There are 85 days to go until the introduction of Labour’s education tax, and we are still in the dark. Many questions remain for parents, for children and for schools—when I say “schools”, that is both independent schools and state schools—and also for the local authorities that are responsible for special educational needs provision and generally for ensuring that everyone can get a place at school.
This is a huge change, which is being made in a headlong rush. There are big worries about children with special educational needs or a disability, about military families, about the talented musicians and dancers of tomorrow, about small religious faiths and about the widest impact of all—that on state schools, because this means disruption, bigger classes, budget overstretch, and ultimately, parents being less likely to get their preferred choice of school. Even those who do not necessarily object to this in principle are saying it cannot be pushed through this fast, from the Chartered Institute of Taxation to the NASUWT.
It is a long-standing principle that you do not put tax on learning—a principle all but universally observed around the world. On the Conservative Benches we believe in that principle and we believe in the sanctity of parental choice. The vast majority of children, of course, go to state-funded schools, and we defend the right of parents to choose those schools and defend the diversity of those schools. A small number of parents choose home schooling; we defend that right too. And yes, some choose the independent sector.
Parents are the first educators of their children. The state sets an expectation of a suitable education for all children, and beyond that, parents should make the choice of what is best for their child. Parents might decide to opt out of state education for any one, or many, of several reasons—quite often simply because they have found the school that they believe is right for their child, and where their child is most happy.
Graham Stuart
During the election, in the Monks Walk pub, I met a constituent who has stayed in his small home and has one car for the family, because they decided their bullied daughter needed to go to another school. They have sacrificed, with the support of wider family, so that that child with special educational needs can go to a private school. It is children and families like that who will be the victims of this spiteful policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend is right to identify that many parents make great personal financial sacrifices to do what they believe is best for their children. Some parents whose children go to independent school are rich, and some are definitely not. I include in that latter bracket most of the parents sending their children, for example, to small religious schools in Hackney, Salford or Birmingham. Very many more are in the middle, including many professionals working in our public services.
Jim Shannon
The shadow Minister has rightly underlined the issue for those who send their children to faith schools or independent schools. Many constituents in Strangford have told me that they have saved and persevered, have not been on holidays, have not bought a second car, or have even continued to use their old car longer than they should, so that those moneys can go into their children’s education. Does he, like me, find it impossible to understand how it can be that it is the Labour party—the party of conscience, I would say—that has let us down on this issue and is going to penalise people who are hard-pressed to find education for their children?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is right about the financial sacrifices some make. Let us be clear: it is possible to tax wealthier people or people with a higher income more, but the Government should be honest about it. The way to do so is through the income tax system, not through a choice that people make to have their child in an independent school. The hon. Gentleman did not mention this, but I might add that because the situation in Northern Ireland is different from that in England—by the way, the situation in Scotland is different, too—the Government need to think carefully about how the policy is applied throughout the whole United Kingdom, because VAT is a reserved matter, and about what it means for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others across these islands.
Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)
My late mother and dad used to run a pub, and they paid their taxes. It was a private business that made a profit. Why should these businesses not pay their taxes? Why should they not pay what is owed?
Damian Hinds
This is a completely different situation. Independent schools do pay tax.
Damian Hinds
No, independent schools do pay tax on supplies. No tax is charged on education, whether in an independent school or in other settings, and that is a very long-standing principle.
Let me clear up one very important definitional point, which I ask colleagues to reflect on. There is no tax break involved. It would be a tax break if a person who had a child at an independent school and was not taking a place at a state school were charged less tax as a result. That does not happen in the United Kingdom. Everybody contributes to state sector education, whether or not they take up a place.
The principle of no tax on learning is a fast one, and once we loosen it, we do not know where we will go. Where might the Treasury look next? Private nurseries, perhaps? Music lessons? Private tutoring? What is the philosophical difference between independent school education and private tutoring?
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
Let me make a point to demonstrate how rushed and ill thought through this policy is. My understanding is that if a child in a nursery has turned five but the other children in the class have not, all the parents in that nursery year will have to pay VAT on their child’s nursery fees. That is how badly this has been thought through.
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right. That comes from the rushed nature of the legislation. The sloppy drafting means that children who are not of school age get dragged into this tax if they happen to be in the same room as children who are, and there are concerns about what might follow in other borderline cases.
The Government claim that the policy is about revenue, not politics, but having read the Secretary of State’s twitterings, I think hon. Members could be forgiven for mistaking the motivation. It is entirely spurious, for multiple reasons, to link this tax to 6,500 teachers, mental health support or anything else. The money will go into general Exchequer receipts, and anyway, 6,500 teachers is not that many in the scheme of things, given the 468,000 there are now. That is a compound growth rate of 0.3% over five years—and, by the way, a lot fewer teachers than we recruited in the last five years. Mental health support teams are already being rolled out, and they cover primary schools as well as secondary schools. It is not clear what the difference is in the new Government’s policy on mental health support, other than that it will not include primary schools.
To the extent that the VAT revenue could be hypothecated, it looks a lot more like that revenue would reduce cuts to education resourcing, rather than increasing it. If the policy is about revenue, not politics, the Government could easily commit to one simple thing today. They are confident, they tell us, that the policy will raise a large sum of money and not create large costs. Will they commit to measuring and reporting back on that, and if it turns out, against expectations, that they were wrong, will they reverse it?
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend, who is giving an excellent introduction to the debate. Is it his understanding that our military personnel, and those serving in our diplomatic service, will also be hit by this tax?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As things stand, those who get the continuity of education allowance would be hit, in part, by the tax.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In the calculus that my right hon. Friend rightly asks the Government to publish, can we include the foreign receipts that the independent sector generates? The roll of a school in my constituency includes a very large number of children from overseas whose parents pay directly into the UK economy. That school is now under threat. The loss of that revenue will be substantial, and the local impact huge. May we have that factored in, given that, so far, we have not seen any figures on the loss of money and reputation that the closure of many such schools will entail?
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend is correct: substantial export earnings come from the sector, and from a globally mobile set of families. But I would go further; in addition to the direct export earnings effect, there is also an indirect effect. For companies deciding where to site their European headquarters, English education is a big factor. That is partly because of our brilliant state schools, which have improved so much over the past 14 years, but the availability of independent schools is also a factor.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State makes a strong point about the sanctity of zero-rating VAT for education. I am concerned that children’s clothes, which are currently exempt from VAT, may be the next target. Notwithstanding the impact that the change to VAT will have on individual families, does he agree that private and prep schools—my constituency has five—are enormous employers of people involved in building maintenance, such as electricians and plumbers, and that the impact on the wider economy could well be profound?
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind Members to look towards the Chair when they are speaking, or what they say will not be picked up by the mics; I then struggle to hear them. I know that the Minister was struggling as well. If Members keep the chatter down, it will help us both.
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend is of course correct about the economic contribution that schools make locally and the large numbers of people they employ. That point was also made by NASUWT, which is worried about teachers being inadvertently pushed out of the profession if redundancies are made mid-way through the school year.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
My youngsters have had a mix of excellent learning, including in nursery and in state education, as have youngsters in many families. I have a personal and constituency interest in wanting all education settings to thrive, so I agree with my right hon. Friend. The economic and employment impact of this new tax will be devastating for bus drivers and maintenance teams. It will impact on so many livelihoods and communities. The people picking up the unknown impact will be in the state sector. The policy will just deliver more of the unknown.
Damian Hinds
I will take one more intervention before making progress, so as not to try your patience too much, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
It is not that my patience is being tested, but I do worry when shadow Secretaries of States cover a subject at length. I understand, but we need to get on, because lots of Back Benchers are desperate to get in. In fact, we have a very eager Opposition Whip coming in now.
Paul Holmes
You will find out, Mr Speaker, that I will not test your patience. I want to take my right hon. Friend back to the point he made about the Education Secretary’s tweet, which I thought was disgraceful. [Hon. Members: “Where is she?”] The divisive language behind that tweet was a disgrace, given the many independent schools that work hard and play by the rules. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the embossed notepaper that the Secretary of State focused on is sent to many children who are being sponsored through bursaries or scholarships, and whose parents work hard to give their children the best education? The Education Secretary should apologise for that disgraceful tweet.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as ever, makes important points. I too am disappointed that the Education Secretary is not with us for this important debate. I will make progress, Mr Speaker, because I do not want to go on longer than I should.
To be clear, we want to talk first and foremost not about revenue, but about education, schools and children—all children. [Interruption.] No, I have been talking about schools and children throughout. If the Government insist on ploughing on with this divisive policy, they must at least exempt certain groups of children for whom it would be especially unjust or counterproductive to impose this tax. Surely, schools that charge the same as, or even less than, the average cost of a school place were not in the Government’s sights when they devised this scheme. There are small religious groups that have no state sector provision for their denomination. Why should they be disadvantaged? The continuity of education allowance exists expressly to support families who are serving our nation in the armed forces. Surely they should be protected.
The Government acknowledge the role of centres of advanced training and performing arts schools that come under the music and dance scheme, because, again, there is no equivalent specialist schooling available in the state sector. Then there are the many children who receive special educational needs support, including those with an education, health and care plan, whether or not they are at the school named in the plan, and those children who are applying for a plan.
Damian Hinds
I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me, as I must make progress.
As for children whose parents are priced out of a school, or face its closure, disruption to learning can be difficult at any time, but it is even more problematic when pupils have started a public examination course. Their next school might not even offer the subjects that they were taking, or the exams might not be marked by the same exam board. We need to think about those children. The tax levy should be postponed until pupils who are now in years 10 or 11, or in the lower and upper sixth form, have finished their exams—until 2025 or 2026.
The widest impact of all will be felt by state schools. Ministers have said repeatedly that there is no problem because there are plenty of spaces in state schools. We have repeatedly pointed out that that is of no help at all if those places are in the wrong places or the wrong year groups. They need to be where and for whom they are required.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
State schools in my constituency are bursting at the seams. There are no spare spaces to move into for the more than 1,000 children being educated in independent schools there. The fees charged by those independent schools are a quarter to half of the cost of state school provision per pupil.
Joy Morrissey
In Buckinghamshire, we do not have the places. We have a lot of children in special education needs and disabilities schools, faith schools and other private schools. We cannot cope with the capacity loss. We have parents who are sacrificing everything to send their child to a SEND school. There is no provision in the county for them. The policy will result in a crisis of transportation and places, and children will suffer as a result.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for their interventions. Indeed, there are many places, particularly at secondary school level, where there are insufficient spaces available to accommodate a significant minority being displaced from independent schools—places such as Bristol and Bedford, Salford and Richmond, Worcester and Wycombe, and Bury North and Bolton North East.
Let us be clear: local authorities have a duty to find spaces for children. They take that duty very seriously, and a number of them are considerably worried about what may happen. In-year admissions can be especially complicated in any case: they can involve not only governors but the fair access protocol panel and, ultimately, a Secretary of State direction, all of which can add up to months out of school. Creating additional physical space in schools obviously takes time, and building new schools takes longer still. Time is needed to adjust, which is why our motion further calls on the Government to
“postpone imposition of the VAT charge for schools in areas where state schools in the relevant key stage are already on average”
almost full.
This Government barely have their feet under the table, and already they are a Government in chaos. That chaos is exemplified by this destructive, disruptive and divisive education tax that will interrupt learning; create place demand where it cannot be accommodated; put further strain on the SEND system; hit specific groups that we ought to be trying to protect; likely generate much lower revenue than anticipated; and quite possibly even end up as a net cost to the public purse. In their headlong rush to make a political statement, the Government appear simply to not have thought through the consequences. We call on them now to announce immediately that they are abandoning the unrealistic January implementation date, to publish a proper impact assessment, and then to entirely rethink this entirely counterproductive tax.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
This Government were elected to break down barriers to opportunity. We are determined to fulfil the aspiration of every parent in our country to get the best education for their children. We are committed to doing so by improving state schools and making sure that every child has access to a high-quality education. We will start to make this happen by expanding early years childcare for all by opening 3,000 new nurseries across England. We will recruit 6,500 new teachers, alongside improving teacher and headteacher training, and we will roll out further mental health support to schools and colleges in England. Those improvements to the state education system will begin our work to make sure every parent’s aspiration for their children can be fulfilled.
We want to get on with these important changes right away, and to do so, they must be paid for. That is why to help fund improvements to our state schools, we have made the tough but necessary decision to end tax breaks for private schools. In the July statement, the Government announced that as of 1 January 2025, all education services and vocational training provided for a charge by a private school in the UK will be subject to VAT at the standard rate of 20%.
Graham Stuart
I know the Minister to be an honourable man, so will he take this opportunity to apologise to the House in the absence of the Secretary of State for Education for the malicious and spiteful tweet that she put out this weekend? That tweet was ill-advised, even if one believes that this policy is the right thing to do.
James Murray
Neither I nor any of my colleagues will make any apology for wanting to improve state education across this country to make sure that the aspiration of every parent in our country to get the best possible education for their children can be fulfilled. That is why we have announced that any fees paid from the date of the July statement, 29 July, relating to the term starting in January 2025 onward will be subject to VAT.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
This package of support will put thousands of teachers back into school classrooms in Telford and across the country. Has my hon. Friend received any representation to say that if this change did not take place, those plans by this Government—who were elected by the people of this country—would go ahead by any other means?
James Murray
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the reason why we have taken the tough decision to end tax breaks for private schools. It is to fund our education priorities, because we know that the way to improve opportunities for people right across this country is to make sure that our state schools can provide the best-quality education for all children.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Minister was in a similar debate this morning, in which he heard a range of views. He is a Treasury Minister, not an Education Minister or the Education Secretary; will he commit to publishing an impact assessment on the overall cost of this policy? There were parents in the Gallery listening to the debate this morning, and it is clear that there will be a legal challenge to this policy. Will the Treasury also publish the potential cost of that legal challenge and the bill that his Department will be footing in order to meet it?
James Murray
I thank the right hon. Member for her contribution. First, in terms of an impact assessment, while developing these policies, the Government have carefully considered the impact they will have on pupils and their families across the state and private sectors, as well as the impact they will have on state and private schools. In addition to having reviewed analysis published by third parties such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Government have conducted their own analysis of the likely impacts of these policies, which draws on a range of sources.
James Murray
I am not going to give way, because I am responding to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel).
Mr Speaker
Order. It is a point of order, so you do give way, unfortunately.
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. Could you give any advice to me on how we can ensure that the impact assessment that must have been conducted on this policy is shared with the House? It is a fundamental—
Mr Speaker
Order. As you know, that is not a point of order—do not waste my time. Carry on, Minister.
James Murray
As I was saying to the right hon. Member for Witham, the Government will publish a tax information and impact note on the VAT policy change at the Budget, once the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has scrutinised and certified the costing of the final policy.
James Murray
I am still replying to the hon. Member’s right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] Maybe Conservative Members could sort this out on their side of the House before they come into the Chamber, but I will continue replying to the right hon. Member for Witham.
Turning to the legal cases, the Government have considered the policy’s interaction with human rights law and are confident that it is compatible with the UK’s obligations under the Human Rights Act. I hope that addresses the right hon. Member’s concerns.
Mims Davies
I thank the Minister for kindly giving way. This policy will have an economic impact in each and every constituency: on librarians, on maintenance people and on those who work in labs, in catering and as minibus drivers—everything that is predicated on schools such as the ones we are discussing. Will the impact assessment and the Treasury look at the wider implications for employment?
James Murray
As the hon. Member knows, there are established processes for developing tax information and impact notes. This one will be developed in line with the OBR costing in the normal way and published alongside the Budget, so she will see all the information.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Murray
I have given way quite a lot, so I am going to make a bit of progress.
Alongside the announcements about VAT, the Government announced in July that private schools in England with charitable status would lose their eligibility for business rates charitable relief from April 2025, subject to parliamentary passage of the legislation. Those changes were set out in a technical note that was published online alongside draft VAT legislation, which together formed a technical consultation. As part of that consultation, the Government—both at official and ministerial level—have engaged with a broad range of stakeholders, including the devolved Governments.
We have listened carefully to the points that people have raised with us. We recognise that while this policy will raise revenue to help support improvements in the state education sector, it may lead to increased costs for some parents and carers whose children are in the private education system. However, let me be clear: while private schools will now be required to charge VAT on the education services and vocational training they provide, we expect that most private schools will be able to absorb a significant portion of this new VAT charge and keep fee increases affordable for most parents. They will be able to make efficiencies and recover the VAT they incur on the things they buy. Those recovered costs can be used to offset increases for fee payers. We are already seeing that some schools have committed to absorbing the VAT liability entirely, while others are choosing to cap fee increases at 5% or 10% to keep fees as low as possible for parents.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I had a pop at getting the Minister to give way during the debate this morning, and I appreciate his doing so now. I love the irony of what he is saying, which is, “We need to do this to raise all this money, yet it isn’t actually going to raise all that much money because it can be reclaimed.” On the impact assessment, it is really interesting that one line in the consultation document that went out this summer says:
“The government understands that moving schools can be challenging.”
How many of his own constituents have contacted him to say they will have to move schools as a result of this policy, and how do we measure the damage that moving schools is going to cause for so many children in our constituencies?
James Murray
I have been clear: the Government recognise that some pupils may subsequently move into the state education sector as a result of these policies. However, as is set out in a technical note—and I take it from the hon. Gentleman’s comment that he has read it—the
“number of pupils who may switch schools as a result of these changes represent a very small proportion of overall pupil numbers in the state sector. The government is therefore confident that the state sector will be able to accommodate any additional pupils”
whom this policy will cause to move.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Murray
I will make a bit of progress, because I have been quite generous in giving way so far.
I want to address some of the questions that the shadow Secretary of State asked in his speech, particularly about why we are introducing this policy from 1 January 2025. The reason we are doing so is simple: we want to raise the funding we need as soon as possible to deliver our education priorities for state schools across the country. Importantly, a January 2025 start date means that schools and parents will have had five months to prepare for the VAT change, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs stands ready to make sure schools are supported in delivering it.
James Murray
I am going to make some progress.
HMRC will put in place a number of measures to ensure that all private schools can be registered ahead of 1 January, including publishing bespoke guidance on gov.uk ahead of 30 October, updating registration systems and putting additional resource in place to help process applications.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Murray
I am going to make some progress, because I have given way quite a lot so far.
Ahead of this policy being implemented, the Government have carefully considered the impact that these changes will have on pupils and their families across both the state and private sectors, as well as the impact they will have on state and private schools. The Government’s costing of these policies is currently being scrutinised by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. The Chancellor will confirm our approach to these measures at the Budget, when we will set out our assessment of the expected impacts of this change in the normal way.
We recognise that, as hon. Members have said, these changes may lead to some pupils moving into the state education sector. While the impact of this policy is being fully considered, we know that projections by the Institute for Fiscal Studies indicate that the number of pupils who may switch schools as a result of these changes is likely to represent a very small proportion of overall pupil numbers in the state sector—less than 0.5%—with any displacement expected to take place over several years.
Dr Evans
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. This is about children—and even the Prime Minister made a choice to better the education of his children—so putting this in place in January, halfway through a year, is going to have a significant emotional impact on families and children. That is why it should be delayed. If it is good enough for the Prime Minister to make such choices for himself, why cannot this Government make choices for the rest of the nation, and support the most impacted families and children?
James Murray
I have made clear the reason why we are proceeding with this policy to a January 2025 date, which is that we want to raise the money as soon as possible to invest in our improvements to state education. There will have been five months for parents and schools to prepare for the change.
James Murray
I am still responding to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), so please let me come back to that point. HMRC is putting in place bespoke guidance, and it is standing by to make sure that schools are properly registered for the change. All the evidence we have seen from the IFS and so on suggests that the impact on the state sector will be very small, which means that it will not have a material effect on children’s education.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Murray
I am going to make some progress.
To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, I am not denying that some pupils may have to move into the state sector, but we expect much of this to take place at natural transition points, such as when a child moves from primary to secondary school, or at the beginning of their GCSE or A-level years. As I have said, the IFS expects any displacement to take place over several years. We are confident that the state sector will be able to accommodate any additional pupils, and that these policies will not have a significant impact on the state education system as a whole.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Murray
I am going to make some progress. I am sorry, but I have taken a lot of interventions.
I would like to address the issue of special educational needs. It is a point that many hon. Members have raised, and I know that some parents are concerned about the impact of this policy on pupils in private schools with special educational needs. Let me start by saying that we have considered this element of the policy very carefully. Our proposed policy makes sure that pupils will not be impacted where they have acute additional needs and an education, health and care plan in England, or its equivalent in other nations, specifies that these can be met only in a private school.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way on that specific point, because he is relying on those schools still being open because other parents have not left. How will he address the situation in which parents of children needing that extra support rely on such schools for their special educational needs, yet those schools have closed because they cannot afford to stay open any longer?
James Murray
We will take a community-wide approach that sees improved SEND provision in mainstream state schools, as well as ensuring that state special schools cater for those with the most complex needs.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
As a parent of a disabled child, the issue of SEND education in this country is very important to me, as it is to a number of my friends and acquaintances. Let us be clear that the SEND system in this country is broken, and it was the actions of the previous Government that left us with parents being desperate and having to search for alternatives to mainstream education for their children. The vast majority of my constituents who find themselves without suitable education placements for their children, for reasons of disability or educational needs, are unable to afford to send their children to a private school. Does the Minister agree with me that perpetuating a system of inequality is not the solution for our broken SEND system?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She is absolutely right to say that we need to improve SEND provision for all children in this country in a financially sustainable way, and she speaks with great experience.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Murray
Let me make a bit of progress.
We want to improve state schools across this country so that when people have children with special educational needs, they never need to send them to a private school because the provision in state schools is better. That is the crucial point behind our approach, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) was right to highlight.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Murray
I am going to make a bit of progress, because I have been quite generous in giving way so far.
I was talking about when EHCPs in England, or their equivalents in other nations, specify that a child’s education can be met only in a private school. In cases where pupils’ needs can be met only in a specified private school, local authorities will fund their places and be able to reclaim the VAT. Similarly on business rates, the Government are developing an approach to address the potential impact of these changes when private school provision has been specified through an EHCP. More widely, as we have just been addressing, we as a Government are committed to transforming the system for supporting children and young people with SEND in all schools. We need to deliver better outcomes in a financially sustainable way.
James Murray
I am going to make a bit of progress.
To address some other points raised in this debate, we know that a small number of diplomatic officials and service personnel are posted abroad for extended periods. In such circumstances, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence provide the continuity of education allowance to ensure that this does not interfere with their children’s education. I can give the reassurance today that the Government will monitor closely the impact of these policy changes on affected diplomatic and military families, with any changes to the scheme being considered as—[Interruption.]
James Murray
I am not quite sure what happened there, but I will carry on. I was making an important point, which is that the Government will monitor closely the impact of our policy changes on affected diplomatic and military families, with any changes to the scheme being considered as part of the ongoing spending review.
James Murray
I will make a bit of progress. In our consultation on the technical detail of this policy, we have been engaging widely and in depth, and the views of MPs are an important part of that. As I said earlier, it has been a tough but necessary decision to end tax breaks for private schools. We believe it is the right decision, and one we need to implement as soon as possible to help raise the funding that we need to deliver our priorities for state education in this country. We are determined to make sure that education, which is available for all, is of the highest possible quality, because that is how we ensure that we meet the aspiration of every parent to get the best possible education for their children.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I am grateful for the Health Secretary’s advice—[Interruption.] I did not need coaching—you will hear that soon enough.
When I heard that today’s debate would be about schools, I thought, thank goodness, we are finally going to give the crisis in our classrooms the attention it deserves and have a long, overdue serious debate about the squeeze on school budgets, the shortage of specialist teachers, the dangerous state of many school buildings, the crisis in special educational needs provision, or the mental health of children, but no. In fairness, expecting the Conservative party suddenly to start prioritising those issues in opposition, after it spent years neglecting them in government, would be foolishly optimistic. Nevertheless, I hope that we will have the chance to debate them properly soon.
A priority for the Liberal Democrats is ensuring that every child, no matter their background, gets the support and attention that they need at school, so that they leave with the skills, confidence and resilience to be happy and successful. That means the Government investing in education as we invest in other vital infrastructure. In fact, Liberal Democrats believe that education is the single best investment we can make in our children’s potential and our country’s future. That is why in our manifesto we set out a number of ways to make that investment. We argued that putting a dedicated qualified mental health professional in every primary and secondary school was important. We argued for an increase in school and college funding per pupil, above the rate of inflation every year. We argued for school meals to be extended to all children in poverty, and for a tutoring guarantee for every disadvantaged pupil who needs extra support.
That package of investment in our state schools would improve and boost the performance and opportunities for every child, as well as closing the attainment gap that limits the life chances of too many children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Crucially, we set out in detail how it could all be paid for, including by increasing the tax on social media firms who have done so much to worsen the mental health crisis in our schools. That is a much bolder package of investment than the one this Government have set out so far, and it is paid for fairly, not by taxing parents’ own investment in their children’s education. I think the shadow Education Secretary was advocating raising income tax to invest in education—[Interruption.]
Munira Wilson
The shadow Education Secretary was suggesting to the Minister that that is where he could find some money—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. If Members wish to intervene, they should do it properly. Let us not have side banter, as the rest of the Chamber needs to get in as well.
Munira Wilson
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As we have a Treasury Minister rather than an Education Minister opening the debate for the Government, I say gently that he should look at what the Liberal Democrats proposed on reforming capital gains tax as a way to fund some of the important investment that we need in education, rather than looking at taxing parents’ choices to invest in their children’s education.
The Government’s policy would undermine two important principles. First, education should simply not be taxed. As we have heard, all education provided by an eligible body, including university education, music lessons, and tutoring are exempt from VAT, and VAT should not be imposed on any of those things because education is fundamentally a public good. Secondly, parents have the right to choose what education setting is best for their child. As Liberals we have always championed choice, and believe that nothing should get in the way of those important choices. Of course we want to get to a point where every parent can choose a local state school that meets their child’s needs and gives them the best possible start in life, and opportunities to flourish. But let us be honest with ourselves: that is not the reality facing many parents today, especially when their children have special educational needs.
Liberal Democrats have many times raised the crisis in SEND provision. Conservative cuts to school and council budgets mean that many parents and carers simply cannot get their children the support they deserve. The Minister talked a moment ago about sorting out state-school SEND provision, so that no parent with a child with SEND would need to send their child to a private school, but does he recognise that in order to sort out and fix our broken SEND system we will need not millions but billions of pounds? I am not entirely sure that the Chancellor will be giving that kind of money to the Department for Education.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
In my constituency there are three independent schools, one of which is a choir school. In one of those independent schools there are 29 children with diagnosed SEND, and only one with an EHCP with that as the named school. Does my hon. Friend agree that given the crisis in attaining EHCPs, especially in West Sussex county council, which is ranked fifth worst in the country and where only 3.6% of EHCPs are given within the statutory framework of 20 weeks, there needs to be more support in dealing with the deluge that this policy will cause county councils—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I suggest that interventions are meant to be short and not a speech, especially if you are on the list? People are going to go down to a six-minute time limit shortly. Please, think of others.
Munira Wilson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right to say that because only children with EHCPs will be exempt from the VAT charge, there will be the unintended consequence of adding yet further pressure to what is already a broken system. Indeed, a parent in my constituency has written to me along those lines to say that they now feel that they will have to go through the application process. So many parents and carers are forced to navigate a postcode lottery and wait months, as my hon. Friend said, to get the support that their children are entitled to.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is a London MP like me, and part of the problem is that the term “private schools” covers such a wide category and such a multitude of sins. Does she agree that this is also quite a London issue? I have an unusually large number of these schools, with 14 in my boundary—there were 15 a year ago but one has since closed. I know my hon. Friends on the Front Bench would be happy to meet me so I can feed in the comments that I hear at the advice surgery and when door knocking, which would take too long to recount right now.
Munira Wilson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention but I would gently say two things. First, I would not describe private schools as covering a “multitude of sins”. This is also not just a London problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) who represents an Edinburgh constituency says that she has the highest number of private schools in the country. It is a nationwide problem, and the consequences have simply not been thought through.
Let me return to my point about special educational needs and disability. For many families, local state schools simply are not equipped to give those children the support they deserve. That is why, as we have heard, there are almost 100,000 children in independent schools who have special educational needs and disabilities but not an EHCP. That is tens of thousands of parents, not the super-wealthy, but carers, who are working hard and making tough choices so that their children can have the nurturing education they need.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
For 14 years—the first five under coalition Government—state schools in Telford and across the country were told to be efficient, more creative and innovative to save money as budgets were frozen and then cut. Why can private schools not also be as efficient and creative to cut costs in their operations? It seems it is one rule for one set of parents’ children, and another rule for the vast majority of children.
Munira Wilson
I point out for a start that when the Liberal Democrats were in government, school budgets increased in real terms, and we introduced the pupil premium to help the most disadvantaged children. When the Tories were left to their own devices, they slashed budgets, and the pupil premium has been devalued over the years.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I just want to return briefly to the topic of EHCPs. We all know that there is a crisis in special educational needs. In my own constituency, a quarter of pupils attend an independent school. At least 700 or more students do not have an EHCP. Those parents who are paying for places at private schools desperately want to get support for their children. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial, if the Government insist on pursuing an ill thought-through policy that impacts on children with special educational needs, that all children with diagnosed educational needs—with or without an EHCP—and those eligible for disability allowance should be exempt from that VAT?
Munira Wilson
I would rather the Government do not go through with this policy at all and drop it, but if they insist on pressing ahead with it, all children with special educational needs, whether or not they are on the SEND register—they can be identified in other ways—should be exempted.
I will share a story from a constituent who contacted me recently. They have two children, both of whom have complex learning needs and have struggled to thrive in their local state school. After moving to a private school that was better able to support them, they are finally making progress and most importantly, to quote the parent, they
“don’t feel like they are failing”.
The children’s family has made huge financial sacrifices to give them this education, including remortgaging their home and cashing in pension plans. As this policy is set to be introduced in the middle of the school year, this family and thousands of others have little time to prepare or save. It will be disruptive for children who have already suffered enough disruption to their education in recent years. This parent who contacted me told me:
“We are terrified of the prospect of having to uproot our children for a second time because we can’t see a way to afford this rise.”
Labour’s rushed-through and ill thought-through plans will snatch opportunities away from thousands of children just like my constituents.
Jen Craft
You reflect on there being an exemption only for children who have EHCPs, and you mentioned that there should be an exemption for children who do not have an EHCP based on SEN or disability. My question is: how do you define that? There is huge scope for private schools to say that they are SEND specialists. There is not a measure of whether that is the case. How do you define those who have SEND or those with additional needs, beyond the scope of an EHCP?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I gently say to the hon. Member that when you say “you”, it is as though I have said it? I want to reassure you that I am not involved in any of this.
Munira Wilson
Mr Speaker, I would not dare to second-guess your position on this issue. The best way to deal with this issue is to drop the policy entirely, but if we are to exempt children with special educational needs, a good place to start is the SEND register. Just yesterday, I was discussing with one of the headteachers in my constituency the number of children on their SEND register and how they go about identifying them. Schools already do that in the state sector to support children. We could apply those same rules and regulations in the private sector, and those children should be exempted. However, I would rather this policy was just dropped altogether.
For all these reasons, the Liberal Democrats do not support ending the VAT exemption for independent schools. Instead, we want to see a better partnership between independent schools and local state schools. Many already do that, and I am not just talking about a few bursaries here and free use of a pool there; I am talking about genuine partnership working and the sort of brilliant collaboration that I have seen in schools in my constituency, where Hampton school and Lady Eleanor Holles school share staff time with Reach academy in Feltham. They have also been mentoring and coaching pupils for medical school and other university places, and the results have been phenomenal in a disadvantaged part of west London, where typically students were not going on to further or higher education. That partnership has borne immense fruit for those young disadvantaged people.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Stripping the politics out of this, it is abundantly clear that substance aside, the breakneck implementation is completely wrong and will throw families, children and communities into chaos. It will also compromise the work of schools such as Eastbourne college, which does great stuff giving back to the community as part of the coastal schools partnership. Does my hon. Friend agree that if this Government are to insist on this policy going ahead, they should at the very least delay it to ensure that our schools, our staff and our communities are not thrown unnecessarily into chaos?
Munira Wilson
I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention. As I have said before, it is best that the policy is dropped altogether, but if the Government insist on going ahead, it should be delayed. We need further provision to exempt all special educational needs children, and not just those with EHCPs. Those are two critical factors in trying to mitigate the damage this policy will do.
Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that thousands of children do not have EHCPs? My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) referred to the deluge that would surely come to local authorities in the form of applications for EHCPs. That will be just when, because of the legacy of the Conservative Government, local authorities are on their knees and cannot cope with the level of demand. That will further disadvantage the already most disadvantaged children.
Munira Wilson
I think many of us—certainly on this side of the House—would recognise the point my hon. Friend makes, and many have already made it. I suspect that quite a few people on the Government Benches would also recognise that this policy will be a real challenge, because Members from all parts of this House have been turning out in vast numbers at any debate on special educational needs to discuss the major crisis in our state school provision for SEND pupils. The system is broken, and it will have further pressures still.
I come back to the point I was making on partnership working. The sort of exemplary work I was talking about benefits children in the state and independent sectors, and we want to see it become the norm in every part of the country. I fear that it will be one of the first things to suffer when schools are forced to make cutbacks under the Government’s policy. Let us remember that most independent schools are no Eton or Winchester; 40% of them have fewer than 100 pupils. Those small schools, often in rural places, will struggle to absorb this extra cost.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Does the Member agree that the policy threatens the viability of many independent schools that have charitable status and serve deprived communities, including many independent schools in Blackburn, such as faith schools and those schools serving children with special educational needs? This policy will put those schools on their knees and vastly increase the number of spaces that will be required in public schools. In Blackburn, we do not have those spaces.
Mr Speaker
I gently say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that you have now been going 18 minutes. [Interruption.] No, let me finish before you make a judgment call. I do not want you to speak for longer than the Government Minister, and we are shortly in danger of doing that. I am sure you will be coming to the end of your speech.
Munira Wilson
I apologise, Mr Speaker. I was just coming on to the last paragraph of my speech, but I wanted to take some interventions from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Mr Speaker
Perhaps the answer should be that you cut the speech if you want to take more interventions.
Munira Wilson
May I just finish by urging Ministers to look, instead of a damaging and counterproductive tax on education, at ways to get independent schools to do more of that great partnership work with state schools and their communities and to ensure they are investing in that local community? Let us ensure that every child, no matter their background or circumstances, is given the support and opportunities they need to thrive. Let us support investment in our education, not penalise it.
Mr Speaker
We come to a maiden speech, and we are now on a six-minute limit.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to make my first contribution in the House. It is a great honour to be here. I am so proud to be part of a Government who are putting state education at the heart of our mission. I have not been an MP for long, but I have already spent a lot of my time visiting schools in my constituency, and I have seen and heard for myself the very real challenges that they are facing because of the effects of austerity on their budgets. Opportunities for young people are shrinking in front of our eyes. I am glad that we are making these decisions so that we can invest more in the state education that 93% of our children need.
I would like to talk about the service of my predecessor as MP for North East Derbyshire, Lee Rowley. A constant refrain for me when I was campaigning during the election was how well regarded he was as a constituency MP, which is not always what you want to hear when campaigning for the other side, but it is a clear sign of how well regarded he was by his constituents. I also pay tribute to his service in the House, where he served in various ministerial positions with distinction. I particularly recognise his important work campaigning on behalf of those with ovarian cancer. I am sure that everybody in the Chamber will join me in thanking him for his service.
It is a huge honour to represent my home, North East Derbyshire. I will take a few moments to talk about what that place means to me, and indeed what home means to me. For many of my colleagues, home is where they were born or where they grew up. It is very much the origin of their journey, but for me and many others like me, it is the destination. As many of my fellow military veterans will know, I lived in over 11 different places over the past 10 years as a result of my military service. Whether that was a small officer cadets’ bedroom in the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, kept to the ruthless standards of tidiness that that place demands—standards that may have lapsed since—my first posting to Normandy barracks in the beautiful city of Paderborn in Germany, or indeed the compound in Kabul where I served on operations, my accommodation has been varied, transient, occasionally used as target practice, and rarely felt like home. So when I say that I have found my home in North East Derbyshire, that is because I have come home.
When I turn off junction 29 of the M1 and see in the distance the latticework of green fields of Holy Moor, I know that I am home. When I am walking up Market Street to have a cuppa at the café Host, or something stronger at The Three Horseshoes, I know that I am home. After a busy day’s canvassing, when I am getting a superlative chippy tea at New Tupton Fish Bar or a bacon cobb at Woodheads in Eckington, I know that I am home. When I am crossing the bridge over the River Rother into Killamarsh and I see the sign for that village, called by its original name—please forgive my Anglo-Saxon here—of Chinewoldemaresc, I know that I am home, When I crest the hill at Coal Aston and see before me across the valley the town of Dronfield, with the purple hills of the Peak district in the distance, I know that I am home.
I want to say thank you to the people of North East Derbyshire for seeing in me the service and the values that they want to represent them in this place. I repeat the pledge that I made during my campaign that I will use each and every day here to serve you and deliver the future that I know we can have: a better future based not just on promises, but on real progress.
The work of this Government has already begun, and there is so much that I know will make a huge positive transformation for people in my constituency, whether that is renationalising railways so that we can be proud of the service they provide again, huge reforms to workers’ rights and renters’ rights so that we can end no fault-evictions, or the establishment of the child poverty taskforce so that we can drive down child poverty, just as Labour Governments have done before, and I know we will do again. There is much to do, and much that I am looking forward to being a part of.
Delivery matters. I want to speak briefly about why that is and about the effect that it has on our democracy. This is a subject close to my heart. As I have mentioned, I served in the military, and nobody is so much affected by the decisions of this House as my former colleagues. The decisions that colleagues sat in the Chamber have made and will make will have a direct impact on their lives. Those decisions could send them to dangerous places to do dangerous things. Indeed, some of my former colleagues in the armed forces have not come back. I would like us all to take a moment now to remember Corporal Liam Riley, who grew up in Killamarsh in my constituency and lost his life in Afghanistan. Lest we forget. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
It is of deep concern to me when I see that the number of people voting has diminished over the past few years; that so many people up and down the country see politics no longer as the mechanism by which we govern ourselves and bring the change that we want for our communities but as something done by some other people in some other place for the benefit of some other people. It is our duty to ensure that we leave this precious democracy that we have inherited in a better place than where we found it and that we show everybody that a vote for an MP matters, that a vote for a Government matters, and that a vote for democracy matters. That is how we can make the difference in the small towns and villages that make up places such as my constituency of North East Derbyshire.
Finally, there is a piece of advice that I would like to commend to the House. Over the summer, I had the privilege of meeting Clay Cross air cadets. As I take my place in the House, I commend their motto, “Acta non verba”—deeds, not words. We can all agree that that is a good motto to have as a Member of Parliament, and indeed for the Government.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I welcome the hon. and gallant Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) to her place. We need more people in Parliament who have service in their hearts. I also thank her for her good comments about her predecessor and in particular for her comments about Corporal Riley, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) felt deeply. I thank her for taking the time to do that.
Sadly, I turn to a decision by the Government that does not have service to the country at its heart. This is a cruel, vindictive policy that will damage the prospects of children in both state and independent schooling. It is particularly damaging also for rural economies, which seem to have been entirely overlooked. In Rutland and Stamford, we have 10 independent schools that cater for a vast number of pupils—particularly those from military families and those with SEND—and what is common to all those families is how hard they work for their children to have the right education for them.
I have received heartbreaking emails from parents who have had to sacrifice the education they have worked so hard for. One was from a mother of twins who are midway through their GCSE year. There is no space in the state sector for them—twins who now question whether they will be able to sit their GCSEs because of this policy.
The entire county of Rutland has zero available state school spaces in years 10 and 11, and only three SEND spaces.
Alicia Kearns
Is the hon. Gentleman just going to stand, or will he ask to intervene?
Ben Coleman
I am most grateful to the hon. Member. Does she not think that a little bit of an apology from her and her colleagues for the disgraceful SEND system that they left as a legacy is merited? As people cannot get EHCPs or support in the state sector, and councils and cash-strapped families are turning to the private sector, should she not apologise for the legacy that she and her colleagues have left the country?
Alicia Kearns
I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman is repeating the lines that the Whips gave him for this morning’s Westminster Hall debate. I was not talking about SEND. It is deeply discourteous to the House to intervene on a Member with a point that is completely separate from the point that they are making; he will come to learn that in time.
As I said, the entire county of Rutland has zero available state school places for years 10 and 11. That means children will now not be able to get their education. I ask the Minister directly: what would he say to 16-year-olds who are to be forced out of their school in January with no alternative place to go and nowhere to do their studies? This is a vindictive policy, and it is absolutely wrong.
I want to touch on the contribution to local rural economies. In Rutland, education is the biggest single employer. As I said, we have 10 schools across 11 sites. In 2022-23, one secondary school in Rutland and Stamford contributed £50 million to UK GDP. It contributed £30 million to local GDP, £14 million was paid in tax to HMRC, and savings of £5.5 million were made to local schools through school places that were not taken. Some 70% of this school’s expenditure is on staffing and, with the imposition of VAT, it is forecast to make a loss for the first time ever. Jobs are being lost. When 70% of the budget is staffing, what does a school do? Cuts have to be made in people’s jobs. More than 2,000 people locally are employed directly by independent schools, and that is not to mention those working in the supply chain, whether driving buses, providing food or flowers, or working in cafés and shops. Rural economies do not have many options at the moment, and independent schools are a bedrock for them. The economic impact of these jobs on rural communities should be considered in an impact assessment, but I very much doubt one has been carried out.
Looking at the national economic picture, the Adam Smith Institute concluded that every child in independent schooling contributes £28,000 to the public finances. The average £2,700 saved on VAT makes a return to the taxpayer of 1,040%. If 5% of independent school pupils leave, the Government will generate £1 billion through this policy. If 10% to 15% of pupils leave, the Government will generate no revenue. If 25% of pupils leave, the Government will lose £1.58 billion, because they are doing something vindictive and wrong.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that people putting their children through independent school are paying twice? They pay once through their fees and once through income tax. If they are removed from the system, that will mean less money for education.
Alicia Kearns
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. These parents have already paid into the state school system as if their child were going to state school, and they are net contributors to the local education system and the tax system, because they have chosen to ease the pressures on state schools by taking their child out. This is basic economics, and that is why the Government do not understand it.
Independent schools make a huge and optional contribution to the national teachers’ pension scheme. Some could choose to mitigate their increased costs from the imposition of VAT by opting out of the TPS. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that this would have on the financial viability of the TPS?
Additionally, a number of independent schools in my constituency provide homes for children in foster care who would otherwise have no stability. These are the kind of schemes they will have to stop. That will again result in increased costs and impact on the state sector, which will have to pick these things up.
It is a long-standing international norm to exempt education from sales taxes. Nurseries, universities, tutors and other education providers are not included in Labour’s proposed VAT increase, although as per my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), there is a toddler tax, which any parent with a five-year-old child in nursery school will suddenly find themselves paying. It is ironic that the Labour party says that it believes in free university education for all, yet many who take up apprenticeships or go into work will not go to university. Why does Labour think that all of us who do not go to university should pay for other people to go to university, but somehow, when it comes to this issue, we should pay for others?
There is also a question about the legality. Senior lawyers, including Lord Pannick, have argued that this proposal will breach European convention on human rights rules on educational choice and access. What assessment have the Government made of the legality of this policy?
I am already seeing the damage of this policy in the heartbreaking dilemmas facing families who have contacted me for help. For some pupils halfway through their exam years, there are no places in the state system. The requests are clear: the Government must delay the implementation until at least the end of this school year, so that children are not disrupted in their education. We need to exempt those pupils in years 10 to 13, so they can take their exams without the added pressure of a school move. We need to help local authorities to boost EHCP assessments rapidly, and we need to undertake a regional assessment of available state school places to exempt pupils who live in areas with no availability, such as Rutland.
I understand that the Labour party wants to make an ideological attack on education and choice, but I urge Ministers to sit down and think this through. The richest will continue to attend private schools and absorb the increased costs, while families who sacrifice day after day will suffer. For those who are interested, I did go to my local comprehensive, and my children go to their local comprehensive, but I think it is right that we support choice for all. Tony Blair once said, “Education, education, education.” I urge the Minister to listen to the ghosts of Labour past and to do what is right for all children at both state and private schools, not what is right for reasons of ideological dogma, which is what the Labour party is currently doing day after day.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Many Back Benchers wish to contribute, and I want to make sure that that happens. Back-Bench speeches will be limited to four minutes, and maiden speeches to six minutes. We all love a debate, but every intervention eats into the contribution of another Back Bencher, so I ask Members please to be mindful of that.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am pleased to speak in this debate. I am proud to do so for the first time since being put back in my place by the people of Bury North. Returners do not get to be maidens again, so I will just send my best to my predecessor and his family, as is customary. There was not much on which we saw eye to eye, but I respect his work and time in office. I know how losing feels, so I sincerely send him my very best.
It will not surprise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I speak in favour of this Government’s laser focus on tackling inequality in our education system. I support Labour’s plans to end the state subsidy of private schools, and it is right that they pay VAT, as businesses expect to pay. I understand the aspirations of parents who work hard and save to provide for their children. I can introduce any Member to thousands of them in Bury North. Many live in some of the poorest wards in the country. Few could ever afford to pay for private education for their children, so I do not expect them to pay for the private education of someone else’s children with a state subsidy and their own hard-earned money.
Forty-three per cent. of children in Bury North live in poverty, and that is concentrated in just three of our nine wards. That is an abject failure of the Conservative party’s 14 years in government—a spike of 10% in as many years. We cannot ignore growing inequalities.
Under this Government’s plans, private schools will become subject to VAT. Although that presents new financial considerations for those schools, I would gently push back on the notion that the costs will automatically mean the same in terms of fee rises. Private schools have a range of financial capabilities to absorb some of these costs: reclaiming VAT on supplies and services; drawing on interest from trust funds or assets; considering how the fees for the use of school assets by the wider community can contribute to the overall budget; introducing fee structures or fees for additional specialist support; and joining with schools in neighbouring areas or nationwide to pay for centralised services. They will remain free to determine what to do, but that is necessary in considering business costs.
None of this is new to schools. I have met some of the brilliant leaders in our private school sector. They are not exclusively innovative, but on a personal and character level, I have loved meeting them and those they teach. Bury Grammar in Bury North is one example. However, as someone who served as a state school governor until recently, I have seen at first hand the budgetary pressures enforced on the schools that teach 93% of our children.
Let us take a moment to consider the Conservative party’s time in office and what has brought us to this point. Under its leadership, we saw an atomisation of our school system, zero accountability for multi-academy trusts, the narrowing of the school system, the off-rolling of children with different abilities, and many young people left without the support they need. It presided over a catastrophic financial crisis for local schools and authorities trying to support children with special educational needs, while SEN families have faced immense frustration, misery and often obnoxious bureaucratic barriers. These parents are forced to navigate labyrinthine systems in pursuit of services that they are legally entitled to access but that remain hidden from view under lock and key.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
SEND services are really important to people in my constituency as well. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are not anti independent schools or private schools or the work that they do? He is right when he talks about the whole state sector. Does he agree that this is important?
Mr Frith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are not anti. We are for the many and the few. Conservative Members want to remain in their comfort zone following their election defeat. We have all been there, but it is the wrong place to be. It is right that people pay VAT on school fees.
I was at a termly governors’ meeting—Opposition Members will like this—when news of the last Government’s bare-minimum teachers’ pay rise came through. There was some welcome surprise that the then Government had done even the bare minimum. That was quickly replaced by the hard-headed financial reality from the business manager. They confirmed to the same meeting that, even with the 3.5% that had been kept in reserve to meet the contribution they were expecting in Bury to make the pay rise, they would face a budget deficit because the teachers would no longer be on strike. That is right—the Tories designed a system where the leaderships of our state schools have to rely on the unfair treatment of our teachers in order to come in under budget. That is the reality that we face, and it is their everyday experience. There have been no maths teachers for year 11s, and the leadership have been weighing up whether to buy in multiple teaching assistants for cover rather than a science teacher for science—if they could find one. There is a huge amount to do, and this measure will only touch on a fraction of the legacy that Labour must clear up from the last Government and their 10 Education Secretaries.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Joe Robertson to make his maiden speech.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) on her maiden speech, and thank her for her military service before entering this place.
It is an enormous honour and privilege to represent Isle of Wight East. It is one half of the former Isle of Wight constituency and, if I may say, the better half of the island, only because its wise residents chose to elect a Conservative MP unlike our neighbours in the west. I pay tribute to my predecessor Bob Seely, who served here with dedication, passion and commitment and made a genuinely significant contribution to our shared understanding of Russia and Ukraine, and of international relations more widely. I am sure that whatever the future holds for Bob, he will continue to contribute in that sphere. I also pay tribute to his predecessor Andrew Turner, who served for 16 years and first got me involved in local activism while I was still at school.
The Isle of Wight is known for many things and is much loved, not least of all for sailing. This week is genuinely significant for sailing, as Sir Ben Ainslie and his team have qualified for the America’s cup. The America’s cup was first sailed for around the Isle of Wight in 1851. Unfortunately, the British boats did not win then, and we have never won it, so this is very significant. I send Sir Ben, Sir Jim and the whole team my sincere best wishes to bring back the cup to the Isle of Wight, where it belongs.
The island is well known for its dinosaur fossil records and rock festivals, and as a holiday destination for many happy families from across the UK and internationally. Our biggest town is Ryde, which, together with Sandown and Shanklin, has some of the best beaches in the United Kingdom. Sandown is the home of the Wildheart Animal Sanctuary, which is soon to welcome two new residents—two European brown bears are coming to the sanctuary very soon. In the south we have Ventnor, known for its microclimate and bohemian atmosphere. We have ye olde Kynges towne of Brading, which dates back to Roman times. Brading Roman Villa is a popular visitor destination today, as is Havenstreet steam railway.
However, it is not just the fantastic places on the island and the wonderful scenery that make it special—it is the people. It is warm, generous people like Sally Grylls, a tireless campaigner for better dementia care and better support for those looking after their relatives with long-term frailties, and generous people like Kirsty Chapman at Better Days Café, who help provide food and warmth to those who struggle.
However long I have on these green Benches, I hope to make my own significant contribution, particularly to the most pressing issue of our day: dealing with the pressures in health and, particularly, social care. The biggest reform the NHS needs is to deal with the pressure in social care, to relieve pressure on our hospitals. This Government have said some good things about what they would like to achieve, and I urge them to act quickly. Putting off every reform to a future commission that will report some months or years down the line is not dealing with the issue sufficiently quickly. There are things the Government can already do, and I know from my time working for a national nursing charity immediately before entering this place that we can redirect existing funding better to community services, to help people live at home longer and avoid hospital admissions.
I also hope to contribute to the debate on integrated UK transport. The Secretary of State for Transport has spoken much of buses and rail and improving passenger experience. But we are a collection of islands, and she has said nothing of ferry services. If the Government fail to intervene on ferry services, my residents on the Isle of Wight risk becoming the only community in the United Kingdom entirely reliant on foreign-owned, private, unregulated, debt-laden companies for essential travel—for health, to see their relatives and to access work and other essential services not available on the island. That cannot be allowed to happen, and I urge the Government to intervene.
Finally, on the debate today on taxing children’s education, I remind the Government that not every independent school is a wealthy, famous boarding school. There are good community independent schools such as Ryde School on the Isle of Wight, which make a genuine contribution to the community in which they exist. The Secretary of State put out an unfortunate tweet in which she said that she would prefer to see careers advice in state schools than astroturf for private schools. The private school on the Isle of Wight provides the only competitive astroturf on the entire island, and makes it available to the local hockey teams and football teams. The Government must recognise that contribution.
For however long I have in this place, I look forward sincerely to working with all Members across the Chamber, including my neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), to help improve the lives of our constituents, the British people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call John Grady to make his maiden speech.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to have the opportunity to give my maiden speech today. I start by paying tribute to my two immediate predecessors, David Linden and Alison Thewliss. They were thoughtful and conscientious Members of Parliament. David’s diligent work included chairing the all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies, a topic that is close to my family’s heart. I greatly respect Alison and David, and thank them for their service to Glasgow. I should mention two other predecessors, Margaret Curran and Anas Sarwar, who, after leaving this House, have continued their public service in Africa and Scotland with great effectiveness.
It is a tough act to follow two great maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) mentioned bears, and I believe that Bear Grylls lived on the Isle of Wight for some time. A good friend of mine used to suggest that I name my son, and then my daughter, after Bear Grylls, but no good comes of naming a child “Bear” in Glasgow.
The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) covers Clay Cross, I believe. The former Labour leader, Arthur Henderson, served as an MP there and Dennis Skinner served as a councillor—quite a combination.
This debate is about schools. State education has been a huge part of my family’s life. My mum and my two aunts were state school teachers. Dad was a rebel, who trained teachers and taught English in a prison to immigrants. They all had a great passion for state education, and I see that passion every day in the teachers who teach my children and who teach in the state schools across Glasgow East. Many parents in Glasgow East struggle to pay for the bare essentials—the cost of the school day. Without being controversial—this is a maiden speech—those parents have great aspirations for their children. The duty of any Government is to focus their finite and limited resources on those families across our nation.
I must say something of Glasgow East, the greatest of the Glasgow constituencies. Next year, Glasgow will celebrate its 850th birthday. My seat is at the heart of it, with some of the greatest medieval architecture. Glasgow green hosts the Templeton building, which is better than anything in Venice. George Square is the heart of Glasgow. My seat has an incredible cultural and artistic life. The young children I have listened to at the Big Noise project in Govanhill, the Glasgow schools CREATE project and the East Glasgow Music School give me great comfort that the next 850 years have a bright artistic future.
We also have some of Scotland’s finest venues, including the Barrowlands ballroom where David Bowie, among others, has played. Gil Scott-Heron was one of the most significant North American musicians of the last century. I have no idea if he played in Glasgow East, but his dad did: he was the first black player for Glasgow Celtic. The world’s first black international footballer also played in Glasgow East. Andrew Watson captained Scotland against England in 1881, and I am delighted to say that Scotland beat England 6-1. Both, as black players, were pioneers. Another football pioneer was Baron Ouseley, who passed away earlier this month. He was the founder of Kick It Out. I think everyone in this House would pay tribute to Baron Ouseley’s immense contribution to our public life. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Like the footballer Andrew Watson, Baron Ouseley came to Britain from Guyana. One of Glasgow East’s greatest strengths comes from centuries of immigration. We have one of the oldest Muslim communities in Scotland, of which I am incredibly proud. People from across the world—Roma people, Nigerians, Irish people and Italians—contribute greatly to our city. Immigration has been a source of joy, strength and energy in Glasgow over its 850 years.
Returning to football, I must emphasise that I am entirely neutral about Glasgow football—no good comes of taking a view—but I congratulate Vale of Clyde, the third-oldest Scottish junior club, which has just celebrated its 150th birthday, and Garrowhill Thistle, who made it to the Scottish junior cup final at Hampden this year. I leave football by noting that Kenny Dalglish was born in my seat. King Kenny was one of the best players of the beautiful game, but that is not the profoundest beauty of Kenny Dalglish’s life. It is his devotion to the victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. He has lived the famous Liverpool saying, “You’ll never walk alone”. It is that saying that encapsulates the people of Glasgow East.
Many people in Glasgow East face profound challenges with poverty and poor housing, but Glaswegians are determined, hard-working and tenacious, and no more so than when it comes to looking after each other. If I may, I would like to give some examples. John Ferguson MBE, a Parkhead man, was the driving force behind the Parkhead Housing Association. Jimmy Mutter fought hard to transform the Gorbals. He succeeded. The volunteers at the Glasgow south-east food bank, founded by Audrey Flannagan, have provided help to families in Govanhill for many years. Audrey, John and Jimmy made sure that their constituents did not walk alone.
The same can be said about many others in Glasgow. Their values are shared across our family of nations, from the Isle of Wight to the north of Scotland, where my mother came from. The work of these great constituents I have mentioned points to our most urgent task: to fight against poverty. In Glasgow’s 850th year, my duty is simply to play my part in ensuring that no one in Glasgow East, or anywhere in this family of nations, walks alone.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I rise to speak on what I clearly see as an aspiration tax. I want to make it clear that all of my five wonderful children are in, or have gone through, state schools. One is in a school that requires improvement because of the catchment area we are in. My education was exceptionally poor. I went to the worst school in the area. I did not get any GCSEs, and when I was handed my results, the teacher said, “There you go, Anderson. I told you you’d never make anything of your life.” My experience of education was not good, but I am a Conservative because I believe in opportunity. I did not have those opportunities as a child, but I believe that everybody should have them.
There are about 1,000 children in my constituency who go to Moor Park school, Bedstone college or Concord college; I have visited all three. Bringing in VAT for independent schools will create huge pressure. I believe that the measure is rushed. It has not been thought through, and it will have a massive impact on all those schools. Some parents will be able to afford it and will not feel the pinch, but many parents I have spoken to in my constituency work two jobs, have one car and do not go on holiday. They do everything they can to give their children the best opportunity in life. That should be championed. We should not remove these opportunities. We should have great state schools across our country, but if somebody wants to work hard and strive, and aspires to give their children the best opportunities they can, we should not remove that. We do that at our own cost.
Growing up, my dad was a soldier, and my mum also served in the military. Many of my friends at school moved around every two years or so. I, too, was a soldier and had children while I served in the military. I know the Minister is a supporter of the armed forces, and even the Secretary of State for Defence has said how serious this measure is for military families. In this debate, there will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, but I urge the Government to take seriously the impact that this policy will have on military families. To bring it in as a blanket measure will be detrimental. We will see people leave the armed forces; that will be the cost. That would not be a good way to do this. I am asking for time. Can we push this back? We have talked about what to do to fill the gap. Recruiting more people and raising the standard of state schools will not have happened by January, so we need to look for a time to bring in this measure; mid-term does not work.
The measure will have an impact on special educational needs and disabilities, and people who aspire to send their children to private school, but what is important to me and many of my constituents are military families. I urge the Government to think about that, and come to a decision very quickly about military families, because people are deciding whether to stay in the forces or sign off. Our great men and women in the armed forces need certainty that their children’s education will not be disrupted.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Antonia Bance to make her maiden speech.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am honoured to speak for the first time in this House as the Member of Parliament for Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley. I represent the village of Coseley in Dudley, as well as the towns of Tipton, Wednesbury and Hateley Heath in Sandwell. In the last Parliament, Shaun Bailey was a tireless advocate for this special corner of the Black Country, and I wish him well as he resumes his legal studies.
Let me tell you about Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley. We are an industrial constituency, shaped by factories, foundries, mines and canals. We have beautiful parks, laid out for the leisure of working people, and civic buildings of grace and gravitas, such as the grade II listed Tipton central library and the 16th-century St Bart’s in Wednesbury. But more than anything, we have the people of the Black Country—creative, ingenious, hard-working and down to earth people like Thomas Barratt. Born in Coseley, he stopped the enemy advance and saved his patrol at Ypres. He was a boilermaker, awarded the Victoria Cross posthumously at just 22.
The workers of Tube Town, the metal finishing capital of the world, went out on strike for two long months in 1913 for a decent wage. They were backed all the way by their wives, heroes in their own right, who somehow kept 25,000 families fed amid near destitution. They won. I am proud to say that their union became my union, Unite. Workers have come to the constituency from Ireland, the Caribbean, Bangladesh, Kashmir and Punjab; they left their homes to provide for their families, facing racism but prevailing, building churches, temples, mosques and gurdwaras, and seeing their children succeed. We are a proud, working-class community. Too often, people have stood in this place and talked our area down. I will never.
Of course, the name “Black Country” is for the smoke of heavy industry; there has been coalmining, steel fabrication, metal finishing, and nail, brick and chain making. We are where the industrial revolution started. James Watt’s first steam engine hauled coal in Tipton, at the Bloomfield colliery. Today, despite everything, a quarter of all workers in our area are still in manufacturing. We may be the Black Country, but modern manufacturing is clean, high-skill and high-wage. In Sandwell, 1,000 firms —with 21,000 jobs—make everything, from street furniture to hinges to locks to the precision metal forming for aeroplanes and power plants. I am proud to wear the “Made in Britain” badge, and to back our new deal for working people.
If we are to have a new industrial revolution here in the UK as we meet the challenge of climate change, let us make it with our hands and our brains, in the place that was the crucible of the first industrial revolution, the Black Country. I stand for no more and no less than this: prosperity for every family. My friends at the TUC worked out that if wages had risen in the last decade by the amount by which they rose between 1997 and 2010, the average worker in my constituency would be £93 a week better off. That is nearly five grand a year more in people’s pockets. In the Black Country, we work hard, but forces bigger than any individual—deindustrialisation, Thatcherism, and the cruel austerity of these last 14 years —mean that good folk there earn less and have fewer chances and fewer choices than people elsewhere.
Fully half of our kids grow up below the poverty line, in infested B&Bs, in homes with damp dripping down the walls, or in flats made for two, but home to three times that. For many, most weeks, the money stretches, just about—until the week when it does not. I want to turn the thoughts of those in this House to the young people in my constituency, almost none of whom go to fee-paying schools. Four in 10 kids in my constituency did not get grade 4 GCSE in maths and English last year. That has to change, and we will change it.
As I stand here today, the obstacles to delivering prosperity, and more than that—comfort, security, leisure—to every worker and every family seem almost insurmountable, but we take heart from our history: from Ernie Bevin, who forged the working-class women and men of the UK into an industrial machine that, from a standing start, equipped our country for victory. In my area, those in saucepan factories made grenades, and car makers built the machines to defeat fascism. That is a reminder that once we turn our minds to something, the ingenuity and drive of the British working class can rarely be equalled. It is for us, here, to set it free.
I will always stand against decline and for progress. After all, I grew up in a world where people like me could not get married, but now our beloved daughter has both her mothers’ names on her birth certificate. To believe in progress is to believe that once again this country can work for working people. It is time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so my final words are to the people of our towns. Tipton, Coseley, Wednesbury, Hateley Heath: I am here to serve you always.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for her passionate speech. I think I am correct in saying that she was an Oxford University Student Union officer when I arrived at the university. I remember her passionate defence of socialism then, and I have seen it again today. Her daughter, sitting in the Gallery, will be very proud of her, following her speech.
Unfortunately, however, that defence of socialist principles runs like a thread through the Labour party today. It should not come as any surprise that this new Labour party, which is willing to tax some of the poorest pensioners in the country, has no compunction about taxing some of the most needy children in the country—a shameful act. I am not talking only about the more than 3,000 pupils in my constituency who receive an independent education; I also speak for the many thousands in the state sector on whom this policy will have an impact. Labour Members seem to forget completely about the impact on the state sector.
As I walked along Firgrove Hill in Farnham during the election campaign, I met a father who had just heard that the independent school to which he was going to send his two children had closed. That was in July, and there was no place at the local state school, Weydon—a fabulous school. Even if it had spaces, however, that father would not have been able to send his children there, because he had not sent his children to a feeder school, so even if there are places, not all children can get in.
This measure will have a massive impact on education for those with special educational needs and disabilities. There are independent SEND schools in my constituency, including More House, a fabulous boys’ school. Jonathan Hetherington, the headmaster, has spoken passionately about what this policy will do to his school: 60% of his pupils are on an education, health and care plan, which means that 40% will be affected by the tax. What will happen to those pupils? For one thing, they are likely to drop out immediately because their parents cannot afford it. Perhaps they will then apply for an EHCP, but it will take many months, if not years, for them to get it, and they will be out of education during that time. It is a total disgrace. Equally importantly, when they get the EHCP, it will add a massive cost to the local authorities, which are already overstretched. The simple fact is that independent SEND schools are saving those authorities money.
We also have to realise that independent schools are huge employers, certainly in my constituency. In June, during the election campaign, I knocked on a door in an area that was not affluent—in fact, it is the most deprived part of my constituency. The gentleman who opened the door informed me that he would be voting Conservative because of Labour’s potential policy on this matter. When I asked him why, he said that he was a groundsman at one of the local independent schools, and feared for his job because the school was likely to close; so this policy affects the economy as well.
If education is not a charitable purpose, and if educating our children is not a fundamental principle that we in this House should support, I do not know what we are here for. Labour needs to review this policy, and scrap it as soon as possible.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
You might imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, that members of the Conservative party would understand how out of touch they are on these matters, given that they were so roundly rejected by the electorate in July. However, unsurprisingly, they have demonstrated perfectly that nothing has changed, and it is business as usual as they leap to the defence of tax breaks for private education. This Government believe in equality of education for all our children, and this policy is designed for the betterment of 93% of the UK school population. Only 7% of children in the UK go to a private school—a far smaller proportion than in the most recent Conservative Cabinet, 65% of which, it is believed, were privately educated. Perhaps that tells us something about why we are debating this matter today.
Conservative Members campaigning against the Government’s policy couch it as an attack on the aspiration of hard-working parents. Perhaps they need to be reminded that the warehouse workers, cleaners, shop workers, carers, nurses and teachers in my constituency are also aspirational for their children. They work just as hard to provide the best opportunities for their children. It is offensive in the extreme for the Conservatives to suggest otherwise, and to suggest that they are less deserving of support from this Government.
I accept that a consequence of this decision may be that some people will no longer be able to send their children to private school, as schools might choose to recoup the cost of VAT through increases to fees. However, we should acknowledge the fact that private schools have implemented above-inflation increases to their fees year on year in recent times—over 20% in real terms since 2010—and this has had a minimal impact on children moving into the state sector. I say directly to parents: should our ambition not be that they could send their child to a fantastic state school that has the teachers and resources it needs to deliver the education their child deserves, and where they can excel both academically and culturally by mixing with children from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences that reflect the society in which we live?
The Conservative party was quite keen to promote and exacerbate a two-tier approach to the education of our children during its term in government—a system in which it is only state-educated children who have to accept tough choices and shoestring budgets. We have schools where the ceilings are propped up by scaffolding, schools where teachers are forced to buy basic school supplies out of their own pay packets, and schools where the workload and conditions have become so dire that teachers are leaving in droves.
I am delighted that we now have a Government who do not believe that state schools alone should be asked to make difficult choices—a Government who will end the tax break for private schools and invest the £1.3 billion that that choice will generate into our state schools, which educate 93% of our children. That is why I will be voting against the Opposition motion and in favour of state education.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call John Milne to make his maiden speech.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
First, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Jeremy Quin, who represented Horsham for the last 10 years. He was a dedicated MP, and in my first couple of months I have heard praise from many constituents for his past help. An MP’s best work is often unsung and behind the scenes, and I intend to continue his campaigns on issues such as child trust funds.
I would have to go back very much further to find a fellow Liberal MP to celebrate—144 years, to be precise. Being a rock-solid safe seat in a first-past-the-post system is not great for democracy. So many people have come up to me since the election and said it is the first time their vote has ever counted. Horsham’s turnout was over 70%, and if we had proportional representation, we would see that level of engagement everywhere.
For most of my life, I worked as a creative director in advertising, before becoming a local councillor five years ago. I would especially like to thank my family, who are up in the Gallery today, for supporting me in this unexpected career change, because this is a huge journey for all of us, not just me.
Most of Horsham is open farmland, with patches of ancient woodland and villages that retain a strong sense of community. Horsham town itself is pretty enough to be charming, but not so temptingly chocolate-boxy that it gets overwhelmed by tourists. As the name suggests, Horsham was once a home for horse trading, and to this day it is a centre of excellence in the equestrian industry. Horsham is also where our great national poet Percy Bysshe Shelley grew up. With luck, we will see him around town again soon if fundraising for a statue in his honour is successful. We have high-achieving schools, both state and private, and we want to keep it that way. Many of them have approached me with concern over the VAT imposition.
Although Horsham has never been the site of a major battle, it is where the Dalek invasion of Earth started through the work of Ray Cusick, the BBC theatrical designer and long-term Horsham resident. But perhaps the jewel in the crown of the constituency is the Knepp estate, the UK’s leading rewilding enterprise, which now has international fame. This is no frozen museum of conservation; it is a living, breathing experiment in flora and fauna, where nature herself is the key architect.
Of course, Horsham is not immune to national challenges, from a creaking health service to cuts in public transport and crumbling roads, but today I want to focus on the positives. Horsham is a great place to do business. It is hard to believe it now, but Horsham was once a centre of England’s iron industry. Later we became a leading brewery town, and today that tradition is carried on by energetic start-ups like Hepworth, Weltons, Kissingate and Brolly Brewing, which rather enterprisingly came up with a Lib Dem-branded beer during my campaign. We are home to Creative Assembly, one of Europe’s largest video game designers; Schroders, a world-class investment company; and innovative tech businesses like Metricell, which might one day help us solve our pothole problem—that would surely be worth a Nobel prize.
Whereas many high streets have struggled, Horsham’s is bustling—a shopping destination for not just local residents, but visitors alike. I urge Members to join us at the Carfax bandstand on a Friday evening in the summer, where the district council has pumped new energy into the town with a series of free events themed on everything from ska, ABBA, Pride and Bollywood to German oompah music. After a quietish first 1,000 years, Horsham is learning how to party. Whereas other communities have been losing their local theatres, ours is getting a multimillion-pound investment to help the council reach its net zero targets. After the last revamp, under the Tories, the theatre reopened with that surefire box office attraction, “An Evening With Ann Widdecombe”. I wonder if she is still available.
As a constituency that is now half town, half rural, Horsham plays a lead role in striking a balance between competing needs. We have large areas of productive farmland, making a valuable contribution to food security, but the same land is under pressure to provide housing and renewable energy installations. All of these are positive things, but the same land cannot do them all at once.
If there is one thing I would like to focus on during my term, it is housing. I strongly support the new Government’s house building ambitions, but I am surprised and disappointed to see that they are using the same flawed system to fix local targets as before, except with a bigger stick. The standard method, as used since 2018, has been shown to be a hopelessly inaccurate way of assessing local need, nor will it ever make housing more affordable. In Horsham, the average price of a new house is higher than that of the existing stock, so the more we build, the higher our target goes—the exact reverse of what is supposed to happen. Horsham already has 13,500 unbuilt permissions. We will be forced to continue building houses that people cannot afford to satisfy a local need that does not exist, while heaping further stress on to already overloaded local services— and then we are surprised when people say they do not like it.
Just to make things more complicated, Horsham has its own unique challenge, known as water neutrality, which restricts water use for environmental reasons. We are caught between two Government directives that completely contradict each other. One rule says we have to build a fixed number of houses per year, but the other rule says we are not allowed to build any houses at all because we cannot use any more water without damaging the environment. We are being punished for failing to build the houses we are not allowed to build. This is a planning system devised by Kafka, not Beveridge.
For all the challenges, I would like people to see Horsham as a place of opportunity. For everything that is going wrong, something else is going right. It is a huge honour to represent the people of Horsham—one that I never expected to have. As someone who campaigned on a promise to serve as a constituency MP, I could not ask for a better constituency to work for.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
To make sure that we get in as many valuable contributions as possible, Back-Bench speeches will now be limited to three minutes. Please be mindful.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on giving such a passionate speech about his constituency. He spoke so eloquently about opportunity, but I need to speak about the shocking reality in our state-funded schools. The gap in outcomes between disadvantaged students and their peers is at a record high, and school absence rates are at a record high. We have a SEND crisis, a children’s mental health crisis, and a teacher recruitment and retention crisis.
With 25 years’ experience of teaching and working as a deputy headteacher in state secondary schools, I have had to manage the struggles that schools face day in, day out. Children have seen more non-specialists in key subject areas, a reliance on cover teachers, class sizes increasing and school staff burdened with excessive workloads. All this has had a negative impact on learning and on children simply enjoying school, despite the heroic efforts of dedicated teachers and support staff. But the damage is not limited to schools; it spills out beyond the school gates into the wider community.
There can be no denying the need for greater investment in the state education system, and it will be this new Government’s priority to fix the damage caused by years of Conservative neglect.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is important to start by saying that this entire policy is dogmatic and rooted in the politics of envy—that really is self-evident. It comes from a self-serving socialist Government that are ignorant and blind to the harm that it will lead to for families up and down the country. In the time that I have, I would like to pose a series of questions directly to the Government. This is not only a bad policy; there has been no information on its implementation and what it means for private schools and state schools. That has been raised by shadow Front Benchers and I think we should get some transparency. I would like a response later on.
When the Minister responds, I would also like to hear the details of the costs caused by adding VAT to school fees and the cost of the removal of the business rates exemption. The House has a right to hear where the impact assessment is, what the fiscal projections will be and what the costs will be across every Government Department that is affected. That will be the Department for Education but also the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, because it is local councils that will continue to pick up the costs.
I put a question about this next matter directly to the Exchequer Secretary, who was also in the Westminster Hall debate this morning. We know that legal action is coming, and I think that the Government should fess up and tell us what percentage of the DFE budget will be put aside to fund the legal challenge. There are parents out there who are so unhappy about this—we met some of them this morning—and they are adamant that they will pursue legal action.
There are many other questions, such as about justification and the implications for local authorities, but I think the point about SEND is important. The House of Commons has published a note that says that for 2024-25, the previous Government had been increasing SEND funding to over £10.4 billion in real cash terms. Is that funding going to go up under this Government, in anticipation of the implications of this policy for children with special educational needs? That could include a growing demand for education, health and care plans. Local authorities are failing, and many of them are Labour authorities. Some of them have gone bankrupt as well in recent years.
There will be an impact on state schools, as they will have to accommodate additional pupils. We need some honesty and transparency around this. Class sizes are going to increase in state schools. How is that going to increase the educational outcomes of children attending state schools? How is that going to raise the bar and increase standards in state schools? We all believe in good educational outcomes for all children across the entire country and we want our education system to be first class and to serve all children, but fundamentally this is just an ill-thought-out policy that will have more costs associated with it and devastating impacts for children attending independent schools.
I ask the Minister in his summing up to show a little bit of humility—[Interruption]—and recognise the implications for these children. Labour Members are giggling, but actually this is about children and about the impact of this policy on children whose education will be affected.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow so many excellent maiden speeches today. I am glad to have this opportunity to talk about schools and education because there is no doubt that schools face very real funding constraints. In my constituency, there are state schools that have been forced to let staff go because the funding just is not there. The Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates that, after school-specific inflation has been deducted, per-pupil funding rose by 0.7% in primary schools over the last 14 years and that spending shrank by 0.5% in secondaries. That compares to real increases of between 5% and 6% over the preceding 13 years.
Figures released in response to a written parliamentary question show that over the last five years, per-pupil funding in Birmingham grew less fast than in the west midlands and across England as a whole. In fact, while per-pupil spending will have risen by just under 21% between 2020-21 and 2024-25, CPI inflation will have increased by about 24.5%. In other words, this is a real-terms cut of around 3%, or a loss of around £179 for each child. Some of the schools in my constituency have some of the highest pupil premium rates in the country. These are not just statistics; they represent a loss of opportunity, a loss of skilled and dedicated staff, and the overcrowded classrooms that flow from that.
At this point I draw the House’s attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my background as an officer of the GMB, one of the unions that represents school support staff.
There is much for schools and parents to welcome in this Government’s approach, including ending single-word inspection judgments, funding free breakfast clubs, reusing space from falling pupil numbers to create new early-years provision, committing to a new child poverty reduction strategy—the first since the Child Poverty Act 2010 was repealed—and reinstating the school support staff negotiating body. It has been welcome in this debate to hear the concern for school support staff roles in the independent sector. I am sure that will extend to the state sector and I hope that we will see cross-party support for that measure.
I want to make a point around SEND. The motion would exempt all children on SEND support from the VAT policy, but SEND support status is determined within schools, and schools in the independent sector do not have the same budgetary restrictions as state schools, which are obliged to set aside nominal SEND budgets. There is a real risk of creating false incentives, as the “Today” programme’s 2017 investigation demonstrated. Ours is the right policy, and this is the wrong motion. I look forward to voting against it later today.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
One in four pupils in Surrey go to an independent school, including more than 4,000 pupils in my constituency, and many of those pupils have a special educational need. We have had an increasing rise in the diagnosis of conditions such as autism. The proposal is being pitched as a fundraising measure, but I do not think anybody on the Labour Benches came into Parliament to raise funds from pensioners in poverty and families of children with special educational needs. I will come on later in my speech to whether this will raise any money at all.
In his wind-up, I hope the Minister will address this point: what justification can there be to an immediate exemption of specialist schools from the tax? On 11 September, Opposition Members representing Surrey constituencies wrote to the Chancellor to make that point. In response to a survey in my constituency— 1,200 parents responded nationally—87% of parents with children at independent schools said that they would have to consider sending their child to a state school. Some spoke specifically of the anguish they faced, having spent years trying to find the right placement for a child who might have ADHD or autism and having finally got them settled, now having to consider moving them again.
Some Labour Members have asked why those children could not be served by the state sector. We increased funding for the SEND sector by 70% over the last few years, but you cannot magic up 99,000 places overnight. A teacher at Moon Hall in Reigate said that 70% of their pupils were on EHCPs and 30% were not, and that all those children would suffer. The other point is that the state sector will have larger class sizes, so rather than improving the state sector, all children in the state sector will suffer. They will all have worse outcomes. The Secretary of State for Education should care about outcomes, not ideology, but it is clear that she does not because we have seen teachers’ unions warning about the impact on the state sector. The Government have not published an impact assessment.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ report that Members have been quoting, we do not know how much money will be raised due to the uncertainties over children with special educational needs. I appeal to all Labour Members to ask themselves and their consciences why we cannot exempt children with special educational needs from this tax? It will not raise any funds. It will increase class sizes in the state sector and affect the outcomes of all children. It must be reversed.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Fourteen years of Conservative chaos have left behind a trail of destruction in our state education system, which is used by 94% of our children. Is it not time that we put our effort into improving the state education system?
When I knocked on doors before the election, one of the main questions I was asked was, “Where will we get the money to put right everything that has been put wrong by the last Government?” Leaving aside the £22 billion shortfall, we now need to find extra money to recruit extra teachers, to provide extra nurseries, breakfast clubs and mental health support in our schools, and to make all the other positive changes that this Government intend to make to create opportunities for all. My hon. Friends have already highlighted the things we need to address in the state education system.
Ultimately, private schools are businesses that have enjoyed an exemption from VAT being charged on their fees, and it is now time to end that exemption. I have three private schools in my constituency, and I have had meetings with the two that wanted to meet me. I have had discussions with parents from those schools. It is a fallacy to suggest that lots of students will leave their private school to go into the state education system. I have been asked whether this Government have considered the timing of the policy’s implementation: to reassure parents, I believe the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), confirmed that he has given due consideration to that point.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
There appear to be two parts to this debate: ideology and practicality. Fair play to the Labour Government—when they came in, they said that they intended to introduce this proposal. They told the public and put it in their manifesto, for which I respect them. That is important, especially when compared with their policy on winter fuel payments. But it is hard to see how it is not ideological, when the Secretary of State for Education has tweeted:
“Our state schools need teachers more than private schools need embossed stationery. Our children need mental health support more than private schools need new pools. Our students need careers advice more than private schools need AstroTurf pitches.”
This reeks of prejudice and propagates a class war, and I am sorry to say that the Secretary of State is not here to defend her tweet. She is a decent woman, and I would like to think that she would apologise.
As I said, this is a manifesto commitment, and the Labour Government have a mandate to deliver it, but they also have a mandate to deliver it in a way that takes the impact into account. In response both to today’s debate and my questions to the Leader of the House, we have heard that Ministers have seen an impact assessment. If they want to champion this plan, why not share the information with everyone? One private school in my constituency that will be affected, Dixie grammar school, has simply asked, “Why can we not see what the impact will be?” That is not an unreasonable question.
As I said to the Minister earlier, children are at the heart of this. I do not see the rush to implement this policy in January. The Prime Minister put his child in an apartment because he was worried about the impact on his child’s education. I respect that decision, but does he not see the problem with implementing a policy that will have exactly the same kind of impact by tearing kids out of their schools? Mark my words: it will happen. That is what the two private schools in my constituency have said. Where is the report addressing the impact on their education?
In my constituency, the biggest problem will be that we do not have the school places for pupils who move out of private schools. What will happen then? We have not heard how this Government will deal with that, and that is the fundamental issue. How will children and families cope? The Prime Minister insulated his child, but how will the Government insulate the nation’s children?
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
I am delighted to take part in this debate, as I am always grateful for the opportunity to praise and defend our public services, particularly our state schools, and the millions of people, including the vast majority of my constituents, who rely on them.
The Opposition motion
“regrets that the Government has decided to impose VAT on independent school fees”.
Well, I regret that the last Tory Government did all they could to deliberately and carefully dismantle, defund and destroy our public services, including state schools, for 14 years—[Interruption.] There is a huge amount that I could say, but we are pushed for time and many Members want to speak, including lots of Government Members. I know there are more of us here—
David Baines
Indeed.
There is a lot that deserves to be said about our schools. We have heard many Conservative Members ask about the impact. They suddenly care about the impact of decisions made in this place, but where was their talk of impacts over the past 14 years? In St Helens North, 81% of schools have had real-terms funding cuts since 2010—over £3 million in real terms, or £239 for every pupil. Where was the consideration of impacts when the last Government cancelled Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme and watched our state schools crumble? Where was the talk of impacts when the last Government presided over a SEND system that is failing over 1 million children and that their own Education Secretary described as a “lose-lose-lose”? Where was the concern for impacts when standards fell, which they did?
David Baines
No, I am pushed for time.
Where was the consideration of impacts when the inspection system did not and does not work for parents, schools or pupils? Where was the consideration of impacts when child poverty increased? Where was the consideration of impacts when the lack of investment in school support staff and basic resources meant that teachers were buying resources for their pupils? Where was the consideration of impacts when we had a recruitment and retention crisis among teachers?
We could talk about all these issues if the Conservatives truly wanted a debate on schools, but they do not. They could have used today’s Opposition day debate to talk about these things, but instead they have used their time to talk about our decision to end a tax exemption that benefits only the wealthiest. They showed no concern whatsoever for state schools over the past 14 years, and now they are apparently concerned about impacts.
I make it crystal clear that the parents of state school pupils are every bit as ambitious, loving and hard-working as those who can afford to send their children to private schools. I stand with them, and I stand with our state schools.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Others have talked about the effect on children of military families and on children with special educational needs, as well as the impact on friendships, mental wellbeing, jobs in both state and private schools, and the bursaries, but I will focus on students in exam years. I declare an interest as I have three children in private school, one of whom is in her final year.
This measure is wrong, but it is especially reckless for those in exam years. We have heard a lot about the steps the Prime Minister took to ensure that his son could study peacefully, to give him the best chance in his GCSEs. Why does he not want the same for all the other children in this country?
The measure is not only disruptive but potentially impossible. Local to my constituency, Stamford school offers A-level Russian, Lincoln Minster school offers A-level Chinese and Oakham school offers the international baccalaureate. How could those children move into a state school that does not offer their course? Even if their course is offered, the timetable might not work. And even if the timetable works, the school might not teach the same periods and texts. For example, a student at Nottingham girls’ high school studying the Russian revolution as part of the AQA history curriculum might have to move partway through the year to Branston academy, which is teaching the Tudors under the OCR curriculum. What should children taking such courses do? Should they change course, merely months or even weeks before their exams? Should they try to learn the material themselves? Should they resit a whole year of school? Will the Government provide state schools with the extra resources to help those children complete their courses? If they intend to do so, will those resources be ready and available to the state schools those children will be forced into for January 2025?
I want to talk briefly about bursaries. I went to a state primary and a state secondary school. When I was a teenager hiking with my parents in the North York moors, I met a young lad who told me all about the cool, exciting school he went to, where they did a lot of outdoor stuff. I said, “I would like to go there. That would be really cool.” My parents said, “That’s far too expensive, Caroline. We can’t do that.” Then I read about the scholarships they offered. I was very proud and pleased that Gordonstoun School offered me the opportunity to study at the sixth form there—I will always be intensely grateful for that.
The measures proposed by this Government will reduce the amount of bursary support available to students like me, and those currently receiving bursaries, which enables them to get the education they wish for. Schools will have to cut back. The most obvious areas in which to do that will be in their charity work, the extra teaching staff they offer to pupils in state schools and the facilities they make freely available to state schools. This is a short-sighted measure focused entirely on the politics of envy and division.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Last week I had a meeting with a group of incredibly dedicated and determined women in my constituency, all of whom have children with special educational needs. We discussed the broken SEND system and what it will take to fix it. I would like to share their top three points.
First, the women said that when they chase for an assessment, diagnosis or school place, they are made to feel as if they and their children are a problem, when all they are doing is trying to ensure that their children get the same support and acceptance as any other child. One lady said she was treated like a criminal. This mentality towards SEND children and their parents has to change.
Secondly, these parents want their children to be able to go to their local state schools, in their community, but they feel that schools have a very limited understanding of their children’s complex needs, let alone an ability to manage them. One mum told me about her child being excluded from school because their complex needs were treated like a behavioural problem. However, I know, for their part, that schools do not have enough staff or training to cope.
Thirdly, these mums are sick and tired of the lack of accountability in the system. Schools are not being held to account for the way they manage and incorporate SEND children into school; local authorities are not being held to account for their services; and home-to-school transport providers are not being held to account for how they look after the children. The fact is that the support system for children with special educational needs and disabilities is broken.
The answer lies in both funding and reform of the system. We have to make tough choices on where to find that funding—tough choices that the previous Government ducked. Rather than political point scoring, we owe it to all the SEND children and their parents, carers and teachers to work together and do everything in our power to fix this system as quickly as possible.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
From listening to contributions made by Members from across the House, it is clear that these measures represent ideology over reality. The policy is economically illiterate, new consequences and implications are being discovered by the minute, and it will make worse every problem that Government Members say they perceive in the state system. They keep saying that they need to find more money to fill the black holes that they have magically found, yet the headlines show that they keep finding billions for pet projects every week.
I was recently asked to go to a public meeting with over 100 concerned parents in my constituency. I listened to their stories and heard about their circumstances. From that evening alone, before we even got to this debate, it was clear that this policy was an ill-conceived disaster waiting to happen.
Some 1,800 children in Fylde attend independent schools, hundreds of whom receive provision for SEND. Schools, including AKS Lytham and Kirkham Grammar, as well as smaller, specialist independent schools, are major employers and have been at the heart of local communities for generations. The parents of the children at those schools are often not rich. They scrimp and scrape, take on extra jobs, miss holidays and do not buy new cars because they have made personal decisions about their children’s education. Every parent should have that right and should not face a tax on the education of their children. The idea that such parents are all just rich and can take the hit, or that the schools spend 20% of their income on embossed stationery and swimming pools, is simply nonsense.
This policy is fighting the class wars of the past with the future of the children of today. Lancashire county council has already said it cannot get close to meeting the forecast increase in places that will be needed, even before we get to the most acute SEND provision. This tax on education will not just hit independent schools, some of which are already facing closure; it will hurt the state sector more—I say this as someone who was proudly educated at a state school. The policy is clearly the politics of envy done badly—so much for the supposed “grown-ups” being back in charge.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
For the record, my wife is a special educational needs co-ordinator in a local authority school and one of our children is in receipt of an EHCP.
I have heard accounts from parents and seen at first hand the decisions local state schools have had to make to cut their budgets. Teachers and staff have to subsidise classroom equipment, make cuts to the curriculum and mix year groups to reduce teacher numbers, which has an impact on children educated in the state sector in my constituency. Conservative Members would do better to spend their time understanding the real issues on the frontline and the impact that their decisions, made over the past 14 years, have had on my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford.
The Ofsted area SEND inspection of the Bexley local area partnership last December found
“widespread and/or systemic failings leading to significant concerns about the experiences and outcomes of children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND)”.
The report concluded:
“Overall, the voices of children and young people are not heard well in Bexley.”
The task of fixing that lies with the Bexley local area SEND inspection partnership and a range of partners, including our schools.
At the same time, because of the pressures in our schools, Bexley’s Conservative-controlled council found that the only way to stave off bankruptcy, due to its significant high needs block overspend, was to agree a safety valve agreement with the previous Government. A report to Bexley schools forum last week outlined that
“it will undoubtedly be very challenging to succeed in both delivering the mitigations already envisaged in the Safety Valve agreement (the impact of which is assumed to accelerate in 2025/26) and also in identifying further realistic cost reductions to deal with the current level of overspend.”
It said that the deficit at the end of this financial year is
“expected to exceed the safety valve assumptions by £1.798m.”
While this unholy mess has been unravelling, impacting the most vulnerable children in my constituency, I was shocked to see a return published in the Electoral Commission register. An independent school in my neighbouring constituency, but within my local authority area, made a financial donation to a local Conservative association. I am afraid that that sums up the sorry state of where we are. While Conservative Members presided over 14 years in government, delivering a position where teachers and parent teacher associations are funding basic provision in our state schools, an independent school clearly does not find itself in that position, as it is able to donate part of its profits to the local Conservative association.
I was clear in my election campaign three months ago that I would support the policy to introduce VAT on private schools. That is the mandate given to me across Bexleyheath and Crayford. For the reasons outlined, I will be opposing the motion today and supporting the Government.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
My children have been educated in both the state and independent sectors. I spoke earlier in the Westminster Hall debate about how Labour’s plan to impose VAT on independent schools is a tax on aspiration, but it is also something else: a lack of understanding of how to govern. The Government’s education tax is not just a lousy decision; it is a lousy plan.
As has already been said, imposing the VAT in January—the middle of the school year—risks disrupting children’s education and forcing mainstream schools to accept mid-year students. It denies parents time to prepare and does not allow independent schools time to register for VAT. Families of more than 5,000 pupils studying at independent schools in the London borough of Bromley and my constituency must find up to £4,345 more per year to protect their children’s education, or take the gruesome decision to remove their child from their friends and the school they enjoy, even at crucial moments such as GCSE and A-level years. Is that really what the Government want? One concerned parent told me that, with their children just two terms away from their GCSEs and A-levels, finding a local state school with the capacity to take them on and that is studying exactly the same exam boards would be impossible.
In truth, the Government have no idea how many pupils might leave. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, which the Government rely on, estimated that up to 40,000 people would leave independent schools, but it admits that there is too little evidence to be sure and that the situation is uncertain. In 2018, the Independent Schools Council estimated that, if this change were imposed, pupil numbers would drop by more than 134,000 over five years. Whatever the number, it is a safe bet that this will be a slow burner, with some pupils forced out immediately, others leaving after exams, and those who will never enrol, resulting in years of uncertainty for schools, their staff, students and teachers, as many smaller schools will simply wither away.
Even a moderate number of exits threatens to close small independent schools. The likely result will be fewer pupils, fewer schools and more significant pressure on mainstream schools. This is a reckless recipe that will disrupt the education of pupils with special educational needs, pitch parents against councils and burden mainstream schools. When the Labour party said that it would not tax working people, we had no idea that its targets were children and pensioners. This is ideological, not practical, and it will impact far more pupils than the Government will admit to or recognise. Let us be clear: in a few short weeks, when children up and down the country will be saying goodbye to their friends, when they will be struggling with the anxiety of being forced to go to a strange new school, and when, through no fault of their own, they will be suffering academic pressure in an exam year, it will be the result of Government policy. As one headteacher said to me, this policy is nothing short of cruel.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I am new to this place. Indeed, until 4 July, I was teaching at an independent school. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Indeed. To all those Opposition Members who repeatedly say that this is a policy of spite, that this is an ideological attack, that this is envy and that this is cruel and vindictive, I say that it is nothing of the sort. This is about fairness. I have friends and former colleagues who are right now teaching in the independent sector—in fact, they are 10 minutes into period six as I speak. When someone runs a private business, they pay VAT. We believe in paying our taxes. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) makes the point about charities. I will say the same thing to him that I said to my former boss: charging somebody £15,000 a year for an education is not a charitable act.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Education is a charitable endeavour.
Mr Brash
The hon. Gentleman was briefly the candidate in my constituency. Given the result, it is rather a shame that he did not continue to be so.
As I understand it, the Opposition could have tabled a motion about anything for today. They could have tabled a motion about the crisis facing children in social care, slowly bankrupting local authorities such as mine. They could have tabled a motion about child poverty which results in 1,500 Hartlepool children not having a bed to sleep in tonight. They could have talked about the scandal of children arriving at school hungry, the 10% cut to our further education sector, the drop of a third in our apprenticeships, and the school cuts that have cost Hartlepool schools £1.7 million in real terms since 2010. But no, they chose to talk about this—the removal of a subsidy that the 93% pay for the 7% who want to send their children to private school. It is wrong and the myths attached to it are ridiculous.
I do not have the time to go into the many things that I would like to say, but I want to finish on one simple point: I am sick and tired of hearing people talk as if the parents of aspiration and the parents who work hard are only those who want to send their children to private school. All parents aspire for their children, all parents work hard for their children, and we stand up for all parents and all children in this country.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash). I would just mention that I am the child of aspirational parents from a working-class background. There were three little words uttered by Tony Blair that gave a lot of my family faith that an incoming Labour Government would be a good Government. Those words were, “Education, education, education.” Now those same people tell me that they are disappointed in a Labour Government who are going to tax education. Let me be clear about this. Charitable education is not about the children in the school; it is about the children who are not at the school. It is about opening up the facilities to the community, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, and it is about serving the community. That is where the charitable status comes from. I know that because my child was one of the 7% who went to an independent school.
The hon. Gentleman talks about allegations of vindictiveness and ideologically driven policies. They are coming not from those on the Opposition Benches, but from the hundreds of emails that we are getting from our constituents. Our constituents are worried about how they will get their child into a state school, and the parents of children at state schools are worried about what is going to happen to the resources at their school when it has to cope with the influx of children from the independent sector.
Every year, 20% to 30% of children in Edinburgh go into the independent sector. Figures produced by the Labour-led council just before the general election showed that, by the end of this decade, 16 schools will be over capacity, without any influx from the independent sector.
We have problems in education, but this is not the solution to it. It is especially not the solution in Scotland— I am not going to preach to Members about English education. We have had 17 years of damage and mismanagement of our state sector in Scotland from the Scottish National party. To parents in Scotland now, it just feels like the Labour party is joining in.
There is one big flaw in this: the Minister said earlier that the money will go back into education, but parents in Scotland would like to ask how. There is no mechanism. It is a reserved tax, and education is devolved. Even if the Government could come to some agreement with the SNP, how will they ensure that places for the 9,000 children in Edinburgh in independent schools are available in their catchment area? How will they make sure that they will be studying the right subjects, and how will they do it by January? It is just five months before they disrupt children’s education. I have listened to lots of people here today say that every child’s education is important—yes, it is. Every parent has aspirations for their child—yes, they do. And every child deserves not to have their education disrupted with just five months to find a solution. That is not fair.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate.
I find it incredible that, after 14 years and an abysmal record on education, Conservative Members want a debate on education, but somehow I am not surprised. I often joked that, if they had the opportunity, they would blame teachers for the sinking of the Titanic—although I was told that they had actually done so recently.
As a former teacher, I saw the Conservative Government’s abysmal record on education at first hand. In fact, I am standing here in this House because of it. When the former Member for Surrey Heath declared that the majority of teachers were letting down the children that they teach, I saw red. I knew that only those people who donned the red rosette could fix the mess created by 14 years of ideological cuts. Between 2010 and 2020, spending per pupil in England fell by 9% in real terms. One in eight schools were in deficit by the end of 2023, and two out of three local authorities are struggling to find funding for SEND provision in their schools.
In 2022, 40% of trainee teachers failed to qualify and left because of the unmanageably high workload. Having recently spoken to several teachers in Essex, I know the profound impact that 14 years of Tory mismanagement has had on their mental health. But it is worse than that. In 2012, Essex county council first raised with the Government the issue of RAAC in our schools, and the Government said that there was no money to fix it. Now, in 2024, the failure to properly tackle this issue has been borne out. Last week I visited Jerounds primary school, one of the many brilliant primary schools in Harlow, which is currently unable to provide hot food to its children because its kitchen is still closed due to RAAC. Sir Frederick Gibberd school in Harlow cost £29 million to build, and because of the failure of the last Government is having to be pulled down.
The education system is broken, and it is broken by Tory design. Labour has a plan to fix the education system, but it requires difficult decisions. Removing the tax exemption on private schools is not the politics of envy, but it is a necessary action, which will generate between £1.3 billion and £1.5 billion for the UK Government—to invest in our schools, to invest in our teachers, and to provide the people of Harlow, of Essex and across our country with the best possible education. I will take no lectures from the Conservative party about education.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Let me reiterate to the Minister the asks that the Opposition have. In an ideal world we would prefer this policy not to go ahead, but the mathematics of this place indicate that whatever the Government wish to do, they will secure.
This change should be delayed until September 2025; that would allow for sensible planning. Clearly, those with SEND and the children of serving military people or those in our diplomatic service should also be exempt. I would also like, on behalf of many of the schools in my constituency that have raised this, to know whether VAT will be applicable to summer schools and other events that are put on.
Bryanston school in my constituency has a fantastic relationship with Blandford high school. Unlike the Treasury Minister who opened the debate, I have no skin in this game; I was not privately educated, nor are my three children. But North Dorset is not a particularly wealthy constituency. Seven hundred and ninety-two jobs are linked to Bryanston school. The soft power that the schools provide in the international environment also need to be taken into account. Bryanston school alone makes a contribution of £24 million a year to the local North Dorset economy.
My asks are quite small in comparison to the ask that my Labour opponent would have been making of the Government had he won in July. Because when Richard Jones, the head teacher of Bryanston, at a church hustings, set out all the good work that Bryanston does in the community, its contribution to the economy and the jobs that it creates, my opponent said he was fantastically interested, and would table an amendment to the legislation to secure an exemption for Bryanston school. So if the Labour Front Benchers could not even convince their own parliamentary candidate in North Dorset of the merits of this policy, they have signally failed to convince the many parents and others who work very hard to send their children to school in the independent sector.
My final words are for the Secretary of State for Education, after the terrible tweet that she put out a couple of days ago. She is the Secretary of State for the education of all children, irrespective of which sector they are educated in. She used divisive words, referring to “our children” versus theirs. That is them and us. She has aided the Government’s case and argument not a jot. She is the Secretary of State for the education of all children; I wish she would take her responsibilities a wee bit more seriously.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to speak about what it means to have a Government who will not just talk about opportunity, but take action to bring opportunity, aspiration and ambition to not just 7% of the population but 100% of our children and young people.
Like my hon. Friends, I note that the Opposition motion expresses the Conservatives’ “regret” over this policy. Do they not regret 14 years of underfunding our state schools? Do they not regret slashing opportunity by shutting Sure Start centres lock, stock and barrel? Do they not regret growing child poverty on their watch? Do they not regret that more Members on their Benches have turned out today to defend tax exemptions than did to defend their record on the NHS last night?
I am proud to stand here today because this is a Government who are putting ambition and opportunity front and centre in our missions. Our principle—that everyone growing up in my constituency of Southampton Itchen should have the opportunity to get the best start in life, to do well, to be ambitious and to be supported to fulfil their dreams—should not simply be the preserve of children in independent schools. Every parent wants the best for their children, whichever school they choose.
I have had parents who have taken the decision to pay for private education for their children get in touch with very real concerns, which I acknowledge—that they are not all the super-rich, and that not all independent schools are like the Etons and Harrows of the world. But claims of an exodus from private schools to state schools are, I am afraid, completely unfounded. Opposition Members should be listening to the chief executive of the Independent Schools Association, representing less prestigious, less expensive schools, who has talked about how many might benefit from a “trading down”, which means more students and more income to their schools.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) noted, there have been above-inflation price increases for those schools year on year, and there has been no diminishing of student numbers. One small independent school that many children in my constituency attend said it has already made plans. It has planned for business and they will pass just 4% on to school fees. So this is not about restricting parents’ choice; it is not anti-private school. It is about fairness, and it is a question of priorities. Improving all our state schools to benefit everyone costs money, and that is why we cannot justify these tax breaks any more.
I wonder, reading this tone-deaf motion from the Opposition, what they would say to constituents in Southampton, where many schools have had to ask for donations, and where the teachers they do not think deserved a pay rise have been struggling. We make this choice with no apology.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I want to say from the outset that this is clearly an attack on aspiration, an attack on opportunity. I say to the constituents of the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) that he voted for winter fuel payments to be slashed and now he is voting for an attack on hard-working families who will be struggling to make ends meet. I went to a state school and an independent school and I was grateful for both those journeys and the education that I received in both. Plenty of hard-working families will be struggling to make ends meet.
The first point I want to make is about tone. I will come back to the Education Secretary’s tweet, which was deeply offensive. Surely Labour Members must acknowledge—it is a simple case of maths—that people who are rich enough to afford VAT increases, whether it is 4%, 16%, which is the average, or the whole 20%, will continue to send their kids to independent schools and pay the fees. It is the people who are struggling to make ends meet, or the really hard-up families, or—God forbid—parents of children who are on scholarships and bursaries who will no longer be able to send their kids to those schools, because those schools will have to withdraw those scholarships and bursaries as they will be less affordable. So the tone of this debate is really important. I would caution the Government to be more reticent on this. They refer to tax breaks; these are not tax breaks. Education should not be, and is not, taxed, and they are about to open that Pandora’s box.
There have been a lot of comments from Government Members about state schools. I agree: standards in state schools should be improved. They talk about the last 14 years. We delivered a real-terms increase per pupil. We have delivered record funding—about £60 billion. They may challenge that, but it is pure fact. I am happy to share those facts. We did that, and the result of that, especially with our focus on things like phonics, which Labour challenged when in opposition, is that we now have some of the highest reading standards in the world—independently and internationally rated. We also have some of the highest ratings in mathematics. So the Government may try to frame this debate as anything other than ideological, but those arguments are severely undermined by the Education Secretary’s tweet, which put it out there that this is really a class war.
Dr Caroline Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a great point about how this change is ideologically motivated. Can he see why there is a difference between private school fees, which the Government have chosen to tax, and something like Kip McGrath tuition, which is also a paid-for form of education, which they have chosen not to tax—at least yet?
Saqib Bhatti
My hon. Friend made an excellent speech about the practicalities of introducing this change in January, and she makes an excellent point now about the slippery slope involved. The Government say that the money will be focused on educational improvements, but there is no guarantee of that, as it will go into the general pot. They promised 6,500 new teachers, which is fewer than we delivered; it is a drop in the ocean, which will barely make a difference to the hundreds of thousands of schools that, of course, need extra teachers. I concede that point; we should have better educational standards.
SEND will affect every Member of Parliament. It affects me. I was with a north Solihull parents group just a few weeks ago. Those parents will no longer be able to afford to give their children a private education for SEND purposes, and they will now have to rely on the state. Surely Government Members can see that that will further increase the burden on state provision, particularly if they are right that there is a lack of teachers. The Minister might address this point: how does this policy improve state school provision? How does it improve the standard and quality of delivery for SEND parents? It was all right for the Prime Minister to make special provision for his kids, and for the Education Secretary to have a benefactor, but what are these parents going to do?
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I am proud to have gone to Calder high school in my constituency—the first purpose-built comprehensive school in the north of England. The history of that school and its teachers are fantastic, but the building is not. After years of under-investment in the capital programme and the shameful cancelling of Building Schools for the Future, the building is crumbling. The same can be said for Brooksbank school and Todmorden high school, which are also in Calder Valley. All of them would have been scheduled for a rebuild sooner, had the Government not cancelled Building Schools for the Future.
In the state sector, the problem is not just that the buildings are on their knees; there is also the issue of everything inside the buildings. At the start of the previous Government’s austerity programme, we heard about teachers going without items, or buying them with their own money—glue sticks, books and so on. Now when I talk to headteachers, they talk about going without teachers and support assistants, who are so vital for children’s needs.
We can judge a Government, or indeed an Opposition, by their priorities. Frankly, the fact that the first Opposition day debate on education focuses on the 7% of students who go to private schools shows where this Opposition’s priorities are. If they had held a debate on SEND, I would have welcomed it, because SEND provision has been left in crisis. In Calder Valley, I can point to multiple examples of parents for whom advocating for their child has become a second job—and that is just those who have the resources to do so.
Ahead of this debate, I asked headteachers what their priorities for education would be. One, who did not want to be named, said:
“Any therapeutic service is no longer easily accessible. No educational psychologists, no speech and language therapist access for the increasing number of pupils who can’t access the curriculum.”
We need to focus on the next generation in state schools—in all schools. That should be our priority. If I asked my constituents in Calder Valley what they think £1.5 billion should be spent on—that is the value of this tax break—it would not be the 7% of children who go to private schools.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I have a child at a private school. Government Members say that is not a problem. They say, “This is not a criticism of private education; this is merely a revenue-generation exercise, not social engineering or socialist class war.” It must be a coincidence, then, that this policy punishes aspiration, pulls children down rather than lifting them up, and is being rushed through, as we have heard time and again. It is a socialist, red-meat policy to placate the Labour Back Benchers who are having the gradual and terrifying realisation that they may well be single-term Members of this place.
The Government need to think again. We have heard serious objections to this policy—not to its implementation, because the mathematics of this place mean that the Government have sufficient support behind them to force anything through, however ill-advised, but we have heard serious recommendations for review, improvement and tweaking to undo some of the significant damage that this policy, unamended, will cause.
Introducing the policy on 1 January, halfway through the academic year, will damage children and children’s education. These are real people. Some 10,000 children have already left the independent sector. Their education, and that of thousands of others like them, needs to be considered by this Government. On children who are sitting public examinations this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) made a brilliant and serious point, which should be not cast aside but considered: if children studying under one exam board are transferred, in the exam year, to another system, what do they do? What is the Government’s answer?
On the subject of pupils who are applying for education, health and care plans, 34% of pupils at Langley school in my constituency are treated for SEND, and only nine of them have EHCPs. What do those other students do? Surely there should be a delay for pupils who are applying for EHCPs. We have also heard from gallant Members that military families are taking decisions now about their future in the armed services. There are also specialist schools for music and dance, which are important for the fabric of our community and the quality of life in this country; those things are not offered in the state system.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Does this not further make the case for the Government publishing in full their assessment of the impact that the measure will have on schools and children right across the country?
Jerome Mayhew
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have published no evidence to support their stated objective. There has been no impact assessment. This measure is rushed, and vulnerable children are paying the price for internal Labour politics. Shame on you.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Fourteen years of Tory neglect have left many of our schools on their knees. The situation is no better in Scotland. After 17 years of the SNP, Scotland’s once world-beating reputation for education has been tarnished. I regularly meet and hear from teachers whose passion and dedication is palpable, including Mrs Boyd and Miss McKay, the primary 6 teachers at Struthers primary school in Troon. Some 21 of their pupils have sent me individual letters asking me to join the fair trade campaign to “Be the Change”. However, over a quarter of children in north Ayrshire now live in poverty. That means that 6,234 children are held back, even before the school day begins. Conservative Members have forgotten about the effects of austerity on constituencies such as mine. They and the SNP are living in their own fantasies.
Having squandered reserves through financial incompetence, SNP-run North Ayrshire council faces £12.6 million of cuts in its upcoming budget. The situation has only been worsened by the council tax freeze imposed by the SNP in Holyrood. The council now proposes cutting 90 teaching posts between 2025 and 2027, and removing a total of 230 hours of pupil support assistance, equivalent to eight full-time staff; all school crossing patrols; one full-time post from the music service; and one full-time educational psychologist. That will be a travesty for children in north Ayrshire, and casts further shame on the SNP’s education record in Scotland.
The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that this VAT policy will raise more than £1 billion, and will see significant additional education spend in England, which means significant Barnett consequentials for Scotland, and for the young people in my constituency. Today’s generation of young people deserve no less, after suffering year after year of excuses. This Government are not prepared to settle for more of the same.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Families and schools in my constituency are deeply concerned about this policy. They have contacted me to underline the pressure that it will put on them. Many have already started applying for state school places. Our independent schools reckon that about 5% to 10% of their students will move into the state sector. As we have heard, the measure will have a disproportionate impact on kids with SEND.
In my constituency, roughly 8,000 children are educated in the independent sector. That means a lot of pressure on local state schools. A lot of kids who have their special educational needs met by independent schools are now applying for EHCPs, which means extra pressure on assessments and provision. I support all my schools; I am aspirational for all the children in my constituency. This policy, if enacted—as I expect it will be—will cause great harm.
I would like the Minister to be able to quote back data, analyses and stats to me, and to say, “Ben, you’re wrong. Don’t worry your silly little head—it’s all going to be fine, and here is the data to back it up.” But he cannot; the data is not there because the Government have not done the analysis. This debate has, sadly, been driven by ideology. About one in five children are educated at independent schools in my patch. I must declare that I have chosen independent education for my children.
We will really suffer from this policy. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), is a good man. I know that Members across the House, especially new Members who are finding their feet in this place, are starting to think about policies and decisions going forward. I say to them, as I said to the Minister: “If you cannot see the data and analysis for this policy, please ask why.” Please ask for it.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Listening to the Conservatives and the amount of fearmongering they do, one might think that a previous Government had totally trashed the state sector; I think that is quite obvious.
Dr Spencer
As I said, schools in both the independent and state sectors are concerned about the policy and the sudden movement of children, in the middle of the year, into the state sector, which will struggle to find them places. Those children may be studying for exams and have already experienced covid disruption, and the state schools that they move to might not have the right courses. I plead with the Minister to look at the data and do the analysis to see if the policy will make money or lose it, and to consider the impact on children.
I go back to the brutal, bitter words of the consultation document that went out this summer:
“The government understands that moving schools can be challenging.”
If I were a child going through my GCSEs or A-levels, and was forced to move into the state sector because of this policy—the analysis of which I cannot see, because the Government have not done it or will not publish it—and I read those words, I would say, “Please delay this policy. Think again. Look at it, and try to mitigate the impact on children with special educational needs, on armed forces families, and of disruption during the school year. Please, if you are not going to stop it, at least delay it and do the working out.”
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Conservative party on calling this debate today, for the simple reason that it confirms what many of us already know: that the Tories are much more focused on the 7% of pupils in private school than they are on the 93% in state education. Given that the Tory leadership contest is approaching its exciting climax, it is worth pointing out that state education has got barely a mention in that contest so far—I know it is a minority sport, but we expect better. In the last Tory leadership contest, Liz Truss spent her time either criticising her own state school or criticising the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) for his time at the £45,000-a-year Winchester college. At one point, one of her team said that
“she will take no lectures in educational standards from an LA-based, Goldman Sachs banker who went to a school for the uber-elite.”
Meow, as my immediate predecessor in Rochdale might say.
David Cameron famously went to Eton; indeed, it was Michael Gove who attacked the “preposterous” number of his fellow Cabinet Ministers who had been to Eton. I am delighted to say that there are more Labour MPs who went to my own state school, Oulder Hill community school in Rochdale, than went to Eton—my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) and I are both proud of that school tie. Sadly, recent Prime Ministers and even Education Secretaries decided that the state sector for which they were responsible was not good enough for them. During partygate, we got used to the Tory party thinking the covid rules were for other people.
Paul Waugh
I am sorry, but I will not give way. I do not have much time.
“One rule for them, another for the rest of us,” was the Tory party’s approach back then. Now, their approach is, “One school for them, another for the rest of us”—that is just as toxic a charge. The real problem is money. There was a 9% fall in spending per pupil between 2010 and 2020. Worst of all, we have had 14 years of no overall growth in spending per pupil in our schools, a squeeze that the IFS said was
“without precedent in post-war UK history”.
Turning back to the Tory leadership contest, most of the contenders for that poisoned chalice have claimed that if elected, they will restore private school tax breaks. The fact that the Tories plan to make another £1.3 billion-worth of cuts to state schools on top of their own record of austerity proves that they have not learned a thing from their catastrophic defeat at the last election. If they all put into state schools an ounce of the passion, the emotion and—yes—the hard cash they put into private schools, the public might start to listen to them again.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The tragedy of this debate is the vitriolic negativity, when all of us could surely unite in our desire to improve the education of all. The Government could have done something so different. They could have said to the independent sector, “You’re doing well, chaps. Can you give us a bit of help? Can you work with us? Can you share more of your expertise, your wisdom, your success and your facilities? In particular, can you help with regard to special educational needs, where the independent sector is doing so well at no cost to the taxpayer?” I think that would have gained universal enthusiasm and support.
Richard Tice
No, we are short of time.
As a former governor of an independent school, I know that that approach would have been welcomed by the independent sector. Instead, the choice that the Government have made will do the opposite of what they intend. It is not going to raise anything like the funding they think it will: almost 100,000 children will leave the independent sector, many of whom have special educational needs, so it will earn almost nothing.
I spoke earlier about the unintended consequences of this policy. A parent in my constituency has written to me. She has two children with special educational needs at private school, and she cannot afford the VAT, so they are going to go into the state system. The nearest place is an hour away, so now the local authority is going to pick up the cost of the taxi service of over £20,000 per child. Those are the unintended real-world consequences of this choice by this Government. Most shamefully of all, because there is such a lack of capacity in so many areas and so many local authorities, that choice is going to result in bigger class sizes. That means more pressure on hard-pressed teachers in the state system, at a time when we are trying to ease that pressure. This choice is going to damage the education of many hundreds of thousands of children—exactly the opposite of what is intended.
I say to the Minister and his Government that they could choose differently. They could pause this policy, work with the independent sector and gain much more universal support. Instead, we have legal challenges going ahead. As I finish, I ask the Minister to answer this simple question: if those legal challenges end up in the European Court of Human Rights and it rules that the policy is unlawful, will his Government comply with that ruling?
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Mayor—[Interruption.] I have done it again, haven’t I? I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that is my local government background.
Education is the foundation upon which we build the future of our country. It opens doors, breaks down barriers and creates opportunity. Yet today so many of our young people are being left behind by an education system that is struggling to meet their needs. Labour is committed to changing that by driving high and rising standards in all areas in our state schools, ensuring that every child, no matter where they come from, has the same access to excellent education.
When the Tories left office—let us use the word “left”—they also left behind a trail of devastation across our education system. Schools were left crumbling, standards were left falling and they had the audacity to claim that they had “maxed out” on support for our children. We know that that could not be further from the truth. Our state schools are in desperate need of investment, and that is why Labour is making the tough political and fiscal choices necessary to prioritise our children’s future.
One of the toughest yet most significant steps we will take is to levy VAT on private schools and end their business rates exemptions. By doing so, we will generate over £1.3 billion. That money will be reinvested directly into the state education system, benefiting the 93% of children who attend state schools. It is time to put an end to a system that allows a privileged few to enjoy tax breaks while the majority of our children are left with lesser funded schools, and we know that is true.
What will this investment achieve? It will be used to recruit and retain thousands more teachers, ensuring that every child has access to the quality education that they deserve. We will reform Ofsted, improve our schools, and provide early speech and language intervention for our youngest children. Mental health counsellors will be placed in every secondary school, because we understand that a child’s wellbeing is as important as their academic success. We will expand careers advice and work experience, giving students the skills and confidence to shape their own futures.
We know that this works. We need look no further than my own constituency where, as leader of the council, I was proud to introduce the Derby promise. The city of Derby has made—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am going to call the Front-Bench speakers at 3.59 pm. That means that the remaining Members are not all going to be called, unless they choose to make one-minute contributions, which I cannot recommend to anyone. This is just to alert you that there will be some disappointment.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I have come here today to speak on behalf of the children and young people in my Bishop Auckland constituency. I recently spent half a day at an independent school in my constituency, where I spoke with the students, and I have also hosted them here in Parliament. I found them thoughtful and polite, and a credit to their parents and the school. I recognise the role that the school plays in my community. I think it is right that the school retains charitable status, which allows it to claim gift aid on donations and to reinvest surplus revenue without paying tax. I am fully committed to the school and to its fundraising efforts. That is because I want all children in my constituency, whether they attend state schools or fee-paying schools, to have the best opportunities to develop their talents and intellect, no matter their background.
I wish I could say the same of Conservative Members, but their actions in government tell a different story. At a recent roundtable with primary school headteachers in my constituency, I heard stories of school dinner debts of £1,000 per school because they are having to feed hungry children. I heard of children coming into school with wet uniforms because there is no glass in their windows. One teacher talked about having to support children who had experienced horrific abuse but were not getting support through CAMHS. I also heard about children who arrive at school behind where they should be because of the closure of Sure Start.
On social mobility, is it not the truth that the Conservatives scrapped child trust funds? Under them, Sure Start centres were closed down, school playing fields were sold off and the education maintenance allowance was abolished. Apprenticeships are down, youth services have been cut by 73% since 2010 and there is a five-year waiting list for CAMHS. A decade has been lost because every school budget has less funding per pupil today than it had in 2010. Is that not the truth?
Here is another truth—[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like hearing it, but in the past 20 years, private school fees have increased by 55%. I checked Hansard to see whether we had a debate with them all expressing their concern for the state education sector and about the impact of that increase, but it turns out that when the increase is to make elite education even more elite, they are silent. I see no reason why private schools cannot absorb the cost.
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Gentleman talks about the elite, but does he understand the impact of the policy he is advocating, which is essentially that the elite, the rich, will still be able to afford independent education, while those who are making sacrifices to be there will be the ones who fall out, especially those with special educational needs?
Sam Rushworth
I was coming on to that, and if anybody in an independent school is struggling to cut their cloth accordingly as the state sector has done, I could introduce them to headteachers in my constituency who have had to do that because of cuts imposed by the previous Government.
I also suggest that independent schools look at social tariffs and other ways to raise revenue. Nobody wants to be doing this; this is not about the politics of envy. Conservative Members have so far opposed every measure that we are taking to increase revenue or cut spending, and perhaps they need to realise that that is why they are on the Opposition Benches and we are on the Government Benches, as we try to fix state education, which is essential for our children.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I join this debate as the son of educators—my mum, aunties, uncle, and grandad were all teachers in both the state and the private fee-earning sectors, and it definitely makes for interesting conversations round the dinner table. I also join the debate representing both state and fee-paying schools in my constituency, particularly the fantastic Northampton high school, which is part of the Girls’ Day School Trust network and whose students I met in Parliament recently. As a parliamentary candidate for nearly two years and since my election as the Member of Parliament for Northampton South, I have spoken to countless constituents about our long-standing, well documented and consulted on plans to drive up standards in state education. Do you want to know how many of those parents are actually going to move their kids into state schools once I have spoken to them, Madam Deputy Speaker? The answer is zero.
It is right that the Government focus on improving educational standards for those children left behind by the Conservatives, who left a trail of devastation across education, from crumbling schools to a SEND sector in crisis. Their legacy in education should see them hang their heads in shame. When hard-working teachers, teaching assistants and staff reached out, crying out for help, they did not listen. When the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies said that this proposal will raise £1.3 billion for UK taxpayers, they did not listen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) said, when fee-paying schools raised their fees above inflation through the cost of living crisis over recent years, leaving families struggling, the Conservatives did not listen. Only now, when there are political points to score and when embossed stationery is at risk, finally they wake up.
Mike Reader
I will not—sorry.
No one in this House wants to see the state education sector fail. I am sure no Opposition Member wants to deprive millions of students in the primary state education sector of the healthy nutritious breakfast that they will receive every morning, paid for through this policy. I am certain that all Members on the Opposition Benches want dedicated mental health support in every school, paid for through this policy. I am almost certain that there are those on the Opposition Benches who want to vote with their conscience rather than the Whip, so I urge Members from all parties to vote against this political statement and to support the Government that the country chose to break down barriers to opportunity. It is what our constituents want.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
It is an honour to follow Citizen Smith over there.
In the large number of contributions today, we have seen the importance of this issue and the alarm felt by many Members and their constituents about the Government’s proposal. I am sorry to say that we have also had a lot of 1970s politics of envy today. We believe in evidence-based decision making, and as many Members have pointed out, it is becoming increasingly clear that Labour’s planned education taxes—removing VAT and business rate exemptions from independent schools— will not do what is claimed.
I will move on to the details in a moment, but may I first congratulate those who have delivered their maiden speeches today? I thank them all for making gracious comments about their predecessors. I learned something about each of them today. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) spoke eloquently and lovingly about her beautiful constituency, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who brought back many holiday memories for me. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) gave us all good advice on naming children in Glasgow. The hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) may or may not be aware that we share something in common, as we were both student union sabbatical officers, although in my case a few years earlier. The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) gave perhaps the most eclectic speech today, mentioning Daleks, potholes and Ann Widdecombe all in one speech.
I am afraid that I will not be so gracious about some other comments we have heard today from Government Members, who still do not seem to realise that they are now in government and their job is to talk the country up. They have constantly talked down not only the country, but the education system. Let me remind them that when we left office, education standards were going up and per pupil funding was at record levels. In contrast, when Labour was in office, we were falling in the league tables. What a brass neck Labour Members have, when we look at Labour’s record in Wales. We have been backing our brilliant teachers, and I would hope that they would do the same.
The motivations behind this policy are clearly questionable. The impact assessment is non-existent and the savings illusory. There are so many potential unintended consequences and uncertainties around these policies that, at the very least, the Government need to postpone implementation, although it would be better to scrap the plans altogether. They are also moving away from a long-held principle that we used to agree on across the House that educational services are not taxed at all. It is a terrible thing that they are now bringing in.
We have five key categories of concern: the impact on state schools; the impact on Government finances; the timing of the proposals; the consideration of exemptions; and the impact on SEND and EHCPs. I will not repeat all my comments from the debate we had earlier, but it is so clear that this policy will not only have a detrimental impact on the independent schools sector, but negatively impact the state sector, because the imposition of a 20% VAT hike overnight will mean that some families will no longer be able to afford the fees. Inevitably that will mean children leaving the private sector and moving to the state system, putting an additional burden on many local state schools, some of which do not have the capacity. As I said this morning, it is not fearmongering or scaremongering; it is happening already and we are already seeing it in schools. According to some forecasts, instead of the predicted £1.5 billion saving, this policy could cost the taxpayer money.
How extraordinary to choose this policy area to try to eke out some cash when so many other options are available, if the Government were brave enough. Out of total Government spending of more than £1.2 trillion, is this really the policy that they want to prioritise?
On the topic of overall Government finances, we have not yet heard clearly whether the Department for Education will get more funding from the Treasury if the number of state school pupils exceeds expectations. Will they be expected to pay it out of existing budgets? Have the Government set aside capital for additional school spaces if it is needed?
Regarding the timing of the proposals, many Members have mentioned that it is beyond belief that the Government are bringing in this policy in the middle of the school year, when schools are simply not ready for it. It is not fair on the independent sector to expect schools to get their heads around new legislation, register for VAT and implement new systems and processes in literally a matter of weeks and before Christmas. That will not happen. We have also not heard whether the Government will create exemptions or special considerations for all these areas: military families, students on music and dance schemes, children attending small schools, language schools or religious schools, those paying low fees or on bursaries, and children in exam years who may have to move to another school that does not offer their curriculum.
What are the Government doing about pupils with special educational needs and those with an EHCP or in the process of gaining one? If, as many predict, there is a displacement of children with SEND and EHCPs into the state sector, is there the capacity for that? Is there adequate additional funding support planned for local authorities to deal with that predicted increase in demand?
I wish to make a couple of other brief points before concluding. As a Conservative, I believe in choice, and I will not criticise choices made by parents about their children’s education. I have no qualms, however, about criticising hypocrisy. The irony that I stand here as a proud product of a state comprehensive education defending independent schools while the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury who spoke earlier, a product of a private education, is pursuing a policy that could undermine independent schools is not lost on me or others. Many Government Members attended independent schools or sent or are sending their own children to them, and yet they are determined to increase the costs on others, depriving many families of the choice they themselves had.
I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Education now in her place after being conspicuously absent. Perhaps she will take the opportunity to apologise for the tweet. Parents who send their children to independent schools pay twice for their children’s education and deserve better than to be treated with contempt by their Government’s Education Secretary. The divisive tweet that she put out last weekend was shockingly ill-judged and ill-informed, sneering and smirking about embossed paper and swimming pools. Does she really not understand or recognise that not every independent school is like Eton or Harrow? It betrays an incredible lack of awareness and poor knowledge of the facilities and financial status of many independent schools. It demonstrated that the policy is being promoted not on evidence but on envy and spite—ill-informed and misplaced envy at that.
Simon Hoare
I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. Will he add to the indictment of the Secretary of State the fact that she failed signally to realise that she is the Secretary of State for all pupils, whether they are in the independent or the state sector? The divisive language that she used was a very rude signal of two digits to those families who take a decision that she does not like.
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend puts it well. I do not have to add to his comments.
This is a rushed and ill-judged policy that will not raise the money the Government assumed it would, undermine the viability of many independent schools, put immense pressure on the state school system and put in jeopardy the education prospects of thousands of students, including many with special needs. We implore Ministers to reconsider.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
I thank the Opposition for bringing forward the debate. While the focus has been on private schools and the implications of the planned tax changes, it has allowed us to consider what is important in education. It is important to support the aspirations of all young people and their parents, and it is essential that all young people receive a good education in a safe and supportive environment.
It is certainly true that many parents choose to seek that provision in the private sector. The Government will always support their right to choose where to educate their children, but most parents do not have that choice, and all parents have high aspirations for their children. We therefore need to prioritise our efforts and consider how we can better serve the 94% of children in our state-funded schools.
Ending the tax breaks on VAT and business rates for private schools is a necessary decision to drive high and rising standards across our state schools and give every young person the best start in life. It will generate additional funding to help improve public services, including the Government’s commitments relating to children and young people.
This money will allow the Government to expand early years childcare for all by opening 3,000 new nurseries, thus helping parents back to work. The Government will recruit 6,500 new teachers and improve teacher and headteacher training as part of restoring teaching to the career of choice for the very best graduates. The Treasury is of course responsible for tax policy and has led on the publication of the draft legislation and technical consultation since July. As the Exchequer Secretary set out, VAT will apply to tuition and boarding fees charged by private schools for terms starting on or after 1 January 2025. It is right that we end tax breaks as soon as possible to raise the funding needed to deliver those educational priorities. The Treasury is assessing the impact of these changes in advance of the Budget. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility will certify the Government’s costings for these measures at the Budget and that will also include the interaction with other VAT receipts.
Stephen Morgan
I am going to make some progress. The right hon. Gentleman spoke earlier. I know that many Members are concerned about children with SEND. [Interruption.] Members can shout as much as they like, but I have some really important points to make about SEND. I know I speak for the country—the right hon. Gentleman certainly does not. I assure Members that the Treasury has sought to ensure that these changes do not disadvantage pupils who need provision that is unavailable in the state sector.
Let me be clear: pupils who need a local authority-funded place in a private school, including those with a local authority-funded EHCP, will not be affected by the changes. That is because local authorities are able to reclaim VAT when they are charged. For other pupils, this change should not mean that they will automatically face 20% higher fees. The Government expect private schools to take steps to minimise fee increases, including through reclaiming VAT incurred in supplying education and boarding. I also note that IFS analysis shows that the number of children in private schools has remained steady despite a 20% real-terms increase in average private school fees since 2020 and a 55% rise since 2003.
Members from both sides of the House mentioned transfers to the state-funded sector. There are always some pupils moving between the private and state-funded school sectors. Approximately 50 maintained private schools close every year, for a range of reasons. Where schools do close, pupils may transfer to another private school or move into the state sector. We simply do not accept, in the case of recent closures, that this has had any connection to our policy on VAT. Quite simply, the evidence does not bear that out. The number of pupils who might switch following these changes represents a very small proportion of overall pupil numbers in the state sector. Any displacement is likely to take place over several years, and will mostly come from parents choosing not to place their children in the private sector to begin with, rather than children leaving the private sector. All children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one. I understand that moving schools can be a challenging experience, and local authorities and schools already have processes to support pupils moving between schools.
A number of Members also raised concerns about capacity. There are always a range of pressures on state-funded school places, and the Department for Education works to support local authorities to ensure that every local area has sufficient places for children who need them. That is business as usual and local authorities and schools already have a range of options to increase capacity where it is needed. We are confident that the state sector will be able to accommodate any additional pupils and that there will not be a significant impact on state education as a whole.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) on her maiden speech. I know she will be a real champion for children and young people in her community. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) back to this place and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) on his maiden speech—he spoke eloquently and with passion about his constituency and the needs of his constituents. It was also a real pleasure to hear the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who described so well his beautiful constituency, a place I enjoyed holidaying in as a child. I look forward to working with him on issues affecting the Solent region. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) gave an excellent maiden speech. It was evident that she will be a strong voice in this place, nationally and for her community. I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on his maiden speech, and I wish him well on his unexpected new role in this place and on delivering opportunity for all.
The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and others mentioned military families; I know that colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will closely monitor the impact on affected military families, considering support via the continuity of education allowance scheme. Small faith schools were raised by a few Members; those schools meet the needs of dedicated faith communities, often at low cost. I know that Treasury colleagues have met representatives from those schools to ensure fairness. A number of right hon. and hon. Members spoke about the impact assessment. As my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury set out, we are considering the impact of the policies and will publish a tax information and impact note at the Budget in the usual way.
In conclusion, this Government were elected to deliver change across our country, not least in our schools. Our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity is exactly what our country needs. This party is showing that education is once again at the forefront of national life. I urge Members across the House to demonstrate that by voting against the motion.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the No Lobby?
Farming and Food Security
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 187 / Noes: 359 - Question accordingly negatived.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the real and immediate challenges faced by British farmers as a result of wet weather and rising costs; notes the importance of food security as an essential component of national security in an increasingly uncertain world; regrets that the £50 million extension of the Farming Recovery Fund is yet to be paid out; is concerned that reports suggest the farming budget is to be cut by £100 million; calls on the Government to confirm that the full £50 million of additional Farming Recovery Fund support for those flooded, £75 million for Internal Drainage Boards to protect agricultural land from floods and storms, and £220 million allocated to technology and productivity schemes announced earlier this year will be used in full and without delay, that no reduction to the farming budget will be made and that any underspends will be rolled forward as in previous years, and to keep farming and food production high on the agenda by committing to continue to host the annual Farm to Fork Summit in Downing Street, continuing to publish the annual food security index, and appointing a Tenant Farming Commissioner; and further calls on the Government to secure the long-term future of domestic food production by ensuring the best agricultural land is protected from inappropriate development, including large solar developments, by tackling rural crime, and by ensuring that the next generation can get into farming by protecting Agricultural Property Relief.
Given the increasing uncertainty in the world, with covid, Ukraine and now the middle east, food security is more important than ever and should be seen as a key part of our national security. Britain’s farmers face real and immediate challenges, which means that the Government must take action now. That is why we have called this debate. Between October 2022 and March 2024, England experienced the most rain in any 18-month period since records began in 1836. In particular, Storm Babet and Storm Henk caused significant damage, leaving thousands of acres under water, and land saturated for prolonged periods. This has prevented many farmers from getting crops into the ground, and where they have been able to do so, their crops have been compromised.
Of course, farmers have done their best to respond, but recent research from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board has suggested that England is heading for one of its worst harvests on record. The wheat harvest in England alone is estimated to be down more than 2.2 million tonnes, which represents an 18% reduction since last year, and the total harvest for the five key crops—wheat, winter barley, spring barley, oats and oilseed rape—is set to be down by over 13%, or 3 million tonnes, on the five-year average. We risk being increasingly reliant on imports, and unfortunately there seems to be no relief in sight; 10 English counties experienced the wettest September on record, and input costs remain high. If we do not support our farmers now, many farm businesses say that they are unlikely to survive.
As Secretary of State, I prioritised food production. At the Oxford farming conference, I announced more money, choice and trust for farmers. I increased rates paid under the sustainable farming incentive, and I announced in January that I was introducing new options to better reflect the range of farms.
Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)
In the shadow Secretary of State’s time in office, why did he and the Government of the day fail to get £300 million out of the door and into farms in constituencies such as mine?
Steve Barclay
I will come on to the underspends, because that is one of the key dividing lines between the two sides of the House. After we came out of the EU, I secured an agreement with the Treasury that all the underspends from the new schemes would remain in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs budget, for farmers and for DEFRA. At the end of this month, in the Budget, we will see whether the Secretary of State has secured the same terms for any underspends.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
We know that the previous Government made a whole raft of commitments that there was no way of paying for, so there is no credibility to the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman secured something from the discredited Treasury that he was under. The key question is: if that money was so desperately needed, why was it not being spent?
Steve Barclay
As we came out of the European Union, new schemes were set up, including the SFI, to support nature and farming. They represented a shift from the EU scheme, under which 50% of the money went to 10% of landowners. We were able to design new schemes. We listened to farmers, and that is why I announced at the farming conference an average increase of 10% in payments, and 50 more choices to better reflect the variety of farms, including upland farms. We responded, but the point is that underspends all remained within the DEFRA budget. The key question, which I am sure the Secretary of State will come to, is whether he will give a similar commitment to the House that any underspends will remain in DEFRA, given that we have just faced the wettest winter in 150 years, and given that in September, 10 counties had the worst rain on record.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I would add one thing to what the shadow Secretary of State is brilliantly saying: this is a matter for farmers in Herefordshire as much as for those elsewhere. Ross-on-Wye, a rural town, was under water as a result of the floods. Does he share my view that the whole ecosystem ultimately feeds into the river, and into river pollution, on which he took such a lead with the action plan? Does he share my hope that the plan will be supported by the new Government, as well as by the river champion that he put in place?
Steve Barclay
I very much agree. My right hon. Friend alludes to one of the key questions being asked by many farmers around the River Wye: what has happened to the £35 million that was announced for farming support around the River Wye? Again, there has been so little detail from this Government, so I hope the Secretary of State is able to give some reassurance to my right hon. Friend.
We also gave farmers other support. In February, we introduced the biggest package of productivity grants, in order to boost the deployment of the latest technology and enhance yields on farms. We improved protections to prevent the best land from being taken out of food production, including through the announcement in May on strengthening the guidance on solar farms. We responded positively to the National Farmers Union’s request through the annual food security index, and we hosted the farm to fork summit in Downing Street.
Steve Barclay
I know that the clustering of solar farms on some of the best food production land in Lincolnshire is a live issue; I suspect that might be what my right hon. Friend wants to address.
Sir Edward Leigh
I do not want to get into the debate for and against solar farms, but even those in favour of them should surely agree that we should not have a concentration of them—10,000 acres of them—around one town, namely Gainsborough. Should the Secretary of State not consider such matters in the round, and take all the applications together?
Steve Barclay
The Secretary of State should be doing that, but there is a marked difference between us. I persuaded the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to strengthen the guidance against solar farms, but the Secretary of State is being pushed around by his Cabinet colleagues. The Energy Secretary has already walked all over him, granting permission for a whole load of solar farms, and allowing the clustering that is causing such an issue.
I will give the House an example of how the Secretary of State is not championing farming. Baroness Rock was a true voice in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for tenant farmers, and she wrote the review of tenant farming that I commissioned in a previous role in No. 10, but it seems that she has been sacked or asked to leave the DEFRA board. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State said why such a respected and talented figure had to leave her role.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Dr Johnson
My right hon. Friend is talking about the clustering of solar farms, but that is not the only problem. They are being built on high-quality agricultural land, which is nonsensical.
Steve Barclay
It is, and a further concern in my constituency is that the consultants who do soil sampling for the developers are often felt to be interpreting and grading the quality of soil in a way that is not consistent with local knowledge.
Back in May, the previous Government allocated £50 million of additional support to farmers hit by the wet weather. They extended the farming recovery fund to 1,000 more farmers, so that it covered all those affected in England. On top of that, in March, we announced the allocation of an additional £75 million to internal drainage boards, which are essential to protecting agricultural land from floods and storms.
We now have a Labour Government who neither understand nor care for rural communities. [Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”] They were not so vocal when they launched their manifesto, which devoted just 87 words to farming. There was not a single mention of farming in the King’s Speech, because the Government have made the active choice to de-prioritise British farming and food production.
On the immediate challenge, the answer to a recent parliamentary question backs up what the sector is telling me. The £50 million of additional farming recovery fund support is yet to be paid out. We have just established that we have had the wettest weather for 150 years and that 10 counties have had particularly challenging weather, yet despite having a known scheme, with an extra £50 million, they have not allocated that much-needed, time-critical support. The Secretary of State needs to explain why. The NFU says its members simply cannot wait any longer for the support, yet Labour seems to want to keep them waiting. Reports suggest that the £75 million for the internal drainage boards is also on a go-slow, and we need to know why.
For the longer term, Labour Ministers have overruled officials to cover some of the country’s best farmland in solar panels. They have rejected the plans for binding food security targets. It has even been suggested in media reports that they plan to cut the farming budget by £100 million. Indeed, it was reported that the NFU president has said that his members are being “kept up at night” by the “cliff edge” that Labour’s lack of commitment on the agriculture budget is causing.
The Government need to change course. They need to give immediate confidence to the sector and show that they care about food security. To do so, they need to commit to five things: first, that the full £50 million of additional wet weather support we announced in May will be paid out in full.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
As the first ever female director of the National Farmers Union in 100 years, I think I can speak with some credibility here. I represent Tiverton and Minehead, which includes the Quantocks and Exmoor. I have to say, you have some chutzpah—my farmers tell me that you sold them down the river. I say to Government Members that we need to work together on this, because our lot on the Liberal Democrat Benches know more about farming than they do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind hon. Members that if they use the word “you”, it means me.
Steve Barclay
I would never suggest such things of you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not quite spot the hon. Lady’s question—it seemed to be more of a statement. I am sure that farmers in Tiverton, as well as those around the country, want to know why the £50 million that was allocated in May has not been given out. The Lib Dems may not care about that money, but Conservative Members want that support for farmers.
Secondly, the £75 million of support for internal drainage boards needs to be deployed in full and without delay. Thirdly, the £220 million allocated for technology and productivity schemes needs to be honoured in full. Fourthly, the Government need to confirm there will be no cuts to the farming budget—an issue that is causing so much concern—so that we do not lose the £2.6 million that has been allocated for this year. Fifthly, we need a commitment from the Government that they will keep the farm to fork summit in Downing Street, they will have the food security index and they will appoint a tenant farming commissioner.
Looking further ahead, the Government must do more to give farmers confidence. That means ruling out the removal or reduction of the agricultural property relief, better protecting farmland from schemes for solar and pylons, and ensuring that food production is central to the land use framework. Only by doing those things can they show that they are backing our farmers and protecting food security, but sadly I fear an urbancentric Government simply will not do that, not least with a Labour Secretary of State who is currently getting pushed around by his Cabinet colleagues. It is only this Conservative team who are, and will be, a voice for rural businesses, rural communities and our rural way of life, with improved farming production at its very heart.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
I welcome the opportunity to restate this Government’s support for farmers, who produce the food that feeds the nation and protect our beautiful countryside. Farmers are the beating heart of rural communities across the country, promoting economic growth and stewarding our land. Food security is national security in our increasingly unstable world. I am a little surprised that the Conservatives called this debate, after they completely failed our farmers and undermined Britain’s food security. After 14 years of Tory chaos, confidence among farmers is at a record low. More than 12,000 farmers and agri-businesses have been forced out of business since 2010. The Conservatives left a lack of infrastructure to protect farmers from extreme weather and no action at all to reduce soaring energy costs. This Government will correct the mistakes of the past.
Jesse Norman
Can the Secretary of State give me some comfort that the money that was allocated for the action plan for the River Wye will be retained, even if not necessarily for the purposes that it was created for? Will he also reappoint the current champion for the river who has so far done excellent work?
Steve Reed
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his intervention and for the representations that he has made to me personally on this issue. I know that he feels passionately about it and, indeed, it is a very important issue. I am afraid that we will need to wait until the conclusion of the spending review, which is normal practice in government, but his words have been heard and his concerns recognised.
Farming and food security are the foundations of our economy, our communities and, indeed, our environment. Farmers were badly let down by the previous Government who offered only sticking plasters to deal with the great challenges faced by British farming. This Government will work with farmers to help them transition to new farming methods that are more sustainable both financially and environmentally. We will reduce the soaring energy prices that have hit so many food producers so hard. There will be no more dodgy trade deals that undermine British farmers. This will be a Government on the side of Britain’s farmers.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right to say that farmers are a very important part of the community. His leader, the Prime Minister, said to the NFU last year that solar farms should not be created by taking advantage of tenant farmers. This is a live issue in my constituency and many others where tenant farmers will be deprived of their livelihood by new solar farms. Will he stand by that commitment and say quite clearly to his Cabinet colleagues that tenant farmers must not lose their livelihood by the creation of a solar farm?
Steve Reed
I recognise the point the hon. Gentleman is making and thank him for his intervention. I will comment later in my speech on further support that we would wish to offer tenant farmers. I do recognise the situation that they are in.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
On 13 September, I met representatives from my local NFU and a whole group of farmers who are desperate to see both the recovery fund moneys dispersed and the support for the internal drainage board. Will the Secretary of State please put their minds at rest in this crisis situation in which they find themselves and commit to making sure that that money does flow? Talking about the Budget, we need action now to support those people if what he says about energy security and the centrality of farming to this country is to be more than just words.
Steve Reed
It is regrettable that this Government inherited from the previous Government flood defences in the worst condition ever recorded. Of course I recognise that farmers need support, but they need long-term support, not just the sticking plaster approach that we had from the previous Government. We will be looking at how we can do that. The Environment Agency has already made £37 million available, so support will be available to farmers that are facing flooding in the here and now. However, it is in the spending review that we will look at how we can provide that longer-term support so that we can give farmers and, indeed, other businesses and homeowners protection from the kind of severe weather events that we are seeing much more frequently due to climate change.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
While the Secretary of State explains to the House what he is doing and what he will do, will he spare a thought for the farmers of Northern Ireland? Our agrifood industry is shaped and controlled not by the laws that this House makes, not by the laws that the devolved Parliament makes, but by the laws made by a foreign Parliament, namely the European Parliament. In more than 300 areas of law, 120 of which affect our agrifood industry, that is how our laws are made. How is that even approaching being democratic and how is agrifood in Northern Ireland meant to be shaped to meet its needs if its own representatives cannot even make or change the laws that govern it?
Steve Reed
I am very pleased to say that I have already had two meetings with the Northern Ireland Environment Minister to talk about how we can co-operate better to support farmers in Northern Ireland. I have also been speaking with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who shares that interest.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Farmers and families across my constituency were again hit by devastating flooding recently. Does the Secretary of State agree that the continual recurrence of these issues highlights the previous Government’s failure for far too long to take flooding seriously? Can he reassure farmers and families right across my rural community that he will take all the action needed not only to mount a co-ordinated, multi-agency response in the aftermath of flooding, but to ensure proper mitigation in the long term?
Steve Reed
I had the pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency and a farm there during the election campaign, and I thoroughly recognise the point that he raises. It is a little hypocritical, is it not, for the Conservative party to complain that not enough is being done on flooding, when their Government left flood defences in the worst condition ever recorded?
Steve Reed
I will now make a little progress. I have taken quite a few interventions, and other Members want to speak.
Our new deal for farmers will boost Britain’s food security, protect our environment and drive rural economic growth by tackling the root causes of the long-term issues they face—climate change, rising prices for energy, feed and fertiliser, unfair supply chains, and access to labour. We will ensure that environmental land management schemes work for farmers, and where funding is allocated for farmers we will make sure it reaches farmers, ending the Tory underspends that saw hundreds of millions of pounds held back. We will improve these schemes by working with farmers to boost food security and promote nature’s recovery, including upland, lowland, grass and tenant farmers.
Upland farmers have been left behind. Farmers in the uplands have been losing their basic payments each year, but have not been able to access new schemes. We have arrived in office to find no credible plan to address that, leaving thousands of the most remote and isolated farmers without a clear path for their families, businesses or communities. We need a fair approach for all farmers.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
We all understand that my right hon. Friend has inherited in his Department a panoply of different crises, from the crisis facing our farmers to flooding. He is absolutely right that trying to get the environmental land management scheme to achieve what was originally intended for it is one of the biggest issues facing Britain’s farmers. I appreciate it is very early days, but what is his sense of what the major failures are right now, and what might we look forward to in his plan to sort them out?
Steve Reed
The environmental land management schemes are taking the right approach, but they need to work better for all farmers. Too many farmers feel that they cannot access them or do not get the support that they need. My proposal is not that the Government will dictate to farmers how those changes should happen, but that we should work with farmers, in a partnership, to hear their voices and allow them to influence changes to those schemes that will make them more effective in achieving the many outcomes that we seek to get from that Government funding.
We will not tell farmers how to farm. We will achieve this by working together with them in that new partnership. I recently met the Tenant Farmers Association to hear its views about improving support for tenant farmers. I agree that the proposal for a tenant farming commissioner has merit, and we will make an announcement shortly.
Our new deal will protect farmers from being undercut in trade deals. The Conservative Government’s trade deal with Australia and New Zealand is a disaster for our British farmers. They were sold down the river, as the Conservative party allowed the import of food produced to standards so low that they would be unacceptable in this country. Instead of backing British farmers, the Conservatives undermined British farmers. We want to see more support for British farmers—more opportunities for British farmers, not fewer.
We have already delivered early first steps for British farmers, securing access to the US market for UK beetroot growers and to the South African market for poultry producers. Instead of the botched Tory Brexit deal that threw up barriers to trade and blocked Great British food exports, we will seek a new veterinary agreement with the EU, to tear those barriers down and get our food exports moving again, putting money straight into the pockets of British farmers.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way a second time. He talks about the importance to communities of farmers, particularly intergenerational farmers. We understand that consideration is being given to withdrawing agricultural property relief in the Budget at the end of October. Will he confirm that that will not happen? If it did, it would be the end of intergenerational farming in this country.
Steve Reed
I understand the hon. Member’s point and the importance of intergenerational farming, but he will understand that I cannot anticipate the outcome of the Budget process.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State agree with me about the urgency of a sanitary and phytosanitary deal and, probably, of rejoining the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, because of the damage being done to British farmers by Brexit border taxes? The National Farmers Union tried to warn the shadow Secretary of State that farmers were facing an “existential threat” because they cannot import the seeds they need—tomato seeds, pepper seeds and oil seed rape. We now hear from ports that very few checks are being done, making a mockery of the idea of any food security. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the shadow Secretary of State makes lists of what could happen, apologising for the mess they made at the border should be at the top?
Steve Reed
As always, my hon. Friend makes an important point very eloquently. During the election campaign, I spoke to farmers up and down the country—as I did before that and have done since—who were absolutely furious that, having been promised continued access to the European markets where they were selling their great, high-quality British produce, they were instead taking a financial hit as trade barriers were thrown up and they could no longer sell into those markets. We want to correct that by seeking a new veterinary deal with the European Union to get exports moving across the borders again.
We will not allow food producers to continue to bear the brunt of unfair supply chains. Farmers deserve a fair price for the food they produce, and we will bring forward proposals to make sure that happens. One of the biggest cost rises affecting British farmers has been energy bills. We will prevent future price shocks by switching on GB Energy, so we can harness the power of wind, wave, solar and nuclear energy to keep bills down and take back control of our own energy supplies from foreign fossil-fuel dictators like Vladimir Putin.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The Secretary of State talks about the importance of cheap energy, solar and food security. Clearly, land needs a balance. What representations has he made to the Energy Secretary to be clear that the best farmland should not be used for ground-mounted solar?
Steve Reed
The hon. Lady has made that point to me before, and I reassure her that, even at their most ambitious extent, solar farms would not cover more than 1% of agricultural land. For farmers, climate change is also a significant concern. The reason we are seeing such heavy rainfall is climate change: that is what is leading to the flooding and droughts that are damaging farmers. If we do not take action to transition to a clean energy economy, farmers will continue to suffer from things that none of us wish them to have to deal with.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
As a dairy farmer and a tenant farmer, I perhaps have unique experience in this matter. Obviously I am Welsh as well, and I realise that agricultural policy is devolved to Wales. This issue involves the aftermath of Brexit. Under the EU common agricultural policy, Wales received around 9.5% of the total UK CAP budget, which was based on our rural lifestyle in Wales and farming criteria such as the size, number and nature of farms. If allocations are calculated using the Barnett formula and population figures instead, we would have only 5.6% of the total agricultural budget.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Can I remind the hon. Lady that interventions need to be short?
Ann Davies
Sorry—I am very new and I apologise. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that Wales will not miss out on any increases in the UK funding settlement for agriculture and rural development due to the reduced allocation?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and can reassure her that I have had multiple conversations with the Welsh Deputy First Minister, who is also the Environment Minister in Wales, to ensure that those concerns are heard as we go through the spending review process. It is always difficult in the couple of weeks running up to the Budget, because I cannot give definitive answers, as she will understand, but that will become clear once the Chancellor has made her statement towards the end of the month. We will use the Government’s purchasing power to buy more British produce for our hospitals and prisons—again, putting money directly into the pockets of British farmers.
Crime was another issue that was running out of control under the Conservatives—and no wonder, after they took so many police off our streets. Crime in rural areas has skyrocketed by almost a third since 2011. Our new deal for farmers will see the first ever cross-Government rural crime strategy to crack down on antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping and GPS theft—issues that have repeatedly been raised with me by farmers and people living in rural communities.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Steve Reed
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will make a little progress. I have taken up an awful lot of time and am only about halfway through, and I want to leave time for others to speak.
It should be of huge concern to every one of us that the suicide rate among male farmers is three times the national average, and the highest among any sector in the economy. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to mental health charity the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution for its excellent work in tackling that alarming and unacceptable situation. We will tackle the mental health crisis in our rural communities by recruiting 8,500 more mental health professionals across the NHS and setting up a Young Futures mental health hub for under-25s in every rural community.
After fewer than 100 days in office, I chaired the first meeting of the new flood resilience taskforce. Funding allocated to flood defences had been left unspent for years, but we will speed up the construction of flood defences, drainage systems and natural flood schemes so that we can offer farmers and rural communities better protection from extreme weather in the long term.
Members are aware that the Government are currently conducting a spending review to fix the foundations of our economy after the previous Government crashed it and left behind a staggering £22 billion black hole in the public finances—[Interruption.] What they did is not funny; the problems that it has caused British farmers, and people living in our rural communities, are not funny. I think the Conservatives should show a little more humility after what they did.
While that process is live, there is little that I can say on individual spending areas. I can say, however, that we recognise the challenges caused by the wet weather earlier in the year and in recent years. That is just one challenge among many for farmers right now. A few weeks ago, I met a farmer in Essex who has a case of bluetongue in his herd. I am grateful to farmers for complying with movement restrictions intended to stop the spread of that disease. We will confirm plans for the farming recovery fund, investment in internal drainage boards and other grants as we complete the Budget process. We will also work with farmers to reduce agricultural water pollution from run-off, and to look at ways of improving their nutrient management and the effectiveness of regulations.
Boosting productivity in farming is hugely important. Grants and direct investment are part of achieving that, but we need to think bigger and look for more enduring solutions.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Conservatives sold farmers out, undercutting them with dodgy trade deals with New Zealand and Australia. To return to my right hon. Friend’s previous point, this Government have secured for UK beetroot growers access to the US market worth approximately £100,000 per year in increased exports. Does he agree that the contrast in trade agreements could not be starker? In trade deals, Labour protects farmers; the Conservatives sell them down the river.
Steve Reed
I happily agree with the points that my hon. Friend has made. The Labour party is on the side of farmers.
The UK has world-class science and innovation capabilities. Developing new technologies and techniques for use by farmers and growers will be critical for our food security, for business resilience to climate change, and for promoting economic growth. We have set up a new British infrastructure council to steer private investment in rural areas, including in broadband roll-out across rural communities and in electricity grids to power our growth. We are reforming the apprenticeship levy to improve rural apprenticeships and skills and give farmers the freedom and flexibility to upskill their workforce, and are opening specialist technical excellence colleges to match skills to local economies.
A few weeks ago, the Minister responsible for farming and food security, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), tabled a statement on the previous Government’s astonishing underspends in the farming budget. They failed to get £300 million that was allocated to farmers into the hands of those farmers. I am working with Treasury Ministers to ensure farmers have the public investment they need, and although the financial inheritance from the previous Government is appalling, there is no shortage of positive things that the farming budget can and will deliver: cleaner air and water, food security, abundant wildlife and biodiversity, and thriving and connected rural communities. Those things are the foundation of a sector worth billions of pounds—the largest manufacturing sector in the country. I can assure this House that I am making the strongest case for that funding, despite the financial black hole and flatlining economy the Conservatives left behind.
Food security is national security, and of course, energy security is also national security. This Government will deliver the mandate we were elected on. Our plans to boost solar power do not risk the UK’s food security: even in the most ambitious scenarios, less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land would be used for solar. More broadly, there are challenges and trade-offs. Land is finite, but the pressures we put upon it are increasing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve Reed
I will finish my speech, if Members do not mind.
That is why this Government will do what the previous Government failed to achieve, despite repeated promises. We will publish a land use framework, providing more clarity and starting a conversation on land use and how we can maintain food production, restore nature and grow the economy.
Farmers do a fantastic job for our country. They produce the food we eat and steward our beautiful countryside, and they deserve our support, but the previous Government let them down. Our new deal for farming will offer farmers a fresh start—action to cut energy bills, action on rural crime, action to open markets to trade and export, and action to cut the appalling levels of mental ill health that affect farmers right across our country. I welcome this debate and the chance to restate this Government’s support for farmers. After 14 years of failure, change has begun.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to take part in this debate and to speak not just on behalf of my party, but as the Member of Parliament for farmers from the Cartmel peninsula to the Eden valley, the Yorkshire dales, the Westmorland dales and the Lake district—for 1,500 wonderful farmers throughout the length and breadth of Westmorland and Lonsdale. I am humbled and utterly privileged to be their MP.
I am here primarily not to say how great the Liberal Democrats are—I am sure that is self-evident—but to state how utterly, unspeakably valuable farmers and farming are. They are valuable for producing the food that we all eat; if Members have eaten anything today, they should thank a farmer. They are utterly valuable in our fight against climate change. They are on the frontline tackling that threat, and are our best answer to the nature and biodiversity crisis that we have in our land. They are the people who protect the towns and villages near the countryside from the expensive and heartbreaking horrors of flooding, and who support and protect our heritage and—in my constituency in particular—underpin our remarkable tourism economy. Across the country, tourism and hospitality is our fourth biggest employer, but in Cumbria, that sector is our biggest employer. Some 60,000 people work within the industry; it is a £4.5 billion economy. Undoubtedly, farming is the backbone, the backdrop and the underpinning of that wonderful and important tourism and hospitality economy. Farmers need to hear that, and they need to hear that they are valued by this place and by this country, because they do not feel that. They feel beleaguered. Yes, beleaguered by things that are beyond our control—the weather, or the global shocks that are undoubtedly causing huge pressure on farmers—but also deeply beleaguered by public and Government policy.
We have an agriculture policy minted by the previous Conservative Government and, for the time being at least, maintained by this Labour Government, that is based on—this is the maddest thing I have heard myself say in this place, and I have said some mad things—disincentivising the production of food. Can we believe that that is literally the case? It is a policy created by the Conservative party and that, for the time being at least, is being maintained by the party currently in power. The consequence is that only 55% of the food we eat in this country is produced in this country. I have talked to Adam Day from the Cumbria Farmer Network, and he has been reported in the Farmers Guardian, so this is an absolutely legitimate figure: we have a year-on-year reduction in the number of sheep in this country of 4.2%. If we destock the fells of animals, we will soon after destock the countryside of human beings. It is a deep threat to our ability to feed ourselves.
Dr Murrison
I am following the hon. Gentleman’s remarks with a great deal of interest. Does he agree that the vast majority of people in this country, given the choice, would rather buy British food? Certainly, all the surveys that have been done would bear that out. However, one of the principal problems is the information they are provided with by the supermarkets and, I am afraid, the cynical way in which many of those supermarkets approach the labelling of food, suggesting it is British when in fact it is not. What does he suggest we do to give consumers, who have not yet been mentioned in this debate, the genuine choice they are seeking and to help our farmers along the way?
Tim Farron
The right hon. Member is absolutely right. I support the NFU’s call for accurate labelling that is enforceable, and he is right to say that.
To move on, if we are losing farms and losing farmers, which we are as we speak, not only are we losing our ability to feed ourselves as a country, but we are undermining our ability to deliver for the environment. Let us not fall into the mistake of thinking that this is a debate between caring for the environment and producing food; we either do them both or we do not do them at all. Some 70% of England’s land mass is agricultural, and the figure would be greater across the UK as a whole. If we think we are tackling the climate and nature crises without farmers, we are kidding ourselves. The greenest policies in the world will just be bits of paper in a drawer if we do not have the farmers on the ground to put them into practice.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Farmers in Frome and East Somerset, like many farmers, work tirelessly to produce food for our country. However, does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to acknowledge the role they also play in restoring nature and mitigating the effects of climate change, and that the Government need to support farmers to develop natural climate solutions to restore nature?
Tim Farron
I completely agree with that, and it leads me on to what I was going to say next, which is to praise Michael Gove. The environmental land management scheme created at the beginning of the last Parliament has an awful lot going for it, and there is actually cross-party support for the idea of public money for public goods, as my hon. Friend rightly points out.
I will say this: we have searched high and low for Brexit benefits, and this might be one of them. The common agricultural policy was riddled with all sorts of failures, some of which have been mentioned already. ELMs provide the possibility to have a bespoke farming and cultural environment policy that actually delivers what we want in the places where we want it, and providing environmental goods is absolutely part of that.
However, this positive idea with all-party support was botched by the last Administration. There was a £2.4 billion budget for England alone—eroded, of course, over five years by inflation and all the shocks we have talked about—yet even that pitiful budget, which was frozen by the last Government, was underspent by £358 million. What does that mean? It reduces our ability to feed ourselves as country, to restore nature and to tackle climate change. We did not spend the money not because farmers did not need it, but because of a surplus of complacency from a Conservative party that thought the countryside would always vote for it, because of a lack of care for farmers, their families and their communities, and from a fundamental absence of competence.
My message to the Secretary of State, the Treasury, the Prime Minister, and every Labour MP is this: please do not let the Treasury take financial advantage of Tory incompetence. Do not bake in the underspend. Please, Secretary of State, do not give in to No.11 and No.10. Protect this budget, because without that public money we will not get those public goods. Please fight your corner—[Interruption.] I am pleased to hear him say that he will do so. In fighting his corner, he will be fighting the countryside’s corner, and I want to support him in that.
I would like the Labour party to understand why the Conservatives botched the transition and why the money did not get spent. One of the few efficient things that the previous Administration did was to get rid of the basic payment on time and without any delay. That happened without any problems whatsoever. What did not happen at the same time was the adequate rolling out of new ELMs payments, in particular the sustainable farming incentive. We had a stop-start approach, and many people on historic stewardship schemes for example, were simply not able to get into the SFI.
At the Westmorland county show a few weeks ago I spoke to a youngish hill farmer in his 40s—I mention this particular case because it is so typical of all the others I have spoken about in my constituency and beyond. He said to me that by the end of the process he will have lost £40,000 in basic payments from his annual income. He will gain £14,000 in SFI, and by the way that cost him £6,000 in agent fees. That is a net loss every year of £26,000, and that is typical. That is why there is an underspend. Please do not bake it in. The Secretary of State rightly spoke about mental health, and in this time of flux and change I have never worried more about the mental health of my constituents, and of farmers in particular.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The suicide rate among male farmers is three times the national average. The Conservative party left rural communities such as mine facing a mental health crisis. A close family friend of mine, Rocky Poulson, took his own life just four days after a farm inspection found that 18 of his sheep were tagged with the wrong coloured ear tags, leaving him facing criminal sanctions and the embarrassment of that among his friends and colleagues—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. May I respectfully suggest to the hon. Lady, and all Members—she should be sitting if I am standing—that interventions should be short, they should be spontaneous, and they certainly should not be read out as if they were part of a speech. I am sure the hon. Lady has made her point.
Tim Farron
She really has, and I completely sympathise with her and those around her over the loss of her friend.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about young famers and mental health, and I know there is a brilliant project in his patch called Growing Well. Does he agree that the young farmers of this generation are very different from those who I grew up with, who were very much chemical farmers post-war? This generation believes in habitat and conservation, and all they ask for through ELMs is a strategic framework by which they can grow their businesses in the long term. That is the best security we can give them.
Tim Farron
I agree with that, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising Growing Well at Sizergh and Tebay, and the fantastic job it does in building mental health and connecting that with the countryside. I particularly want people who are not from rural constituencies to imagine what it is like in this time of flux and change, when people see the money going out the door and do not see it coming in. Typically, farmers are male. They will be my age or even older than me, and they will be perhaps the fifth, sixth or seventh generation who have farmed that farmstead. They see the very real prospect of being the one who loses the family farm. What does that do to someone’s head? We have heard the horrific consequences, and we need to love, cherish and care for our farmers, and recognise the terrible situation they are in at this moment of flux.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
As a past president of the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster I think the hon. Gentleman’s point is very apt. At this moment across the UK, 95% of farmers under 40 say that mental health is their biggest concern. It is not only about losing the family farm; it is about worrying where the next payment comes from. It is about relying on making that payment and about what they do for the next generation and the ones before and after. Mental health is a real problem, and I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not go into any great detail on that issue.
Tim Farron
Hopefully we have established that we need to care for those who feed us and care for our environment. Farmers need friends, so let me mention one potential very important friend: the Prime Minister. People may be aware that during the general election, the Prime Minister turned up in my constituency. I have the claim to fame that mine is the only constituency in the entire United Kingdom where Labour lost its deposit —by the way, my Labour opponent Pippa was excellent, and it was nothing to do with her—but the Prime Minister came to the Langdale valley in my constituency. Despite the fact that I am a Blackburn Rovers fan, I was pleased to see Gary Neville there. People will remember the party political broadcast that Labour had during the election campaign, as well as the Prime Minister’s recent speech at the Labour conference, where he talked about the importance of the Langdale valley to him personally growing up and to the development of who he is. I was moved by that. As the Member of Parliament for the Langdale valley, I am grateful to him for saying that. Langdale needs friends, and this is a moment where Langdale could do with the most important of friends, particularly when it comes to spending money.
I will read out some words from a hill farmer related to the Prime Minister’s comments about his upbringing in the Langdale valley. He said that he was “moved” that the Prime Minister championed Langdale so well, but he then said that
“farming communities in Langdale and other upland areas are facing severe financial hardship with many wondering whether they will survive…they have now lost 50% or more of the basic payment scheme, an integral part of their business income, which will actually all be gone soon. These farmers are almost all in old environmental stewardship schemes, which means that they are hardly able to access anything from the new ELMS scheme and the sustainable farming incentive. Not because they don’t want to, but because of computer and agency issues in DEFRA.”
If the Prime Minister loves Langdale, will he please prove it by ensuring that we invest in hill farmers and in farming more generally? We have focused on what the last Government got wrong.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Markus Campbell-Savours
I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. I am a fellow Cumbrian MP and I grew up in the Lake district, so I was pleased to see the Prime Minister’s story of an area that I know and love as well. Does the hon. Member agree that while the shadow Secretary of State’s introduction to this debate challenged us over our budget, the real issue that I hear from farmers in Cumbria is that it is one thing to have a budget, but if we cannot get it out the door, it is pretty meaningless? Does he agree that that is the real challenge?
Tim Farron
That is the real challenge, so we need to ensure that there is more money in the budget for welfare schemes and support to ensure that farmers can carry on farming. If we are taking the basic payment out relentlessly without anything to replace it, the Government should not be surprised if there is carnage. That is not just personal carnage and tragedies, but also a reduction in our ability to feed ourselves as a country.
Let us concentrate for a moment or two, before I shut up, on what we can do to put things right. First, the Liberal Democrats believe wholeheartedly, as in our costed manifesto, that there should be an additional billion pounds in the budget. We recognise that we cannot restore nature, tackle climate change or produce food on the cheap. We want to use at least some of that money to invest in trusted on-farm advice. A Conservative Member earlier made the point about how much of the EU money went to big landowners, but the problem is that the current situation is even worse. Who is not getting in? It is smaller farmers. If someone is working 90 hours a week on their farm, they do not have time to go and get informed and to engage in the process outside. They need someone they trust on their farm to hold their hand through the process of getting into this new world, so that there is a future for them and for their family. That is where some of that money needs to go.
We need to recognise that much of the money has disproportionately gone to big landowners, both public and private. The BBC reported, and I know this to be true, that one landowner alone evicted 65 tenants from one estate in in April 2024, giving people notice to quit that estate. The distribution of money between the richer farmers and the poorer is even worse than it was under the common agricultural policy, and we never thought that would even be possible. But we are seeing what I would describe, in no way lightly, as the Lakeland clearances, and as we lose livestock, we lose people.
I want to say something else positive. I have already mentioned at least one Conservative positively; Baroness Rock also did a tremendous job with the tenant farming review. The shadow Secretary of State’s predecessor did not meet her in all her time in her position. I am concerned to learn that Baroness Rock got the sack—whatever happened, she has been removed from her role—as the report is hugely important. Tenants need protecting, and there must be a tenant farm commissioner. I urge the Government to take on Baroness Rock’s report and recommendations in full, without any mitigation or equivocation.
The Government could also ensure that people in stewardship schemes are allowed into the SFI. Let us ensure that Farming in Protected Landscapes, which is a really important grant scheme, is renewed; its current end date is the end of March. Let us also do something fundamentally radical but blindingly obvious: let us make food a public good. Let us ensure that our agricultural policy actually encourages people to produce food.
This issue is not just about transition—people have talked about the trade deals; the Conservative Government threw Britain’s farmers under the bus when it came to them. There is also the lack of access to our nearest markets, which some Labour Members have mentioned, and the importance of restoring and normalising relationships with our biggest export market over the channel. For a generation, the Conservatives will carry around their neck, like an albatross, their record of betraying and taking for granted our rural communities in general, and farmers in particular.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that one of the elements of that betrayal was on rural crime, which increased, again, in the last 12 months? Will he join me in congratulating Cumbria’s rural crime team on their one-year anniversary, and in supporting the Government’s commitment, finally, to reversing the disgraceful rise in rural crime that we saw under the last Government?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his remarks, I point out that the Front Benchers have used about 20 minutes each. I am sure that he is coming to a close.
Tim Farron
I have been generous in giving way, and you have been even more generous, Madam Deputy Speaker. A minute and I am done. I agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns).
The Conservatives’ betrayal will rightly weigh around their neck for a generation—farmers have long memories—but if Labour bakes the Conservatives’ failure into its spending plans, it will hang out to dry not only Britain’s farmers, but its newly elected Members of Parliament. Rural communities need champions; Liberal Democrats will be those champions. We will make a conscious choice to step into the void; that is what rural communities need. We will be the voice for farmers, and for the whole of our countryside. We value our farmers; every day, on their job list is feeding the country and saving the planet. What a mission! It is our duty and our privilege to support them in that mission.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the next speaker, I should say that the Front-Bench speakers have used up a significant amount of time, aided and abetted, I have to say, by excessively long interventions, some of which were made by Members who did not hang around long in the Chamber after making them. It is a courtesy to the Chair, and to the Front-Bench speakers, that Members who wish to contribute to a debate be here for the start of it. Those who were not here then will not get called, because we have very little time left. I call John Whitby to make his maiden speech.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a genuine honour to address you and the House today. It is a privilege not just to represent the Derbyshire Dales, but even to be there, because it is truly an area of outstanding natural beauty—known to many hon. Members, I am sure, because it is a destination for millions. But its great appeal also presents a problem, particularly for younger people who are looking for housing. The little house building that takes place is more or less matched by the number of properties lost to second homes, holiday lets and Airbnbs. That results in the highest house prices in the region, which puts houses out of the reach of many young people; they end up moving to other areas to find more affordable housing. That in turn means fewer young families, fewer children, and schools with falling numbers on roll. Small businesses, including farms, pubs and restaurants, suffer as well, as they struggle to get staff due to the lack of affordable accommodation nearby. It is vital that we address this housing crisis.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, Sarah Dines, who stood up for the farming community in the dales—something that I very much hope to continue. I have had the pleasure of meeting her predecessor, Lord Patrick McLoughlin, who is in the other place, and I hope to benefit from his vast experience of the constituency.
The main industries in the dales are, unsurprisingly, tourism, leisure and hospitality, quarrying and agriculture. I am hopeful that the new Government can secure a veterinary agreement with the European Union to give our struggling farmers a boost. I have spent much of my first few weeks in the role speaking to farmers to try to understand what the key issues are for them. Food security in an increasingly unstable world must be a high priority.
The dales have great historical significance. According to the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, in the 10th century, the northern kings met Edward the Elder at the Bakewell burh and chose him as father and lord, effectively creating the entity that we call England. Arkwright’s mill at Cromford is the birthplace of mass production, and of course it was powered by renewable energy. I recently met the Arkwright Society, which is restoring the site for the benefit of future generations and doing a great job. I also recently met Jamie Needle, who has taken on Masson mill, another of Arkwright’s mills. He is also concerned with the delivery of hydroelectric power from the Derwent—what goes around comes around. Stone from Derbyshire quarries was used in the reconstruction of Parliament in the 19th century, and the founder of modern nursing, Florence Nightingale, lived in the constituency, at the family residence at Lea Hurst. She said:
“Nursing is a progressive art such that to stand still is to go backwards.”
Today’s health service is barely standing still. We need to reduce the waiting lists, and to get 3 million working-age people back to work as soon as possible.
I know from my time as the Mayor of Derby that so much of the good being done daily never makes the headlines; good deeds do not appear to sell newspapers or attract advertising. But in my few weeks in this role, I have already met some remarkable people and organisations who are making a difference in the constituency and further afield. Aquabox is a Cromford charity with over 80 volunteers who supply clean water solutions to people in disaster zones. Terry Eckersley at River Network provides social housing and a second chance to people in need. Bakewell Youth Theatre has been led and inspired by Sue Stones for 46 years. I appreciate that this is on a different scale, but Chatsworth House, no less, has given invaluable opportunities to children and young people in the area by having a “takeover” day at the world-famous stately home. I must mention Ben Woodroffe, our world champion toe wrestler—yes, it’s a thing. As well as being a great bloke and a champion, he has raised valuable funds for the mental health charity Mind.
I hope the days of having a reasonable expectation that one’s children will do well in life are not over, but they seem at least to be on pause. A lack of housing, a reduction in opportunity due to political decision making, unrestrained social media and a climate crisis mean that my children are entering adulthood with much greater uncertainty than I did. As a foster carer of teenage children for 24 years, I know how tough things are for young people in general, but they are much harder for young people leaving care now than they were just a few years ago. Local authorities are running on fumes, so the support has diminished, and unfortunately the prejudice against care-experienced young people still persists. The new Government must work towards fixing the broken children’s social care market, address the lack of placement sufficiency, and end the profiteering from vulnerable children that is driving our local authorities to the brink of bankruptcy.
I did not even bother to check with the Commons Library, but I am very sure that I am the first former singer of a progressive metal band to be elected to this House. Although my gigging days are behind me, I think, I am extremely pleased that the Labour Government will seek a deal with the EU to help our touring acts, who suffer no end of red tape when trying to get to the continent to ply their trade. The UK music industry has been an enormous success story over many decades and we need to support all of it—not just the multimillion selling acts, but the ones playing to a couple of hundred people, who will hopefully be tomorrow’s multimillion selling acts.
During my campaign, I was struck by the sheer number of constituents whose No. 1 priority for an incoming Government was either the climate or nature, so I feel empowered to say that as influencers and makers of law, we have a duty to think not just in the short term and until the next election, but about those who have not even been born yet, and to leave behind a habitable planet. I was particularly proud to campaign under a banner of public service—service to our constituents and the nation. Country first, party second. We are here not for the status, but for the people who elected us. I will try to keep reminding myself of that. We must deliver on our commitments, but we must also treat the staff here, the staff working in our offices, our colleagues in local government and in the civil service and our constituents with the respect that they deserve. If we can do that, we will move this great bastion of democracy a little closer to the people it serves.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Due to time pressures, there will immediately be a three-minute time limit, other than for maiden speeches, which Members should try to make around seven minutes long—certainly no longer. I call Sir John Hayes.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I will make five points in three minutes—if I can pull that off, I trust I will go up even further in your estimation, Madam Deputy Speaker.
First, this Government, like all Governments, need to recognise that the food chain in this country is distorted by the power of a handful of huge corporate retailers. For far too long they have taken the lion’s share of the agricultural cake. It is critical that we rebalance the chain in favour of primary and secondary producers. Previous Governments have done some work on that, with the establishment of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I was in government when that was set up, but it needs more teeth to act on sharp practice by retailers who run ragged over primary producers.
Secondly, we need a strategy for food security. That means recognising that food security is as important as energy security; they must not be made competitors one with the other. We saw during covid and after the start of the war in Ukraine just what damage the unforeseen and unexpected can do to international markets and supply lines. It is critical that we grow more of what we consume, and shorten those supply lines to ensure that people will be fed by produce that is made here in the United Kingdom.
Graham Stuart
Is my right hon. Friend disappointed, as I am, that the Secretary of State did not say more about food security, and how we can make sure that a greater share of our food comes from this country?
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend has been a champion of these matters for a considerable period. I have hopes of the Secretary of State. I had a debate just before the recess in which the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs participated. I made the case for food security, and he gave me a fair hearing. I look forward to the meeting to which I know he is about to invite me; I can bring along a group of farmers and growers, to have that ongoing conversation. The core point is that food security matters. It not only helps with economic resilience but assists with traceability, quality, standards—all those things.
My third point was stimulated by the Secretary of State’s comments about investment and our need to think big. We do indeed. To maintain productivity and efficiency in farming and growing, we need to look to the future. That means greater automation and changing the way we go about the food production business. It means greater integration, but not at the expense of the small farmers and growers. An efficient system does not necessarily mean exclusively huge farm businesses, as we need an entry point to the industry. If we simply create a handful of very large corporate farmers, we will not allow the kind of fluidity necessary to maintain the health of the industry.
My fourth point is on procurement. The Government need to use procurement to support British produce. It is not that difficult, but no Government, of any party, have got it right. We have made some progress over time, as different Governments have launched different initiatives, but we need to use the public purse to support what we do in this country more effectively.
My final point is this: we can have a debate about the detail of policy but, as has been said by the shadow Secretary of State and others, we need to take a bigger view than the partisan knockabout that too often prevails in this kind of discussion. This is about the future good of our people through the production of food to feed the nation.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for food security, I have been working across the House to ensure that we work towards affordable food that is available and accessible to everyone. Yet from some of the contributions I have heard from Conservative Members, it is clear that over the past 14 years they have not reflected on how they have failed rural communities. We would not be here today if they had held the mantle on food security. Our farmers already have low confidence because the Conservatives eroded their trust, but our rural communities are not a political football. They deserve respect. They want action, not words. If the Opposition think that rural affairs is tricky ground for those on the Labour Benches, they can well and truly think again. Just look at our new crop of Labour MPs. We won seats right across the country, from Scarborough to south Pembrokeshire. The farming community has firm friends on the Labour Benches.
Let me turn to work that the Government are doing, from unlocking precision breeding to launching a new deal for farmers. The Government’s work on food security transcends the work of a single Department, from seeking to secure a new veterinary agreement to launching GB Energy, which will lower production costs. We are also paving the way on flood resilience. If I may, I will draw on some local context in York. I visited a fantastic carrot farm in York Outer, but I was gobsmacked to hear that in a bad year of flooding it can lose a quarter of its crop. I dread to think about the impacts if we do not turn the tide of climate change. That is why I urge the continuation of critical resilience funds to support farmers like the one I met.
Water scarcity is a critical issue. There are real pressures, despite the wettest 18 months on record. It must be 30 years since we last built a reservoir, and farmers struggle from drought, too.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend said, many Labour Members are supportive of farmers. I am a proud farmer’s daughter and I am delighted to speak in this debate. The previous Government sold farmers down the river. We had disastrous trade deals and they suffer from terrible weather—we can, at least, say that that was not the Tories’ fault. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to support Welsh farmers, they need a strong financial package?
Mr Charters
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic advocate for her constituents. The agriculture budget is hugely important to protect food security.
Another critical issue is biosecurity, so I was disappointed to see that the Opposition left it out of their motion. At present, the UK has a number of confirmed cases of bluetongue. I was briefed by the deputy chief veterinary officer earlier today. I welcome the Secretary of State’s action on bluetongue serotype 3 vaccines. That, coupled with the exclusion zones policy, is a welcome first response to what is a complex crisis fuelled by climate change—I will not get into the intricacies of midges and the wind from the continent. That is a clear signal that the Government are taking biosecurity seriously.
I want to touch on my recent engagement with Sainsbury’s. I hope colleagues from across the House will join me in welcoming food retailers that put food security at the heart of their business model. I am encouraged by what Sainsbury’s is doing.
I am conscious of time, but I just stress that food is one of the 13 critical national infrastructure sectors in the UK. Food security is national security, so I respectfully say to the Opposition: stop the politics and work constructively with us on food security. It is great to see the Government making progress. I look forward to working with them to safeguard Britain’s national food security.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Dr Roz Savage to make her maiden speech.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the House. I also thank my hon. Friends for their contributions to this important debate on food and farming.
It is an absolute honour to address the Chamber as the newly elected Member of Parliament for South Cotswolds. It is a new constituency, formed from parts of the former Cotswolds and North Wiltshire seats. The hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) continues his service in his constituency, while James Gray served North Wiltshire for 27 years. Although Mr Gray’s and my political views may differ substantially, he was a dedicated constituency MP, and I hope to follow in his footsteps in that regard at least.
The Cotswolds has a well-deserved reputation for natural and architectural beauty. It always gladdens my heart to see the soaring, slender spire of St Mary’s church in Tetbury, the elegant honeystone buildings around the marketplace in Cirencester, or the awe-inspiring arches of Malmesbury abbey. We have beautiful villages, including three category winners of the Wiltshire Best Kept Villages competition: Ashton Keynes, Seagry and Hankerton. We have vibrant communities, thriving businesses, and visionary innovators and inventors. King Charles had the good taste to choose Highgrove, near Tetbury, as his country home, and his gardens are well worth a visit; I am still waiting for my invitation to join His Majesty there for an organic cream tea.
South Cotswolds is a rural constituency, characterised by a rich agricultural landscape, with a proud farming heritage and a plethora of fabulous farmers’ markets full of tempting goodies. Eighty-seven per cent of the land within the Cotswolds area of outstanding natural beauty is dedicated to agriculture, and we have more than 750 farm holdings in South Cotswolds, employing over 2,000 people. Our beautiful landscape is a diverse mix of crops and grassland, and livestock farming constitutes a significant sector, with cattle, sheep and pigs. I can recommend Cirencester livestock market as probably the best place in the constituency, if not the country, to get a gargantuan farmer’s breakfast that really sets you up for the day—if not for the entire week.
The Cotswolds is known for our traditional farming practices—most of the farms are family run, and often have been for many, many generations—but there is plenty of innovation too. Earlier this year, I hosted an event at the Royal Agricultural University in Cirencester, where we heard that many farms in the region are embracing sustainable and regenerative approaches, focusing on soil health, wildlife conservation and local food production. The “Royal Ag” itself is leading the field, so to speak, with zero dig farming methods. However, not all is rosy in the Cotswolds garden. Our farmers are frustrated by the absence of a long-term strategy. They need to plan 20 or 30 years ahead, beyond the next electoral cycle. They need a clear vision of the future, a vision that can survive changes of Government.
We need to attract more young people into farming. Last year, I “helped” a couple of farmers to bring in the brussels sprout harvest. As I stood in a muddy field on a grey December day, they told me about the problems they had had in recruiting young people into farming. Thirty-eight per cent of farmers are 65 or older, and only 15% are under 45. Astonishingly, it seems that not many young people enjoy being out in the middle of a field in all weathers, doing hard physical work for very little money! A significant number of them do, but the main obstacle is gaining access to land. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State imply that he would be working to encourage more younger people into farming, making it easier and more rewarding for them to help to feed our country high-quality food that has not travelled halfway around the world.
On the south-eastern edge of my constituency, a really exciting initiative is under way at the marvellously named Crapper’s landfill site, which is leading on sustain circles. This concept aims to meet 80% of a community’s food, housing, jobs and energy needs within a defined radius around the community, increasing self-reliance and resilience. The idea is being pioneered with a plan to position pressurised plastic greenhouses on old landfill zones, using the methane emissions from the decomposing rubbish to heat the greenhouses. It aims to grow enough fruit and vegetables to feed Royal Wootton Bassett, Brinkworth and Malmesbury. We need more creative projects like this.
Elsewhere in Wiltshire, a proposal for a massive solar farm on 2,000 acres of mostly agricultural land has sparked debate about how we choose to use our land. We need to stop thinking, “Housing here, renewables here and food production here,” and to look at more creative ways to make our land multi-layered and multi-purpose. It is becoming clearer than ever that we need an integrated strategy, not least because building more houses will increase rainwater run-off and increase the burden on an already overloaded sewage system.
In my constituency in the last year alone, the Fairford sewage treatment works pumped untreated sewage into the River Coln for 3,391 hours, which equates to over four and a half months. Incidents that are meant to be exceptional are happening on average over three times a week. Across the constituency, sewage is flooding into houses, gardens and schools. It is flooding out across fields, where cattle consume it, get sick and die. I urge Thames Water to upgrade the Fairford sewage works as a matter of the utmost urgency, and Ofwat to make sure that it does.
For me, the cleanliness or otherwise of our rivers is personal, and I would like to share a little background. I am not from anywhere in particular. My father was a Methodist minister, and my parents moved house for the first time when I was two years old. They continued to move house with annoying frequency thereafter. My father’s excuse was that he ran out of sermons after a certain number of years, so we had to move house so that he could recycle them. I am all in favour of recycling, but I think he presumed a higher degree of attention, and a longer span of memory, than the typical church member has. Sadly, my parents are no longer around to see me take my seat in this House, but I know they would have been proud. Above all else, they believed that their job was to serve the community as exemplars of God’s love, and I am honoured to follow in their footsteps—but I digress.
Since I have been old enough to choose where I live, I seem to keep coming back to the River Thames. I took my first oar strokes on the Thames in Oxford, and rowed out of Thames rowing club in Putney for several years. I lived in Fulham, Putney, Brentford, Kew, Richmond and Windsor before moving to the Cotswolds. The River Thames rises in my constituency as little more than a trickle just outside Cricklade, gradually gathering tributaries, including the highly polluted Coln, to become the magnificent Father Thames that flows past these Houses of Parliament.
The Thames has been a constant thread throughout much of my adult life, so I care passionately about water issues, and about climate and nature more generally. This is a passion that led me, in my 30s, to spend an inordinate amount of time alone in a tiny rowboat in the middle of various oceans as I rowed solo across the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian, using my voyages to raise awareness of environmental issues and our growing ecological crisis. Along the way, I gained some really impressive callouses, four Guinness world records and, hopefully, some highly transferable skills in navigating shark-infested waters, which may possibly stand me in good stead in my new career.
Like many who care about our environment, I sometimes despair, but in closing I would like to say that what gives me hope for the future is the public spirit, the energy and the goodness that I see in action in the South Cotswolds. When the Government are telling us that there is no money and councils are struggling, I see our communities coming together, using their creativity and resourcefulness to work out how to make a little go a long way, sharing resources, looking to their neighbours, donating time and skills and looking out for each other. We have fabulous organisations, including the Cirencester Pantry, Heals of Malmesbury, and Community Fridges in Purton, Malmesbury and Tetbury. It is so inspiring to see people coming together in mutual support.
People of the South Cotswolds, you inspire me and you humble me. I am so grateful to my constituents for trusting me to represent their interests and those of this country. I commit to doing my absolute best to rise to this challenge with unwavering determination, integrity and dedication.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
It is an absolute honour to follow the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage). Hearing her speech and her passion and dedication, not just for the area she lives in but for the environment in general, is inspiring for everyone in the House, so I congratulate her on her maiden speech.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I would like to pay tribute to my neighbour, the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), for an excellent maiden speech. I am very glad that she appreciates the huge beauty of parts of my former constituency. I know that she will represent it well. I was very sorry to lose it. I have many friends in that constituency and I wish her well.
Ben Goldsborough
It is lovely to hear a bit of cross-party action to start off; I will try not to spoil that tone.
Today’s debate is a vital one on the future of not only South Norfolk’s food security but that of the UK. For too long, those who have put food on our table have worked our land but sadly been taken for granted. I stand here as the first Labour MP for South Norfolk in 74 years. That should show the House that rural communities up and down the country have wanted change, and it is for us to prove that we are ready to take up that mantle.
In South Norfolk we are lucky, because we have the innovation of the Norwich research park. Those who are local—I can see nodding from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman)—will know that these are the centres of excellence that will drive our agriculture forward in agritech and high-end industry. The innovation of the John Innes Centre is second to none as it strives to meet the increasing demands and pressures on the national and international food security system. The gene editing techniques that it has been developing and working on have the potential to transform British agriculture by increasing yields and crop resilience, and to help us face the climate crisis that we are all heading towards.
I welcome the news from the Front Bench that the Government will be taking action on precision breeding. That is a great step forward in what we needed to see. There is an incredible opportunity in the heart of South Norfolk to transform our food security and to support farmers on the frontline who are dealing with the consequences of climate change in producing more food with less impact on the environment.
As we address the challenges facing our farmers and the urgent need to secure our food supply, it is important to highlight the amazing work of the Earlham Institute. The Earlham Institute is a beacon of life sciences training and innovation, and its contributions are vital to tackling food insecurity and safeguarding our future. Its cutting-edge research is developing the latest tools and approaches to monitor and predict how diseases evolve and spread. This kind of knowledge is critical for the future of British farming, as it will allow us to anticipate and mitigate the risks that threaten our food security. The Earlham Institute’s contributions go far beyond research. It is also a hub for training the next generation of scientists and ensuring that Britain remains at the forefront of life sciences and agricultural innovation. I am immensely proud to represent the constituency that is home to such important institutions. The Earlham Institute is doing the hard work necessary to safeguard our food security and supply.
Faced with the challenges of water security—sadly, I note that that was missing from the Opposition’s motion—farmers tell me when I meet them that there is a huge barrier in the way of their collecting the water that they need and building the reservoirs that they want on their land because of action taken by the Environment Agency. Why on earth should we stand in the way of farmers who want to protect their land from drought, while also protecting local areas from flood risk, by capturing water to use at a lower cost than tapping into the mains water that we all need? I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will work with me to secure planning reform on this issue, so that we can build more reservoirs on farming land to help with food security.
Farmers have also raised concerns with me about biodiversity net-gain regulations, which are currently slowing down our progress on food production. I recently visited Fischer Farms, just over the border, and it is a great step forward. I hope that we can adopt these measures.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call David Chadwick to make his maiden speech.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I stand here as the first ever MP for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe. It is the largest constituency in England and Wales, and I therefore have a foot in two worlds—one in rural mid-Wales and the other in the Swansea valley. I wish to pay tribute to my predecessors, Fay Jones and Christina Rees, for their commitment to Welsh politics and their service to these communities.
The north of the constituency starts in the uplands of Radnorshire, a historical county featuring the market towns of Knighton, Rhayader—the outdoors capital of Wales—and Presteigne. Our constituency has three spa towns: Llandrindod Wells, Builth Wells and Llanwrtyd Wells. Builth Wells, of course, is where the Royal Welsh show, Europe’s largest agricultural gathering, takes place each summer.
At the centre of the constituency is my handsome, historical hometown of Brecon, which is home to the Army in Wales and a thriving Nepalese community. The world book town of Hay-on-Wye shows that a small rural town can be a world leader, as does Britain’s best high street in Crickhowell, not forgetting the horticultural talents on display in Talgarth. At the head of the Swansea valley is Ystradgynlais, the birthplace of the British iron industry, and Pontardawe, where the roof of the White House was made.
This enormous constituency was not created by popular demand but was welded together following the previous Government’s decision to cut the number of Welsh constituencies by a fifth. Wales responded by cutting the number of Welsh Conservative MPs to zero. Welsh farmers will not forget the trade deals that the previous Government signed with New Zealand and Australia. Wales wants a fairer deal from this Parliament.
Yesterday, we debated the challenges facing the NHS in England. Many of my constituents travel to England for NHS treatment, and I have tried healthcare systems across the world. I was run over by a car in the Netherlands and was paralysed by Guillain-Barré syndrome in Argentina—it was a tough couple of years—so I have seen how high-quality healthcare changes lives and saves lives.
I am sorry to say that the Welsh NHS is in dire straits. Its outcomes are worse than those in England, yet no equivalent review is taking place in Wales. Instead, the Welsh Government are forcing health boards to make heavy budget cuts. They are proposing to cut the opening hours of minor injuries units at hospitals in Brecon, Llandrindod Wells and Ystradgynlais, forcing local residents to travel long distances, relying on roads that are often closed or bus journeys that can take a whole day. People living in rural areas should not have to pay a rural penalty to access healthcare. Indeed, rural areas can help to tackle the healthcare crisis we face.
Let us take obesity, for example. We can lighten the load on our NHS by bettering the nation’s diet. If we recognised the true value of good food and local produce, we would appreciate the public health and environmental benefits from money spent on the agriculture budget. The Government must be aware of the agriculture budget’s massive multiplier effect for the rural economy, and they should give farmers the stability and funding they need.
Food security is a major concern. Some 61% of farmers are considering giving up, and the farming workforce is dwindling. Our farmers and growers produce world-class produce, battling harsh weather and constantly changing market conditions. These market conditions are often set by the retail giants, and I know that my predecessor, Roger Williams, fought to level the relationship between retailers and farmers by strengthening the Groceries Code Adjudicator. It is a shame that the Conservatives did not do more to strengthen that code during their time in office. I will carry on that fight.
During the past week, we have seen an important campaign by Riverford, holding supermarkets to account for misleading shoppers with fake farm brands and driving Britain’s family farms to the brink. That is just one example of the challenges that farmers face. We need to champion local food systems, not imports. Let us support the movement towards rebuilding local supply chains, driven by a new generation of rural entrepreneurs, who are opening restaurants, building brands, bringing back jobs and remaking our high streets.
That spirit of innovation still flourishes in Wales. We once had the lead in industrial sciences. We were the world’s first industrial nation, but now Wales is £10,000 a head poorer than England, and still shedding jobs. For both of my grandfathers, the steel industry was the first rung on the career ladder. One of them climbed the ladders at Port Talbot, but now those ladders have been taken away. Those jobs must be replaced for the families in my constituency who are now facing unemployment before Christmas.
If this Government want to back Welsh industry and Welsh jobs, they can show it by backing the global centre for rail excellence in Onllwyn. Great Britain has no all-purpose testing centre for railway vehicles and infrastructure, but a former mine has been repurposed to be that facility. Give us the tools and we will get on with it, for we still know how to dig ourselves out of a hole in Wales.
We are a creative people. We love music, words and singing. We love reading about other people, which is why my constituency sustains three local newspapers— The Brecon and Radnor Express, The County Times and The Mid Wales Journal—as well as the Ponty Mag, The Beacon and the Rhosgoch Gossip.
Finally, I thank my partner, Gemma, whose bravery and resourcefulness continue to inspire me; my son, William; and our next soon-to-be-born child, who does not have a name yet. I am opting for Enzo, so I would love the House’s support for that. I dedicate my work here to fighting for the future they deserve.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on such an impassioned maiden speech, and I wish him the best of luck in his naming battles, as they develop.
I have become very fond of saying that I am the MP for the largest constituency in England, where I am conscious that agricultural and rural communities have a significant stake. They make a significant contribution to the local economy. If the farms were taken out of the constituency, it would not just be the economy that is ruined; the landscape and tourism would also be ruined, and countless communities that have existed for centuries would be undermined.
Unfortunately, our rural communities are in the midst of a crisis, including a depopulation crisis. Young people cannot find the jobs and homes that allow them to afford to remain where they grew up, and therefore we have an ageing population. Hospitality businesses are unable to continue to grow and are forced to close their doors. That is directly linked to the crisis in our farming communities, because they are often the customers for those businesses.
Over the weekend I was privileged to visit Goodfellow Farming in Longwitton, on the eastern border of my constituency. I spoke to the owner about the shape of British farming and the very real crisis we have inherited from the Conservatives. The shadow farming Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), is a former Northumberland county councillor. He was very gracious in welcoming three new Labour Members for the area to this place, and I thank him for his friendliness and candour in doing so. I just complimented him on the beauty of the Alnwick ward, where I look forward to campaigning in the local elections that are coming up.
The people of the Hexham constituency voted for Labour for the first time ever at the last election because they recognise the crises we face. I say that not to make a hackneyed political point, but to make a real point about the work that I intend to do, as a new Member in the House, to shine a light on the depopulation crisis we face. I gently remind shadow Ministers on the Opposition Front Bench that we know that we have inherited a very broken farming system. I was delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend the now Secretary of State to my constituency during the general election campaign to meet local farmers. I am confident that this Government and this Front-Bench team are listening to them and that we can work to drive up standards in our farming and secure generational farms for the future. Ultimately, a Department that managed to underspend by £300 million is not one that was functioning properly under the previous Government. I say that not to be overtly political, but simply to emphasise that we need a Government who work in the interests of communities up and down the Tyne valley and from the County Durham border up to the Scottish border.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is an honour to follow my constituency neighbour across the border, the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris).
Today’s debate is on a topic that interests me greatly as the son of a farmer, and also as a proud MP for a rural constituency where farmers, land managers and workers in the rural economy deliver some of the finest produce anywhere in the United Kingdom. We have so many outstanding farmers and food producers in the Scottish Borders it is impossible to name even half of them.
We should be immensely proud of the food and drink produced here on our doorstep, but too often the concerns and the needs of farmers are taken for granted. They are overlooked by the SNP Government at Holyrood and now they seem to be ignored by the Labour Government here at Westminster. Politicians in those parties talk freely of the need for food security, but they do not seem to understand who delivers that food security. They speak of the need for great and high-quality produce without properly recognising the hard work that goes into producing it. They talk of the benefits of reaching net zero targets by managing land effectively and reducing the air miles for food, but do not give enough credit to the farmers who are achieving that.
If Members wonder what I mean, they should look no further than this Labour Government. The Labour party manifesto for the recent general election made no mention of its plan for funding for farming.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I know that many farmers in my constituency of Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge are deeply worried about some of the talk about changes to the tax regime, not just to inheritance tax, but to capital gains tax, and how that will impact the future viability of their business and the ability for farms to be farmed by families.
John Lamont
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about both the funding arrangements and the tax changes that have been speculated about in the press.
Farmers are in the dark about what comes next. There may be budget cuts and there may be financial pain, but they do not really know. The Government should be listening to NFU Scotland, which recently submitted a detailed budget submission to the United Kingdom Government. Let me put on record what that submission said. It underlined the need for an increased, multi-annual, ringfenced agriculture and rural economy funding commitment in the Budget. Labour must also pay attention to the warning from NFU Scotland that, without adequate funding from the UK Government, the majority of farmers in Scotland would cease to be viable.
This Labour Government cannot do to farmers what they have done to pensioners by cutting their winter fuel payment. The change they promised in the election is already looking hollow to the Scottish and British public. If they go on to cut farmers’ funding, that will reveal again that Labour is not on the side of businesses and workers. It will show that all its priorities are wrong. I do hope that it will see sense, listen to our farmers and do the right thing.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
In addressing food security, I wish to begin with food insecurity. Both families and farmers across the UK have seen increasing food and energy bills because of the chop and change policies of the previous Government. More than 12,000 farmers and agri-businesses have been forced out of business since 2010 due to Tory neglect. Furthermore, repeated sell-out trade deals—we have heard about the botched Brexit deal—have lumbered farming with the lowest profitability of any sector in the economy. It is important to my constituents in Bathgate and Linlithgow, and to all our constituents, that we have a stable and secure supply of food. We need to see earnings returned to farmers as profit, not spent on costly energy bills.
For households across the country, the cost of energy has undermined personal food security. Farming is exposed to skyrocketing energy prices and the soaring cost of animal feed and fertiliser, which is up 44% compared with 2019.
In recent months, we have heard from some Opposition Members that solar energy farms are a risk to our food security. I am very glad that we heard mention of the NFU president—whose ears must be burning today—because he called for balance when criticisms are made of where and when land is taken out of production. Perhaps the Conservatives could take note of that constructive approach. The farming community has shown great initiative and led on solar energy—something that Opposition Members have failed to recognise. NFU Scotland has struck a new deal with a major solar energy company, affirming that the land use required for new solar initiatives would have a marginal impact on farming. That deal involves farmers, who know the land best, in identifying sites for development and earnings from that partnership, and I believe that the House should welcome such commitment to net zero and to collaborative working. As a result of cutting energy costs and delivering more revenue directly to farmers, such working offers the opportunity for a positive future between the farming community and renewable energies.
For farmers it is not just about energy costs, but about market access and trade, as we have heard; and delivering for farmers does not just mean fixing the problems of previous botched trade deals. I welcome the Government’s quick action to ensure that our farmers get a fair deal, meaning lowered energy costs and increased renewable energy sources, and ensuring that households, including farmers, have the means and the ability to put food on the table.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Luke Taylor to make his maiden speech.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. It is a pleasure to follow the fine speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), whose recollection of the three newspapers in his constituency is incredibly impressive—I encourage him to tell us all about his achievements in those pages over the next few years; from the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), who described Dovedale and Chatsworth House, which I remember fondly from holidays in my youth and from playing rugby in Matlock and Ashbourne; and from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), whose description of farming as standing in the fields in all sorts of weathers made me recall my experiences of playing rugby in the Derbyshire dales all those years ago.
I do not exaggerate when I say that it is the honour of my life to serve as the Member of Parliament for Sutton and Cheam. I am so grateful to the thousands of residents who put their trust in me just a few months ago. I promise them: I will always do my very best for you and our communities, from Sutton to Worcester Park, Cheam to Belmont and everywhere in between. I hope I am already going some way to repaying the trust they have put in me by voting to end the two-child benefit cap, voting to save the winter fuel payment, and already helping hundreds of them with issues and concerns through my office. To the people who did not vote for me, or did not vote at all, who have lost all faith in politics and its servants, please allow me the opportunity to restore some of that trust.
To my predecessor, Paul Scully, I say thank you for his nine years of service to Sutton and Cheam. Politically, we agreed on very little, but I know he did what he thought was best for our residents. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to my Liberal Democrat predecessor Paul Burstow, who served for 18 years and whose name is still fondly remembered by so many residents on the doorstep. And to my loved ones—my wife and children, my mum and dad—I say that I would not be here without your support.
As the Father of the House may remember, my dad stood against him in Gainsborough in 1992 and ’97. Therefore I must thank him, too, for helping to ensure that I am the first member of my family to find themselves in this place, rather than my old man.
Sutton and Cheam is small, but it is perfectly formed. It is the smallest of all 72 Liberal Democrat constituencies. Our boundaries have remained largely unchanged for 80 years, which alone must prove that Sutton and Cheam is the greatest constituency in the country. They got it right in 1945 and they have not felt the need to change it ever since.
I could give Members a guided tour of our beautiful constituency but, for me, it is the people who make up our community and make Sutton and Cheam what it is. We have recyclers, repairers and reusers improving sustainability and protecting our planet. We have litter pickers, bulb planters and neighbourhood watchers making our area safer, cleaner and better to live in. We have Sutton fans, Dons fans, Palace fans, Chelsea fans and even the odd long-suffering Spurs supporter. We have had recent arrivals of Hongkongers, Ukrainians and Afghanis who have come to Sutton to find a new home. We have long-established communities of Tamils, Ahmadiyyas, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. We have Anglicans and atheists, Catholics and Methodists—all building the unique mosaic of our communities.
Our local football team, Sutton United FC, play at Gander Green Lane, in my council ward, where their fight to rejoin the football league continues. A recent point apiece from Eastleigh and Yeovil—other Lib Dem constituencies—will help us get there, but the generous people of Woking gave us three points only two weeks ago, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for that. With its fantastic community outreach work, the club proves every year the value of our local football clubs. In politics and football, the people of Sutton know that their colour truly is amber. That is why they have had a Liberal Democrat-run council for almost 40 years—our longest-running local administration in the country.
As many of my colleagues will know, however, there is only so much that councils and councillors can do to tackle the biggest problems that Governments have failed to solve for years. That is why I decided to run for election to this House: to tackle the national issues that people in my constituency face.
For as long as I can remember, I have wanted to fix things. I went from building Lego as a child to rebuilding gearboxes as a teenager. I attended my local comprehensive school in rural Lincolnshire, and many of my friends and classmates growing up were involved in the critical work that farmers do to keep food on our tables and act as stewards for our environment—vital tasks that this debate correctly highlights. At school, I served as a prefect, alongside the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). Our political paths have diverged since we last worked together—more than 20 years ago, arranging the De Aston school sixth-form leavers’ ball—but I am proud that we are part of the largest cohort of state-educated MPs in history.
My passion for fixing things led me to London and to Imperial College, where I studied engineering, which led to many years working in the transport industry around the world, but there is so much more that needs fixing in our country than planes, trains and automobiles. Raising my family in Sutton and Cheam with my wonderful wife, I have seen at first hand the broken cogs and blown fuses across our public services, from the NHS and social care to education and policing.
In today’s Britain, the social contract has been broken. In our politics, cynicism and self-interest have replaced service and duty, and many feel that it is simply no longer true that if they work hard and play by the rules, they will enjoy the security and opportunity that everyone deserves. A fair deal no longer exists between the British state and the people, and that is evident across every policy area. As an engineer, I feel confident in saying that the very foundations of our country are broken. It is time that we picked up our tools to fix them.
As the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson for our capital, I will hold the Government to account for all Londoners—fixing London’s creaking infrastructure and never-ending housing crisis, and pushing for reform of and proper funding for the Met. If people have been listening to the Lib Dems for the last few years, they will know exactly what the River Thames is full of.
There is much to be said on all those topics, but I will finish by highlighting one that is dear to me and my constituents: hospices. One of the first emails I received after being elected was from our local hospice, St Raph’s, which is searching for help to stop £1 million-worth of funding cuts that would see staff made redundant and clinical services slashed. The cuts would put Sutton’s GPs, hospitals and district nurses under huge and unmanageable pressure, and leave families abandoned, unsupported and in genuine distress at a time when they need kindness and support the most. For patients, the cuts could tragically hasten their passing and deny them their dignity.
In this Parliament, we have an opportunity to build a better plan, so that people have somewhere to spend their final days in the comfort and care that we all deserve as human beings. I look forward to working with Members from across the House. If they will pick up their tools with this engineer, who knows a thing or two about fixing things, together we can fix our country, restore trust and deliver hope.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
May I start by paying my respects to the resident who died in my constituency during the recent floods? I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with her family. I thank the Secretary of State for leaving the Labour conference early to visit Northamptonshire and ensure that we had the support that we needed. Over 1,000 Northampton South residents were evacuated from their homes.
I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor). I send my commiserations to his father on his election losses, but I am sure that he is very proud to see his son sitting on these green Benches.
Unfortunately, I cannot support the Opposition’s motion. I believe that we should support all possible funding opportunities for our farmers, but the motion seeks to commit the Government to underfunded—and in some cases imaginary—policies proposed in May 2024 by the previous Prime Minister. Those policies have contributed to the £22-billion black hole that the Labour party has inherited. They were political gestures and not a real offer to the UK farming community. People saw through that: 61% of people told Farmers Weekly that they trusted a Labour Government, whereas only 6% trusted the Conservatives.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that so many Labour MPs have a farming background, as I do, and that so many rural seats are represented by Labour, makes it clear that we are now the true champions of our farming community?
Mike Reader
It is very clear that Labour is on the side of our farming and agricultural sector. I stand here as the hopeful chair of the all-party parliamentary group for food. I am sure that those who are concerned about food security will join us at our inaugural general meeting very shortly. I am also a member of the NFU’s food and farming fellowship. It is clear that Labour Members take this issue seriously, and we are dedicating time to ensure that, unlike the previous Government, we work with farmers, not against them.
We are also working across industry. The motion focuses solely on farming, but in order to deliver food security, there must be a cross-sector approach, as I am sure everyone in the House recognises. The approach should include food manufacturing, logistics, retail and the hospitality chain. The whole agrifood ecosystem delivers a gross value added of £147 billion to our economy, including £15 billion through our farming sector, and a whopping £70 billion through our manufacturing, distribution and wholesale sector in food and retail. We want to improve food security in the UK, which is already classified as “broadly stable” by DEFRA.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
On the issue of stability, I remind my hon. Friend of the opening lines of Labour’s 2010 food and farming strategy:
“We can’t carry on just as we are.”
Farmers I have met in my constituency would make exactly the same claim now, given the record of the last Conservative Government, who scrapped Labour’s food plan in 2010. Does he agree that if we are to invest in food and farming, and to bring jobs and prosperity to rural and urban constituencies, we must back Labour’s new deal for farmers, invest in food and farming jobs, and put a real plan for food security back on the table?
Mike Reader
I could not agree more, and could not have said it better myself. However, a holistic approach must be taken across the whole ecosystem to subsidies, funding and investment.
One reason why I chose to speak today is that food security is important to me and my constituents. A recent study found that nearly 10% of people in Northampton struggle to access food, and that gets worse in rural Northamptonshire, as I am sure my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), recognises. Northamptonshire Action with Communities in Rural England found that 45% of residents in rural Northamptonshire worried about food prices, and in 22% of families with children, adults missed meals in order to feed their kids. That is simply not good enough.
I commend the Opposition for supporting the Government’s efforts to improve food security, but the motion is not the way to do that. We must work together, collaboratively and across parties, to support the agrifood industry, and I hope that the Opposition will endeavour to do so after their motion is defeated.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
We in this country have the best farmers. They produce food to the highest animal welfare standards, and we should be very proud of them. Food security is a key part of national security, and I urge the Government to look at the EFRA Committee’s report on food security from the last Parliament. The previous Government took up the recommendation for an annual food security report, and I urge the Government to continue with that. They must protect the farming budget, not cut it, and must protect land, not bulldoze it for solar. We have to make sure that solar goes in the right places: on industrial buildings, brownfield land and rooftops, not on prime food-producing land. We must also protect inputs. In the past few years, we have lost the ability to produce a lot of fertiliser in the United Kingdom. We need to look at that as a matter of resilience.
Biosecurity is a key part of national security. As we have heard, we have a lot of cases of bluetongue in the south and east of England; we know what happened in the past couple of years with avian influenza; and we have African swine fever advancing up the continent. The Government must act, and they must support the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which is in urgent need of full redevelopment. The EFRA Committee has called for that redevelopment, and I know that DEFRA wants it, so I urge Ministers to make the case to the Treasury for it to be funded in full.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend guested on the Public Accounts Committee last year, when we had a full inquiry on this issue. There is a real need for proper capital investment, because the biosecurity of the nation is at risk if we do not have properly biosecure laboratories.
Dr Hudson
I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee for that intervention. It is so important that the Government listen to this request and fund the redevelopment of the APHA in full.
My journey into politics started in 2001 with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. I know what the implications are—I saw sights then that I never want to see again in my lifetime—and we have seen what happens when biosecurity breaks down. That brings me to mental health, which has been touched on.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the point of farmers’ mental health. As my constituency neighbour, will he join me in championing YANA—You Are Not Alone—a local charity that is now stretching into Essex, and supports the mental health of farmers and rural workers?
Dr Hudson
I would be happy to champion YANA, the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, Yellow Wellies, and all the other institutions and charities that support mental health. I urge the Government to look at the EFRA Committee’s report last year on rural mental health, which touches on many of these issues and makes key recommendations. We need to support our farming communities when serious things happen, such as flooding or disease outbreaks. When something more chronic happens—say, when farms get a positive result during periodic tuberculosis testing—we need to make sure that the mental health of farmers, vets, and everyone else is supported. That is so important.
We have talked about flooding. People in rural and urban communities in flood risk areas have not only the trauma of being flooded, but the anxiety of worrying about being flooded. Ministers will be called out in their wellies in floods, but communities need to be supported when the waters go down and the blue lights leave—that is another key recommendation of our report. We need to protect the farming budget and make sure that the money goes out through the farming recovery fund to support flooded communities.
We can help our farming and food-producing communities. We encourage people to buy British, and I pay tribute to the NFU and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for the Buy British campaign that all the British supermarkets have signed up to. We need to support our local communities by eating local and buying local. That is so good for local communities, and it is also good for the animals: it reduces distance and time to slaughter, and food miles.
George Freeman
As a distinguished vet, my hon. Friend is making a powerful case on welfare standards. Does he agree that one of the great prizes of British agriculture is that it sets such high welfare standards, and that one of the good things the last Government did was pass legislation on transporting animals, setting ever higher standards for UK farmers?
Dr Hudson
Absolutely; that was a key Bill. Animal welfare unites us in humanity across this House, and I urge us to work across parties on it. As I have said, farmers in this country produce to the highest animal welfare standards, and we should be proud of that and protect them.
Markus Campbell-Savours
My understanding is that the 2019 Conservative party manifesto said:
“When we leave the EU, we will be able to encourage the public sector to ‘Buy British’ to support our farmers and reduce environmental costs.”
What went wrong?
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
My grandad was a tenant dairy farmer, and rural communities such as mine feel let down by the Conservative party. I spoke earlier about a close family friend who took his life following a farm inspection. Many farmers who had been let down and forced out of producing food were my clients when I practised as a high-street solicitor in North Warwickshire. They could have done with the £300 million that the Conservative party failed to allocate to the support of rural farmers. They needed a better inspection regime that worked for them and for consumers. I was inspired recently when visiting Aldi, which has its national headquarters in my constituency, because it is passionate about British food and forming good relationships with local farmers.
The agriculture and food industry sector contributes £148 billion to the economy, and provides 4.2 million jobs in the UK, including many jobs in my constituency. However, the Conservative party created a cost of living crisis that forced families to buy less fresh food, particularly vegetables, because they could not afford it. That squeezed our local farmers further. Because the last Government did not prioritise energy or food security, farmers were crippled by escalating energy prices, and animal feed and fertiliser prices. The last Government’s chop-and-change approach to rolling out environmental land management schemes left farmers reeling with uncertainty, and it is no wonder that they and their representatives are looking to this Government for much-needed reassurance. We need to reassure our farmers and give them the confidence to invest for the future. We need to make sure that they know that this Government have their back.
Rural and freight crime in my constituency, like many others, has become intolerable. The Conservative party left rural criminals to roam free, with crime in rural areas spiralling out of control. Farmers are losing valuable equipment essential to the running of their businesses, and to add insult to injury, they are often the ones left to clear up fly-tipping. I am glad to be part of a party and a Government taking rural crime seriously with a cross-Government rural crime strategy that is the first of its kind. This strategy will crack down on issues such as fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour that affect rural communities such as mine.
I am looking forward—
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I rise to proudly voice my support for the 27,000 farming families across Northern Ireland who, day in and day out, work tirelessly to help feed our nation. I also stand for the 100,000 people employed in the agrifood sector directly or indirectly, and the 10 million people across the UK who consume Northern Ireland’s top-quality produce on a daily basis.
We DUP Members take great pride in the fact that Northern Ireland sets a high bar for food quality, animal welfare and environmental standards. Our farms are committed to sustainable practices, ensuring that food is produced responsibly and with respect for our landscapes and ecosystems. Despite the efforts of those who unfairly criticise our farming community and treat them as scapegoats for climate change, our farmers should be seen as partners, not problems. They are already working with some of the most rigorous environmental regulations, and should be recognised for their role in meeting climate targets across the UK. Farmers are and always have been the best custodians of our land. They must be enshrined in UK policy, given a seat at the table in key discussions and supported financially, so that they can continue their vital work.
However, not all is well in the industry. Northern Ireland is grappling with the daily impacts of the protocol and the Windsor framework, which have created significant uncertainty. Our agri-industry is subject to more than 120 EU laws over which we have no democratic say, and our agriculture sector faces unnecessary trade barriers and supply chain issues that complicate the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Jim Allister
Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the most pernicious impacts of the protocol is that in a few months, the European Union will stop the veterinary medicines that are so vital to the health of animals in Northern Ireland coming over from Great Britain, because the EU insists that its veterinary agency should control these matters?
Carla Lockhart
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member. The growing uncertainty over the availability of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland because of the protocol poses a grave threat to the agri-food sector and animal welfare. If a permanent solution is not reached now, Northern Ireland risks losing access to more than 1,700 vital veterinary products, around 51% of its current medicine portfolio, as per the British Veterinary Association’s advice. That will have devastating consequences, not only for farmers and their livestock, but for consumers and companion animals such as cats, dogs and horses. Without those essential medicines, animal health and disease control will be severely compromised, leaving our agricultural sector, and the broader public, exposed to significant risks. This is a 2024 problem, not a 2025 problem, and it needs a fix.
We also have the unsatisfactory situation around the transport of second-hand farm machinery from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, due to requirements such as a phytosanitary certificate just because there might be soil on the wheels. We had the eleventh-hour U-turn on the UK-wide “not for EU” labelling policy, which demonstrated no sign of a willingness to mitigate the Irish sea border—an outrageous move on the part of the Government, but not surprising given the continued bending to the EU and big business. This Government have demonstrated their complete disregard for Northern Ireland in that regard. We also have ongoing issues around potatoes and plants coming from Scotland to Northern Ireland—the list goes on. Those issues are far from resolved and need to be addressed.
On top of those difficulties, our farming community is dealing with the rising cost of living, rising energy prices and volatile farmgate prices. I call on the Government to ensure that funding for agriculture in Northern Ireland is adjusted in line with inflation, at around £389 million. Our farmers need certainty, and that means a ring-fenced support package that extends beyond short-term budget cycles, ideally for at least 10 years. In conclusion, the message is clear: no farmers, no food. They need our support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will be calling the Front-Bench speakers at 6.50 pm, so Chris Hinchliff is the last voice from the Back Benches.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I do not doubt the motivation of Opposition Members, but the inescapable fact is that the Conservative party is ideologically incapable of putting forward real solutions to bolster our national food security. I share some of the concerns about the use of high-quality farmland for ground-mounted solar schemes, which is an ongoing issue in North East Hertfordshire, and we need a land use framework to give strategic direction to where we generate the solar energy that we need, instead of allowing a chaotic proliferation of profit-driven schemes wherever grid capacity, which the Conservative party failed to sort out, allows.
Under the previous Government, just 5% of houses had installed rooftop solar, and neither did they take any of the obvious steps to mandate solar panels on new build houses or car parks. For 14 years, they allowed that situation to develop unchecked, and it will be this Labour Government who deliver the land use strategy that we need to provide a framework to ensure that we are making the best possible use of our finite land.
On other challenges, it is estimated that one third of UK soils are degraded, yet the previous Government ditched the planned soil health action plan for England. On biodiversity, the previous Conservative Government authorised the use of harmful pesticides, despite knowing that that would have a devastating impact on pollinators. On new entrants, it is well known that the average age of farmers is too high, yet when it was in power the Conservative party’s austerity measures led to the closure of 15,000 acres of county farms estate, which is crucial for getting younger people into a farming career and contributing to national food security.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Food security is national security, and in a time of rising global uncertainty, we must support the British farmer and the British food and drink sector to deliver high-quality domestic food for our economy and our national security. That means providing farmers and growers with the certainty they deserve.
Unfortunately, in recent weeks and over the course of this debate, we have seen what happens when a Member for one of the least rural constituencies in the country is put in charge of the countryside. Some £50 million of the farming recovery fund is not yet paid out. Some £75 million ring-fenced for internal drainage boards has not yet been distributed. There is no commitment on the £220 million for farm innovation and productivity grants. There are reports that the farming budget is about to be slashed, leaving uncertainty and farmers facing a cliff edge.
While the first assault of this Labour Government has been on pensioners right across the country, I fear that farmers are next on their hit list. The Secretary of State has had the chance in this debate to stand up for farmers and to confirm that the farming budget and other schemes will be protected. Instead, he seems to have already surrendered to the Chancellor, suggesting a cut of £100 million. I fear that it will be much more.
As we know, Labour could only bring itself to include 87 words in its manifesto on its plan for farmers, which stands in contrast to our Conservative Government’s commitment to food security and our rural sector by putting food at the centre of policymaking. We introduced the food security index and an annual food security report, and we set out plans to introduce legally binding targets to enhance our food security. We established the farm to fork summit, held at Downing Street, bringing together key stakeholders from across the food and farming sector. That was all to ensure that the Government’s Departments were aligned on this agenda. We were willing to look farmers in the eye, to engage directly with the whole agricultural sector and to make sure that its priorities were heard across the whole of Government. I ask the Minister: why is the Prime Minister not guaranteeing the same level of engagement and reporting?
I congratulate the new Members who gave their maiden speeches: the hon. Members for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), as well as my friend, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), with whom I went to our local comprehensive school in Lincolnshire. I look up to the Gallery and I can see not only his mother but my secondary school teacher looking down at me. I welcome Mrs Taylor to the House. I am sure she will be proud of her son, who has got a seat on these Benches.
We have all collectively agreed in our speeches on the need for certainty right now for our farmers. At a time when farmers need to plan, Labour is offering them a farming manifesto that could be placed on a postcard. That is exactly why we have had to secure this debate today, bringing Ministers from the Department to the Chamber, all with the best interests of giving our new Labour Government the best chance to stand up for our farmers. In the past 100 days in office, we have seen that the Secretary of State is too weak to stand up for our farmers and too weak to even stand up for his own Department against the Chancellor’s red pen.
As has been said, we have experienced the wettest 18 months on record. That cannot go unanswered, and thousands of farmers across the country are being crippled by crop losses and damage to their fields. In fact, farmers are already fearing for their second year without any crop at all. The £50 million pledged by the last Conservative Government was designed specifically to support farmers hit by flooding, and it was ready to go when we left office. Farmers on the ground, however, say that they have not seen a penny of it. Where is that money? Why has it not been delivered to the farmers who desperately need it?
The previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and I also pledged £75 million for internal drainage boards to give them the investment they needed to protect the worst hit agricultural land from flooding. Again, some small amounts have been released, but the vast majority of the funds have not been released by the Department. Why is that? We know that the Labour party’s grasp on the public finances is tenuous at best, but this is vital money for our farmers, with businesses on the brink of collapse. Do Ministers realise that for every day that goes by without that support, another farmer gets closer to shutting up shop?
Labour has a choice in the debate and in bringing forward the Budget this month. My advice to the Secretary of State is to pick up the phone, speak to the Chancellor, back British farming, fight for the farming budget in full and deliver for farmers up and down the country.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to close the debate. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) spoke for so long that it will not be possible to answer many of the questions he posed, but I am grateful to have the opportunity to show my gratitude and support to farmers working hard to feed the nation and protect our environment up and down the country.
We have heard some excellent first speeches from new Members today, and I want to pay tribute to them. From my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), we heard about the housing crisis and about the beauty of the constituency—from toe wrestling to Chatsworth. From the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), we also heard about a beautiful constituency, as well as about the glorious breakfasts available in Cirencester and a eulogy to the Thames. Importantly, she made the point about young new entrants being able to enter farming, which is a passion of mine and something that we will be pursuing with vigour.
We heard from the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) about the beautiful spa towns of his constituency, as well as the health issues that he has faced and health systems. I very much recognise the points that he made. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) talked about his internationally diverse community with real passion.
We also had excellent speeches from a range of people. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) talked about water scarcity. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) talked about the need for reservoirs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) talked about depopulation and the need to get young people into farming. My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) endorsed the sensible call from the president of the National Farmers Union for balance in our attitude to solar farms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) talked about food hardship. We heard powerful interventions about the mental health issues and challenges facing our farmers and the challenges of rural crime, and we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on the need for a land use framework.
I have to say that, from listening to Conservative Members, they do not seem to have grasped the level of their own failure. The Conservative Government failed farmers and rural communities. We have heard about low levels of confidence, 12,000 businesses going out of business, and input costs and energy costs spiralling. That is why rural communities voted them out in their droves. It will be very different in the future.
We have heard the complaints about budgets for the future. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches have the experience to know how spending reviews work. They will find out in time where the money is. But, of course, given that they spent the money many times over, they know the problems that we are having to clear up. What we have heard is the need for stability in the future to overcome the economic problems that we have inherited from their failed Government.
Farmers are the backbone of rural communities, our environment and our economy, but they face multiple challenges from flooding and droughts to soaring input costs and rural crime. We need a proper long-term strategy that works. We will do away with the sticking-plaster approach that we have seen for the last few years and replace it with a new deal for farmers that genuinely will boost farmers’ resilience in the face of climate change and wider external shocks.
We will work in partnership with farmers, listen to their concerns and their ideas and tackle the root causes of the long-term issues that they continue to face. Only after those discussions and considerations will it be possible to deliver the changes that farmers really want to see. In summary, that will be a long-term approach—a Labour approach. That approach will be good for farms, good for consumers, good for the environment and good for nature—frankly, a real change from the short-term, quick-fix operators now deservedly relegated to the Opposition Benches.
Question put.
The Darwin Oak
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
This petition mirrors the one that I delivered to Downing Street yesterday, with 108,000 signatures. It seeks to protect the Darwin oak, a veteran tree which is 550 years old, at Shelton Rough, outside Shrewsbury, in a green space where Charles Darwin himself played frequently as a child. It is one of hundreds of trees that are threatened with felling should the proposed north-west relief road scheme go ahead in my constituency. That would not only lead to a significant loss of biodiversity and carbon capability, but would breach the Government’s national planning policy framework, and would also mean a huge loss of green space that is currently used for the wellbeing of Shrewsbury residents.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Shropshire Council to safeguard the Darwin Oak tree… and ensure its preservation for future generations.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Darwin Oak, a 550-year old oak tree, is threatened with felling by the proposed North West Relief Road scheme at Shrewsbury; further declares that the loss of large-canopy, open-grown trees like the Darwin Oak would amount to a significant loss of biodiversity and carbon sequestration capability; further that the proposed felling of hundreds of trees, including numerous veteran trees and the Darwin Oak, goes against the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework and the ‘Keepers of Time’ policy; and further that the proposed felling of trees would lead to a huge loss of green space used for exercise and the well-being of Shrewsbury residents.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Shropshire Council to safeguard the Darwin Oak tree as part of the North West Relief Road scheme and ensure its preservation for future generations.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003010]
Health Services: Bridlington
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this important subject. I thank the Minister for being here this evening, and I thank everyone I spoke to before the debate, particularly the Bridlington health forum and representatives of local NHS trusts and the integrated care board. Bridlington is not alone in needing improved access to health services, but I will seek to explain today why that has become an extremely acute problem in the town.
Constituents of mine living in and around Driffield, Hornsea, Market Weighton and the remote Wolds villages will have valid concerns about their own public services, but I hope they will forgive me for taking this opportunity to speak in depth about Bridlington and why it is in so much need of extra support. I will describe the demographic backdrop against which these issues have arisen, the challenges over supply of services, and, lastly, the need for a robust strategy to tackle the various problems faced by local people in the town.
Bridlington is a fantastic coastal resort on the edge of the rolling hills of the Wolds, and it welcomes millions of visitors every year. It is world famous for its seabird colony, and is the lobster capital of Europe. However, like many seaside towns it has significant challenges, and the demographic data is stark. It has the oldest and most deprived population in the East Riding of Yorkshire, and men living in the Bridlington South ward have a life expectancy 10 years lower than those living elsewhere in the county. Indeed, data shows that two of the three wards covering the town are the two most deprived in the county, and the other is the fifth highest of a total of 26. The age profile is equally stark. One third of the population are over 65, and that rises to 44% of residents in Bridlington North, where a significant number are over 80. Bridlington has the highest percentage of people with limiting long-term illness or disability in the York and Scarborough NHS Trust catchment area, and Bridlington residents have the highest levels of health inequality in that catchment.
The director of public health for East Riding of Yorkshire county council has said of the town:
“we have found that the inequalities are growing, they’re large and they’re serious.
In terms of length of life, quality of life and the amount of people with long term health conditions, Bridlington has got the worst levels in all of the East Riding…So this is a wake up call to do something about it.”
I certainly cannot disagree with that sentiment.
As for the supply of health services, the House will no doubt be shocked to hear that there are entire classrooms of children in Bridlington who have never seen a dentist. One patient needing emergency dental work was sent more than 60 miles to Doncaster, and in January there were 8,500 people on the waiting list for the only local NHS dentist. Many people have been forced to go private, but that is not a solution affordable to most. Will the Minister agree to look again at NHS dental contracts, so that they incentivise dentists to open practices in areas where there is such a clear and obvious shortage?
Access to primary care has seen some recent improvements, but the consolidation of GP practices from six to two has not been without its problems. Local patients still find it challenging to secure appointments at one of the two practices, but I know that GPs operating across the town have worked tirelessly to improve services in the wake of the pandemic and the shortage of local healthcare professionals. The direction of travel for secondary care, however, is not positive.
Bridlington is blessed with a fantastic hospital site, which opened in 1989. It recently enjoyed an investment of £4.7 million in 1,500 solar panels, making it one of the greenest NHS sites in the country. However, the site is chronically underused. I am not suggesting for a second that the Bridlington hospital site could be a major trauma centre or large infirmary, but it can and should be a vital community asset for health. It has the potential to be a health hub for the town, bringing together a wide array of local health services. York and Scarborough NHS trust might not be the owner of the site, but it is the provider of secondary care there. Many people in the town feel that its focus, which is naturally leaning towards North Yorkshire and not East Yorkshire, means that investment and new services are being prioritised in York, Scarborough and Malton.
Out-patient appointments are a particularly key metric, as they make up a large bulk of the interactions between the NHS and older people in Bridlington. The number of out-patient appointments at Bridlington hospital that are offered to residents in Bridlington, Driffield and the surrounding area has reduced from 46,500 in 2019-20 to just over 27,500 in 2023-24—a reduction of more than 35% in just four years. Ophthalmology appointments are down, audiology appointments are down and rheumatology appointments are down. Instead of recognising that an ageing population will result in greater demand for out-patient services locally, we are seeing these services being provided at sites away from the town.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue. He and I knew each other long before he came to this House, as he was one of our advisers for the all-party parliamentary group for eggs, pigs and poultry. It is a real pleasure to see him in this place, and we look forward to his contributions.
The hon. Gentleman’s constituency and my constituency are very similar. He mentioned that Bridlington is a seaside resort and that he represents seaside areas, as do I. He also mentioned the fact that much of the population is over 70 years old—again, there are similarities with my constituency. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking a new rural strategy that addresses this issue in coastal areas? If he is, it is something we can all welcome.
Charlie Dewhirst
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I will come to that point shortly.
East Riding patients travelled an astonishing 2.7 million NHS miles to attend out-patient appointments in 2023-24, and two thirds of Bridlington residents attend out-patient appointments away from the town. That is not acceptable, and I will not stand by and let it continue. However, part of the problem is that local Members of Parliament have very little, if any, direct influence over the direction of our health services, which is why I am appealing to the Minister for his support. I believe that this is particularly timely.
In his recent report, Lord Darzi described the NHS as “broken”, and in the case of Bridlington he is correct. He states that:
“An ageing population is the most significant driver of increased healthcare needs since it is associated with the development of long-term conditions”
and that
“by the time people are aged 65-74, a majority will have at least one long-term condition and some 40 per cent will have two or more. By the time people are aged 75-84, this rises to nearly 60 per cent having two or more, and by the time people are aged 85 or above, 9 out of 10 will have at least one long-term condition.”
I remind the House that one third of residents in Bridlington are over 65.
Lord Darzi makes the following very pertinent observation:
“At the highest level, the NHS has had the strategic intention to shift spending from reactive care in hospitals to more proactive care in the community setting—but care has in fact moved in the other direction.”
That is very much the experience of my constituents. The report also makes it clear that “care should be more joined up, or more ‘integrated’…to reflect the fact the people living with long-term conditions”
need more support and
“a variety of different physical and mental health professionals and often rely on social care too. The frequency of their interactions with the health service means that their care is more complex and therefore requires coordination.”
Finally on this point, Lord Darzi is right to say that
“care should be delivered in the community, closer to where people live and work”,
and that
“hospitals should be reserved for specialist care. This is more convenient for patients—especially for those with long-term conditions who will need contact with the NHS more frequently.”
I would also like to refer the House to the chief medical officer’s 2021 annual report on health in coastal communities. In this insightful piece of work, Sir Chris Whitty noted:
“Given the known high rates of preventable illness in these areas, the lack of available data on the health of coastal communities has been striking whilst researching the report. Coastal communities have been long overlooked with limited research on their health and wellbeing. The focus has tended towards inner city or rural areas with too little attention given to the nation’s periphery.”
He went on to add:
“Data is rarely published at a geographical level granular enough to capture coastal outcomes, with most data only available at local authority or Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) level. As a result, deprivation and ill health at the coast is hidden by relative affluence just inland which is lumped together.”
In conclusion, he recommended:
“Given the health and wellbeing challenges of coastal communities have more in common with one another than inland neighbours, there should be a national strategy to improve the health and wellbeing of coastal communities.”
Unfortunately, and perhaps as a result of the health service working its way through the impact of the pandemic, the report has been somewhat sidelined and the recommendations have yet to be acted upon, so what should be the solution?
We need a comprehensive strategy, bringing together all parts of the health service, that recognises the challenges and put together an immediate action plan. The Humber and North Yorkshire integrated care board is trying to address these issues, but I am concerned about exactly what its role is, or should be. Some ICBs interpret their population health duties as requiring them to act upstream of healthcare needs on the social determinants of health, where the NHS has few direct levers. Other ICBs interpret their duties as requiring them to understand and adjust healthcare services to match the needs of the population that they serve, in line with the NHS operating framework. Some interpret them as both and others as neither, preferring to focus on what they see as their traditional role of performance managing providers. Ultimately, their roles and responsibilities need to be clarified so that they can be better held to account. This is not a criticism of the performance of my local ICB, which is working hard to tackle the challenges, but I think we would all benefit from greater clarity of purpose.
In conclusion, we cannot escape what is in front of us. As one senior local authority figure commented to me:
“The health crisis in Bridlington is not a car crash waiting to happen, it is happening right now.”
My appeal to the Minister today is simple. I have no doubt that he has the very best of intentions when it comes to improving the nation’s health, but realistically many of those ambitions will take decades. If he wants to make a real difference today, will he please focus some of his Department’s collective effort on tackling the enormous health inequalities in seaside towns such as Bridlington, and will he please take the recommendations of Lord Darzi and Sir Chris Whitty and apply them to our town? We are happy to be his pilot scheme or his trailblazer.
I know that with the right energy and direction, we will not be left with a generation of children who have never seen a dentist and we will not have elderly people travelling long distances for regular routine appointments. Instead, we will have a health service to be proud of and a happier and healthier local population. I implore the Minister and his Department to work with me to ensure a better future for the brilliant people of Bridlington.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) on securing the debate and on the constructive tone in which he put his comments forward.
This Government are committed to fixing our broken health and care system. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we will be honest about the problems facing the NHS and serious about tackling them. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the problems in Bridlington, which sadly will be familiar to colleagues right across the House. The truth is that we are very far from where we need and want to be, as he so rightly set out. He talked a lot about Lord Darzi’s report, and I am pleased that he has read it and appears to agree with the true extent of the challenges it sets out. Even Lord Darzi, with all his years of experience, was shocked by what he discovered.
The report is vital because it gives us the frank assessment we need to face the problems honestly and properly. It will take a decade of national renewal, lasting reform and a long-term plan to save our NHS. We have committed to three big shifts: from hospital to community; from analogue to digital; and from sickness to prevention. Our 10-year plan will set out how we will deliver those shifts to ensure that we have a health and care system that is fit for the future, in Bridlington and across the United Kingdom.
To develop that plan, we must have a meaningful conversation with the public and those who work in the health system. We will conduct a comprehensive range of engagement and consultation activities, launching very soon, bringing in views from the public, the health and care workforce, national and local stakeholders and system leaders. Importantly, given the hon. Gentleman’s comments, parliamentarians will also have an opportunity to feed into this important national conversation. It will be the biggest national conversation about our health and care system since the NHS’s foundation in 1948.
The Government are committed to restoring our health and care system to its founding promise that it will be there for all our constituents when they need it. I hope that context helps the hon. Gentleman to understand that we are taking this very seriously, and that we do not want to make policy in the ivory towers of Westminster or Whitehall. This needs to be a national conversation, feeding into a 10-year plan that will be published in the spring of next year.
I will now address some of the hon. Gentleman’s specific points. First, I share his concern about dentistry access. The single biggest cause of children aged between five and nine being admitted to hospital is to have their rotten teeth taken out, which is frankly a disgrace. As the Prime Minister said a few weeks ago, it is soul-destroying for those young people, and it can so easily be prevented. That is why we will work with the sector to reform the dental contract, with a focus on prevention and the retention of NHS dentists.
In the meantime, we know that patients cannot wait. We will not wait to make improvements to increase access in the current system. That is why we are working to deliver our rescue plan to provide 700,000 more urgent dental appointments. These will be available across the country, including, of course, for the residents of Bridlington. I am aware that an initial procurement for the additional service in Bridlington was unsuccessful. The ICB has since reviewed the specification and is working to further understand what may work best for the town, with preferred options for procurement due to be approved this month.
Unfortunately, people across the country will recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman describes of GP access in Bridlington. Almost everywhere, patients are finding it increasingly difficult to see a GP. When they cannot get an appointment, the chances are that they will end up in accident and emergency. This is unacceptable, as it is worse for patients and more expensive for the taxpayer. Lord Darzi is clear that the situation is particularly acute in certain areas—that speaks to the hon. Gentleman’s point about health inequalities—and Bridlington is one such area.
Our plan starts with recruiting over 1,000 newly qualified GPs through an £82 million boost to the additional roles reimbursement scheme. In the longer term, we are committed to training thousands more GPs, guaranteeing face-to-face appointments for all those who want one, delivering a modern appointment booking system to avoid the 8 am scramble and, ultimately, shifting resources from acute care into primary and community care.
The hon. Gentleman raised the recent merger of GP practices in Bridlington, where six practices have been consolidated into two larger practices. These decisions are, of course, made by local commissioners, who determine what services and care pathways best serve the needs of patients in the area. I am pleased that performance has improved in both practices, with one demonstrating some of the best access within the integrated care board footprint. Of course, there are still issues, and the people of Bridlington deserve better, which is why we are committed to delivering our plan for primary care.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Bridlington hospital, which currently provides a range of services, including an urgent treatment centre, radiology, rehabilitation, in-patient surgical wards and out-patient clinics. Patients attending those services can, and often do, come from outside the Bridlington area. I am aware that there is more space at the hospital that can be used, and I can assure him that we are looking carefully at capital requirements as part of the spending review. We will know more about that on 30 October.
I hope I have addressed some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I absolutely agree with his view about health inequalities, and it is quite shocking to hear the difference between one ward and another in his constituency. Those gaps have to be narrowed, and a lot of this is about ensuring that people are not only living longer but living healthier lives. The increase in complex conditions that we are now seeing at younger ages is creating huge pressure on our health system, and it is not good for his constituents either. I absolutely understand and see the context in which we are operating, and that is a top priority for the 10-year health plan we are bringing forward.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the issue and giving me the opportunity to reiterate from the Government Dispatch Box our promise to fix our broken health and care system and deliver for people in Bridlington and across Yorkshire. Sadly, the situation he describes resonates with the broader findings of Lord Darzi’s review. The health and care system is in a critical condition, but I assure him that this Government are committed to getting our healthcare system back on its feet and fit for the future.
Charlie Dewhirst
On the particular issue of coastal towns, Bridlington is not unique in the challenges it faces. Will the Minister pledge to look at the broader recommendations in Sir Chris Whitty’s report of 2021?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. One of the trends we are seeing is that an older demographic is moving to coastal towns. Those towns are often most the challenged because they are under-doctored, dental deserts and lacking in social care facilities. A toxic combination is caused by the additional pressures brought by that demographic and a lack of the required facilities on the supply side. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the issue of coastal towns. I know our chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, is alive to the issue, and it will have to be factored into the 10-year plan. The 10-year plan cannot just be about the sectors we are looking at; it is also about geography and the lived experience of people in particular parts of the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Devolved Welsh Authorities) (Amendment) Order 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Devolved Welsh Authorities) (Amendment) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and indeed, it is a pleasure to lead my first debate of this nature as a Wales Office Minister. The draft order, which was laid on 21 May 2024, will make modifications to the list of devolved Welsh authorities in schedule 9A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 in the light of the Senedd’s Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022.
The 2022 Act provided for the establishment of the new Commission for Tertiary Education and Research—also known as Medr—which came into operation from August this year. The commission is now the regulatory body responsible for the funding, oversight and regulation of tertiary education and research, encompassing all post-16 education in Wales. To that end, it took on the functions of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, which has been dissolved.
The Government of Wales Act established a delineation between devolved Welsh authorities and reserved public authorities. Devolved Welsh authorities are those that are accountable to Welsh Ministers and to the Senedd. Conversely, reserved public authorities are accountable to the UK Government and to Parliament.
Section 157A of the 2006 Act defines devolved Welsh authorities as a public authority whose functions
“are exercisable only in relation to Wales”
and which
“wholly or mainly…do not relate to reserved matters.”
The Commission for Tertiary Education and Research meets those conditions and is therefore a devolved Welsh authority.
In addition, a public authority is a devolved Welsh authority if it is included in the list in schedule 9A to the 2006 Act. That list also serves helpfully to confirm the public authorities that meet the definition. Section 157A(5) of that Act includes a power to amend that schedule so as to add, remove or revise entries to reflect changes in the landscape of devolved Welsh authorities.
Accordingly, this draft order, which was laid under the previous Administration, will remove the reference to
“The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales or Cyngor Cyllido Addysg Uwch Cymru”,
which has been dissolved, and replace it with
“The Commission for Tertiary Education and Research or Comisiwn Addysg Drydyddol ac Ymchwil”
to reflect the changes brought about by the 2022 Act. This ensures that the list remains up to date.
In line with requirements in section 157A of the Government of Wales Act, I am pleased to confirm that the draft order was approved by the Senedd on 18 June. I also welcome the positive work that has taken place between the Wales Office and Welsh Government officials in preparing it. I therefore commend the order to the House.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. While, as we have heard, this is simply a technical instrument to amend schedule 9A of the Government of Wales Act to remove the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales—which no longer exists—from a list of devolved Welsh authorities, my concern is the Welsh Labour Government’s record on education and that this latest round of reforms will cause further damage to the education of our children in Wales.
Education attainment in Wales is dreadful, as has been clearly highlighted by the latest PISA—programme for international student assessment—results. The results show a large decline in attainment, declining more in Wales than in any other country in 2022. Wales’s performance has fallen to its lowest ever level in maths, reading and science tests taken by 15-year-olds. Wales is at the bottom of the rankings for the whole of the United Kingdom in maths, reading and science. The performance of pupils in Wales has fallen significantly since the last PISA tests in 2019 and it continues to be below the OECD average. For maths, Wales is down by 21 points; for reading, it is down 18; and for science, it is down 15.
But there is absolutely no sign of Labour recognising the problems that it has created or making any attempt to invest in our young people. Labour’s budget last year cut £56 million in cash terms and £140 million in real terms from the education budget. This year’s supplementary budget has resulted in a further £92 million cut in cash terms to the education budget. Those cuts include £930,000 taken away from additional learning needs and £1.2 million taken away from education infrastructure.
There can be no doubt where this failure rests. It rests solely with Labour and its reforms to the education system in Wales. In Wales, the gap between disadvantaged pupils and other pupils is much wider than it is in England and there has been little to no progress in addressing that since 2009. The gulf between pupils in Wales and in England can be explained only by the difference in policy and approach.
While we will not oppose the instrument, we want to record that we recognise the concerns that parents and communities have in Wales about the failure of the Welsh Labour Government to maintain educational standards.
Dame Nia Griffith
I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his contribution this morning, but I would just like to take issue with this: it is quite extraordinary that he can stand there and talk about funding—of all the things to talk about. We know that the settlement to the Welsh Government has been very considerably reduced over the last 14 years, and that has to lie at the feet of the former Government. That is entirely their responsibility, and how that very small cake is then divided up is an enormous challenge. But I digress, Mr Vickers, and I am sure that you as Chair would not wish me to dwell further on this issue.
I simply say that the order will make the changes to the list of devolved Welsh authorities in schedule 9A of the 2006 Act to take account of the establishment of the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research and the dissolution of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. I offer my thanks for the productive manner in which the UK and Welsh Governments have worked in preparing this draft order, and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
As a number of Members here have not been on a Statutory Instrument Committee before, I will say that the procedure is very similar to that of the Chamber. If you want to catch my eye, stand up. It is straightforward. There is one minor difficulty: my notes tell me that the Liberal Democrat Helen Maguire is a member of the Committee, and Ben Maguire has turned up. I will clarify whether that was a mistake or whether my notes are accurate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The order amends the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2003, or the 2003 order for short, to support the Government’s preferred model for the French delivery of the EU entry-exit system, or EES, in Dover. EES is the EU’s new border entry system, which is due to be implemented on 10 November. It is driven primarily by a desire for greater border security and a more secure Europe. The UK Government are supportive of the aims of the EES, which complement our shared objectives on migration and secure borders. We have been working at pace and closely with our French and EU partners, as well as with industry and across the UK Government, to ensure readiness. I am grateful to parties for their constructive and collaborative approach. It is our goal to do everything possible to maintain border fluidity with the European Union when the EES is introduced.
EES requires that non-EU citizens who wish to enter the Schengen area, excluding EU residents, visa holders and those protected by the withdrawal agreement, provide their fingerprints and a facial scan to EU border officials and answer questions about their stay. This will increase the time taken to complete the Schengen entry process.
As immigration controls in Dover are juxtaposed, non-EU citizens, which include most British nationals, will provide these details to officers of the French Police aux Frontières. PAF officers conduct Schengen entry checks in a control zone at the eastern docks in the Port of Dover, which is a confined space with large volumes of freight and passenger traffic, particularly at peak times. If that continues once EES is implemented, there is likely to be severe congestion and disruption at the port. The Government have therefore engaged constructively with France and the EU to explore mitigations.
France has agreed for PAF officers to complete EES checks for coaches in an additional control zone at the western docks. That approach will ensure there is sufficient capacity to conduct EES checks on coaches, which is not available at the eastern docks. France has requested two changes to ensure that PAF officers can operate the controls effectively: first, that PAF officers can travel between control zones with their service weapons; and, secondly, that PAF officers must be able to escort detained persons whom they have arrested following immigration examination in the new control zone at the western docks to the control zone at the eastern docks, where they currently carry out their immigration controls in full.
Government officials have also consulted all the relevant stakeholders, including Kent police, on France’s requirements. Senior officials are satisfied that the risks are minimal and can be managed through appropriate safeguards and standard operating procedures. The PAF has agreed to those, and the Government have agreed to France’s requests. The order, therefore, creates a circulation area, which will be a section of the A20 public road approximately 1.5 miles long, linking the new French control zone at the western docks with the existing control zone in Dover. It will also enable PAF officers to travel between control zones via the circulation area, and it will extend certain powers and provisions in the 2003 order, which are currently only applicable in a control zone, to the circulation area. Therefore, PAF officers will be permitted to travel with their service weapons, in the circulation area only, between control zones. PAF officers will also be able to escort detained persons between control zones. They will not be able to arrest or detain anyone in the circulation area who has not already been detained by them in the exercise of their functions within a control zone.
When PAF officers escort a detained person in the circulation area, certain provisions will apply, just as they do when officers exercise the power to detain in a control zone. Specifically, PAF officers will be protected against acts or omissions committed against them that constitute offences under an immigration control enactment—for example, assault or obstruction—in the same way that British immigration officers are protected against those. They also cannot be prosecuted for any offence committed when they are exercising their lawful powers under the 2003 order in the circulation area. Additionally, the procedure concerning the arrest of a PAF officer for acts performed in a control zone will also apply to PAF officers exercising the power to escort detained persons in the circulation area.
Finally, any claim for compensation alleged against, or by, PAF officers for loss or injury when they exercise their powers in the circulation area will be subject to the law of the French Republic. This matches the provisions that currently operate in the control zone.
Government officials will separately delimit an additional control zone at the western docks by way of administrative arrangement. In that control zone, PAF officers can exercise their full range of immigration frontier control powers in the same way as they do in the control zone at the eastern docks. They can also carry and store their service weapons, subject to strict safeguards, as they do in the existing control zone. The circulation area in which PAF officers can travel between control zones will also be delimited by way of a clear map of the relevant area. Additionally, the conditions under which PAF officers may carry their service weapons on any journey through the circulation area will be set out in a service weapons agreement.
This order is therefore a key enabler of the western docks operation. It facilitates a relatively minor change to long-established French practice at the juxtaposed controls in Dover so that PAF officers can operate in an additional control zone. This will make a material difference once the EU entry-exit system is implemented. It is in both the UK’s and France’s interests that any disruption in Dover caused by EES is minimised, and the Government consider this order to be a reasonable and proportionate way of helping to achieve that aim. I commend the order to the Committee.
The Chair
Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, we have had a message and Ben Maguire is a member of the Committee, so that has been clarified.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I will comment very briefly to seek clarity on the order.
The measures brought forward by the last Government have undeniably had a huge impact on the legislative framework around immigration and asylum. Indeed, under the last Government, in the year June 2023-24, small boat arrivals were down by 29%, migrant returns rose by a fifth, and enforced returns rose by a half. We want the Government to continue to make progress in tackling this issue. Indeed, it is of huge national interest and consequence. Although the argument is already well exercised, without that meaningful deterrent, everything else is just tinkering around the edges.
French officers have been able to carry arms in areas of the channel for years. If the amendment improved the effectiveness of partnership working and helped to frustrate channel crossings, we would be supportive. However, I seek some clarity from the Minister on its impact. If she is not in a position to provide that clarity now, we are happy to take a response in writing.
Why has no impact assessment been undertaken? Surely there is an impact on public service provision—that is, policing. Under what circumstances will the use of firearms be permitted and what are the restrictions, if any? Will a review mechanism be put in place? There are huge concerns about the nature of and delays to the implementation of EES, and the potential impact on legitimate UK travellers. In the spirit of partnership, what mitigation is being put in place for that and what can we expect in reciprocation for securing our own borders?
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The order represents a change to the previous approach, and it looks, to our mind, to build bridges rather than burning them down. The previous Government stoked the issue about small boats crossing the channel, without providing enough workable, practical solutions that would have the impact we all hoped for to tackle the issue. The most constructive way to address it is to work with our European friends and partners. The Liberal Democrats would welcome the Government bringing forward further practical solutions to improve relationships and operating procedures.
Seema Malhotra
I am grateful to the Opposition spokespeople for their comments. I gently say to the shadow Minister that the Government now have a much clearer plan for how we tackle irregular migration. I am proud that we have set up the border security command, with work going on internationally to try and tackle the criminal gangs that, as he knows, are exploiting thousands of people and putting their lives at risk. It is vital that immigration is controlled and managed, and I am sure he will want to work with the Government on the measures we are putting in place.
The shadow Minister asked a set of questions about the impact of the provisions. It would be sensible to come back to him in writing, because that would enable us to share the response with colleagues who are concerned and minded to ask about similar matters. On the matter of partnership, that is an important way in which we continue to work with our French counterparts, not least because we also operate our Border Force in juxtaposed ports in the EU. It is vital that we work together on securing our borders and maintaining their fluidity throughout the implementation of EES, because that is in all our interests.
Question put and agreed to.
Great British Energy Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 8th October 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 View all Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 October 2024 - (8 Oct 2024)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast—Big Brother, so watch your words. Date Time Witness Tuesday 8 October Until no later than 9.50 am Juergen Maier CBE Until no later than 10.20 am Trades Union Congress; Prospect Until no later than 11.00 am Green Alliance; Nesta; Aurora Energy Research Until no later than 11.25 am RenewableUK; Energy UK Until no later than 2.30 pm SSE plc; EDF Renewables Until no later than 2.50 pm The Crown Estate Until no later than 3.10 pm Flint Global Until no later than 3.50 pm The Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA); Scottish Renewables; Net Zero Technology Centre Until no later than 4.10 pm Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) Until no later than 4.30 pm GMB Union Until no later than 5.00 pm Michael Shanks MP, Minister for Energy, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
I have a few preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members email their speaking notes. Please switch electronic devices to silent mode. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about divvying up the questions before we get into the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take such matters formally, without debate. I will first call the Minister to move the programme motion, which stands in his name and was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 8 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 October;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 10 October;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 15 October;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 15 October.—(Michael Shanks.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Michael Shanks.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence will be made available on the desk in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Michael Shanks.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we hear from the witnesses, does any Member wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
My husband is company secretary of Sheffield Renewables, a community energy project in Sheffield that generates energy.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
This is registered, but I have been told to say it out loud: I am a member of the GMB, which is appearing before us later, and before the election I was the deputy general secretary of Prospect, which is also speaking to us this morning.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I am also a member of the GMB.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I am also a member of the GMB.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
I am also a member of the GMB.
The Chair
For full transparency, I am a member of Unison.
Examination of Witness
Juergen Maier gave evidence.
The Chair
We will begin by hearing oral evidence from Mr Juergen Maier, chair of Great British Energy and of Digital Catapult. Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I remind Members that all questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. It is a short and quite a narrow Bill, and if you stray I will tell you off, so do not stray in the first place. We must stick to the timings; for the first evidence session we have until 9.50 am.
Will the witness introduce himself for the record?
Juergen Maier: Good morning, everybody. It is a pleasure to be here. I am the start-up chair of Great British Energy. I am in the process of stepping down from Digital Catapult; we are just looking for the new chair to replace me, so that I can focus on this role.
Andrew Bowie
Q
It was announced with great fanfare at the Labour party conference that the new headquarters of Great British Energy would be in Aberdeen. What does that actually mean? What will the HQ actually do? How many people will be employed at the HQ?
Juergen Maier: The HQ is where we will centre all our operations. That means that all the key staff will be there, including the chief executive when we get around to appointing one. We will probably start with an interim chief executive who might not be located there, but eventually that is our plan.
There will be other locations. We would also like a location in Edinburgh and one in Glasgow, in particular to help on innovation and maybe financial services. I see the main role in Aberdeen as being particularly around operational engineering jobs. Ultimately, those are the jobs that are in abundance in Aberdeen; they are the well-paid jobs and the ones that are in greater quantity.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Juergen Maier: There are two very simple answers. The first is how many renewable energy and clean energy projects Great British Energy has been a part of, as a co-investor, an investor or an enabler, and how much more renewable energy we have thereby managed to get on the grid. The second is how many jobs and how much prosperity we have created as a result, making sure that as much of the supply chain is Scottish/British, rather than overseas.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Q
Juergen Maier: Community energy is definitely a priority for Great British Energy. If you want to point specifically to the Bill, clause 3, “Objects”, refers in subsection (2)(a) to
“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”.
I see community energy as a core part of that. As Great British Energy, we definitely want to support the schemes that you have been talking about, whether those are in Wales, Scotland, England or Northern Ireland. We will definitely be doing that.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Q
Juergen Maier: Indeed. You are right that I did not answer your first question directly. The reason, obviously, is that we have not been able to put a direct number on it yet. It will be in the hundreds; it may eventually be 1,000 or more in the HQ. You will now say, “That is not going to help manage the energy transition,” but the reason is that the large numbers of people we will be helping to employ will be in the supply chain. If we look at some of the numbers already, by the end of the decade 100,000 people will be employed in offshore wind. I hope that many more of those will be in floating offshore wind, and floating offshore wind will happen off the coast of Aberdeen and indeed the whole east coast of the United Kingdom.
The jobs will be the sort that work with supply chains and the private sector to determine how we will enable floating offshore wind. What is the technology? What are the innovation challenges? What about project-managing the schemes, helping them to get through planning permission and making sure that they get on the grid? There will be all those sorts of questions. I very much see the role of Great British Energy as that of an enabler to get such new technologies on to the grid, and as that of an investor and co-investor. It will take quite a team of people and skills to achieve that.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Juergen Maier: The only way to get energy bills down and to get greater energy security is to get more renewable energy on the grid. We have to keep reminding people that the reason why energy bills went up was not renewable energy; it was a global oil and gas price crisis. Every megawatt and gigawatt of renewable energy that we put on the grid will help to bring bills and prices down. The exact mechanism by which that happens is, of course, a matter of policy—how you decide to bring those bills to the consumer. That is not the scope of Great British Energy; it is not the scope of the Bill, either.
Torcuil Crichton
Q
Juergen Maier: Thank you for the question. We have laid out the five key priorities of Great British Energy. One is to invest and co-invest; another is to enable and help to accelerate development; the third is very much about the local community energy that your colleague talked about earlier. That will be through community energy schemes. The reason we are so keen on that is that it is where community engagement really comes in. That will not be the gigawatts of renewable energy— the gigawatts will be in floating offshore wind—but I passionately believe that by engaging with local communities, whether that is with local solar, with onshore wind or with tidal-type schemes, you can really get that community engagement and community acceptance. Indeed, you can really deliver the local social benefit that those schemes can deliver.
Torcuil Crichton
And economic benefit too, we hope.
Juergen Maier: Of course.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Q
Juergen Maier: Certainly the enabling part of what we do will be pre-CfDs, as you say. That is also where our partnership with the Crown Estate comes in. This is where we will be doing a lot of the early consenting and engaging on the willingness to co-invest and give confidence, but we will also be there past the CfDs. As and when the schemes get developed, there may be opportunities to come in and be a co-investor. We would also be supporting that.
The Chair
Order. Is this within the scope of the Bill? Our last question will be at 9.47 am, and four more Members have indicated that they wish to come in.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
Juergen Maier: There will be two things. The Bill clearly sets out the structure of how we will set up Great British Energy and the key areas of focus. Obviously there will then be a business plan and a framework agreement between us and the Secretary of State, in which we will have to clarify exactly those questions and where Great British Energy and the UKIB take their role. Those are things that will need to be clarified, but I do not think that putting them in the Bill would particularly help us to do that.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
“The Secretary of State must prepare a statement of strategic priorities for Great British Energy.”
Do you have any idea of when we can expect that statement to be laid before Parliament?
Juergen Maier: I am not sure of the exact timings. Maybe when you get evidence from the Minister he will be able to put a time on that.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Q
Juergen Maier: Indeed. The earlier question was pointed at the north-east and Aberdeen, hence my response, but you are right. As a matter of fact, the two key areas where floating offshore wind will be developed are in the north-east and in the Celtic sea. From a logistics point of view, you could not put them further apart, so it is not exactly ideal—
The Chair
Order. We are moving outside the scope of the Bill.
Juergen Maier: Anyway, the answer to your question is the same answer that I gave for Aberdeen. There will be an HQ, a lot of the activities, project management, knowledge and engineering, but obviously when it gets to installation and port-type infrastructure work, there will be significant opportunity in Cornwall and anywhere serving the Celtic sea.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Q
“sources other than fossil fuels”.
Where is the cut-off? With things like blue hydrogen, there is a crossover: fossil fuels are involved, but the product is not necessarily what you would call a fossil fuel. Where does GB Energy come in?
Juergen Maier: Our core focus will be on renewable energy that is not derived from fossil fuels, to be clear. However, there are obviously energy sources that are part of the transition, and the Bill so allows. Clause 3(2)(b) refers to
“the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from fossil fuels,”
which would include blue hydrogen, for example. I believe that blue hydrogen is necessary as part of the transition, because you just cannot produce enough green hydrogen to get us going from the get-go, so you need a transitional way of getting there, as long as the clear purpose is to see it as a transition to ensure that the future is all green hydrogen.
Harriet Cross
In that respect, we would still need fossil fuels—oil and gas—going forward to help the transition.
Juergen Maier: Of course, yes.
Uma Kumaran
Q
Juergen Maier: It certainly gives me a very clear direction, along with the framework document that we will develop together with the Secretary of State and the Minister. The short answer to your question is that it is pretty clear. The purpose is clear, and that is the most important thing: the purpose, at the end of the day, is that we will accelerate the amount of clean renewable energy that we put on the grid, and that we will create as much prosperity and as many jobs through it as possible.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Q
Juergen Maier: We are seeing pretty good evidence of that right now, aren’t we? At the end of the day, this is now a pretty well-established model for being absolutely state-owned and independently run. “Independently run” means excellent governance, and obviously as start-up chair I am going to ensure that that is the case. That does not all need to be in the Bill, because we know what it means. We have the Companies Act 2006 and numerous Acts about how good governance works. We will ensure through our board and our non-executives that there is proper governance, and of course there will be many opportunities for reviews by the Secretary of State and ultimately for the usual sort of public scrutiny.
The Chair
Order. That is the end of our first panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Mika Minio-Paluello and Mike Clancy gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Mika Minio-Paluello, who is the senior policy officer for industry and climate at the TUC, and Mike Clancy, who is the general secretary of the Prospect union. We have until 10.20 am for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce yourselves—and pronounce your name correctly, which I abjectly failed to do?
Mika Minio-Paluello: No worries; nobody ever gets it right. I am Mika Minio-Paluello and I co-lead on industry, climate and energy for the Trades Union Congress. Thanks for having me.
Mike Clancy: I am Mike Clancy, general secretary of the Prospect trade union. We represent people across the range of public and private sectors, and we have 22,000-plus members in the energy sector.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Mika Minio-Paluello: It is true that trade unions want to see good-quality jobs going forward, and that there are concerns about how we deliver a just transition, because we see the reality that transitions are not easy. To make that happen, we need some levers—some tools that can help to ensure that workers either have their existing jobs future-proofed or have transfers to new places. GB Energy is a tool that can help to make that possible that we currently do not really have in the UK. In France, Norway, Denmark and Germany there are a lot more institutions—the public sector effectively has a bigger stake—and we do not have that.
As Juergen said earlier, GB Energy can be part and parcel of enabling the supply chain growth that we have not seen in recent years, because CfDs have not delivered that as they are. It can also deliver the co-ordinated collective pathways for workforce, as well as upskilling, which does not really happen given the piecemeal way it is working at the moment. It can also play a role by ensuring that renewable jobs will be good jobs, both through procurement and through, in effect, ensuring a race to the top. That is all part of a plan, and what came out of our congress recently was that we need to see a plan. To have that plan, we need institutions like GB Energy.
Andrew Bowie
Q
The Chair
Order. I do not think there is anything in the Bill about jobs, shadow Minister, so I am being steered by the Clerk to get you off the subject. Let us go to Olivia Blake.
Olivia Blake
Q
Mike Clancy: Following on from what Mika said, and as we are focusing on the content of the Bill, we welcome the creation of GB Energy but our concern is that for some time energy policy has been long on rhetoric but short on delivery. By that we mean that, in the context of a just transition, the losses of jobs—
The Chair
Order. The Whips are saying there is something wrong with the mics—nobody can hear me either. You need to speak into the mic because nobody can hear what anyone is saying.
Mike Clancy: It is unusual for a trade union official to be asked to increase their volume; none the less, I will run counter to type and try to do that.
We welcome the creation of GB Energy and we welcome the Bill, but the reality is that communities are facing job losses now. The promise of jobs tomorrow is where the challenge lies. As we are talking about the Bill, I should say that we certainly want to see GB Energy created as an exemplar in terms of social partnership, job creation and turning the promise of quality green jobs into a reality. That is the pathway that the Bill has to provide for communities that are directly affected by technological and other changes. I guess that in other questions we will bring out further things about organisational design, because we certainly have some views on whether the Bill leads to an organisational design that will enable that.
Mika Minio-Paluello: You asked, “Will it ensure?” We very much welcome the Bill, but will it, in itself, ensure a just transition? No. Does it provide a mechanism and a tool that the Secretary of State and the Government can then use to help to deliver that? Yes. We also think the Bill is good because it creates a basis for GB Energy to grow. Ultimately, if we are going to see that successful transition, and all the jobs and the prosperity that we need to see in the UK, GB Energy needs to be on a par with the equivalent companies that we see in other countries, such as Ørsted, Statoil or Equinor, Vattenfall, or EDF. That is a long-term process, and over time, it can be good for workers and it can make the whole country richer.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Mika Minio-Paluello: I mean, you would not build an Ørsted in one, two or five years. ESB, the Irish state-owned company, moved into offshore wind gradually, step by step. It took it about four or five years to get well inthere. We think we should aim to get there by 2040 or 2045. You start somewhere, so you start with the capitalisation. We can all talk about whether the Government could access more borrowing, and the fiscal heritage, but you can start with that. It will not be on that scale by 2030, but it can put in place the mechanisms and a plan so that by 2040 or 2045, we are a more powerful and richer country because we are finally on a par with our peers.
Mike Clancy: We have made some commentary about the treatment of public debt and this space in relation to GB Energy, and whether the debt rules, which are subject to current debate, should be adjusted so that public investment companies are appropriately excluded because they will provide a return to the Exchequer. We are also interested in the structure of GBE arising from the Bill in this regard. Clearly it is going to be a public investment vehicle, but if it is going to be an operator like Ørsted and so on—obviously we heard Juergen talk about the nature of the assets that it may bring under its control—these are significant engineering assets and propositions. If you are going to build a company in that respect, you had better start now, and you had better think about the labour markets in which you are going to obtain the skills, which are very competitive. I could keep you all morning talking about how that will not happen if it is constrained by public sector pay constraints.
A serious point is that there is more than one pathway for this entity, and if it is going to have a dual pathway, it needs to be thought through pretty early. That is because realising the floating offshore wind proposition—whatever sea it may be in—is a very significant endeavour, requiring an operational, management, engineering, construction, planning, and indeed operating capacity that need to be thought about right now, at the Bill stage.
Andrew Pakes
Q
Mike Clancy: Andrew, you are absolutely right. There are various things that need to be brought together that the Bill itself probably needs to consider, in terms of the skills profile generally and other forms of generation that are within this space. There is going to be an office of nuclear jobs developed by the Secretary of State, and so on. Our view is that it comes down to the extent to which the Bill can specify that GB Energy should be an exemplar company, and that it sets objectives for its board in relation to not only its community engagement, but how it conducts its processes to ensure that the short-termism that sometimes emerges from the private sector form of energy ownership is not characterised by a public company, which should be an absolute champion in these areas.
It comes down to governance and to the objectives and how they are set for a public company, and knitting them into the other parts of the skills landscape. That is why I also make the point—not in a usual trade union way, may I say—that we have to think about the labour markets in which GBE is going to play because they are very tight and very demanding, and there is a whole range of infrastructure that this country needs to invest in to deliver the growth mission.
Mika Minio-Paluello: There is good practice to learn from other countries: from Ørsted, Statoil—now Equinor —and Statkraft. They took a proactive role and identified where they thought the country needed to be in 10 years —not just where they might need to be from a minimalist, reactive position, but where the country needed to be—and then how to invest for the long run in those skills.
The Chair
Order. The Clerk is saying that we are straying from the scope of the Bill. We are okay for time because we have until 10.20 am, but it is getting a bit hypothetical about what will happen on top of the Bill, which, I am being told, is not really allowed.
Harriet Cross
Q
Mike Clancy: I am not sure. As extensive as the powers of Parliament are, I am not sure a Bill in itself can give any of those guarantees. I am not trying to avoid an answer; the reality is that the Bill will set up a company with certain objectives, and those objectives should address directly the generation of employment. You have already heard and asked questions about how many jobs there will be in Aberdeen, what that will scale up to, and what it will mean in terms of the supply chain.
We are seeing a lot of very considerable numbers in a lot of different energy spaces: potentially great demand and very high-quality jobs in both the public space and the private ownership of utilities. But it is all promise. Some of the numbers are so significant in aggregate that you have to wonder where they are going to come from, because there is pressure on different parts of the infrastructure. There are lots of synergies between this sector and others—the skills are the same in aviation, defence and so on—and the basic throughput of science, technology, engineering and maths skills in this country is a long-term inhibitor to our productivity and our delivery. In terms of the narrow focus of the Bill, this organisation needs to be the stimulus for that supply chain, with good employment conditions throughout.
One of the issues in a just transition is that you replace public and private structured, high-quality jobs with jobs that are flimsier, more fragile and more temporary. If GB Energy can be a champion for long-term, durable relationships with its workforce—and that is how you want the energy sector to go—that is your best bet for having the jobs promise to replace those that have to be removed due to the climate impact.
Mika Minio-Paluello: The easiest solution is to keep someone working in their current workplace, precisely because, as Mike explained, there is a significant risk that, in shifting across, you end up with more precarious work. A lot of the onshore supply chain for offshore oil and gas has been struggling; we have seen a big decline over the past 14 years both within the supply chain and directly. Chunks of that supply chain can be future-proofed to support offshore wind and other parts, and GB Energy has a significant role to play in supporting those supply chain sites. Whether it is Shepherd Offshore, Smulders or cable manufacturers, GB Energy should say, “We will be purchasing from you, and not just from China.” There is a big risk of China coming to dominate the offshore wind supply chain. We could end up in a situation with offshore wind like the one with solar at the moment, where if you buy a solar panel, it is 97% made in China. GB Energy can play a role in making sure the offshore wind supply chain is situated here, and that is part of the protection.
The other part is about what could be done in the Bill, although it will not necessarily protect jobs—Mike is right; the Bill itself cannot entirely protect individual jobs. In our submission, we suggest that there could be an amendment to the strategic priorities section and that the statement of strategic priorities should have regard for a just transition, job equality and job creation. It should be embedded as a core part of the statement so that, when the Secretary of State sits down to prepare it, they go, “Okay, part of what we are going to put in here is about a just transition, job equality and job creation.” That is a possible amendment.
We have also suggested an amendment on protection, particularly given that a lot of the job creation and economic impact will be in Wales and Scotland, so the Bill will play an important role for those nations. That means that those nations should probably have a say, through their devolved Governments, on what happens down the line to GB Energy. Let us say that down the line a future Government goes, “Well, actually we are going to privatise it,” or, “We are going to instruct it to dispose of a lot of assets,” Scotland and Wales should be able to have a say and go, “Well actually, this is about our economy here and we think that shouldn’t happen.” We suggest doing that through an amendment but you could explore different mechanisms, including golden shares for those devolved Governments that specifically say that.
The Chair
Order. Sorry, but I did tell off the shadow Minister for talking about jobs when they are not in the Bill. I think we are straying quite a fair distance away. We are meant to stick within the scope of the contents of the Bill. With that in mind, a brilliant example will be Josh MacAlister.
Josh MacAlister
Q
Mike Clancy: We are always dealing with very long-term propositions when it comes to energy assets. Whether it is public or private, you need stable investment conditions so that the entity can build confidence and recruit the staff it needs to deliver its mission. I will keep coming back to this: it is an extremely challenging space if you create uncertainty, and even more so for a public entity, in terms of whether high-calibre people wish to commit their energies and talents in what is a globally competitive environment for their skills.
The most important thing we can do is create that stable investment circumstance. For Government, that means accepting the different challenges there are fiscally and in terms of spending. We would say that there can be no successful transition without a nuclear component, and we are obviously advocates of that. Therefore, we are strong advocates of Great British Nuclear. It will need to have—shall we say—that ability to operate within its own circumstances. Nuclear is particular; it has to be done to time and cost, and that is the big issue. The most important thing that the Bill can do is ensure that you have that stable investment and that you make the commitment.
I have been around for a little while. I have probably been involved in more nuclear and energy renaissances than anyone else in the room put together, and I think we need to get to the actual renaissance and get building. If you can give that stability, people will come to this because they are mission-driven, committed individuals who will want to be part of that renaissance.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
Mike Clancy: The simple answer is yes. The longer there is a concept phase, albeit a positive concept phase, the more that we are talking about a multiplier effect from GBE in many respects. If GBE is delivered, starts to operate and gives confidence to the direction of energy policy, other investors will see this as a serious proposition and therefore we will be engaging in this huge process of energy transition.
As I said just a moment ago, it also means that talented people can see a future. We want to be part of that. So, within the process of parliamentary drafting, the more that we have a clear set of objectives—actually differentiating it as a public entity and setting the tone for what you want from energy assets in the future—the better, because that will give that confidence. That also has a knock-on effect for the confidence of private investors in other parts of the energy environment.
Uma Kumaran
Q
Mika Minio-Paluello: There is a lot of demand at the moment, and a part of the challenge is a significant lack of supply. Part of the reason for that lack of supply is that there is a lack of investment. We as a country have not invested into our workforce sufficiently over time, which is why you get into a situation where different sectors effectively end up poaching people who are most in demand.
GB Energy provides a mechanism as part of solving that. It will not solve it as a whole—the Government have other plans as well to try put that investment in— but it can have a significant role in going, “Yes, here, we are going to provide that long-term investment directly.” Also, clearly, GB Energy will be partnering with the private sector. In that co-operation, it can then say, through its procurement powers, “Okay, in our joint project on this big offshore wind farm, we are going to require the supply chain across the board to be investing into apprenticeships, whether that is one, two or three tiers down,” so that we get that overall growth. It therefore can play a significant role there.
Mike Clancy: I have already touched on this. It might sound strange, but we probably have a bit of a mission at present because of the constraints applied by the previous Administration to remove our members in technical occupations in the energy field from the public sphere, because the labour markets that they operate in reward better in the private sector. The private sector is in a war for talent in this area because, in this country, over the many decades, we have not valued STEM skills and engineering. I speak as a humanities graduate who is always in awe of people who actually go to institutions and learn things that matter and are then applied for the health of the nation.
We have to start with valuing STEM—valuing it on a diverse basis, ensuring that the workforce reflects our diversity objectives more generally—and having a clear understanding that, even within Government, there can be an element of robbing one to pay for the other, such as with defence and aviation. Lots of areas need these STEM skills, which are then easily transferable into digital skills, and there are better salaries for some of those elsewhere.
If you want to deliver that promise about high-quality jobs, you really have to think and have a labour-market strategy for GB Energy that works in this competitive context at all levels—from apprenticeship, through to technical, through to engineering and even through to doctoral level. Again, in terms of the direction and objectives of the Bill, it is about being an exemplar for the entire energy sector in relation to the skills matrix, with how people are employed and the diversity objectives that any public company should have. That is what the Bill should try to address in sufficient detail.
The Chair
Order. Just a reminder again that we are talking about what is in the Bill—not blue-sky thinking about what GB Energy might do and that kind of stuff.
Andrew Bowie
Q
“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”
should include nuclear energy—very important to your members, Mr Clancy. But to build on the point from the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington, I think there is a lack of clarity in the Bill at the minute over the operational independence and the autonomy of Great British Nuclear. Are you seeking that from the Government? Is it something that we should seek to have in the Bill as it moves through Committee?
Mike Clancy: That is not just in terms of the Bill, I think; the actual future of Great British Nuclear has a degree of uncertainty around it, per se, because, again—I am in danger of repeating myself—we have been here before. I used to be a member of the Nuclear Industry Council some moons ago, and we are rightly evangelists for our members, who deliver nuclear energy. We recognise that there are lots of controversies down the back end, in terms of decommissioning, but nuclear is an essential part of the future energy mix and the achievement of our climate goals. Therefore, there has to be a range of certainties in response—that is not a glib remark at all—and, in the GB Energy area, it is about companies knowing that they can invest and get the return. The Bill needs to be consistent with that.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Mika Minio-Paluello: My understanding is that it is not currently in there, but it will be contained in the statement of strategic priorities. There are questions about how much should be added in. We understand that the logic is that the Bill will create an enabling vehicle—it will enable GB Energy to act and do things—so is it useful to put in many, many limitations? Probably not, because adding in too much detail will slow it down. Is it, on the other hand, useful to put in a clause that says that the statement of strategic priorities should have regard to a just transition and job creation? That could be a consideration.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Mika Minio-Paluello: Bringing energy bills down is a complicated process that depends on lots of things, including—
Stephen Flynn
Q
Mike Clancy: I suppose my response would be, “How could it be within the Bill?”
Mika Minio-Paluello: Theoretically, the Bill could say, “We will cap energy bills at a certain level,” but it would not be part of GB Energy’s role to cap energy.
Mike Clancy: You cannot divorce this from the fact that GB Energy will operate in a still-privatised energy asset environment, and consequently there are much broader questions about how bills are composed, the energy mix and so on. Those issues are not in the Bill, and I am sure the Chair would stop me going down that path. But I was the field official in energy, so if anyone wants to talk about that we can spend hours on it and the construction of the energy sector. I understand why you asked the question, but GB Energy is one entity within a much broader firmament of energy assets, owned in different ways.
Mika Minio-Paluello: Does the Bill enable the creation of a company that can, over time, grow to be something like EDF, Ørsted or Vattenfall? EDF brought bills down significantly during the energy crisis, when we had soaring bills. Does the Bill create the capacity to do that? Yes.
Mike Clancy: Often the focus in energy policy is on retail, because it affects domestic consumers more than wholesale when things are going a certain way. The biggest thing for us—we represent engineering and science staff—is where the generation is going to come from, what is going down the pipes and how we ensure that consistently and for the long term so that we have energy security and energy down those lines at a competitive price. Clearly, a public sector champion in that regard can be a significant contributor to changing the trajectory of energy prices and giving us indigenous energy security.
The Chair
Well, we are not going to fill the time for the sake of it. If you have a genuine question—
Stephen Flynn
Q
For full clarity, you have clarified that it is possible for these things to happen—I do not think anyone would disagree with that—but as it stands the Bill does not provide any certainty about any of those points.
The Chair
Order. Is this a repeat of the previous question? I think—[Interruption.] Okay, there is a minute left. Go on.
Stephen Flynn
Again, just for clarity—because you pushed back and said that EDF brought down bills—there is nothing in this Bill, unless you tell me otherwise, that says that GB Energy will do likewise. Is that correct?
Mika Minio-Paluello: I do not think it forces GB Energy to do likewise, but I doubt the legislation that set up EDF forced it to do that. I think it probably set up EDF as a company to operate and gave it freedom to act. The question for Members is: “What do we do to enable the UK to finally be on a par with our peers elsewhere?” Does this create a basis for that? Yes. Then, yes, can you please push and hold the Government to account—
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask this section of questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Shaun Spiers, Ravi Gurumurthy and Marc Hedin gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from our third panel. We have Shaun Spiers, executive director of Green Alliance, Ravi Gurumurthy, chief executive officer of Nesta, and Marc Hedin, head of UK and Ireland research at Aurora Energy Research. We have until 11 am for this session. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Shaun Spiers: I am Shaun Spiers, executive director of Green Alliance, a think-tank and charity committed to environmental leadership.
Marc Hedin: I am Marc Hedin, head of research for UK and Ireland at Aurora Energy Research. We are a power market analytics company.
Ravi Gurumurthy: I am Ravi Gurumurthy. I am the CEO of Nesta and the behavioural insights team. Nesta designs, tests and scales solutions to big societal problems, including sustainability.
Andrew Pakes
Q
Marc Hedin: I think we can reflect a little bit on the role of Great British Energy here. One of the areas for innovation is around investments in less mature technologies. It is one of the roles that was highlighted in the founding statement, published in July earlier this year. There is a role for that, but I would argue that there is also a possibility for dedicated schemes to deploy capital in less mature technologies. For instance, with regards to long-duration energy storage, we had a consultation earlier this year, generally welcomed by the industry, which looked into implementing a sort of capital flow regime to promote investment into long-duration energy storage. There is a role for GB Energy here, but there are also alternative routes that are potentially less capital-intensive.
The second aspect, touched on earlier, is around supply chain. There is huge scope here for Great British Energy, where, out of all its potential roles, it may provide the best value for money. In GB, the domestic supply chain has not generally benefited that much from the high level of renewable build-out that we have seen in the past decade or so. There is a role for providing visibility to the supply chain, and implementing innovation into the supply chain more generally in the energy sector.
Ravi Gurumurthy: If you think about different barriers to innovation, I think three stand out. One is co-ordination challenges; second is the provision of certain public goods, such as ports infrastructure, which are critical to investment; and third is risk appetite. I think GB Energy can potentially address all those in different ways.
On the risk side, co-investing—particularly in the novel technologies that Marc mentioned—can accelerate that innovation. Secondly, on things such as ports infrastructure, having a body that is trying to do whatever it takes to solve some of the co-ordination issues and the dependencies on public inputs can drive that innovation.
One other thing I would mention is that Government have a role, and have increasingly played a more co-ordinated role, in driving directed R&D through the net zero panel. I think Government can be better at that, if they are more informed, and one of the things I think GB Energy will do is to give a stronger insight into the constraints and opportunities in the market, and therefore potentially inform Government’s ability to drive innovation in a smarter way.
Shaun Spiers: I obviously agree with all that. The really difficult thing about clean power by 2030 is the last 10% or 20%. It is clear that the market on its own, at the moment, will not provide that, and just adding renewables and grid will not provide it. What GB Energy provides is the potential to invest in things like pump hydropower, compressed air and new technologies that we are going to need. That is going to be essential to achieving the 2030 power decarbonisation.
Perran Moon
Q
Shaun Spiers: It is really quite hard to see how the UK will be able to decarbonise power generation, certainly by 2030. By 2035 was really ambitious and by 2030 is even more ambitious, so you do need a vehicle of this sort to crowd in investment and to give a really clear sense of direction to overseas investors and other investors who are looking for places to put their money. This gives a huge impetus to that mission. It is easy to set targets, but unless you have a vehicle to deliver them, they are going to be impossible to achieve. GB Energy is the key vehicle. I would say it is essential.
Ravi Gurumurthy: Nesta and Boehringer co-authored a report that I was part of, which included some of the time and cost savings that we think GB Energy can deliver—for instance, the role of GB Energy as what we call the pre-developer, where the Crown Estate takes on this role of basically preparing the sites, doing the planning consents, doing the grid connection and doing the environmental surveys before having potentially a single auction process rather than the current dual auction process. We thought that would reduce the time of getting offshore wind built by two to four years. We also produced some cost savings from doing that, including some reduction in rents. We think this institution can deliver genuine improvements in terms of time and cost.
I would not just stop at the vantage point of 2030, because although I think this will make some impact on 2030, remember that we have to double electricity capacity in this country if we are going to electrify heating and transport, so the 10 years beyond 2030 are just as important. I think GB Energy is an institution for the long term, not just for the next five years.
The Chair
I am being reminded again that we should focus on what is in the Bill; I know we can extrapolate what might happen. Next we go to Olivia Blake.
Olivia Blake
Q
Shaun Spiers: We have concerns about the huge powers given to the Secretary of State in the Bill. Clause 5(2) says:
“The Secretary of State may revise or replace the statement.”
A subsequent Secretary of State could significantly revise the aims of GB Energy. We think that the statement should be consulted on. We would propose an addition or amendment to say that the Secretary of State must consult anybody likely to be affected by the statement, or such bodies as considered appropriate by the Secretary of State— something like that, just to say that there should be more scrutiny so that the Secretary of State cannot simply change the aims of GB Energy in the way it is currently set out.
Ravi Gurumurthy: I run an innovation organisation, and the hallmark of good innovation, or of good companies, is that they pivot and adapt. I know that it is sometimes challenging to set up an institution like GB Energy and not lock down all the parameters, but actually that is critical. There are issues and barriers that we do not even know yet, and I think it is important that this organisation can do whatever it takes to achieve the mission, even if we cannot right now identify exactly every single aspect of its role.
Marc Hedin: I would echo that message that the role of Great British Energy is very broad and is being defined as we speak. That is what we in this room, but also the people working for Great British Energy, are doing at the moment. It could also change in the future as the challenges of energy administration evolve. I therefore think it makes sense for the Bill to provide present and future flexibility in scope.
That being said, there are two points or questions that should potentially be answered. First, what are the governance arrangements to ensure that Great British Energy carries out its duties and focuses on its remit? Part of the answer could be that it should be ensured that Great British Energy provides additionality and works with stakeholders, which is what Shaun Spiers mentioned. Secondly, since Great British Energy’s role is primarily to fill gaps in the market, it would be useful to assess its effectiveness there. Clause 7 only mentions an annual rendition of financial accounts, and there is no mention of effectiveness or impact. Reflecting on the possible roles of Great British Energy, some, such as speeding up project delivery, will lead to value added for the whole system but not necessarily additional revenues for Great British Energy. Financial accounts may only tell part of the story, and there is a need for more comprehensive reporting, in my view.
Shaun Spiers: If I may, just quickly: to require consultation on the strategic priorities if they are going to change radically should not be too onerous.
Pippa Heylings
Q
Can you explain a little more your concerns? First, given that innovation needs to pivot, but also given that we are being asked to allow for the objects to be so broad to allow for flexibility within them, Shaun, can you explain a little more why you think there should be consultation on such broad objects? Secondly, can you discuss any concerns you may have around environmental requirements for what GB Energy is going to do? That is also absent at the moment from the objects of the Bill.
Shaun Spiers: On the concern about the ability of subsequent Secretaries of State simply to change the strategic direction of the organisation, you can look at recent history to know that there can be radical changes. It does not seem to me to be too demanding; it is just good governance to suggest that that should be consulted on, and that you do not give absolute powers to a Secretary of State to do that. I do not see that as a particular constraint on innovation; I just think of that as good governance.
The Chair is keen that we do not lever in lots of other things on the Bill, but there is a concern. Clearly, 2030 power decarbonisation is an imperative and we need to achieve net zero, but we also have a nature crisis and there are concerns about whether GB Energy will seek to enhance nature or whether nature will take second place. Both the Secretary of State and Chris Stark, the head of mission control, have emphasised that there will be a role for considerations of nature in energy planning. But, again, that is not in the Bill, and it would be nice to see it there or to see some statement to that effect from the Dispatch Box to ensure that it is central to how GB Energy will behave. There are lots of public companies that do not prioritise nature—they prioritise bills or the delivery of their main objective—and we see the consequence of that, for instance, in the water industry.
Josh MacAlister
Q
Ravi Gurumurthy: It is a very challenging question. As you know, good intentions in this area often do not translate. You can mandate and say you want to operate with risk appetite, but it does not really translate into behaviour. What do I think are some of the components? The capitalisation of GB Energy is really important, because that gives it some degree of resource to take risks. I am quite interested in whether, as well as investing in novel technologies with a high-risk appetite, GB Energy can either take cashless equity stakes or invest in more established technologies, because if you have a more balanced portfolio, it might give you the ability to take risks in some aspects.
That gets you into a conversation about the fiscal rules. The one thing I would say about this area is that if you compare offshore wind and other established energy technologies with roads or hospitals, the big difference in my mind is that for offshore wind we will build those wind farms whether the state invests or not, and we will pay as consumers, whereas roads and hospitals will not get built if the state does not. The point is that we are going to pay for it, and we will pay more through private sector borrowing than we will through the state.
The second big difference is that unlike a road or a hospital, there was a guaranteed revenue stream through a contract for difference, so there is a really good rationale for why we should not have fiscal rules that bias us towards 100% private sector borrowing, rather than the state either taking a cashless equity stake via this development process or actually investing. If you do that, it will give GB Energy the ability to then take risks on the much more novel aspects of the portfolio and have failures. If GB Energy does not have failures, it will not be doing its job.
Harriet Cross
Q
Marc Hedin: I may be playing devil’s advocate here, but there is a slight risk if a public company were to invest in a utility scale project. At the moment in GB, we manage to attract quite a lot of capital to deploy renewable projects, for instance. There is also a risk of perceived unfair competition that would be detrimental to future capital attractiveness, so I would add that to the global reflection around this topic.
Ravi Gurumurthy: To come in on that, it is very common in other countries for the state to co-invest. I have spoken to a lot of other organisations, and we need to attract £350 billion to £500 billion of capital into power generation in the next 10 years. I think it is perfectly possible for the state to play a role in that. Everything that GB Energy is trying to do is to reduce the risk and increase the predictability of the investment environment. If you take the developer role, at the moment the private sector, when it bids in for a seabed lease, has to have the uncertainty of whether that project will ever get commissioned and the long delay in planning and consenting, grid connection and environmental surveys. If we can actually have the state do some of that and de-risk it, I think it is more likely to get that private sector investment. That is what happens in the Netherlands and it is what the Danes are moving towards, and it is also partly what happens in Germany. There is a good track record of these sorts of environments working well to attract private sector investment.
Shaun Spiers: That is right. You cannot dictate the culture of a company in a Bill. There was a criticism of the Green Investment Bank, for instance, that it invested in rather established technologies and had an insufficiently high appetite for risk. It will be important that GB Energy does pump-prime private investment and not replace it.
Torcuil Crichton
Q
Shaun Spiers: Ravi has written the report on it.
Ravi Gurumurthy: Your question is: what can it do to drive private sector investment?
Torcuil Crichton
Yes, what can the Bill and GB Energy itself do?
Ravi Gurumurthy: I have already articulated what it can do on the development side to get rid of some of the risks to do with planning, consenting, grid connection and so on. On the more novel technologies—small modular reactors, floating wind, tidal range and so on—I think we have also talked about how if the state is co-investing in some way, it signals a degree of commitment and insulates companies slightly from the risks. In both the investor and developer roles, GB Energy can play a role in accelerating things. The biggest way in which the state can de-risk investment and increase private sector contribution is through the National Energy System Operator, providing a clear, strategic plan and forward visibility of what is happening in terms of technology and location. That is how I think we will get the investment—not just in the assets, but in the supply chain as well.
Shaun Spiers: On clean, flexible power, what Green Alliance has proposed is a sort of vaccine taskforce-style operation to crowd in all potential technologies for this. It is not clear who would fund it, if GB Energy did not. That is a really important part of 2030 power decarbonisation. There is also the local power plan. The previous Government had a plan—I think it was in 2014—to power 1 million homes by community energy, which was abandoned four years later with about 67,000 homes powered. There is a clear remit here for making community energy economically viable and getting local investment in community energy.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
Shaun Spiers: I think a nature recovery or nature protection duty in the Bill would be helpful in reassuring communities. The investment in community energy, where people really have a stake in the energy, will take some of the sting out of the opposition to renewables, but I would not overload the Bill with things that are better dealt with in the planning system. This is a Bill to enable a lot of investment in achieving a decarbonised power system and long-term energy security. To try to overload it with things that are best dealt with in other parts of government, or other legislation, would be a mistake.
Wera Hobhouse
So the Bill is sufficient in protecting communities?
Shaun Spiers: I would like to see a nature recovery duty in the Bill.
Catherine Fookes
Q
Shaun Spiers: One thing that is necessary to say is that this is a major part of the transition and a priority of the Government. That was the case for periods during the coalition, when there was a really vibrant community energy movement and a sense in which people were coming around to supporting renewable energy—which otherwise they would have opposed—because they could see they had a financial stake in it but had also been engaged in developing it. What snuffed that out had more to do with planning issues than with investment, but there are ways in which GB Energy can pump-prime some of the investment.
I am trying to think back to the community energy manifesto we put together in 2018. I cannot think of any specific things, but I can write to the Committee, if that is helpful. There are specific financial incentives that would help get this off the ground. To be honest, though, communities across the country were really keen on community energy. It was a vibrant movement and could be again, with the right political framework as much as investment.
Uma Kumaran
Q
Ravi Gurumurthy: You have to think about this as a whole package. If you have absolute clarity and conviction around the 2030 decarbonisation target and the pathway beyond that, and if you translate that intent into a strategic plan—with clarity about the technologies and their location through the NESO—and if you then have an enabling, activating agency like GB Energy clearing away some of the barriers, then the combination of that overall ambition, that plan and GB Energy does I think hugely accelerate investments into the sector. But you have got to do all three.
Marc Hedin: I think that is right. I think there are two key components here. One is identifying gaps in the market, where Great British Energy can provide a lot of value and can reinforce confidence from investors, and thinking hard about where it makes sense for Great British Energy to invest. We have mentioned points like local power plans, innovative technologies. I think there is a range of areas in which it makes a lot of sense for the state to co-invest through Great British Energy to develop those industries. The last point is around supply chain, to really support the whole energy transition.
Shaun Spiers: I agree with that. This is a part of a bigger picture. We keep coming back to the scope of the Bill. The Bill, in its objects, talks about
“measures for ensuring the security of supply of energy”
One area that really has not been given sufficient attention is critical raw materials, where we import 100% and then we export 100% for recycling elsewhere. There are 37 lithium recycling factories in the EU but none in the UK. This is the sort of industry that Great British Energy could help pump-prime, if that is seen as within its scope.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Shaun Spiers: I think the more that can be done to set out the strategic priorities, the better. I do not think it necessarily needs to be in the Bill. The explanatory statement and the introductions and so on I think do give a reasonably good steer on what the strategic priorities are, but obviously this body is being set up at pace. The more clarity there is on what it is going to do, the better. I would not set unreasonable expectations of a body that is being set up really quickly, with a pretty clear short-term aim of 2030 power decarbonisation and of supporting that. However, in the longer term the priorities clearly need to be set out.
Ravi Gurumurthy: The NESO will be producing its plan in October, and you have then got the next carbon budget in February, so the actual pathway to 2030 and to 2050 will start to become even clearer in the coming months. It will need to be flexible, however. There will be technologies which emerge that shift our sense of what to focus on. You need priorities, but you do need quite a lot of flexibility in this system.
Marc Hedin: I made the point, I think, at the very beginning that we need a very flexible scope because there will be challenges to the energy transition. We need room to adapt. If this vehicle is to facilitate the energy transition, we need that scope to be relatively broad. I did mention a couple of safeguards, more like accountability, and I think that is still reasonable to ask. However, in terms of strategic priorities, I think the scope is broad enough and makes sense.
Perran Moon
Q
Shaun Spiers: By investing in it. It is more a question of the recycling, because there is a big recycling industry elsewhere. When the UK was the pioneer in offshore wind, it was easy to import critical raw materials and then not bother about reusing them and just import more. As the Foreign Secretary was talking about in his speech at Kew, there are now real concerns about the shortage of critical raw materials across the world. Because they are needed for so many technologies, and so many technologies that are essential to the transition, we need a plan for the transition that includes recycling plants. Lithium mining in Cornwall is great, but we also need not be exporting our critical raw materials to be repurposed elsewhere, and then reimporting the repurposed ones. There are 37 recycling plants in the EU, while in China there were 61 waste lithium battery recycling and processing companies two years ago, and it is a growing industry. It has not grown in the UK, it has not had attention, and I think that if GB Energy is committed to long-term energy security, which it is, then it could play a part in getting that industry going in the UK.
The Chair
We are straying quite far from the scope of the Bill. It is an interesting discussion, and it could carry on offline afterwards, but it is not within the scope of this Bill. Are there any more questions? If there are no further questions from Committee members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Dan McGrail and Adam Berman gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome to our fourth and final panel this morning. We will now hear oral evidence from Dan McGrail, CEO of RenewableUK, and Adam Berman, who is director of policy at Energy UK. For this session we have until 11.25 am. There are questions at 11.30 am in the Chamber—I have one myself.
The Chair
A few of us have. Okay, if we finish early, we have more time to leg it over there. Please could the witnesses introduce themselves.
Dan McGrail: Good morning everybody, my name is Dan McGrail, I am the chief executive of RenewableUK, which is a trade association representing the wind industry predominantly, but also the tidal energy sector and crucially, the supply chain that sits within that. We have about 500 member companies across the UK and we work closely with devolved Administrations and national Government.
Adam Berman: Good morning. My name is Adam Berman, I am director of policy and advocacy at Energy UK, which represents the whole of the energy sector really, short of upstream oil and gas extraction—everything from all the forms of generation, right through the networks and into household level. We represent the retail energy suppliers as well.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Dan McGrail: It is good to see you too, shadow Minister. First, I think there is a trade-off in legislation like this, between the focus you want to provide, and the guard rails put into the Bill, and giving the entrepreneurial freedom to the organisation to invest where opportunities arise. We believe, and the report we wrote prior to the release of this was quite clear, that focus is important, but is legislation the place to put the focus? Our view is that the business plan that is set up and put in place by the chief executive and their team, once appointed, is the place to put that focus. It will be much more predictable if it is developed by experts in the sector who have conducted a thorough analysis of where the opportunities are for investment, and where the real additionality is.
One additional point that is important to detail in the statement, when it comes, is how the investment priorities of GB Energy would be different from those of the private sector. Would GB Energy take a longer view on returns on investment? Would it have a different rate of return? That would help to clarify the role of GB Energy within the ecosystem of the sector and with other private investors so that there is understanding of where real partnership opportunities lie.
In short, the answer to your question is that it is important to have a focus, but do the focus in the plan rather than in the legislation.
Adam Berman: I certainly agree with Dan. My one reservation with the legislation is that GB Energy will face two distinct competing priorities: the first is making money, which would probably primarily come from established mature renewables, and the second is solving distinct problems within the energy system that are a result of market failures. There is some overlap—although not complete overlap— between those two priorities. The question is whether there should be more clarity in the legislation over which strategic objective GB Energy should be solving. That is not an issue for industry to resolve, but it is something that, without stronger guidance in the legislation, GB Energy may struggle to reconcile once it is formed.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Adam Berman: I do not think there is a deficit in terms of accountability, and I do not think there are 500 bodies that should be consulted before any decision is made by GB Energy; if you look at things like the planning system and statutory consultees, you can see how that is an issue. That being said, there is a list of organisations that any Secretary of State should consult, through their due diligence, which is everyone from the National Energy System Operator to the Climate Change Committee to industry to devolved Administrations. We would very much assume that the Secretary of State and the Department would do that due diligence themselves. However, I do not think shackling GB Energy through the legislation to having to do that to make every decision is necessarily the right approach.
Dan McGrail: I fully agree with that.
Olivia Blake
Q
Dan McGrail: From my perspective, the definition is probably good enough. It is quite tricky to go too narrow and say renewable energy only, because there are certain areas, such as long duration storage, where the sector would like GB Energy to participate in, or at least to have the freedom to participate in, which, if it is too narrowly constrained or defined, may prove problematic later down the line.
One thing I think would be advantageous in the definition, or in the objects, is to clearly set out the guard rails, such as ensuring the carbon budgets are referenced. If we reference the carbon budgets, future Secretaries of State would need to make sure that any investments that were made were in line with the delivery of the carbon budgets. That is comparable to what was done with the set-up of the Green Investment Bank, where there were specific references to what the Secretary of State would need to go back to primary legislation to change, and what would be foreseeable within secondary legislation—not directing the Green Investment Bank to invest in fossil fuels, for example, would have required a complete change of mandate. I think some similar thinking, therefore, would be helpful here.
Adam Berman: I do not completely agree. I do not think there is a big problem of definition, but I would say that we need to ensure it is consistent with the CCC’s existing language and with the technologies that it thinks are consistent with the sixth carbon budget. Clean energy may encapsulate all of them, but I think we would have to make sure that it includes established mature renewables, nuclear, carbon capture, utilisation and storage and hydrogen, just to leave those options on the table. I do not disagree with Dan that there needs to be a focus, but GB Energy needs to at least be given the option to engage in the technologies where it thinks there may be additionality in terms of bringing in GBE’s involvement.
Pippa Heylings
Q
Adam Berman: Clearly I agree that they are of incredible importance when it comes to planning the energy system and that the dialogue with them about the local communities that they know better than anyone else is pivotal. The challenge is that for GB Energy, as far as I understand it, a major part of it is local power plans, which will already have involved close consultation with local authorities and communities in lots of different ways.
From an industry perspective, I would be hesitant about placing that as a condition on GB Energy’s investment. That is not to diminish its importance; it is just to ensure that we are allowing GB Energy to be successful and that we are not holding it back. There is a very good argument that that should be included in the legislation, and that the national energy system operator and the Climate Change Committee should be included in the legislation, but once we have gone through all those bodies, it starts to become prohibitive for the investment process, which we want to be free and fair for GB Energy. We are therefore slightly hesitant about saying that we necessarily have to look to any particular body for consultation.
Pippa Heylings
Q
Adam Berman: That is a really good point. I think that there could be something in the legislation to ensure that GB Energy’s investments are consistent not only with the local area energy planning, but with the strategic spatial energy planning that the energy system operator is doing.
Dan McGrail: There is a really important point here about how, to be successful in the market, GB Energy will need to engage with those processes anyway. There will be accountability around the company, but one nervousness I have is about trying to put too much into the Bill specifically on GB Energy. I agree that the point should be about complying with the things that we need to deal with, whether those are in law, in programmes such as the strategic spatial energy plan or in the work of the national system operator. Those are all interconnected and contiguous pieces of a system in which GB Energy needs to be able to operate effectively. The onus, if we put anything in legislation, is to be compliant with all that.
Torcuil Crichton
Q
Dan McGrail: I firmly stand by the idea that GB Energy, at least in its initial phase, should do three or four things excellently, with some fundamental underpinning. It should champion the UK supply chain; it should act to promote skills; it should enable innovation. The market segments in which it operates should be focused on and defined early. Its budget of £8.3 billion is a lot of money, but to get value from that in the context of the energy sector, GB Energy needs to focus on two or three areas in which it can really deliver additionality. I think the place for that is in the business plan, rather than in the legislation. As the legislation is currently framed, it allows the team the space, when they begin the work of the company, to define those two or three areas; it does not narrow them down. My view is that the legislation as drafted gives it that space.
Josh MacAlister
Q
Dan McGrail: Occupying space where there is a highly liquid market for private capital is unlikely to bring much additionality. Offshore wind is one of those places —fixed-bottom offshore wind, to be precise. That is a mature market; there is capital that will flow to projects if the wider investment conditions of those projects are right, and that is more Government policy-related. However, there are other markets. For example, onshore wind in England has basically been under-invested in for the past decade. There will still be nervousness within the private sector: “Do I want to be the first developer to test local planning? What does the risk profile of that look like?”
I see a clear role for GB Energy to partner with the private sector to help to accelerate the return of investment in that market, or for example within the growth of the floating offshore wind market, where there are clear opportunities that go beyond just the energy sector and into transition, such as floating offshore wind in Scotland or in the Celtic sea, where we know that there is a much bigger economic growth story. Those are areas where I think we could see public and private capital working very comfortably together.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
Adam Berman: A fundamental conundrum with GB Energy will be the extent to which, through legislation, you want to constrain its investment activities. Clearly, from an industry perspective, we are very keen that there be an emphasis on additionality, on complementing and not duplicating private sector capital that is already there.
Dan mentioned wind. The recent CfD allocation round 6 auction crowded in about £20 billion of private sector investment—that is one year and one auction. That is not to say that £8.3 billion capitalised over a Parliament is not a significant sum of money; it is to say that if we want the most bang for buck, it is absolutely about thinking about those areas where it can be complementary to the private sector. On the one hand I am saying that, yes, industry would be very happy for GB Energy to have that as a focus, but it is also fair to say that it would be a restriction in GB Energy’s activities if it were only to engage in a space that enabled additionality, because it would restrict some of the investment portfolio that it could end up with.
Dan McGrail: The private sector and the industry in general have been quite clear that we see a real benefit in the participation of GB Energy in emergent technology, such as tidal energy. However, even within the five founding statements, there is nothing specific about fostering UK home-grown innovation. I would err on the side of caution within legislation, or at least I would not put it as a boundary condition. It should not be the only thing, but if it were somewhere in the plan—either in the founding statements, if they get modified, or in the plans brought forward by the Secretary of State—that would be healthy.
Catherine Fookes
Q
My question is about tidal power. I represent a Welsh constituency, Monmouthshire. We have the River Severn in the south of the constituency, which is a tidal river, and we have the Celtic sea. What opportunities will the Bill give to generate more tidal power?
Dan McGrail: The Bill allows space for GB Energy to take quite an activist role in the sector. I am aware of tidal power companies that are already very keen to engage with GB Energy on specific proposals. One thing about tidal power is that we have seen the success of many projects through the CfD auctions. We need to see them come to investment decisions. The more we can see a state actor enabling companies to take decisions, the more it will help to scale up the industry and then the technologies. From the technologies, we can hopefully deliver the kind of supply chain growth and jobs in local communities to which we all aspire.
Perran Moon
Q
“prepare a statement of strategic priorities”.
I have been listening carefully to the priorities on skills and innovation from your perspective. Let me ask you both: if you were Secretary of State, what would be your key strategic priorities be for the Bill?
Adam Berman: The first is public value, which goes beyond the ability of GB Energy to create profits and return them to energy bills or whatever mechanism it might come up with. That is not to say that that is not important, but if this is new money—a significant amount of new capital—being made available by the Treasury, it is about how we, as a society and as an economy, can get the most out of those investments. So I would say public value, which is about not just financial returns but broader public benefits.
Secondly, it is about spreading economic activity and about how that links into the industrial strategy. That might be for the supply chain and also for GB Energy, but we should think not just about particular technologies but about particular regions.
A third priority would be the delivery of the UK’s legal objectives—its legally binding climate commitments.
A fourth priority would be the delivery of the National Energy System Operator’s priorities, which links to the strategic spatial energy plan that we have already been talking about, and ensuring that it helps to foster a workable decarbonised power sector. For example, we could see solutions such as GB Energy putting investment into wind or solar in areas with higher constraint costs or lower population centres with higher land use costs, which are not as attractive to private investors at the moment, but which with GB Energy’s lower cost of capital may well still be a profitable enterprise. It is about how we can have a win-win with NESO’s objectives.
Finally, impact on investment cannot be ignored. I recognise that it is not the Government’s intention at all that there be an impact on private sector investment, but we need to ensure, as a founding principle, that there is not a risk that any GB Energy investment could deter or crowd out private sector investment.
Dan McGrail: I would add one thing to that very good summary. There are a number of new institutions being set up at the same time—NESO, mission control, GB Energy. There are also a number of big initiatives such as strategic spatial energy plans and centralised network planning. It would be very helpful for the sector and for industry to understand the interaction of those with the national wealth fund. I almost see an organogram in my mind of how things flow. In my conversations with the sector, there have been questions about where the limit of GB Energy ends and where the National Wealth Fund begins, and so on and so forth. It would be enormously helpful for the sector and for other institutions such as the Scottish National Investment Bank and UKIB to understand how they fit within that matrix.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, may I thank the witnesses for their evidence?
That brings us to the end of our morning sitting. We have had four panels with eight witnesses—thanks, everyone. The Committee will meet again in this Committee Room at 2 o’clock, when I will have turned into Sir Roger Gale.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. (Anna Turley.)
Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 8th October 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 View all Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 October 2024 - (8 Oct 2024)
The Chair
The Committee will now hear oral evidence from Alistair McGirr, group head of policy and advocacy at SSE, and Tristan Zipfel, director of strategy at EDF Renewables. We have until 2.30 pm for this session. Will you be kind enough to introduce yourselves for the record, gentlemen?
Alistair McGirr: I am Alistair McGirr. I look after our cross-cutting policy and public affairs. I sit within our group structure, but SSE has interests across renewable energy, flexible capacity and electricity networks.
Tristan Zipfel: I am Tristan Zipfel, director of strategy, markets and investments for EDF Renewables. We are one of the leading renewable energy developers in the UK. We have about 1.5 GW in operation, with 600 people across the country in five different offices. It is a real pleasure to be able to share some evidence today.
The Chair
Mr Zipfel, one of the disadvantages of having a geriatric Chairman is that my hearing is not as good as it used to be. But for everybody’s benefit and, most particularly, for the Hansard reporters, it might be helpful for you to speak up a little and be very clearly on microphone. I call the shadow Minister.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Q
“objects are restricted to facilitating…the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”
and must include
“measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy.”
SSE and EDF Renewables are involved in both those objects right now, so how do you see the Bill and the creation of this company as either assisting or facilitating you in your objectives?
Alistair McGirr: At SSE, we welcome GB Energy, and as a company that is headquartered in Scotland, we particularly welcome its location. We think that Scotland has a larger opportunity for investment across the clean energy transition. To answer your question directly, it depends on how the organisation is set up and on its governance, but if, as has been suggested, GB Energy will be focused on crowding in investment, there is an opportunity for it to help to accelerate that transition and, importantly, to capture some of the wider opportunities that can come from the transition.
Tristan Zipfel: You can probably tell from my accent that I come from a country where state-owned investment in energy assets is commonplace, so that is something that we at EDF are very comfortable with and see very positively. In fact, I would say that any initiative that leads to directing more investment, capital and effort into decarbonisation is a very good thing. As Alistair said, it will be important that GB Energy is set up in a way that triggers and supports investment in the sector and does not disrupt the competitive playing field that we currently have in it.
Andrew Bowie
Q
“The Secretary of State must prepare a statement of strategic priorities for Great British Energy.”
If you were the Secretary of State and were tasked with drawing up strategic priorities, what would they be?
Alistair McGirr: On the way that we think about the particular benefits from GB Energy, first, we look at it as a potential partner for some of our investments. We work with a number of commercial entities, some of which are state owned—for example, Equinor, which we work with on the Dogger Bank offshore wind farm and on our carbon capture and storage projects. We work with these parties on a commercial basis and we would be open to working with GB Energy on projects that would help to accelerate the transition. So co-investment is one area. We would be keen to see that targeted at areas where there may be a bit of policy risk. With things like hydrogen storage, hydro-pump storage or CCS, there may be an opportunity for GB Energy to take some of the policy risks that private companies perhaps cannot.
Offshore wind is an area where there has been lots of debates, and there was some nervousness relating to the initial discussion about the Crown Estate tie-up. However, we think that with the principle they were trying to achieve, which is the acceleration of that environmental consenting process, there is an opportunity to accelerate projects and, importantly, reduce the cost of bringing those projects to fruition.
To give an example, our Berwick Bank offshore wind farm up in Scotland, which is one of the largest in the world, is currently sitting within the planning process and has been for 20-plus months now. Projects like Berwick Bank could be accelerated by a focus on areas where GB Energy can accelerate environmental consenting, basically by taking a more strategic approach to how it thinks about environmental consenting rather than considering that on a project-by-project basis.
To make a point on offshore wind, the one area that everyone will talk about—I am sure we will come back to it—is floating offshore wind. There is a big opportunity for not only GB Energy, but the national wealth fund to capture a whole range of benefits from the emerging sector, in terms of both bringing the costs of delivery down and making sure that there is a supply chain available to deliver the projects that are currently under development.
Perhaps a last point to mention is the local power plan. We would be quite keen, as an operator of electricity distribution networks, that the local power plan was able to be targeted in areas where there is a wider system and societal benefit in supporting and unlocking a lot of the low-carbon projects in the distribution network, because it is no secret that there will be lots of questions about how things connect to that local distribution network. We think that the local power plan has a particular route in targeting some of those investments in a way that can better integrate low-carbon technologies into the distribution network.
Tristan Zipfel: To add to what Alistair said, for a start, the UK is in a really strong position to maintain its leadership in the renewables market. There is a strong industry in place, and I think GB Energy can fit into that and strengthen the framework. As a co-investor, in particular, I think GB Energy could bring value, as Alistair said, by investing in frontier technologies, but also by helping to strengthen the link and connection with local communities. For our projects to be successful, it is absolutely paramount that they are adhered to by the local communities. As a developer, we spend tremendous efforts on being present and creating a connection with local communities. Having GB Energy on board for certain projects could reinforce that link and even provide a sense of public ownership in the project, which I think would be very strong.
Alistair talked about emerging technologies and how some of them present certain risk profiles, where having an investor like GB Energy could help kick-start the development of this segment of the market. He mentioned CCS; I think we could talk about hydrogen as another example.
GB Energy also has an interesting role to play as a developer. We have seen the announcement of the partnership with the Crown Estate on the offshore site. There is an opportunity for GB Energy to focus on the segments of the market where the private sector is struggling to make progress, perhaps because the infrastructure is not yet there, or because there are specific risk profiles that make the private sector struggle to invest in these segments of the market, despite them presenting long-term value. That is where there is a real opportunity for GB Energy.
Andrew Bowie
Q
“The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before including in a statement under this section anything which concerns a subject matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”.
As a company that has heavily invested in Scotland, did you realise that there was detail in the Bill about how GB Energy will interact with the devolved Administrations, given that so many aspects of what it is seeking to achieve are competences of the devolved Administrations, specifically in Scotland?
Alistair McGirr: In terms of the premise, I definitely agree that the devolved Administrations have to play an important role in the direction of GB Energy. I do not think there necessarily needs to be anything in the legislation. I suppose it is also worth mentioning that there might be a view about how the investments are spread across different parts of the country. In reality, a lot of those will be up in Scotland because of the opportunities that Scotland has.
The Chair
I have three Members on my list already, and we have 15 minutes left, so please be short, sharp and to the point.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Q
Tristan Zipfel: If you take the example of France, EDF is indeed state owned, but it is a competitive market. Nowadays, EDF is one actor among others. If you take, for instance, offshore wind in France, EDF competes—sometimes it wins, and sometimes it does not. The benefit for the general public is a sense that that body can execute the strategic vision of the French Government in delivering net zero or a decarbonised future. EDF is very much the arm that executes that vision—independently, at arm’s length, but it does it. I also think there is a creation of long-term value by the ownership of assets. EDF provides dividends to the French state, which I think are valuable.
Uma Kumaran
Merci.
Alistair McGirr: If I may add to that, there is the question of the role of the state. Not everything has to be through GB Energy or the national wealth fund. In terms of the GB Energy policy framework, the creation of the National Energy System Operator can help to drive a lot of economic value through the transition here in GB by taking a much more strategic approach to how infrastructure is going to be deployed. GB Energy is one element of that, but I think the wider value can be brought together by a more strategic approach through the policy framework.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Q
Tristan Zipfel: For sure, yes, they could be part of the scope. Choices will need to be made, of course, on where those investments are directed, and I think it is important to direct the investments where they will have the maximum impact. When it comes to onshore wind, for instance, perhaps it could be a case not of investing where the private sector is already doing a good job on its own, but of looking at areas where there is a need to develop infrastructure to unlock these onshore wind opportunities, or of looking at Government-owned land that could be used to develop new projects. As you said, Alistair, it is going to be complementary to what the private sector is doing, but there will be pockets of opportunities for GB Energy to really make a difference, even in an area like onshore wind, I think—100%.
Alistair McGirr: I agree with that answer. The question would then be: where is the biggest bang for the buck? Is it building large onshore wind projects that actually have developers in that space and have a route to market? That is probably the question for GB Energy: is that the best use of taxpayers’ money, rather than other things that can be done in terms of investment in frontier technologies?
You mentioned tidal. There is the question there of an absence of a business model. If there was this supported business model, there might be an opportunity for private investors to come into that space. There is the issue that just because the private sector is not doing it does not mean that the public sector should do it, because ultimately, if it is a bad deal for private shareholders, it is probably a bad deal for taxpayers as well. I think this is about making sure that the technologies that are useful are brought forward with business models that provide a return for whoever the investor is.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Q
“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”,
you have welcomed state intervention and the role of GB Energy in that. How would you feel about communities taking a direct stake in your onshore and offshore developments—say, 20%, as they do in Denmark?
Tristan Zipfel: On our side—I am sure SSE does the same—we are definitely looking at that. We are trying to develop some schemes that go exactly along those lines. We have not done it so far. The link and the reward to communities have been through the community benefits fund linked to our projects. I live in Teesside: we have an offshore wind farm there, and I can tell you that the community benefit fund, over the last 10 years of operation, has helped dozens of local projects and initiatives. You are absolutely right to think the next frontier is to have more local ownership of wind farms. That could be through GB Energy, but it could also be through direct ownership schemes. We are looking at those options at the moment.
Alistair McGirr: As I mentioned at the start, we partner with a number of different organisations; I mentioned Equinor, which is a state-owned entity. We are open to working with any kind of party on a commercial basis, be it a community or another developer. In that sense, the communities taking a stake in some of the projects is something that could be done. The question is: what are the terms of that arrangement? There is the critical point that any community ownership should be focused on co-investment. It should not just be the case that 20% of a project is passed on to a community, because that will be value that is basically taken out of the project, which then inflates the cost of the project. So the co-investment piece is very important. Whether it involves another developer, another state-owned entity, GB Energy or a community, I think that is a useful way of bringing capital into the UK’s low-carbon infrastructure.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Q
Alistair McGirr: Yes, frankly. I think there will be other protections in place—what was in old money called state aid protections but is now subsidy control. There will be wider provisions that ensure that GB Energy does not have adverse impacts on investment into the competitor space, be they state aid provisions or subsidy control provisions. That will ensure that what GB Energy is effectively legislated to be able to do does not adversely impact a competitive playing field. It is important to make sure that that is maintained. Ultimately, if there is a tilting of the playing field towards GB Energy, that will be a bad deal for either the taxpayer or the consumer.
Tristan Zipfel: I concur with what was said. It is really important that the establishment of GB Energy does not disrupt the dozens of billions of pounds that are going to be directed by the private sector into the renewables sector, or the clean energy sector in general, over the next decades. For that it is important to maintain trust in the fact that it is indeed going to be a level playing field and that GB Energy is not going to benefit from forms of assistance that would disrupt competition. That being said, I think GB Energy will have its own criteria, strategy and approach, which is absolutely fine. But it needs to be in the context of a level playing field from a competitive standpoint. That is really important.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Q
Alistair McGirr: I am very supportive of those projects coming to Wales. Obviously the Celtic sea auctions are another example of the upcoming opportunities in Wales. The reality is that GB Energy is not going to be the vehicle that drives that—that will be the wider policy framework in terms of what happens here in Westminster, and also in the regulatory frameworks that are in place and what happens in the devolved Administrations. My reference to Scotland is not to say that other parts of the country could not have the opportunities for investment. It is just that the sheer scale of the opportunities in Scotland for wind, hydro, some of the grid projects, CCS and hydrogen mean there is a significant opportunity in Scotland. That is one of the reasons why GB Energy has been located up in that area.
Tristan Zipfel: I can only concur. Wales is very important for us. We have onshore wind projects that we are actively promoting in Wales. I think GB Energy could play a role there. I want to emphasise, however, that I do not think GB Energy on its own will be the solution to unlocking the opportunities you describe. I think it is really important in Wales in particular that there is an effort on the policy side to provide more certainty and more visibility of the projects, as well as the question of the grid, which is a problem. But I concur that Wales is very important strategically from our standpoint as a renewable energy developer.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Q
In relation to some of the objects that are detailed in clause 3, I think we are all excited about the potential for the state to take a proactive role in the production of energy, but the Bill is quite clear that it is about
“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy…the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions…improvements in energy efficiency, and…measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy.”
SSE is investing £40 billion in clean tech over the next 10 years, and EDF is investing £50 billion or so. How far do you think £1.6 billion can go, in real terms, given the breadth of the different things the Bill seeks to achieve?
Alistair McGirr: In reality, it is not going to be the sole investor that is going to deliver the clean energy transition. As you allude to, we have a significant investment programme that we would be keen to bring to fruition over the next 10 years or so. It is about how you best use the money that is available. Where can we accelerate the investment and crowd in the scale of investment that is going to be required? We may be talking about big numbers, and in EDF as well—not only here in the UK but elsewhere—but there will not be just one investor. If you look at the National Infrastructure Commission, for instance, they are projecting in the region of £25 billion to £30 billion of investment in energy infrastructure per year for the next decade. The scale of the investment is going to be much bigger than any single entity, be it GB Energy, SSE or EDF.
Tristan Zipfel: Choices will need to be made—you cannot do everything with that pot of money—and it is really about identifying the areas where they will have maximum impact and where they will be most complementary to the effort of the private sector. It is not about displacing the private sector; it is more about covering the gaps and providing a boost to more investment in the sector.
That is also the spirit of the agreement with the Crown Estate. Looking at offshore wind, what is currently the blocker for more investment? It is the timeframe that it takes to develop a project. The spirit of that agreement is to look at an early stage and make it easier for private investors to invest in projects that are more de-risked than they are at the moment. That is the right approach, in my view, and it could be expanded to the other technologies in the scope of GB Energy.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Q
Tristan Zipfel: I can start with solar energy. As a business we do not look at geothermal, so I do not want to elaborate on that, but we invest a lot in solar. When you look at solar, the issue is not to get private capital—there is more than enough capital to invest in this. However, where GB could provide value is perhaps in creating that link with local communities. I keep going back to that, but it is so important for us to create a sense that those projects are not just there for private investors but have an element of state and public ownership. That could mean a lot for local communities. In partnership with GB Energy, we could even imagine GB Energy taking the lead on the relationship with local communities or in certain parts of the development that are so essential to the project. Recent studies have shown that local communities would respond very favourably to projects in which Great British Energy is an investor alongside the private sector. In that sense, it would make a difference.
Alistair McGirr: I think the local power plan is an opportunity for these technologies. It is not just about the big, mature technologies. It will play an important role in developing projects in solar and geothermal in Cornwall, in Wales and in other parts of the country, too. It is about making the most of the local power plan and working with developers to help to bring those to fruition as soon as possible.
The Chair
Thank you. I apologise to Members who have not managed to ask all the questions they want to ask, but we are out of time on this panel. Mr Zipfel and Mr McGirr, I thank you very much on behalf of the Committee and the House for affording us the benefit of your opinions and your time.
Examination of Witness
Dan Labbad gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Dan Labbad, who is the chief executive officer of the Crown Estate. For this session, I am afraid that we have only until 2.50 pm. For the benefit of the record, Mr Labbad, could you introduce yourself?
Dan Labbad: I am Dan Labbad, the chief executive of the Crown Estate.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Dan Labbad: First, thank you for having me here this afternoon.
The Crown Estate has been operating in the offshore renewable energy space for a long time—roughly 25 years—and, working with Government, the private sector and the third sector, we have created what is the second largest offshore wind capability in the world. That is something that we as a country should be very proud of, but obviously what got us here will not get us where we need to be.
When you look at the Climate Change Committee’s report on what is required from offshore wind and other renewable and zero-carbon technologies into the future, you see that we need to accelerate our deployment in a way that is balanced with other marine uses, including the environment, and ensure that we are deploying at a rate that meets the targets that were set for good reason. We have been organising the Crown Estate for the last five to 10 years in order to do that, accelerating leasing and starting the de-risking process for developers.
We also have a Bill before Parliament to enhance our powers to do more in this space. For example, we have something called the marine delivery route map, which looks at all uses on the seabed to ensure that we can create spatial co-ordination for different uses. That is fundamental to being able to achieve deployment, but even with our new powers we cannot do it alone. We need support, certainly support from Government.
There are three key areas that we would have called on had GB Energy not been announced, but Great British Energy offers a number of things. First, there is the co-ordination of all the agents involved in what is a very complex energy sector, both within and outside of Government. One of the big encumbrances at the moment is that everyone is working in slightly different directions; you do not achieve targets if everyone is working in slightly different directions.
Secondly, there are the increased investment powers to ensure that we are additive to what the private sector needs and ensure that we can achieve the acceleration throughput that we are talking about and invest in new technologies.
Finally, it can ensure that we are evolving policy around areas that are not limited to planning and grid, for example, so that we have the pathways not only to lease seabed for renewable deployment but to deliver generating capacity. We see GB Energy bringing those things.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Dan Labbad: Consultation across the country is fundamental. In fact, if you look at our Celtic sea round 5 tender, which is live at the moment, you will see that we consulted heavily with the Welsh Government and with Welsh stakeholders. In fact, we evolved our approach quite considerably in the deployment of that tender approach through that consultation, adding a lot of value.
I should say that to get a leasing programme out like round 5—which is the 4.5 GW floating wind programme that we have at the moment live in the Celtic sea—you engage with many stakeholders. The count in the case of the Celtic sea was more than 70 stakeholders from global and local environmental groups, developers across Government, the third sector again and a whole host of users of the seabed. Without doing that we do not deploy, because we do not get everybody’s buy-in. If we are talking other parts of the country, there is no difference whether it is Northern Ireland or Scotland.
We enjoy a good relationship with Crown Estates Scotland and with the Scottish Government. They are partners in our marine delivery route map and we are co-ordinating on systems issues, because obviously some of the environmental issues and deployment and grid issues do not have borders, so that consultation is, as you suggest, fundamental.
Perran Moon
Q
Dan Labbad: First, as regards the Celtic sea, there are social requirements as part of the tender process. I obviously cannot talk about them too much, given that we are in a live tender for procurement purposes, but there are social requirements as part of that tender.
To your question, it is fundamental. It will be a real failure if we end up deploying renewable energy on the seabed in the way we need to in the next 20 years and are not able to capture a fair proportion of that industrial complex for ourselves as a country. It would be a real pity if we did not build new jobs and new futures for young people across the country and if we did not support the distribution of that benefit across the country, including to coastal communities.
We have to bear in mind that there is a role for developers and a role for Government and the Crown Estate. For example, in the Celtic sea a 4.5 GW tender does not build a supply chain. It is not enough; the critical mass is not there. Again, that is why it is so important that Great British Energy and the Crown Estate work together, with our additional powers and being able to provide forward commitments to, for example, the Celtic sea. We estimate at the moment that it has the potential for another 12 GW of offshore wind, predominantly floating but also fixed. You need that type of scale so that both Government and private sector investment in the supply chain, including in coastal communities, will stick. That is why this partnership is so important and why we have to remember the size of that prize, so to speak.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Dan Labbad: First, from the Crown Estate’s perspective —I know this is a little out of scope—we operate under an Act of Parliament and have an obligation to enhance the value of our portfolio nationally, on behalf of the country, into perpetuity. We must ensure that we, like any business, balance safe investments with more risky investments. There is no doubt that investing in the seabed in the way we are talking about is a higher risk activity than other things that we do.
The increased borrowing powers do two things. First, they give us the capital throughput to do more—to accelerate and offer more. Secondly, because we know that we will have a line of credit, they allow us to make commitments. To use the Celtic sea as an example, as we move from what we envisage we can do about 12 GW to the reality of knowing that we can do that, we can then say to the market that we are committed to that leasing programme over the next 10 years. That is huge. From a developer perspective, they are not chipping away. For argument’s sake, let us say that we have 4 GW divided into three bits. You are talking about small gigawattage for companies of the scale of Equinor, for example. Being able to provide a pipeline where we know there is more to come means that they invest more—that is what that does.
The other thing that comes with the borrowing powers is a broader investment remit, which allows us to turn our attention to supply chain opportunities and to support the industrial complex and jobs. Again, we have been restricted in what we can do there in the past, so that is fundamental. With regard to GB Energy, as I said earlier, the Crown Estate cannot do it all on its own. We need additional capital support, support with co-ordination and support with policy evolution. All those things are required, which is why the partnership is so fundamental.
The Chair
Order. The issue of scope has raised its head again. I gently say that while this Chairman is not in the business of seeking to tell witnesses what they can and cannot say, he is in the business of making sure that Members, at least, stay within the scope.
Catherine Fookes
Q
Dan Labbad: Yes. Both the Crown Estate and GB Energy moving forward will support that type of thing. It is an example of a local community energy project, and I think there needs to be more of that, as I said in my answer to the earlier question. Where we can build community support for renewable projects, we should. The Crown Estate and GB Energy will be looking to that as part of our core mandate moving forward. I am very excited about that type of thing because it benefits everybody, so it is fundamental to what we do moving forward.
Pippa Heylings
Q
Within the scope of the Bill, under clause 3, we also heard in evidence this morning the request that we seek a duty towards nature and nature recovery and the achievement of the Environment Act 2021. Would that provide the reassurance that while we are dealing with the climate emergency, we are not disregarding the nature emergency and the environmental value of the seabed and the sea?
Dan Labbad: While I cannot comment specifically on the Bill, I would say that the Crown Estate already has a responsibility to protect the environment and look at nature recovery. In fact, this week we launched our nature commitments, which have undergone significant consultation. You can find those live on our website. We are obligated under our Act to do that. That obligation maintains in the partnership, so we will be doing that as part of what we bring to the GB Energy partnership.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Q
Dan Labbad: If you look at where we are today, we have just under 12 GW generating. The Crown Estate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland has about 42 GW in the pipeline. The first thing is: how can we bring as much of that to generating as possible? That is really important. Where and how do we remove immediate encumbrances? That is something we can work on immediately. From there, even to bring 20 GW to 30 GW to market by 2030 needs a lot of work and co-ordination.
To put it another way, we have delivered 12 GW of generating capacity in 25 years and if, as informed by the Climate Change Committee, we are to move up to 125 GW of generating capacity by 2050, that means we need a five to tenfold increase in the next 25 years. What we do in the next few years is incredibly important to ensure that we are laying the foundations for that to be a successful deployment.
The Chair
I said that that would be the final question, but we have a couple of minutes left, so, very briefly, I call Torcuil Crichton.
Torcuil Crichton
Q
Dan Labbad: We are looking to learn all the time from what happens around the country and around the world. One thing that it is worth saying quickly is that sometimes we are too focused on interior discussions and debates about how and what goes on where in the UK. The elephant in the room, in some ways, is losing the first mover advantage we have had in this sector to the rest of the world. It is essential to demonstrate that as a country we can do floating wind better than anyone else, and to build the integration and maintenance capabilities in this country, because that is what will bring the jobs, for example. We are always focused on that.
We have learned a number of things. Obviously, focusing on the supply chain is fundamentally important. That has been a learning over the past 10 years. The other thing that has been a learning is that we need to work to de-risk the sector for the private sector as much as possible, because in a world that has a growing offshore wind pipeline, even the companies that you are listening to today all work internationally, and we need to retain the UK as a competitive place for them to want to deploy renewable energy. The way that to do that is to build the pathway to the future, so that they can see the pipeline using the marine delivery route map. We must de-risk such projects up front so that they still put their capital in and earn the requisite return on it for the risk that they take, but we are not asking them to take a disproportionate risk on projects that are being stalled. Those are all learnings over the past 25 years.
I will also make a final point. The industry and Government—the Crown Estate and others involved in this sector over the past 25 years—have been exceptional at course correcting when things have not gone exactly to plan. The innovation capacity in the sector is there, and all we need to do through things like the partnership with Great British Energy is empower that capacity. Then, I think, we have every chance of meeting those deployment targets.
The Chair
Thank you. Mr Labbad, it may seem like a long way to have come for a very short period of time, but your evidence is extremely valuable to the Committee.
Examination of Witness
Josh Buckland gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon. We will now hear oral evidence from Josh Buckland, a partner at Flint Global. For this session, we have until 3.10 pm. Mr Buckland, will you identify yourself for the purposes of the record, please?
Josh Buckland: I am Joshua Buckland, a partner at Flint Global.
Andrew Bowie
Q
“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”.
Do you see the Bill and the creation of GBE as an assistance in unlocking private capital and the investment that we need in the new technologies, or are you worried, as some are, that this might be a blockage and get in the way of the private sector?
Josh Buckland: I think that that is the right question to ask. Ultimately, the amount of capital we need to invest in the energy transition is so significant that we will have to deploy and leverage in private finance at a scale that has not really been seen before, and any intervention from Government needs to play a role in unlocking that private capital. The Government have set out that Great British Energy will be mobilised with £8.3 billion of public capital. On the surface, that is a significant amount of money, but in comparison with the hundreds of billions that we will need to deploy through the overall transition, the way that it crowds in greater levels of private investment will be the key test of its success.
The Bill sets out a range of roles that Great British Energy could play, some of which could have a bigger impact on mobilising capital than others, and a range of different mechanisms that it could deploy. It is probably too early to tell whether the structure and the decisions it makes will mobilise capital at the scale that the Government intend, but the framework set out in the Bill will definitely give it the potential to do so.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Q
Josh Buckland: The financial assistance statements set out in clause 4 are relatively broad; they give Great British Energy the ability to invest in a variety of ways. It comes back to the question of how you create value through Great British Energy. One of the key tests will be whether it can drive additionality, so whether it can deploy capital in a way the private sector cannot. That usually rests on two issues. One is whether it can invest earlier in the development curve when private investment at scale is tricky, so where there is technology risk or development risk. An alternative is whether it can invest on a sub-par basis, so effectively whether it can create catalytic capital—that is the terminology often used—in a way the private sector would not be able to.
Clause 4 could potentially do those things, and there is no restriction on its ability to do them, but obviously the Government have not yet said much about exactly what format these investments will take. That is not necessarily an issue from a legislative perspective. I have looked back at the legislation that underpinned the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Green Investment Bank, which I was involved with when I was in government, and both those Acts are relatively high-level in terms of the interventions and mechanisms that they can deploy. On the surface, there is nothing that restricts that. As the Government think about the deployment of Great British Energy, I imagine that they will want to set out how it will give more clarity to the private market on the sorts of interventions and mechanisms that it will look to deploy at scale.
Olivia Blake
Q
Josh Buckland: My personal view on financial assistance is that it is fine to keep it relatively broad. Having been a civil servant in government for a long time, I know that primary legislation, if it is relatively broad, gives you the ability to think commercially, and clearly the energy transition will be set out with a range of different technologies. Innovation will come through, and the ability for the Bill to be flexible will assist that.
There are other questions about things that are referenced less in the Bill—let’s put it that way. In some of the previous legislation—for example, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which set out the Green Investment Bank—the Government talked about the need for operational independence undertakings and gave more clarity on the importance of creating an independent institution that can act in a way that ensures it can partner with the private sector and can take investment decisions that mobilise private investment and do not distort the market. Although that is not necessarily linked to clause 4, there are some interesting questions around whether the independence framework set out goes far enough to give that reassurance to the private market.
Harriet Cross
Q
Josh Buckland: On the surface, a range of different countries have publicly owned energy companies of different sizes and scales. Therefore, I do not agree with the concept that private investors are either unfamiliar or concerned at a general level. It will all come down to your point around the design of the actual institution and how it operates with the private market.
I think you are right to say that the Bill is relatively high-level. Looking back at some of the precedents that exist, I would mention the Green Investment Bank again. That was operational for a number of years and was established and grown while the legislation was then taken later down the line. It was easier, if you were a private investor, to understand the role that the Green Investment Bank would play and then have the legislation to effectively inform and solidify that.
The challenge in this context is that the Government have obviously proceeded with the legislation early on, as the institution is being established. That does not mean to say that it cannot be created as an institution that is independent and galvanises private investment but, clearly, the current level of uncertainty around the design and the mechanisms that it will deploy will add to that challenge.
Therefore, the Government have said that alongside the Bill they will look to publish more detail on a framework agreement with Government, and how they will set that out and consult with private industry. That, in tandem with the Bill, is critical at this formation stage. That is not to say that it necessarily leads to all that detail being in the Bill itself, but it is critical that it goes alongside it.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
Q
Josh Buckland: It is a fair and good question. I think your substantive point is absolutely right; the mechanisms set out under clause 4 give Great British Energy the opportunity to take different approaches as technology shifts and changes. We have definitely seen, over the past decade, a shift towards different mechanisms deployed by Government. At the early stage, they were largely bilateral, non-competitive and largely done on a kind of long-term contract basis. It is very instructive to look at what the UK Infrastructure Bank is now doing; it is now looking at different mechanisms—earlier stage investment, development capital at risk, and equity investments. Those are the sorts of things that Governments have not traditionally done at the scale that is necessarily required for the energy transition but that obviously Great British Energy could play a role in extending.
There is an interesting question around where you draw the line between Great British Energy and the role of other existing institutions. The Government have already talked about the fact that they are going to evolve the UK Infrastructure Bank to be the national wealth fund, and obviously that will have some crossover with the operations and focus areas of Great British Energy. For me—this may be an issue that is separate from the Bill—how the Government set out how the governance will work between the Department, the Government, Great British Energy, the national wealth fund and other institutions will be critical to making that a success over time, as the executive of Great British Energy looks at new issues and technologies as they come through.
I would stress—I imagine that this point may be made by other witnesses—that the fact that clause 3 is relatively broad, in terms of the sectors and areas that the entity can invest in, is really beneficial, because that also allows some level of independence for the executive to take choices as the energy sector evolves. Clearly, we know the many technologies that we have now, but there will be a range of different issues that come through. I therefore think that that flexibility under clause 3 is quite important.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Q
“the Secretary of State must prepare a statement of strategic priorities”.
Do you think that it would be important to have a timescale for that, so that we know when the Secretary of State is preparing the strategic priorities, and so that it happens quite quickly? That is something that we can do: put a possible time limit or timeframe into this Bill.
Josh Buckland: That is a very good question; I look back to my time as a civil servant. Sometimes timelines can be very useful because they give clarity, externally, as to when priorities will be updated and when there will be new interventions from Government, but sometimes they do not necessarily reflect the external environment as things change. If there were to be a decision to include an additional requirement around the timeframe, I think you would still want the ability to respond to external events as the world changes, to ensure that the priorities set out to the institution could adapt as the external world changes. Obviously, that is very true in the energy transition.
Clause 5(8) states that Great British Energy must have the ability
“to publish and act in accordance with”
that statement. The thing for me—again, it may not be an issue for the Bill itself, but it will be interesting to watch—will be how bound Great British Energy is to the specifics of the Secretary of State’s statement and what latitude it has beyond that, because clearly it will want to take its own commercial decisions. Fundamental to its independence and ability to crowd in private finance will be that it is taking commercial decisions with strong justification. That is an area that may not need any greater clarity in the Bill, but it will be one thing that private investors will look at quite closely.
Uma Kumaran
Q
Josh Buckland: Completely. There are plenty of precedents in various sizes and scales. Critically, they are not necessarily all in the concept of a developer company, which obviously has got most of the attention as a result of the Great British Energy Bill. There are those examples, and there are significant European energy developers and national energy companies right across the world, and quite often they partner with other entities, whether they are private investors or developers. It is welcome that in the broader statement the Government have been clear that, especially at an early stage, they want Great British Energy to partner with other developers. We should not forget that we have a lot of leading companies in this country, both headquartered here and inward investors.
The other interesting area is the role that the state can play more generally. I might be wrong, but I think that is alluded to in clause 4, which mentions that the financial assistance may be applied “pursuant to a contract”. That is an interesting dynamic. In Denmark, for example, the state in its new leasing process for offshore wind will take a 20% stake in projects as it offers out contracts to the private sector. That is an interesting model that could potentially be applied here and has been applied in other European jurisdictions.
I am not entirely sure about the Government’s intentions on whether that would be a matter for GB Energy or for broader policy, but clearly it creates different opportunities. We should not necessarily think about Great British Energy just as an investor of capital, to go back to the question asked earlier; this is a significant amount of money but, given the scale of investment required, it will be deploying other capital through it that is the key test of success.
Perran Moon
Q
Josh Buckland: I have looked through the project life cycle, and clause 4 gives a lot of flexibility around it. There is the early-stage development capital, which is quite difficult at this stage to develop at the scale required. Developing large-scale energy projects costs not just tens of millions, but potentially hundreds of millions through the development phase, so there is a role there that GB Energy could play in the deployment of development capital.
Potentially more important in a development phase is the ability to help projects to de-risk other things that they cannot control, such as their ability to access a grid connection, to get planning approval and to access the right supply chain domestically, to go back to the point about unlocking economic potential here. That could potentially be a significant role for GB Energy. That comes back to the governance question of where Government draw the line between a role for Great British Energy and the Government, because a lot of those issues are effectively for the Government to deal with, but that is an interesting dynamic to watch.
If we move through to the construction phase, there is slightly less of a role, in truth, because the level of capital required in building out projects once they have got over the initial financing barrier is potentially lower. I know the Government have talked a lot about that separately from the Bill. The exception is local and community energy projects, where clearly the barrier to unlocking investment is higher, and there is potentially a role there for Great British Energy that the Government have talked about.
The final piece is whether, once an asset has been built out and is operational, Great British Energy should have a role there. Again, that is potentially more a question about how you want the capital to be deployed. The Government could take a stake in a project, or invest to then seek a return, and utilise that money either to reduce energy bills or to reinvest. That is a question around prioritisation of public spending, because that might be a sensible thing to do, but there is a range of other things you could invest in that might look beyond the energy transition. Hopefully that gives you a bit of a feel. The role will definitely change depending on where you are in the asset life cycle.
Pippa Heylings
Q
Josh Buckland: There is a question around consultative processes, I suppose. One thing we have seen, or that I have experienced, especially on the planning side, is that when the Government set out statements of intent—for example, through the planning regime and national policy statements—it is important to consult on those extensively in advance so that there is certainty around what they mean. Then they have to wait as institutions respond. There may be a question about what level of external input is given before the statement of strategic priorities is set out, or whether it is just a Government statement that is then passed through. There is an interesting question about consultation in advance.
Once it is established, those acting and investing alongside Great British Energy will be more interested in how it as an institution interprets that statement. If it has to set out a strategic business plan as set out under subsection (8), that is the area that companies will be more interested in, because—assuming it is operationally independent—that is the thing that they will take more seriously.
The other dynamic in terms of updates is the risk that regular updates to the strategic plan create uncertainty. That might go back to the question of timeline and expectations of when the statement is reviewed, when it is republished and at what stage, and what needs to change externally to make that a reality. That is probably an important dynamic. Whether that is a matter for the Bill I will leave to others to guide on, but obviously it is an area that will be of interest externally in understanding how Great British Energy operates in practice.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Q
Josh Buckland: Ultimately, the question of supply chain is broader than this Bill. Great British Energy could absolutely play a role, especially if it is doing place-based investments or is particularly investing in certain projects. but there is a fundamental question for the Government, as they look to build out the supply chain, around what they are doing at a skills-based level, what they are doing at a technology development level and how they are giving greater clarity on the pipeline of projects over time, some of which might be invested in by Great British Energy and some of which might not. For me, supply chain and skills deployment is a matter of broader Government policy, which Great British Energy can support.
As we stand here today, we do not necessarily have the right level of skilled capacity in the country to deliver all the ambitions that have been set out across infrastructure. It is important not just to look at the energy sector; a lot of the changes will require changes in the transport sector, the water sector and others, but that does not mean that we cannot have those skills if there is a broader framework to develop them, to train and to invest at scale in the supply chain. Great British Energy could play some role in that, but the broader policy framework and the Government’s ambitions more widely will dictate that to a greater degree.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed for your time this afternoon, Mr Buckland. The Committee is indebted to you.
Examination of Witnesses
Olivia Powis, Jack Norquoy and Myrtle Dawes gave evidence.
The Chair
We are now going to hear oral evidence from Jack Norquoy, the director of communications and public affairs, Scottish Renewables, Myrtle Dawes, the chief executive officer of the Net Zero Technology Centre, and, I hope, from Olivia Powis, the chief executive of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, although Ms Powis has been slightly delayed. We will proceed and hope that she is able to join us later. For this session we have until 3.50 pm. Please introduce yourselves for the benefit of the record.
Myrtle Dawes: My name is Myrtle Dawes. I am a chemical engineer and am currently CEO at the Net Zero Technology Centre. For those of you who do not know that organisation, it uses government funding to work with industry to accelerate and develop emerging technology.
Jack Norquoy: Good afternoon, Committee. I am Jack Norquoy, representing Scottish Renewables. We are the voice of Scotland’s renewable energy industry. We represent nearly 400 organisations working across all renewable energy technologies and the supply chain in Scotland.
Andrew Bowie
Q
“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”,
to include technology that might be involved in carbon capture and storage. It is not set out clearly within the Bill that that is the case. Ms Dawes, as somebody who works with the companies involved in the extraction and production of fossil fuels in Aberdeen and the drive to transition to net zero, do you share the concern with the narrow prescription of what GB Energy will be allowed to invest in and be involved in?
Myrtle Dawes: I understand their concern. From my perspective, I understood that that would be covered under clause 1(2)(b), which concerns the reduction of greenhouse gases. Fundamentally, the storage or utilisation of carbon dioxide comes with the reduction of greenhouse gases. [Interruption.] As Olivia is here, she could probably respond.
The Chair
Order. If I may interrupt, we have now been joined by Olivia Powis, who is chief executive of the Carbon Capture Association. For the benefit of the record and Hansard, could you identify yourself?
Olivia Powis: I apologise for being a couple of minutes late. I am Olivia Powis, chief executive officer of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association.
The Chair
There is no need to apologise; we understand the vagaries of travel in London and are grateful to you for joining us. Minister—shadow Minister, I beg your pardon—would you like to come back?
Andrew Bowie
Q
Thank you for joining us, Ms Powis. I was going to ask about the concerns that your association has brought to our attention about the definitions in the Bill, particularly in clause 3, concerning the objects that GBE is restricted to facilitating, encouraging or participating in. Please could you expand on those, and also on your suggested changes to the Bill, about which you kindly wrote to us two weeks ago?
Olivia Powis: I would be pleased to expand on that. We welcome the Bill and its support. In his opening remarks on Second Reading, the Secretary of State stated that
“Great British Energy will support project development”
to
“help speed up the roll-out of offshore wind and other technologies”—[Official Report, 5 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 460.]
such as CCUS, wave, tidal and hydrogen.
We believe, however, that the narrow definition of clean energy in the current draft of the Bill could be prohibitive to low-carbon technologies and inadvertently limit the scope of GB Energy’s investments, thereby reducing the potential for public projects and hindering the UK’s ability to meet its net zero targets.
The definition of clean energy should be clarified to ensure that it encompasses energy sourced from fossil fuels when combined with carbon capture and storage—that is, when abated. We, alongside Hydrogen UK, have proposed some alternative wording that would enable abated fossil fuels to be included, and ensure the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from fossil fuels. We must future-proof this definition to make sure that GB Energy is able to invest safely in projects such as low-carbon energy with CCS and is not at risk of being challenged.
Jack Norquoy: I understand the concerns that have been raised. Some of our members will also be members of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. I understand those concerns and am happy with the suggestions. Our recommendation for the Bill, and moving forward, is that it maintains alignment with what the Climate Change Committee has within its scope as part of our transition to net zero.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Olivia Powis: No, we would recommend that the wording is changed in the Bill so that it is future-proof. We welcome the words that came alongside it, but we want to ensure that it is future-proofed for when people come back to this legislation in five years’ time. It must be on the face of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Myrtle Dawes: I am really excited about this. For reference, the Net Zero Technology Centre received £180 million of Government funding. We have managed to raise and match that with industry and go on to have more than 100 start-ups. We have more than 69 commercialised technologies. We have done more than 300 projects and gone on to give value back to GB of an order of one to nine in cost-benefit terms. When I see something like this, on a much bigger scale—our work is really a microcosm of this—it is really exciting. It is a catalyst sitting at the heart of Government, which will make sure that there is support for innovation during the period when it needs acceleration, when we need this technology to make things more efficient and drive down costs, and when we need to get good technology into the next set of infrastructure projects. For us, it is really exciting. Given what we have seen at the NZTC, it could go on to deliver quite a lot of value.
Jack Norquoy: I share that enthusiasm. Scottish Renewables has welcomed the development of GB Energy, alongside many of our members in industry. Of course, we welcome any additional investment at this time, particularly when we have heightened ambitions towards 2030. We have an unprecedented line of sight in Scotland with our pipeline, so we welcome the conversation and the development of GB Energy to deliver the support that will be needed to accelerate deployment.
We are particularly interested to see what the goals of GB Energy are. That has been set out in the Bill and in the surrounding documents, but we will need to see some clearer objectives and pathways to support that with industry. We appreciate that that might come after the Bill. We have interest in the governance, too; the importance of operational independence has been discussed today. Finance is very important to the heightened ambitions for what GB Energy will do, as the Bill sets out, but we also want GB Energy to work with industry.
This comes at a time when there are a lot of welcome moving parts in industry, such as the development of a strategic spatial energy plan, the national wealth fund and GB Energy. We welcome the Bill and we would like to see the establishment of GB Energy, but in the steps ahead we would like to see a pathway to give some assurance to our members in industry who are now actively involved in the pipeline on how they can help towards the deployment to 2030.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Jack Norquoy: The Bill includes a reference to working with Scottish Ministers, which is welcome, as part of improved relations at the moment, which are welcome too. On governance and devolved competency, as we heard in earlier evidence from the Crown Estate, the partnership with GB Energy is welcome. There will have to be development across the UK to support our net zero targets, but we want to ensure that there is parity with Crown Estate Scotland too. At the start, I highlighted the pipeline that we have sitting in Scotland. On the point about the competency of the Scottish Government, we would like to see some more detail—again, probably outwith the Bill—on how we can ensure parity between extra powers to the Crown Estate and to Crown Estate Scotland.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Myrtle Dawes: I suppose it would have to be towards the impact. Naturally, the budget we are looking at is well suited to innovation. The crowding in of money that we could get around that from investors—the impact that we could have by moving on a lot of projects—is quite significant.
To take the example of floating offshore wind, we have some of the best wind resources in Europe and actually the world. We are sitting with one of the best supply chains for subsea in the world, because the North sea has been the harshest place in the world to do business. If we are ever going to get an effective floating wind business, with technology and jobs here in the UK, we need to start and move on it now. Not only is there an opportunity to get electricity here in the UK, but we are very close to the heartland of Europe, which is also looking for electricity and for hydrogen. We can do lots of things where the impact, if we were to move now, would be great.
I have also worked on de-risking in major projects. They do need de-risking. I do not think that those in the supply chain are necessarily looking for a handout; they are looking for clarity, for investable business cases and for things where they can do the commercial work that they normally do. I can tell you that at the heart of this is technology that has to be sufficiently robust and reliable, and cheap enough that the product is cheap for the customer, who in this case is those who are using our energy.
Olivia Powis: I support everything that has been said. I think GB Energy offers the potential for targeted investment and support in areas of the value chain, for new innovations and across the supply chain. In particular, we look at some capture technologies with lower TRLs that would benefit from some investment, enabling them to move forward from what we refer to as the valley of death, to be able to compete on the open market. There are many opportunities within the innovation space.
Jack Norquoy: A big part of what GB Energy will do is the local power plan, to which a sizeable contribution of that £8 billion allocation has been made. You raised a point about how the rest of it will be spent; I echo the comments that have been made about innovation.
There will be a need for GB Energy to have a balance. That has been outlined in what we have seen so far, in that there will be a need to generate revenue in order for there to be a public return, but it is important that that money be targeted at high-risk areas where we need the longer-term strategic view to support innovation. Sectors in Scotland such as the marine energy sector would very much welcome that targeted support. So we have a balance between GB Energy being willing to take more risk than perhaps we have seen so far and some investment going towards the local power plan, developing the stable revenue that we will want to see coming through.
Olivia Blake
Q
Olivia Powis: We have proposed instead that the statement must provide that Great British Energy’s objects are restricted to facilitating and encouraging investment in, and participating in, one or more of the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy, and the reduction, directly or indirectly, of greenhouse gas emissions from energy derived from fossil fuels, where that clean energy definition means energy and molecules produced from sources other than unabated fossil fuels. It is just about being clear about that clean energy definition. We have been told that, as drafted, it would exclude those with fossil fuels.
Olivia Blake
Q
Olivia Powis: CCUS, as an industry, very much welcomes the announcements from Government last week and the further detail provided yesterday. There is lots of private sector investment helping to drive forward these projects. The funding commitment from Government is for projects once they are operational. Obviously there are still first-of-a-kind projects here, so I would not classify it as a very high risk. This is not a new technology; it is an industry that has been deployed elsewhere, and there is an understanding of how it will work.
There will be first-of-a-kind projects in the UK, and there could therefore be areas in which GB Energy could play a critical role. We have yet to really explore the extent—we would welcome further discussion on that—but there could be a role in enabling infrastructure, oversizing pipes, import terminals and port infrastructure. There is a role it could play in driving forward that enabling infrastructure investment.
The Chair
Ms Dawes and Mr Norquoy, have you anything to add?
Myrtle Dawes: I am glad to get the clarification. We also invest in CCUS; it is really important technology for industrial decarbonisation. As an engineer, I will tell you that there is risk involved in that, because we are used to steady state, and we will want to stop and start things. It is a refrigerant, so it will not like it.
There is quite a lot to do to reduce costs. The monitoring and verification of the stores is super-important. If we can turn a waste stream going to store into a product stream that is being utilised, that will be fantastic. That has to be the way we need to go. There is lots of technology to look at, both on the capture of emissions—direct air capture has its role, especially if we are going to look at some kinds of synthetic fuel—and on some of the emerging technologies around capturing carbon dioxide from seawater. Apart from the fact that we might also be able to mine some minerals from doing that, these are things that we should be looking at. It is all about getting the security of doing these things closer to home.
Pippa Heylings
Q
Jack Norquoy: I am happy to clarify that. We are content with the Bill; we understand the need to enable flexibility so that it can evolve over time. We certainly want GB Energy to be durable at a time that we are building a new energy system. There are various mechanisms, which I highlighted at the start. This is an opportune time to enable that durability. I think the scope is right; yes, it is wide, but that is important for longevity. We would want to see clarity within the business plan and as part of the statements that come following the Bill.
I think industry is very keen. We are operating at pace, so we want some clarity around the architecture in which this will sit, to give assurance to businesses that are ready to engage and want to work closely with the Government and GB Energy. As has been highlighted to the Committee today, we want a sense of the role of GB Energy, where it will end when it comes to the national wealth fund and where those can complement each other. We also want clarity on the established array of institutions at a UK level, primarily the UK Infrastructure Bank. That is compounded when you come to Scotland, where we have the good work of the Scottish National Investment Bank and Scottish Enterprise. I do not think that this detail is needed in the Bill, but clarity on some of that architecture would be very welcome shortly thereafter.
The Chair
As nobody else on the panel wishes to respond, and there are no further questions, may I thank you for your evidence? We are very grateful to you for coming in.
Examination of Witness
David Whitehouse gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now take oral evidence from David Whitehouse, the chief executive of Offshore Energies UK. For this session, we have until 4.10 pm. Mr Whitehouse, for the benefit of the record, could you please identify yourself?
David Whitehouse: I am David Whitehouse. I am the chief executive of Offshore Energies UK.
Andrew Bowie
Q
David Whitehouse: Looking at the 400 members that we represent—people investing in our oil and gas, wind developers, people investing in carbon storage, but also a huge supply chain—I do not think we are sceptical. As an organisation, looking at our 400 members and at the 200,000 people who work in the sector, we see that journey to net zero as a real opportunity for the UK and for Scotland if we build on our industrial strengths. We are so lucky in this country that we have brilliant people and a world-class supply chain; we are also lucky that the wind blows and that we have the North sea and other assets. We must make best use of them.
Within the context of a wider energy strategy, we absolutely welcome GB Energy. It will play a role in a bigger energy strategy and a bigger industrial strategy. How do we see GB Energy working? We see it unlocking opportunities that otherwise would not happen. It will not create value if it simply replicates what the private sector would do anyway—I think that will be acknowledged in the priorities that I would expect to see from the Secretary of State. There is a still a huge role to play in de-risking projects, as well as in some of the local energy projects that have been raised. There is a huge opportunity to invest in technology and future infrastructure.
We touched on infrastructure with our European neighbours. How do we interact with it? Already, we have a number of companies looking at what kind of projects meet the mandate of GB Energy and would fulfil it. Do not forget the world-class supply chain that we have. We will fail in this country if we do not recognise how important our supply chain is. Our oil and gas supply chain is world-class. The transferability of those skills to what GB Energy needs to deliver is huge. There is a massive appetite for us to leverage the skills that we have and use GB Energy as a vehicle to deliver value for the country.
Andrew Bowie
Q
David Whitehouse: I think what you have is a Bill that, as you have heard in evidence, provides broad definitions and broad statements of intent. In and of itself, it is a platform to deliver that. What will be critical is that the Government, the Secretary of State and the devolved Governments, who have welcomed this, work together and honour the words about working in partnership with industry to take what is on paper and turn it into a reality of unlocking opportunities that would not be happening—opportunities for communities up and down the UK, and certainly for our key supply chain companies—to help us to accelerate some of the critical projects that need to be unlocked.
Andrew Bowie
Q
“Great British Energy’s objects are restricted to facilitating…the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy…the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions…improvements in energy efficiency, and…measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy.”
Is there any concern from among your members that the stated objects will prevent GB Energy from partnering with or investing in some of those companies, given that they have an existing footprint in the oil and gas sector?
David Whitehouse: We will look to bring clarity in that area. The interpretation we have taken and the conversations we have had indicate that this would not preclude companies from investing in that manner, and that the Bill is broadly defined to allow all companies to invest. That is something we very much welcome. We see the journey to net zero as being one of inclusivity, not exclusivity. As I have said, we represent companies that produce oil and gas, which have a critical role in our energy mix, but in terms of bringing forward technology, as it stands, no, we do not think that. There is an opportunity, though, as the Secretary of State brings forward the priorities, to provide clarity that those things would not be excluded.
Andrew Bowie
Q
David Whitehouse: The position we have always taken is that you have energy communities up and down the UK. We have a very proud energy sector, and in principle I think you could have put GB Energy in many places, but we welcome it in Aberdeen. The reason we welcome it in Aberdeen is because that is where you see a real density of high-quality operators, high-quality developers and high-quality supply chain. That is the right place to put it. We take confidence that this journey to net zero must be about inclusivity, and about breaking down barriers and building bridges. Having GB Energy centred in Aberdeen is a good statement of intent that this Government—it was also supported by the Scottish Government—recognise that as well. We need to make the most of our industrial strength. Placing this in Aberdeen is a good statement of intent, so we welcome that.
Torcuil Crichton
Q
David Whitehouse: Apologies: what was the word they were using?
Torcuil Crichton
Some see them as a threat, not an opportunity.
David Whitehouse: Okay. So I need to do a better job, because I do not see a threat whatsoever. In the UK at the moment, we are on a journey. The Climate Change Committee says that we must hit our net zero targets by 2050, and on that journey 50% of our energy under the balanced pathway will come from oil and gas. Today we produce only about half of what we need, so it is right that, in my opinion, if the industry is held to account, we should prioritise domestic oil and gas.
Our members see no threat from accelerating the path to renewable energy. It will take time, but it is absolutely the right thing to do. The only concern or consideration from our perspective is, “Yes, of course, accelerate.” Our members are actually investing in that, and our supply chain members are using their revenues from oil and gas to invest in that transition. It is an opportunity, not a threat.
What we need, though, is that balanced discussion with those who work in the oil and gas sector. We have a voice: we are Offshore Energies UK, not “Oil and Gas UK”. That is because companies, supply chains and people are evolving, and you want that big tent if you are going to be successful in bringing it forward. If you are getting that feedback from those in the sector, I hope that in the coming weeks and months you will not hear that.
Stephen Flynn
Q
David Whitehouse: I think we all recognise that on the journey to net zero a huge amount of investment is required to get us there—the Climate Change Committee says that £1.4 trillion is required. The lion’s share will come from the private sector, so GB Energy will help, but actually we need to create the conditions more broadly where we have investment in the energy sector that turns into enduring value. That is what we need to deliver, and we can talk about that.
Where GB Energy can play a role is in those opportunities that would not otherwise have happened, such as through the opportunity to de-risk projects. If we look at things such as carbon storage, de-risking and understanding the nature of the carbon stores and using that as an opportunity to buy into future investments is a role that GB Energy can and should play.
We have spoken about connectivity with Europe. Scotland and the UK’s future will be hydrogen pipelines to Europe, and there is a role for a state player to crowd in private sector money make those projects happen. We often talk about GB Energy as an investment vehicle but, if we work in partnership with industry, it should be much more than that. Getting money is difficult, but it is not always the most difficult thing that we have to do, so it is about unblocking the other issues. There are 13 years from consent to the delivery of the first electrons. It is in those areas where we can have a state player sitting with industry that understands our challenges and what we need to do. We often talk about GB Energy as an investment vehicle, but it should have a bigger vision than that.
Harriet Cross
Q
David Whitehouse: There is no doubt that the UK and Scotland are in a global race for investment, and we need to create an environment where we are attracting investment. I sit in a sector that has been battered to some degree by public perception and by tax changes. There are things that are happening outwith GB Energy that, as a country, we need to look at. We need to make a great environment for investment.
Time does matter; GB Energy will start to come to life when the Secretary of State puts forward priorities. The thing that we would ask—I think you have heard it from others—is about bringing forward the strategic priorities for GB Energy. The statement should be something that we are engaged in and are bringing forward now. It should come forward in a timely manner, but it must make sure that it has taken on board the necessary engagement with industry, Governments and other key stakeholders. Time is always of the essence.
Perran Moon
Q
David Whitehouse: For me, there are areas—I have touched on them slightly—where you look at the projects and their timelines, and if you have more data and more information up front, it massively shrinks the time from taking on a licence, or whatever it is, to turning that into carbon stored or electricity generated. There is an opportunity for an entity like GB Energy to invest in some of that up-front data gathering to de-risk those projects. GB Energy would then have the opportunity to trade that for a share in the future projects that come from that. We will see how that shows in the priorities, but that is a clear area where GB Energy can invest now to get data and use it to leverage equity stakes in projects moving forward, which I think is very much consistent with the founding principles of GB Energy.
We also touched on the infrastructure that is required in the UK, much of which is now being dealt with through the National Energy System Operator, and people will have spoken at length about the issues around the grid. There is so much more that we need to deliver a net zero future for the UK and for Europe. Again, a state investor with a long-term investment horizon can now be in the position where we start talking about what networks we need across the North sea to be successful. Having an entity like GB Energy crowding in private sector money is a great opportunity to unlock some of that.
Perran Moon
Q
David Whitehouse: I think it will and should be one of the priorities of GB Energy that our drive for clean energy must be done in a way where we create those supply chains. How do we do that? We already have—we can provide it to the Committee—a good assessment of the quality of the UK supply chain and what its capabilities are. We have a good understanding of what those future renewable opportunities are, and you are absolutely right that there are supply chain opportunities across the country, in essentially every constituency. We have that knowledge.
Now we need GB Energy to recognise what those opportunities are. There are projects to be invested in that GB Energy should be part of, and it should be directing and working with industry and the supply chain to make sure that we take the opportunities to grow our supply chain. We have a lot of significant companies that we should grow. It is a fantastic export but also delivers in our own country. Myrtle will have touched on it: we have a whole host of acorns around this country that could be grown into massive oaks. It will probably use less flowery language, but that should be one of the principles of GB Energy. We have supply chain acorns that we can identify, and we must turn them into the oaks that this country needs.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
There was a question this morning about whether the Bill should specify that GB Energy should look at the gap in financial markets when it comes to support for new technology companies that otherwise would not make it through the valleys of death. As I understand it, there are not enough financial products out there, from private equity, ordinary banks or other investment opportunities. Can we put anything in the Bill to make addressing that particular gap more of a priority?
David Whitehouse: I am sorry; I wish I could give you a better answer. I have spoken with our members. In some way, shape or form, we think the Bill as it stands is broad and provides the opportunity for the Secretary of State and others to bring forward the statement of principles. That is where we would see some of that.
The Government will also bring forward an industrial strategy, and linked to that will be our energy policy. I think there is such a good opportunity within those—we will have representation from industry, which understands some of the issues, and there will be representatives from our investors across the sector. From our members’ feedback, I think that is where they would see that input: in those broader ways.
Catherine Fookes
Q
David Whitehouse: Let me talk about inclusivity in general terms. I am studying for a master’s in renewables; I am the energy transition, albeit slightly older. When we talk about inclusivity, those who come from an oil and gas heritage are sometimes excluded from the conversation. You need all those voices. When I talk about inclusivity, it is about “bring all the voices”.
How do we improve what we are doing? I have a couple of brief comments. Speaking personally, I thought the legislation on the gender pay gap was excellent. What does it do? It makes conversations and debates happen. Last week in the sector, we spoke about Vision 2030—how we are going to deliver on a sector that is truly inclusive, that looks like the future, not the past, and that is attracting the next generation, with commitments about targets that we wish to achieve.
There are seven pillars on the path to getting there. How do we do that? You need commitment from leaders in the sector; I think we can give you that. You need some targets; I think we can give you them. We also need a plan of action that holds us to account. I come back to the path to net zero: we will not do this if we are not inclusive and not attracting across the entire spectrum, the entire country.
The Chair
Order. I think we can say that that is fairly close to being outside the scope of the Bill. I am absolutely confident that the next question will be within it.
Uma Kumaran
Q
David Whitehouse: I am an engineer, so it is simple engineering stuff. Collaboration: I was pleased to see the Scottish Government and other devolved Governments welcome this. I do not think GB Energy is the convening force in and of itself, but the convening power, which means we have Governments around the country working together for a common goal, is an important part of what GB Energy can provide a focus for.
Collaboration is really important. We need collaboration among our regulators. We have a complex regulatory framework. The view many of our members take is that to change our regulatory framework to be exactly what we require for this journey would take so long that the train would have gone. What GB Energy will do, and what it can see and help with, is alignment between our regulatory bodies—bodies in the devolved Governments and the wider UK Government. It will also see what the other barriers to investment are.
I think there is good cross-party consensus about the journey we need to go on to drive collaboration. Looking at what needs to be done to help with the simple co-ordination between different competing projects can drive down costs and drive efficiency. We should look at what we can do to reduce the cycle time. There is 15 years from licence to electricity—unfortunately, in my experience, I am probably on year 30 from carbon storage to actually injecting it. There is a significant role there that GB Energy should be growing into, and it should be playing in that space.
The Chair
I apologise for the slight distraction at this end of the table. We have been trying to juggle timings in connection with the imminent Division.
As there are no further questions, Mr Whitehouse, may I thank you for your contribution? We are most grateful.
Examination of Witness
Andy Prendergast gave evidence.
The Chair
We are likely to have a Division in the House, so I am afraid that we will have to ask you—if you have the time, Mr Prendergast—to allow us to go and vote and then come back if we have not finished your evidence session.
Andy Prendergast: Yes, that is fine.
The Chair
You are most kind. With that in mind, we will now hear evidence from Andy Prendergast, who is the national secretary of the GMB. We have until 4.30 pm, in theory, but we may be interrupted. Mr Prendergast, for the benefit of the record could you identify yourself?
Andy Prendergast: I am Andy Prendergast, national secretary of GMB union.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Andy Prendergast: We see GB Energy as a long-overdue, desperately needed step. As a country, and as someone who works for a union supporting tens of thousands of energy workers and people who work in energy-intensive industries, there is a real problem at the moment when we look across the world at the investments being made in green technologies and what other Governments are doing to ensure that those investments lead to jobs and supply chains in their nations. What we see in Britain is a complete failure to match that, whether it is the Inflation Reduction Act in America, or European subsidies.
As a union, we regularly sit down with investors who have shovel-ready projects that have the opportunity and potential to transform huge swathes of Britain in areas that we have called “left behind”, “post-industrial” or “red wall”, but we simply cannot get the support to get those through. The investors are telling us that if they decide to put their site in Philadelphia, they get huge subsidies and tax breaks; if they decide to put it in Germany, they get subsidies and Government support, but in Britain there is simply a void.
I have heard quite a lot of people talk about the importance of supply chains. I will be honest: for my union, we do not necessarily see that to the same degree. If we look at offshore wind, we see jackets, technology and blades that are not made in Britain. We have huge swathes of the country where people are willing and able to work, yet they are sitting there watching this technology be imported in. In the case of the Methil fabrication site in Scotland, which is currently sitting without work, they are watching the wind turbines that they could be building being put up in the sea in front of them. We need to avoid that, and I think GB Energy is the first step to doing that—a step, frankly, that should have been taken a long time ago.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Do you think that the aims and objects of this Bill go wide enough? Do you think that there is broad enough scope for the different technologies that GB Energy will have to invest in? We have heard the CCSA raise slight concerns that there might not be the scope for investment in carbon capture, for example, where a lot of new jobs are going to be created, and presumably a lot of those will be members of the GMB.
Andy Prendergast: We fought for carbon capture to be included. As far as we are concerned, having checked the wording, we think that is covered. An issue we have on the scope is whether the funds are sufficient to back the ambition. Before the election, we were talking £28 billion at one point. What we have offers a huge scale and a huge opportunity, and while ultimately we would like to see more money, this is genuine, real money that was not there before. That is a step in the right direction. From a trade unionist point of view, I very frequently argue about a lack of money—we do it on a daily basis everywhere.
Another concern with the Bill, which I think the Bill itself addresses, is the relationship between GB Energy and GB Nuclear. We desperately need new nuclear. We are waiting for the decision on Sizewell and we would like to see the decision on Wylfa as well as small modular reactors. There is a genuine question about whether SMRs fit under the remit of GB Energy or GB Nuclear, and it needs to be resolved. SMRs are another of those technologies that British brains created but, if we are not careful, we will see the supply chains go overseas. It is an industry that is likely to be £180 billion within a decade. The choice we have with that is either to support British companies such as Rolls-Royce or, as with wind, to import this key technology that should be supporting companies and jobs throughout Britain.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Andy Prendergast: I am not necessarily saying that it needs to be in the Bill, but it needs to happen quite quickly. The Bill refers to the fact that it needs to be bottomed out, and every route we look at to net zero requires a huge increase in the amount of nuclear power. We need that decision on Sizewell quite quickly. I do not look at that as key to GB Energy, but it needs to be resolved.
Josh MacAlister
Q
Andy Prendergast: The most important thing to say about nuclear is that the nuclear industry in Britain is, to a degree, a tragedy. We invented it. The first civil nuclear site in the world was British, and yet when we came to Hinkley Point, we had to import the know-how and technology and reinvent the wheel. What we have done in Hinkley Point has been amazing. The site employs tens of thousands of people and provides real, skilled jobs—the kind of jobs people are proud to do, which is very important.
If we look at the lessons we learned from Hinkley and transfer them to Sizewell, we start speeding up the process. If we then go on to Wylfa, it becomes easier to take them through. The key thing it shows is that we cannot have those huge gaps. When we have gaps, we lose the skills. What is frightening for us in so many areas is that we are talking about an energy transformation, but we simply do not have the skills to transform at the speed we need to.
There is an estimated lack of 40,000 welders in this country. In the near future we will need more pylons, a huge amount of work on the water mains, SMRs, CCS and hydrogen. I sat on a load of Government bodies with the last Government, and all I kept hearing was, “We need more welders.” You had to take a view that, sadly, repeating “We need more welders” does not magically lead to a lot of welders showing up. We need the investment in the skills and in the supply chain to ensure that we get the right people in the right place.
It is important to say that welding jobs are fantastically well paid. They are jobs that get paid more than most people in this room. There should not be a problem employing welders in this country if we simply resort to capitalism, so if there is a problem, how do we identify it and how do we get around it?
Josh MacAlister
Thank you. I think I should have declared an interest at the start of that question as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy.
The Chair
Thank you. That is a matter of record, and I gently advise any other Members who have a similar interest to declare it.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
Andy Prendergast: From a lot of the conversations we have had, talking about a one-stop shop, assistance in planning and further regulatory support, I think that is something that will evolve over time and will be matched by the funding. An investment vehicle is badly needed on its own because it is something we do not have, which makes us almost unique among advanced economies. Looking at the Bill itself, there are parts that could be fleshed out. We would like to see more about skills, as I just mentioned, and there are some parts that we need to look at, but that is an evolutionary process as opposed to something we definitely need in the Bill now.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Andy Prendergast: If I may take the second part first, one key thing the public want is to see lower energy bills. We know that. A potential issue with GB Energy being so popular is that, to a degree, not everyone knew what it was. Some people think it will lead to an immediate reduction in energy bills. We are likely to see that over a longer period of time, but GB Energy needs to make the investments in new technologies that we have failed to make and that we have too often missed the boat on. If you compare us to Denmark, for example, 14% of its exports are in green technology. That is because it has Ørsted, which is very similar to what we are trying to do with GB Energy, but ultimately it has had a long run into this and has stolen a march. What GB Energy belatedly allows us to do is potentially to steal a march on some of the new technologies that have not been exploited, with a view to supporting those supply chains in the important parts.
Could you repeat the first part of your question, please?
Stephen Flynn
It was about the quantum that is available. You referred to IRA and the EU’s corresponding investment. The quantum for GB Energy is £8.3 billion over the course of five years, or £1.6 billion per year. Do you think that is sufficient to meet the objectives laid out in the Bill?
Andy Prendergast: I think it is sufficient to make some of them and sufficient to make a difference; it is not sufficient to make as much of a difference as we would like it to, but compared with what we had beforehand, it is light years ahead of where we have been.
Olivia Blake
Q
“measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy”—
in the Bill for your members, given the global situation in which we find ourselves? Secondly, which of the objects in the Bill will have the most impact, or in what ways will the Bill have an impact on your members?
Andy Prendergast: The first point about energy supply was really brought home around the start of the Ukraine war, which exposed how unprepared we were. Whereas your average European country had months of gas supplies, we had a matter of weeks. We went into that war with the largest gas supply place in the world, Rough, unused. One thing we must understand, with the evolving nature of Government, is what is the very minimum that we expect Government to do. I think the very minimum people expect Government to do now is to keep the lights on and keep us secure. That is how important energy is. Sometimes, when you speak to some politicians, there is almost a view that energy is an optional extra, but I do not think that that has been the case for about 150 years. God forbid we go back to that.
When we talk about energy supply and security, it is about two things—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Mr Prendergast, I am sorry that you were interrupted. It was very good of you to stay. I believe I am right in saying that Ms Blake had a second question.
Olivia Blake
Q
Andy Prendergast: Both in terms of shoring up the jobs we currently have and potentially creating the jobs we so desperately need, one of our real concerns about net zero is the fact that, in a lot of countries, there is a perception that net zero is something being done to people, not with them. Look at the response in America, which is very much typified by “Drill, baby, drill”; look at Germany, where, bizarrely, Alternative für Deutschland is organising around heat pumps. We already have Reform UK talking about fighting the next election on the basis of net zero.
What we have recognised is that we have to make net zero work for people, and we think the best way of making that happen is to ensure that net zero comes with jobs and opportunities. The simple reality is that, if we get it right, those jobs and opportunities are going to be in the post-industrial areas. We have seen the maps put forward by people in the hydrogen lobby and from carbon capture and storage. These are jobs in places that desperately need them. If we are going to be serious about levelling up and making sure that prosperity is spread in Britain, we need to rebuild those industrial heartlands with proper, decent technologies that we can start exporting.
Andrew Pakes
Q
Andy Prendergast: That is a very good question. We have been really pleased to see that the role of trade unions is incorporated in the Bill, although we do need to flesh out exactly how that works.
Your criticism of the renewables industry, particularly for members of the GMB, is absolutely critical. When people talk about our role in industry, what they are often talking about is the white-collar jobs—the ones in universities, getting the technology. They are not talking about the blue-collar jobs, which, at the moment, are the ones in the energy sector that are very well unionised, with good rates of pay and excellent terms and conditions, and which give the security that families and communities need for the long term.
What really concerns us about the renewables industry so far is that it came with the promise of mass jobs that simply have not materialised. Alex Salmond promised 30,000 jobs in offshore wind; 10 years later, fewer than 10,000 have been delivered. Particularly when you are looking at maintenance jobs, you are talking about jobs that are subcontracted with terrible terms and conditions and that are anti-union. When we look at the success that places like America or Europe have had in renewables, trade unions are at the heart of that.
What we have seen so far is a real willingness from the Government to work with both ourselves and employers. One of the bizarre things about it is that those coalitions really have an impact. One of the most surprising days in my job was attending a meeting here and being praised by a Tory MP, which I never thought would happen—it was one of those pinch-yourself moments. It was in relation to Hinkley Point: it was recognised that we had a huge role there in helping to develop the workforce and to manage the process of ensuring both that they benefited and that we got things done quickly and properly.
If we get that right, this is an opportunity to bring not just jobs but good jobs. In a lot of the areas that we are talking about, we have this constant debate about “red wall” and about “post-industrial”. It is not that there are no jobs there; it is just that the jobs being brought in are not very good ones. They are not jobs that offer permanent contracts. They are not jobs that offer good pensions, sick pay or opportunities for advancement. They are zero-hours contracts—got here today, gone tomorrow—that give people very little pride. This is an opportunity to reverse that 40-year decline in our industrial base and do something positive about it.
Uma Kumaran
Q
Andy Prendergast: Part of this is about listening without prejudice. Look, we are going to be absolute clear: we agree with the Labour Government on a huge swathe of things, but one thing we do not agree on is the ending of oil and gas licences. We look at oil and gas licences and every single scenario into the future requires us to have oil and gas. We as a nation have a choice. We either take it for ourselves, with high working and environmental standards, or we import it from a number of frankly disreputable regimes.
Part of that transition has to be listening to those communities and the people doing the jobs and actually take their expertise. We are absolutely clear—and I think it is obvious to anyone with half a brain—that global warming is happening and the speed at which is happening is quicker. It is the biggest challenge that humanity has faced, certainly in my lifetime, and we need to deal with it. The concern for us, and this relates to what I was talking about earlier, is that if we get this wrong and we do not listen to communities and do not bring them with us, we risk getting a reaction against that, which is what we have seen in America and Europe. Then, instead of doing it a little bit slower but in a demonstrable and deliverable way, we end up with an electorate being offered simple solutions and quick fixes, and ultimately due to a mixture of climate pessimism and snake oil salesmen, they take the wrong decision. We have to look at some of this from a pragmatic angle, ask what is best in the national interest and listen to the workers and communities who are currently benefiting.
Torcuil Crichton
Q
Andy Prendergast: The role of trade unions is key. I have always had a very simple view: trade unions are about democracy at work. We are a country that believes in democracy so much that we invade other countries to give it to them whether they want it or not, and yet the idea of democratisation at the workplace is an anathema—certainly to what was over half of Parliament.
We need to listen to workers and ensure that they share in the success of businesses and ultimately that their sacrifices and those of their families are recognised. When we look at the work that is going to be coming out, we know that we have to do this. We have been asking for an industrial plan for years, and I think GB Energy is part of that industrial plan. That industrial plan has to be a road map of how we do this properly, how we engage those communities and how we provide the support necessary to make a transition.
I mentioned going to Denmark. When I was there, something fascinating happened: they closed a bacon plant, which was 1,000 jobs. You sit there and say, “That’s terrible. In Britain, we’d be fighting that. We’d be on picket lines.” In Denmark, because of the support given in social security and retraining, and the industrial strategy, it was seen as an opportunity for people to get better jobs. That was also helped an awful lot by the fact that those people were getting 90% of their salary paid for up to a year, so people thought, “Well, it’s a better job and a bit of a holiday in the meantime.” That shows what happens when you engage people properly.
What you ended up with is something that would decimate a community in Britain but rejuvenated a community in Denmark. That is because there was a tripartite strategy of listening to unions, talking to Government and talking to employers, and everyone put their heads together to come up with a solution to what would clearly be a problem. We have failed at that in Britain for years.
The Chair
Mr Prendergast, thank you very much indeed for your patience and for answering our questions this afternoon. The Committee is indebted to you. I am most grateful.
Would the Minister leading on the Bill like to meta-morphose himself and take the witness stand?
Examination of Witness
Michael Shanks MP gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Michael Shanks: Good afternoon. I am Michael Shanks, the Minister for Energy.
Andrew Bowie
Q
“There will be a range of projects, in some of which we will certainly have the controlling stake, and some of which we might help to get over the line, but in every single project there will be a return for the British taxpayer.” —[Official Report, 26 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 939.]
We have already talked about how GB Energy will be important—almost the key partner in investing in riskier technologies. How can you guarantee that every single project will have a return for the British taxpayer?
Michael Shanks: It is important to say that the return for the taxpayer will take different forms. We have been really clear in all the briefings we have done on the Bill and in the founding statement that in some we will take an equity stake, in some there will be debt financing, and in others we might provide some of the capacity for organisations to take forward some of the funding or project delivery themselves. In each one of those, we expect that GB Energy will play a part in delivering those projects, getting them over the line and delivering for the British people. That will be done in a variety of ways.
Some of it will absolutely be money coming back to GB Energy, which we have said will either be further invested in more projects or give a return to the Treasury to fund public services in different ways, but it might also be that on community energy, for example, we help community projects to get up and running. That also delivers a return for those communities.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Michael Shanks: I am saying very clearly that the aim of setting up GB Energy is that, like other countries right across the world, we can have a stake in some of the projects we are delivering. That is quite normal in many European countries. Indeed, the previous Government found it acceptable for those projects to set up in the UK too; it is just that they did not want the UK to have a stake in any publicly owned energy. It is a very common method of delivering projects like this, and giving a return to the British taxpayer is important. It will take many different forms.
In time, there will absolutely be a significant financial return on many of these projects, but in some of them, as you rightly say, de-risking them and getting them over the line will involve us taking a strategy that means that, on individual projects, we might not make an immediate return. But the overall vision of GB Energy is that it will play a part in helping us achieve our targets by 2030, and the British public will have a stake in that future. That is something we believe in, and we hope all Members of Parliament support it.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Michael Shanks: I think there are two different questions there. If you look at the rest of Europe, there are fantastic companies—EDF, Ørsted, Statkraft—that are delivering many of these projects in the UK. It is a model that clearly works, and that delivers economic and social benefits to those countries and to the people living in them. If we look at the price spike when Ukraine was invaded, EDF was able to mitigate some of that significant rise in bills for people in France. We are not saying that within six months of setting up GB Energy, it is going to compete with Equinor or Ørsted—of course we are not—but it is important that we start that journey. Of course, all these publicly owned companies started somewhere. They have been able to invest in the future to get to the scale that they are now, and to deliver significant projects in the process.
The second point of the question is important. GB Energy is not designed to displace any of those companies—or any other companies, incidentally—in delivering projects in the UK. It is about crowding in additional investment. We know that 2030 is going to be a real challenge. We have been very clear that we have set a target that we think is extremely ambitious, but achievable. When NESO publishes its road map shortly, it will give the detail on how we are going to get there. But we have to start somewhere, and I think GB Energy is a critical part of delivering that and will play a significant role in getting us to 2030—and, crucially, beyond 2030.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Moving on, some concern has been raised today that there has not been very much clarification, or that there is some confusion, over the status, operational independence and autonomy of Great British Nuclear within GB Energy. I wondered if you might expand on that and maybe think about putting something in the Bill regarding Great British Nuclear and its relationship with Great British Energy.
Michael Shanks: That is a really important question. We have said throughout that we want to have further discussions about the role of Great British Nuclear. I think folding it into Great British Energy is probably not the right solution, because what is really important—credit to your Government for doing this—is that the board of Great British Nuclear has significant expertise in nuclear projects. I think that is important for us to maintain. Clearly, there will be synergies and work together on certain projects, but they have, in some ways, quite different remits in terms of the investments we expect them to make, so I think they probably will remain in some form independent of each other. Clearly, the partnership working between them will be important, and we will say more on that in the coming months.
Andrew Bowie
I agree with you entirely on what you said about Great British Nuclear. Sir Roger, I think we should note that the Minister has just credited the former Government with something. I think it is the first time—
Michael Shanks: I think I credited you earlier as well. This is becoming a habit.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Michael Shanks: No, I will not be. To be fair to Juergen Maier, what he said very clearly was that in the initial set-up phase and for some time afterwards, we are talking employees in the hundreds based in the headquarters. Eventually, we think it may expand beyond that in Aberdeen and in the satellite offices, and indeed in any other set-ups that we have across the UK. I think the critical point on jobs is that the role of GB Energy is to invest in projects where we are creating new well-paid, trade-unionised jobs in the UK. That is critical. The jobs are not necessarily going to be in the headquarters of GB Energy, but they will be created by GB Energy’s investment. That is where the tens of thousands of jobs right across the UK will come from.
The Chair
I understand that that was out of order this morning, but you got your answer in the end.
Perran Moon
Q
I can safely say that the people of Cornwall are really excited about GB Energy. Expectations are very high. We are a post-industrial community that has suffered for decades from lack of investment. More recently, however, we have discovered that investment is now going into our tin industry; we have the third highest-grade tin deposits in the world. We also have lithium. We face the Celtic sea, so we have a huge opportunity with offshore wind and onshore wind. We have companies setting up in geothermal, solar and tidal, and we have the country’s largest ground source heat pump.
Can you elaborate on the potential benefits for communities such as Cornwall, where we have such a wide array of opportunity, and say how GB Energy will support those opportunities? And if I may be a little bit cheeky, we have heard quite a lot today about the head office being set up in Aberdeen with satellite offices being set up in Edinburgh and Glasgow, but I will just point out that there is another corner of the United Kingdom that would be delighted to have a satellite office.
Michael Shanks: May I thank you for the question? I think that, in asking it, you have successfully elaborated on all the potentials of Cornwall, which I am sure your constituents will be delighted about.
However, you make a really important point on two fronts. The aim of GB Energy is to crowd in investment in projects right across the United Kingdom. Yes, we are very proud to say that the headquarters will be in Scotland and—importantly—specifically in Aberdeen, as the Prime Minister announced. That is partly to recognise the energy story in the north-east of Scotland for the last 60 years in oil and gas, and the importance of the transition. However, it is also important to say that on the renewables journey Scotland has also been leading the way and will continue to do so in so many ways. It is right that the headquarters is in Aberdeen, building on the talent, experience and skills that are already there.
On the broader point, though, there are real opportunities for investments in every corner of the UK. To go back to some of the earlier points that witnesses made, this is a combination of policies; it is not just GB Energy in isolation. We have been really clear that we are a Government that are not agnostic about industrial strategy, and that we want to see manufacturing in the UK, and the thousands of jobs that could have been created by some of our offshore wind projects, for example, but actually went to other countries before we towed the projects into British waters. We want to see those jobs in this country and that will create opportunities across the country in the supply chains, in skill developments and in lots of other opportunities, including in Cornwall.
Although I absolutely cannot commit to opening an office in Cornwall and I would like the record to reflect that, I think there will be opportunities for your part of the world and indeed for the whole of the UK.
Harriet Cross
Q
Michael Shanks: That is a really fair question. The question of risk appetite is important; that is partly why setting up GB Energy as a company, regulated by the Companies Act and with a fiduciary board made up of financial experts who have a responsibility as a board of directors for the direction of the company and for its financial results, is so important.
There has to be some risk appetite, and one of the earlier witnesses made a point that I would agree with—if there are absolutely no projects that do not have any risk at all, GB Energy is not really filling the gap. It is really important that GB Energy can move in the spaces where the current investors are not necessarily finding those opportunities. Crucially, however, GB Energy is obviously owned by the taxpayer and therefore, as a backstop, there is a real conviction that it will only invest in things that have a likelihood of producing a return for the taxpayer.
Of course, when we get into making individual decisions, that is partly why it is important the Bill does not go into a granular level of detail on every single thing that GB Energy will do, because it is really important that we give that board, those experts and everyone they bring in to advise them, the space to move into opportunities as they emerge.
If we were to go back five or 10 years, we would not have thought that we were about to have the world’s biggest floating offshore wind farm off the coast of the UK. That would not be on the face of a Bill like this, but actually it is a huge potential opportunity for us and we would like those kinds of opportunities to be open to GB Energy to explore.
Olivia Blake
Q
Josh MacAlister
He has had this from every Scottish MP for the past six months.
Olivia Blake
Well, we have not heard enough about God’s own county here today.
There has been a lot of positivity from witnesses; some of them seemed quite excited about the Bill. I want to understand, from your perspective, why it has taken a change of Government to see this sort of Bill come forward, and what your ambition is for it.
Michael Shanks: That is really important. Last week, I visited Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, the last coal-powered station in the UK, and it was a good example of the just transition in practice. It was the right thing that we phased out coal; the TUC itself confirmed that that was exactly how to deal with workers in such a difficult situation where you are moving people from one industry and transitioning them into something else. It was a properly planned process, which is what we want to see in industry.
You are right: we absolutely want to avoid what happened with coalmining in the 1980s. It goes back to what I was saying earlier: this Government are not agnostic about the future of jobs and manufacturing in our industrial communities right across the country. It is important that we invest in them not only because, frankly, we are in a race against the world for all the parts we need to deliver the future of energy, and we will need to produce some of them in this country, but because good, well-paid, skilled jobs are how we will manage the transition in a fair and prosperous way. It is critical for us.
I think it matches other policies. Yes, GB Energy will be a key part, but the industrial strategy will also be important. The national wealth fund and a whole range of levers will be important. The office for clean energy jobs is all about saying that, as a Government, we are committed to the future of this workforce and to creating tens of thousands of new jobs that do not currently exist.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
Michael Shanks: I think it is a combination of things. I urge you to read the Great British Energy founding statement document alongside the Bill, because it is important. The Bill is about setting up a company, and what we do not want to do is hamstring that company by putting in so much detail that it cannot move into the right places that give good investment opportunities for the taxpayer and deliver good energy projects.
The statement makes it clear that community energy, for example, is a key part of our local power plan. We want to see many more community-owned energy projects, for a combination of reasons. They have real social and economic benefits for communities. For us, there is the belief that communities having a stake in those projects is important: communities having ownership and feeling part of the mission will help us with some of the arguments for the amount of infrastructure that we will have to build in the next few years. Also, in certain areas we want small-scale generation projects to have access to connections that bigger projects cannot have. Frankly, in a lot of cases, building the power generation near the population is where we have issues with spatial energy planning across the country.
There are huge opportunities. We are committed to increasing community ownership. We have also said in the local power plan that it could look like municipal ownership of certain generation projects, or it could look like local authorities or combined authorities. We are quite open about what it looks like, but we want to create a landscape where Great British Energy can invest and also provide some capacity to help organisations to get over the line. We all know that local government is struggling and is on its knees right across the country, after years of underfunding. The capacity to deliver a lot of the projects is not there, so GB Energy can fill that gap.
Catherine Fookes
Q
Michael Shanks: That is an important question. We have done several different things already. I have had many conversations with my counterparts in the Welsh Government, in the Scottish Government and, to a different degree, in the Northern Ireland Executive. Energy is of course transferred in Northern Ireland, but we are keen that they are still part of the Bill, so that they can benefit from some of the GB Energy possibilities, although it will be a different relationship because they are part of a different grid.
All my conversations with the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government have been about how we collaborate, not just on the formal process of consulting on the statement of priorities, but on how they can be part of helping GB Energy to set its priorities on an ongoing basis. On Monday, I met the Cabinet Secretary in the Scottish Government. We talked about, for example, the Scottish Government having a role in a much wider sense in the company to help with some of the priorities in Scotland.
There are a variety of ways. What is critical is that the devolved Administrations should absolutely be consulted, and we want that to be an open process, but we have also reset the relationships with the devolved Administrations in a way that means that this is not now a combative process. Across the UK, we have broadly the same outcomes in mind for clean power, with slightly different targets here and there, but we are all on the same journey. That allows us to align a lot of our priorities and to deliver for people all across the UK. I want that to be an open and collaborative approach. Consultation is the formal part, but it is not the limit of what we think can happen.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Michael Shanks: In the election, we committed that bills would come down. That figure was from independent analysts. We never said that bills would come down overnight; this is a process that will take time. GB Energy is part of delivering that. Without GB Energy, it would be harder to reach our targets by 2030 and to bring down bills for everyone. The reality with bills is that we remain far too wedded to fossil fuels; whether they come from the North sea or not, they are traded on the international market and we are subject to all the spikes, so reducing our dependence on unabated gas is critical. That is why I hope that all Members will vote to support GB Energy as part of the solution, including you.
Uma Kumaran
Q
“measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy”.
For our constituents watching at home, which I choose to believe they are, what does the Bill actually mean for energy security? What does it mean for our constituents in the years ahead?
Michael Shanks: Our constituents and the wider population are watching every moment of this sitting, I have no doubt.
That is an important question. Security of supply is one of the critical questions that we have to answer. We have this challenge at the moment of how we bring down bills; how we move towards our climate targets for clean power, which is essential; and how we ensure security of supply. The only way—the only long-term solution—is for us to move to cheaper renewable energy at pace. Every single year that we are dependent on volatile fossil fuel markets, we open ourselves to the kind of exposure that people have still been paying the price for in the past few years. That cannot continue.
We will not be able to flick a switch overnight. We have come in after 14 years of chaos, frankly, in so much of government, and we are doing as much as we can to move at pace, but this is the journey that we need to be on. As I have said, 2030 is ambitious, but it is absolutely achievable. I was heartened when every single one of our witnesses today confirmed that although this is an ambitious programme, they see GB Energy as a critical part—not a silver bullet; of course it is not, and we never said that it is—in moving us toward energy security, cheaper bills and the climate leadership that the public want.
Pippa Heylings
Q
Michael Shanks: There are two separate things here: the objects in the Bill, which are around the restrictions placed on Great British Energy, and the five key functions, which are outlined in the founding statement. I was referring to the five key functions, one of which is the local power plan, which is how we think we will deliver a lot more community-owned energy.
The important thing about the Bill is that we do not want inadvertently to create a list of things that we think are good to have—I do not disagree with you at all about the importance of that—but that actually end up restricting it in ways that we do not expect. There is that danger with Bills like this; it was the same with Great British Nuclear and the UK Infrastructure Bank, where they have a clear, focused remit. There is nothing in the objects that prevents community energy projects—in fact, they are intrinsic to several of them—but we think that adding more and more detail, including the amendment that you propose, is not the right way to go. But it is clear in the founding statement, in the evidence from Juergen Maier and in numerous answers from the Secretary of State and me that this is something to which we are absolutely committed.
Torcuil Crichton
Q
Michael Shanks: That is really important. There are two strands to this. The capacity building point, to which you allude, is critical. A lot of communities absolutely have the possibility, the option and the potential for some of these projects, but just do not have the capacity to deliver them. We see that as a critical role that GB Energy could have, as a sort of one-stop shop of experts to provide that support, help with the essential pre-planning work and help to navigate the connections issues.
The second point around connections is really important, and it is something I am focusing a lot of time on within my wider remit as Minister: how do we clear the connections queue, while also prioritising the projects that we want to get connected much faster? Some of that will require us simply to build more network infrastructure to alleviate the pressures; some of it is building on the work that the previous Government did around prioritising the queue.
There are difficult trade-offs. Far be it from me to give credit to the former Minister again, but there are trade-offs because it is important for us not to say that one project is more valuable than the other. There might be, for example, mechanisms around saying that one is more likely to be connected faster, or is further through its delivery phase and should therefore get priority over something else. There are also a lot of projects still in the queue that just should not be there at all, because they are nowhere near ready to be delivered. It is important that we work on both those things, but GB Energy can be a real catalyst for communities to unleash the potential that they have. I am really excited about the opportunities that are there.
In closing, may I thank Committee members for their forbearance today? Can I also say that it is the first time since 2010 that a Minister has given evidence in a Bill Committee? I am glad that this Labour Government have brought back the practice of Government Ministers being responsible to Parliament and answering these questions. I look forward to doing more of that in future.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna Turley.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the removal of VAT and business rates exemptions for independent schools.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. This debate matters for various reasons. I have always been and will remain committed to supporting education across the board, including our excellent state schools. I want all schools to be adequately funded to present opportunities for children from all backgrounds. I say that as someone who was proudly educated in state schools and who cares about the life chances of everyone.
I have secured this specific debate to highlight how Labour’s ideologically driven plan to remove VAT and business rate exemptions for independent schools is an inherently flawed policy. If Labour will not abandon the education tax I will also suggest some improvements that the Government could make to lessen the impact of the policy on pupils, parents and school staff in Bromsgrove and across the country.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
Order. We seem to have a problem with the sound—it seems to be everybody’s microphones. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to plough on while we see whether we can change a few plugs and get it rolling again. In case he was put off by the tinny quality of the sound, we are trying to get it rectified. Please plough on.
Bradley Thomas
Thank you, Dame Caroline. Education is an investment in our future. It is in everyone’s best interests that children are well educated so that they can make an engaged and positive contribution to our society. We do not charge VAT on many types of private healthcare, as that is beneficial when people use their own money to pay for a service that the state would otherwise provide. We do not charge VAT on university or nursery fees, so why should schooling be any different?
There are approximately 2,500 independent schools in the UK educating more than half a million children. They are often small schools: more than 40% of independent schools have fewer than 100 pupils according to Department for Education data. The reality is that the policy will not fulfil its aims and will displace children mid-education. State education must be funded by the state, supported by taxpayers. The VAT exemption encourages greater use of independent education, reducing the number of state school pupils, meaning more money available per pupil in the state sector.
The Times recently stated that 71% of parents felt that rising school fees would influence their future decision about independent schooling. Additionally, 26% of parents said they would have to withdraw their children from independent schools if VAT is introduced.
An Adam Smith Institute report provides a detailed examination of the potential economic impacts. If 10% to 15% of students transfer, the net revenue could be negligible. Alarmingly, in a scenario where 25% of students switch from the independent sector to state schools, the tax could cost the Government £1.6 billion.
Currently, independent schools’ significant economic benefits include supporting 328,000 jobs, saving £4.4 billion from the education budget, and supporting £5.1 billion in additional tax revenue. They do this while saving the state £4.5 billion by removing the requirement to fund the education of 7% of children as the result of parents exercising this choice. Furthermore, independent and state boarding schools are a unique subset of the schools system, with the additional feature of attracting overseas students to the UK. Some 62,700 pupils are international students in independent schools, making up 11% of the population. This is a key export for the country, adding £2.1 billion to our economy annually.
Bradley Thomas
I will not give way. Independent schools should be seen as a British success story, both culturally and economically, instead of being discouraged and punished with the imposition of an education tax for socialist ideological principles. Most importantly, the human impact of the policy is stark. The failure of this education tax will not just be academic or financial; it will have a serious impact on families.
One parent wrote to me:
“As a widowed single mother who works full-time, I make enormous financial sacrifices to ensure my child can attend the same school from age 3 to 18. This stability is not only essential for my child’s development but also enables me to work and contribute to society. This proposed VAT would be devastating for families like mine.”
Another mother wrote to me and said,
“We also have a daughter who will need to start secondary school in two years. We had hoped for her to attend the same school as her brother but, with no scholarship likely and the addition of VAT, it is simply impossible. This is a painful realisation, and I worry that she will resent the opportunities that we couldn’t give her (but we could give her older sibling).”
We have yet to talk about the impact on special educational needs and disabilities education. This measure will cause particular problems for children who are in receipt of such bespoke education. Nationally, at least 130,000 pupils in independent schools receive SEND support in mainstream and specialist settings. That is 20% of the pupils in UK independent schools, which is slightly higher than the state school average. Independent schools help to provide additional value-adding capacity to SEND education.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. On special educational needs, this measure will devastate many families around the country who make huge sacrifices. When the Minister sums up, will he tell us what mitigations and support will be given to local authorities to cover the cost and the pressures they face, particularly with shortages in special educational needs provision across the country?
Bradley Thomas
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I will touch on later, and I hope the Minister will address it. Independent schools provide additional value-adding capacity to SEND education, as has been acknowledged, and VAT on fees risks their ability to do that. There is simply not the capacity in the state sector to accommodate all those extra pupils, particularly when SEND services are already under pressure.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. My city of Edinburgh has the highest proportion of independently educated children in the country, at between 20% and 30% every year. According to the local Labour authority, 16 schools will already be over capacity at the end of this year. If the predicted percentage of children drop out of independent education into the state sector, it will not be able to cope. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this measure is ill thought-through and that the Labour Government must come up with a way to support education, particularly as the matter is devolved in Scotland and VAT is reserved?
Bradley Thomas
I agree with the hon. Member. The examples she cites highlight the situation perfectly. The Government have failed to consider that the capacity is not there. We have already seen, in the few months since this Parliament began, several debates highlighting issues of SEND capacity.
Another mother wrote to me to outline the benefit that independent schools can have for children with SEND needs:
“We moved our autistic child to a small independent school and the transformation was immediate. Classes are small and quiet, and the school is very nurturing and family oriented. It has been wonderful to see her blossom and slowly get more and more involved in school life. We would not have chosen for our daughter to go to private school but there was no suitable state provision available. We are paying a significant amount of money to be able to do this. Adding VAT on top feels like we are being punished twice for having a child that doesn’t fit into the state system, either in mainstream or specialist schools.”
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Nobody here is not interested in a positive educational experience for all children in all our constituencies, in all establishments. My own youngsters have enjoyed brilliant learning in both private and state schools, while one is currently in an independent school. Would my hon. Friend agree that the heart of this policy of bringing in taxation on education is stoking division, creating harm to aspiration, and stopping the sharing of facilities and opportunity? It is exemplified by the Education Secretary’s proclamation on social media. Despite the impact on jobs and community harm, the Government still want to introduce this policy.
Bradley Thomas
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The comments made by the Education Secretary on Twitter over the weekend epitomise the way in which the mask of this Government is slipping—socialism is revealing its true face—and how reprehensible the policy is.
Adjacent to SEND schools, we must consider faith education. This education tax will make independent faith schooling unaffordable for many families, hurting the 370,000 pupils who attend independent faith schools in England according to Department for Education figures. It is important that the House notes that fees at those schools are frequently below the independent school average, and sometimes below state per-pupil funding levels. Often the schools have a suggested fee, but the community supports those who cannot afford the full fee by themselves.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. In Birmingham Perry Barr there is an all-girls faith school where parents earning just above minimum wage secure places for their children. We already have an enormous problem in the constituency with the secondary school sector, where waiting lists are somewhere in the region of 100 places. Does the hon. Member agree that not only does it not stack up financially but we simply have not got the infrastructure to deal with this policy?
Bradley Thomas
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member. We have yet to talk about military and diplomatic families, who need boarding schools to provide a stable education while parents are deployed overseas; 4,700 children are funded by the Government under the continuity of education allowance, which assists service personnel and diplomatic families in educating their children at boarding school.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. The Government say that they are pursuing economic growth. In his excellent speech I hope that my hon. Friend will highlight the value of export earnings to the United Kingdom from the fantastic independent school sector, which is a key part of growth. No other western economy taxes education.
Bradley Thomas
My right hon. Friend echoes the point that I made earlier that this is about not just a service that is provided but a key segment of the UK economy that bolsters the value of UK plc and UK GDP.
Bradley Thomas
I will not; I will make progress. Labour committed in the House of Commons in 2023 that armed forces families need not be concerned about proposals to charge VAT. With the current retention crisis in the armed forces, and the current volatile state of world affairs, the Government need to confirm what impact analysis has been carried out on the effect of taxing education on military personnel.
We then get into issues around the implementation of the policy. Implementation in January will put pressure on local authorities to find rare and academically disruptive in-year placements. Those will be difficult, as state schools will be full and many will be oversubscribed, with areas that have a high number of pupils attending independent schools having some of the busiest state schools.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is speaking eloquently about the impact on children’s education, on children with special educational needs and on children being ripped out of their schools, perhaps in the year of their GCSEs or A-levels. This is obviously a debate about education. There are Members of Parliament in the Chamber from the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, as well as independent MPs and Members from Reform—
Richard Fuller
It is not always about the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The Labour party has marshalled all but two of their MPs, one of whom hates the policy—I do not know what the other thinks.
Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) think that it is shocking that not a single member of the Education ministerial team of the Labour Government has bothered to show up today, yet they continue to use the airwaves to spew out spiteful and divisive messages about this Labour policy? The Minister present, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), does not care about education; he cares about money—he is a Treasury Minister. He knows that the policy will not raise any money, but it is going to cost taxpayers.
Bradley Thomas
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The Government have shown the true intent of the policy over the weekend with the divisive, “us and them” mentality that was revealed on social media.
I call on the Government to pause and reconsider this education tax, with a view to abandoning it. It is unethical and will damage a British success story. It will not fulfil its stated aims. The policy will not raise significant money, but is being forced through at the expense of state and independent schoolchildren to further the Government’s divisive ideological agenda that so many in this House have recognised.
If the Government refuse to abandon the policy, there are some sensible and practical steps that they can take to minimise the impact that it will have on parents and children. First, delay the imposition of VAT until September and the start of the next academic year. There has been no proper impact assessment of these policies on state schools, SEND provision or faith schooling; a full consultation and impact assessment is needed before changes are announced. Secondly, assess how very small schools can be protected from VAT and tax changes. They are a vital community resource and charge much lower fees; that should be acknowledged. Thirdly, exempt service families on continuity of education allowance from VAT. Those who rely on independent education to serve our country should absolutely not be penalised. Furthermore, the Government should protect children currently applying for an education, health and care plan, as parents should not be penalised for the delays in the process.
I would like the Minister to provide clarity on the following points. Will the Government be issuing guidance for state schools on how to deal with applications from parents, to prevent parents from being asked to prove that they cannot afford to fund independent education? During the general election campaign, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) commented that state sector classes must increase and that they will just have to cope. What assessment have the Government done to determine whether state sector classes have the resources available?
When it comes to students transitioning from the independent to the state sector, what provision will there be to prevent disruption to their education in subjects that may not be taught at their new state schools? In the event of academic performance failures due to the disruption caused by transitioning between schools, will academic leniency be granted to students? I also seek clarity on what funding and support will be made available for students with special educational needs who are transitioning between the independent and state sectors.
I hope that the House will clearly appreciate that this short-sighted policy will hit hardest those in society who it claims to be supporting, that it will damage the wider education sector as a whole, and that it will worsen academic and social inequalities while being a net cost to society, the education sector and the British taxpayer.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
Order. A lot of people want to take part in this debate, so I remind everybody that they need to bob if they wish to be called. Given the nature of the debate, I recommend that Members declare any interests if they have them. I am going to kick us off with a three-minute limit on contributions because 19 people are down to speak.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. The Government are about to realise the reality of governance over manifesto ideology. Fundamentally, this policy will remove the ability of people to send their children to local primary schools as places get filled by those who currently can just about afford to use private schools. As there is limited time, I have a series of questions that I would like to put to the Minister. To be fair to him, this is not his Department—education Ministers are running away from their policy—so I doubt he will be able to answer them today, but perhaps he can take them away. Some of them have been covered, but I think it is important to get them on the record.
Will the Minister confirm whether a low-income family whose child is in receipt of a bursary would be liable for VAT on the total school fees? Would a staff member in receipt of an employee discount on fees also be liable? With boarding schools already at 86% capacity and some already withdrawing from the market, will the continuity of education allowance for military families still be able to house the 4,200 who currently use it? Will arts schools be exempt? If so, and we are starting to exempt schools, is this even legal? If we do not exempt art schools, that means people who have the talent to go will have to be in the vicinity of the school or travel. That is going to withdraw a huge amount of opportunity from those in the arts sector.
What mitigation is there going to be for the financial planning of international pupils? They have a choice of a global market. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) mentioned, this is a £2.1 billion export market. Again, is it going to be legal to exempt certain schools, such as those involved with SEND provision? What impact will there be on council budgets? There is an issue for those of us who represent vast rural communities: if children are taken out of the private sector and put into the state sector, the state will to have to fund the transport for those children to go to school. Upon whose budget will that fall? Fundamentally —there is evidence of this from every council—if primary schools are already close to capacity, will the state pay to put those children into private places? Will parents then be taxed on that as an in-kind benefit or will the law be retrospectively changed—which, of course, would suit the Prime Minister and a lot of people with free wardrobes?
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
My constituency of South Devon is home to several small independent schools that offer an alternative education from the mainstream offer from state schools: education that caters brilliantly for pupils who struggle to fit in with the demands of the mainstream curriculum. I have heard from several parents whose children could not cope in state schools—they live with autism or other mental health challenges—but are thriving in those small private settings. These small independent schools, whose fees are as low as they can make them, offer smaller class sizes, fewer class transitions during the day and more emphasis on wellbeing and creativity.
The parents who have contacted me in desperation over this proposed change are not wealthy. They are scraping together the fees so that their children can attend a school where they can thrive. One told me that she had sold her house and given away the family pet in order to move into a flat. She changed job to be able to afford the fees, and she now buys everything second hand. Another said that they had also sold their home and moved house to afford the fees at their local Steiner school as their children had also failed to cope with mainstream schooling.
The introduction of VAT on private school fees may not have much impact on parents who can afford £50,000 a year for a child. However, one school in my constituency, whose fees are just £10,000, said that it will face closure if it loses just four more children from its roll. All those small schools are trying to absorb as much of the cost as possible, with teachers taking salary cuts and much-needed building repairs being put on hold indefinitely. Will the Minister think about the impact the tax will have on the children who cannot get an EHCP? They cannot cope with the rigours of the state school system and they will quite probably end up dropping out of school completely if this goes ahead, with all the implication that has on working parents who then may have to consider homeschooling instead. I urge the Minister to think about a lower fee threshold for the introduction of VAT. After all, those parents are already paying income tax to cover an education that their children do not receive.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
My hon. Friend raises a good point, and I was glad to hear that Labour is giving consideration to cases in which independent school provision has been specified in education, health and care plans. However, as has already been raised, many children have special educational needs and do not require an EHCP; that means that many children with SEN are currently being educated in independent schools as there is insufficient support in the state school system. As such, the families are having to bear the fee increase. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must ensure that those vulnerable children are not disadvantaged by this policy?
Caroline Voaden
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that those children are going to be most affected by this policy. For those families, the tax change is a regressive step that will force them into an impossible situation and have a devastating impact on children who have already had a difficult start in life—many of whom have experience of the care system, our failing mental health system and a state school system completely unable to cope with all their additional or complex needs. Yes, the state school system desperately needs investment—we know that. We know that the provision for SEND is in a disastrous state, nowhere more so than in Devon, and the chronic underfunding of councils by the previous Government has decimated SEND provision.
Mr Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate. In my constituency, Taunton school, Wellington school, King’s college and Queen’s college make a massive contribution to the local economy. Beyond that, they also cater for many children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should consider resources for local authorities to cope with the wave of applications for support from SEND children currently being supported in independent schools? They are not applying for EHCPs now but will doubtless need to in future, if they are no longer able to get the care and support they need at their schools. Does she also agree that the Minister should secure a rise in the armed forces allowance to cope with the 20% increase?
Caroline Voaden
It is interesting that nobody is here from the Department for Education to defend the policy and that we have heard nothing about the contribution it will make to increasing SEND provision in state schools. I certainly know that the state schools in my area cannot cope with any additional need, and we have heard nothing about that. Dare I say that the Liberal Democrats had several suggestions for tax-raising options in our election manifesto that do not seem to have been considered yet by this Government? I humbly suggest that a tax on social media companies might be a good place to start, given the impact that they have on the mental health of our young people.
I implore the Minister to rethink how the VAT policy will damage families who have tried so hard to find the right setting so that their children can thrive. If he would like to come to South Devon and see for himself what some of these brilliant schools offer, I will be delighted to show him around.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
We have been told by the Government that the rationale for this policy is not class hatred or class warfare; it is a revenue-generation mechanism for state schools. It is a sort of novel, hypothecated tax: education has always been tax free in this country and, in fact, around the world. Even going back to the last flowering of Labour’s socialism in the 1970s, when there was beer and sandwiches in No. 10, there was no suggestion that we should take socialism into the classroom in the way that this Government are.
If tax take is in fact the rationale, where is the impact assessment? How much will actually be raised by this policy, and what costs will be associated with its implementation? We have already heard that some 10,000 students have left the private sector and are going into the state sector just this September. What impact will there be on the education of those children?
On Friday I went to see a local headmaster at a private school in my constituency—the only one that I am aware of. At this stage, I should register my interest: I have one child at a fee-paying school. The headmaster said that there are primary schools locally that are totally full and there is no space for those children leaving the private sector to go into local primary education. Where is the impact assessment on SEND children? Some 34% of the intake of that private school are pupils with special educational needs. Partly because of the delay in the EHCP process, will they be penalised? What happens when they get taken out of their educational setting and put into a new school with new friends, or a lack of them? What will be the impact on their personal education? What will be the impact on SEND provision in the county of Norfolk?
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. I have always had great concern about segregation in our education system, but parents in York say that due to the different pedagogy environment and culture, certain independent schools provide the only way that their children with SEN, anxiety or care experience can currently access education. It is through necessity, not choice. Does he agree that the Government should publish an impact assessment not only for this, but for the Budget, so that we can assess the full analysis of this policy?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I am sorry that she waited so long to intervene. I quite agree with the point that she makes. We need to have an impact assessment on another issue, which is the provision of boarding facilities for children in care, which again are provided in my constituency. The school provides full boarding for not just children in care, but the boarding pathway programme put forward by Norfolk county council for children on the edge of care. Their education is the single point of continuity in their lives, and this policy has a real risk of reducing that support and removing them from their school and their friends halfway through an educational year.
What assessment have the Government undertaken before the Budget on these policies and their costs, and what mitigation will they put in place? We have already heard about the impact on military families. Is it right to target the children of our servicemen for this hypothecated tax? Was targeting poor pensioners not enough for this Government?
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the policy disproportionately affects families on lower and middle incomes, which the vast majority of these students come from? Parents I have spoken to in my constituency are really concerned. They have forgone foreign holidays, a new car and a bigger home because they have chosen to invest in their children’s education. Should the Government not encourage people to make those right decisions on behalf of their families, rather than penalising them?
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It feels as though the Government have a cartoonish characterisation of what a private education looks like—top hats and tails—but that is not the real experience of the modern private educational sector.
That brings me nicely on to the impact on bursaries. At the school in my constituency, 20% of fee revenue goes on bursaries. It is exactly that level of support for people with greater financial disadvantage that will be the first casualty of this unfair and ill thought-out policy. Again, it is an odd target for a tax take. What about the impact on local businesses? The school employs 286 people of all different types in my constituency, and job cuts are already under way. I ask the Government to think again. Surely the introduction of this ill thought-out policy halfway through the academic year needs to be revisited.
Then there is the impact on children who are sitting for public examinations. It is always bad when children have to change schools because of circumstances that are forced on them, but even more so when they are sitting for their GCSEs or A levels. At the very least, the policy should not be implemented for people in those years. For pupils applying for education, health and care plans, the delay in the Government process of undertaking those assessments should not mean that costs are forced on parents who are taking active steps to support the education of their children. For military families and for specialist music and dance schools, the Government have put forward no evidence to support their stated policy objectives. The policy feels rushed. The only people here to support it are those who are paid to do so, and it is vulnerable children in our society who will pay the price of these internal Labour politics.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
I am desperately trying to squeeze everybody in, but, as we can see, a lot of people want to speak, so I will now take the time limit down to two minutes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
To provide an example of the two minutes, I will speak at a very speedy rate. I thank you, Dame Caroline, for allowing me to speak, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on bringing forward the debate.
I will make two points. I have a large number of independent schools in my constituency, but I want to speak about our local grammar school, Regent House. It is one of the top schools in Northern Ireland and has a preparatory school attached. I have been contacted by parents of children in the school, who have succinctly outlined their view: this is clearly yet another blow to the working family who are trying their best for their children and making sacrifices, which become more difficult with every passing Budget. Our schooling system in Northern Ireland is different, and I agree with my party colleague, the Education Minister Paul Givan, who has outlined reasons why the change cannot go ahead. Some 2,500 pupils in Northern Ireland attend grammar school preps, Christian schools and other independent schools, and their parents top up to allow them to have this privilege.
Let us be clear about what is happening: these are not people with lots of money. These are people who use their money to send their child to a good school to provide them with an education. Taxation is decided at Westminster, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said, and that is important. The headmaster of one independent Christian school said,
“We have some pupils in our Christian schools who are entitled to free school meals, so by no means are many of our parents rich.”
The options facing those parents are to send their children to the mainstream school against their religiously held views or to homeschool them, and there is very little regulation of homeschooling in Northern Ireland. A private school in Northern Ireland is not a status symbol, as many believe, but a human right based on people’s right to their faith. The Government will massively overstep if they use a massive, sweeping brush to address something that requires a fine brush.
A school in my constituency on the border in Holywood has a different approach to learning, under which children are excelling. Other international schools need to be able to provide schooling for children who move around with their parents’ work and who need access to a different format of education—one where there is some continuity. None of those are status symbols, and they need to be considered separately. I fully agree with the arguments that have been made today, and I ask the Minister to consider them.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. The Turnford school was a secondary school in decline in my constituency of Broxbourne: academic standards were poor, and the school had never received a satisfactory rating from Ofsted. But thanks to a unique partnership with Haileybury, an independent school also in my constituency, the tide began to turn. In 2015, the Turnford school was relaunched as Haileybury Turnford school, with Haileybury the sole sponsor. A generous annual improvement grant worth £200,000 a year was established —to date, £1.2 million has been given to the state school—and other wraparound support was provided, including for teaching staff and kids with SEND. In 2022, for the first time in its history, Haileybury Turnford School was judged to be good.
Ministers think this policy will impact only on the rich, but, for nearly a decade, a genuinely working-class community in the Cheshunt and Turnford area has benefited from the state and independent sectors working together. I therefore urge the Government—I would like to hear from the Minister today on this—to allow independent schools to offset the financial support and resources they provide to state schools against their VAT liability.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. In my constituency, there are six small independent schools, two of which are dedicated to special educational needs, serving a total of 820 students. I have heard from each of those schools, from families of current students and from teachers in the state sector about the potential impacts of imposing VAT on private education provision.
I want to highlight two issues that relate particularly to the educational ecosystem of Surrey Heath, but which will, I think, also resonate widely across the country. The first is special educational needs. Of the 820 students in private schools across Surrey Heath, 230 have special educational needs of varying degrees of severity, and, of those, 138 are not in possession of an EHCP. That figure indicates the disproportionate service and choice that small, local private schools provide children and families with special educational needs.
For those children and families, private provision is more than just an alternative to the state sector; it is a crucial lifeline for children who struggle in mainstream education or who cannot secure one of the limited places in a special educational needs school provided by Surrey county council. Parents and headteachers have made it clear to me that families with children with special educational needs already face significant financial strains, and an additional 20% will be the tipping point that forces already stretched families to withdraw their children and turn again to an overstretched county-run system.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The state schools in my constituency are already bursting at the seams, and we have hundreds of children who are outside of education, many of whom are unable to receive homeschooling. There are six private schools in my constituency, educating more than 1,000 children. The lowest fees start at £1,800, with the highest at around £3,300. We are talking about working-class, low-income families with children who have special educational needs. If enacted, the policy would be hugely damaging to those families’ financial situation and their children’s education. I strongly urge the Government to assess the impact of that and put in place protection mechanisms for such schools.
Dr Pinkerton
I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely.
My second point relates to military families. As we have close ties to Sandhurst, Pirbright and nearby Aldershot, around 10% of pupils in my constituency come from military families. Those families already report that they are struggling with fees because of the increasing gap between the continuity of education allowance paid by the Ministry of Defence and the rising cost of private education, and adding 20% would widen that gap further still. Many families would reach their tipping point and be forced to withdraw their children from their current schools, with all the attendant risks.
Helen Maguire
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. As the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson and as a veteran myself, I can only reiterate the importance of a stable environment for the children of armed forces personnel. Does he agree that the Government must continue to support a stable environment for our armed forces personnel as they continue to protect our country, both at home and overseas, and that the Government must explain exactly how they will achieve that?
Dr Pinkerton
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I know that residents in my constituency face having to leave the armed forces because of the disruption that the added VAT would cause and the difficulty of procuring educational offerings. I ask the Government to think again about this policy—this education tax—and its timing and application, especially now, when SEND provision is already broken in counties such as Surrey and requires fundamental reform; when local independent schools are already struggling, having borne many of the costs associated with inflation, lived through the pandemic and endured many of the costs attached to that; and when state schools are already struggling to provide the education that they want to provide.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I am amazed by the Conservative Opposition’s chutzpah when they talk about special educational needs. No one would have thought that they had been in power for the last 14 years and overseen the running down of the system so that it is almost impossible to get an education, health and care plan—these days, 98% of tribunals award plans against councils. We have a system without special educational needs co-ordinators. We have a special educational needs system that, thanks to the legacy of the Conservative Government—14 years of decline— is failing.
I speak as someone who was for 14 years the governor of two special schools near my constituency. I am proud of what the last Labour Government achieved: £1 billion into services for disabled children and young people and their families, and lots of new rights for those people. Under the Conservatives, we have gone backwards, and the situation in the special educational needs sector is dire. As a result, young people cannot get the EHCPs they need.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Ben Coleman
Let me make a little bit more progress. Cash-strapped councils are having to send their constituents’ children to private schools because state provision is not available. Parents from my constituency have written to me saying that their only reason for sending a child to a private school to meet their dyslexia, neurodivergence or other needs is not that they are ideologically in favour of doing so, but that they cannot do anything else. The provision is not there locally, and that is because of 14 years of Conservative decline. It is absolutely extraordinary.
Dr Spencer
Bearing in mind that around 15% of children in independent schools have special educational needs and only around 5% have an EHCP, given the move back into the state sector that this policy will cause and given the hon. Gentleman’s experience and personal concern about EHCPs, will he be voting against the policy?
Ben Coleman
The one thing I did not hear from the hon. Gentleman was an apology for what his party did to the special educational needs system in this country over 14 years.
We do have a problem as a result of the policy, however. Parents who cannot easily afford to send their children to private schools are digging deep into their pockets, as my constituents in Chelsea and Fulham have written to me. That is the situation we are faced with. Local councils are sending kids to private schools because they cannot do otherwise, and the schools are small and cannot easily absorb the VAT. I am pleased that the Government recognise the particular challenges facing children with additional needs and have agreed to exempt those with EHCPs from VAT. I am pleased that the Government have committed, as the Minister said when discussing SEND in a debate before the recess—
Ben Coleman
I am glad the hon. Member appreciates the point I am trying to make. I will make the point it absolutely clear: because children cannot get an EHCP thanks to the failures of the Conservative Government, local councils and parents who can ill afford it are having to send their kids to private schools. I am concerned that the use of EHCPs as a criterion for VAT exemption is too limited, but I do not think that any Conservative Member here has a right to talk about SEND without first saying, “I am sorry.” I support the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) that before we go ahead with this policy, we undertake a proper assessment of the impact on the education of children with special educational needs who do not have EHCPs. That is a perfectly reasonable point to make, given the hideous, cruel and inept situation in which the Conservative party has left this country’s special educational needs system.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate. I should declare that I am a governor at Shillington and Stondon Federation, and a Central Bedfordshire councillor.
Labour Members are notable by their absence. I can only imagine that they are ashamed of this policy to charge VAT on education. Parents across the country and in Mid Bedfordshire deserve to be able to send their child to the best school for them. Parental choice is crucial to ensuring that our children get the best start in life, but too many parents in Bedfordshire are already struggling to get that for their children. The Department for Education has acknowledged that Bedford borough’s secondary schools are effectively full. A new school will not come along until 2027, and it is anticipated that even that school will be filled by future housing growth.
Just over 15% of children in Bedford borough, and nearly 10% of children in central Bedfordshire, did not receive an offer for their first choice secondary school. That situation will get worse as our population grows. Across Bedfordshire, 19 independent schools currently support 5,744 pupils. It is a policy of envy—the Labour Government want to drive pupils away from the independent sector and into state schools. That means less choice for parents and bigger class sizes, reducing the quality of education for all.
The Government have talked about growing the economy, but imposing VAT on independent schools will fundamentally damage the economy in Bedfordshire. Independent schools contribute £800 million to the east of England’s economy, supporting 47,000 jobs. In a recent visit to Orchard school in Barton-le-Clay in my constituency, I was struck by its wider economic impact. It employs local people, uses local suppliers, and supports local businesses.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. Just last week, I held a roundtable with headteachers, school governors and bursars from five independent schools in and around my constituency. I am grateful to Abbey Gate college for hosting. The message from everyone at that meeting was clear: the child is not at the centre of this policy. This is not just about the more than 1,600 pupils attending independent schools in my constituency; it is about the education of every single child, because every pupil who leaves the independent sector as a result of this ill-thought-through policy will mean further pressure put on the state system.
As independent schools try to absorb rising costs to minimise the impact of these taxes, they are faced with difficult choices about how to continue the important charitable work they do, including fully-funded bursary places—as many as one in 14 pupils at one senior school in my constituency. Like others here, I am particularly concerned about the impact on children with special educational needs.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Hard-working families sacrifice huge amounts to put their children into independent schools. There are more than 2,000 pupils in Epping Forest independent schools. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour policy of removing VAT and business rates exemption from independent schools will impact pupils right across the country, including SEND pupils, and will also impact our fantastic local state schools, which will be hit with serious capacity issues when pupils are forced to transfer? This policy is about the politics of envy, rather than the politics of evidence.
Aphra Brandreth
Absolutely. The policy will impact all children across our country, and needs to be taken seriously. I have spoken previously about the challenges of SEND provision in my constituency, where families wait months for an EHCP. They are already being let down, so I am deeply concerned about the added pressure of this policy.
Finally, the policy is simply unworkable. The Government are asking staff and bursars to rethink how they operate invoicing and fee processing halfway through an academic year. At the very least, I urge the Government to move the start to the beginning of the next academic year. This is not about embossed stationery, swimming pools and astroturf; it is about children and their education. I urge the Government to think very carefully about this decision and to do as the headteachers at my roundtable on Friday suggested: put children at the centre of this policy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
This is a reminder that there is a two-minute time limit and, in order to get through the remaining speakers, I am now not going to add an additional minute for each intervention.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. What irony that the Government have sent a Minister to listen to these debates who went to a private school. I wonder whether his parents would have been able to afford the extra 20%.
However, as the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) said, this is about the education not just of those at independent schools, but of the hundreds of thousands in the state system. Their education will also be damaged because of the capacity crisis. Class sizes will grow. There is an SEN crisis everywhere. Local authorities are in panic; headteachers are in panic; parents are in panic and, most shamefully of all, children are panicking. Will they be removed from their school in the middle of a school year, be taken from their friends and have their education damaged? It is extraordinary.
I give one example: I have had a letter from a constituent who has two children with SEN provision. She cannot afford the extra 20% so she has to put her children into the state system. There is no capacity within an hour’s drive, so she has a quote from the local taxi firm. The cost to the local authority will be over £20,000 in taxi fares per child. That is not only damaging to the education of children; it is an economics of utter tomfoolery and madness.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that even a modest migration of 3% to 7% of private school students to the state sector will cost the Government hundreds of millions of pounds a year, wiping out much of the projected revenue from VAT. Far from improving the education system, the policy will add stress to state schools already grappling with limited resources and overcrowded classrooms. It is a tax on aspiration, which disproportionately impacts hard-working families already making sacrifices. Perhaps most importantly, this policy will damage the significant contribution that independent schools make to special educational needs and disabilities provision.
A constituent of mine is worried about this exact issue. She got in touch to say:
“My son has been diagnosed with ADHD and high-functioning ASD…he has already been let down by the state education system. His first school reported us to social services, rather than offering the support he needed. His second school refused to help us secure an EHCP, and instead suggested we monitor his intake of E-numbers.
Given these challenges, we made the difficult decision to enrol him in private education.
We are not part of the elite; we work very hard and have had to borrow a significant amount of money to cover his tuition fees for next year.”
The proposed removal of business rates relief will exacerbate the financial challenges faced by independent schools, and the loss of those schools will devastate local communities, limit educational choice and further diminish the capacity for SEND education. The Labour Government’s lack of impact assessment and weak fiscal evaluation will ultimately be detrimental to many families in my constituency.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. After 20 years’ experience in local authorities on education and children’s services and as a father of young children, I have had the opportunity to see the best in both the private and state sectors. I declare an interest as someone who will be impacted by the policy. I agree with everything that has been said about the educational impact, so I will focus my remarks on the financial angle of the Government’s proposals.
Representing a constituency with six mainstream independent schools and numerous small SEND providers, I can clearly see that there is a huge amount of anxiety among mums and dads and school teachers about the impact the policy will have. The first key factor is that where private schools are full, the state schools are usually also full. Parents are finding that if they need to move, there is simply not the capacity in the state system locally because of the demographics of pupils.
We have to ask ourselves: does the harm done by this policy produce a benefit in the state sector that would justify it to our constituents? The Government’s proposal amounts to less than half of the cost of a single classroom teacher per state school across the whole of England—not even sufficient to make up for the numbers of children displaced by the impact of this policy. So it is no great financial gain for state schools that may be feeling pressed—and, as has been said, it makes us the only country in the developed world to tax schooling.
More concerning, however, are two impacts. The first is the reclaimability of VAT that bringing schools within scope entails. It is likely that the Government will have to repay far more VAT to independent schools than they will raise by this policy. Secondly there is the impact of business rates; we have not spent a lot of time on them in this debate, but, at a time when we know that the average state school in England has a surplus balance of more than £162,000, we have to ask whether, given the harm it does to the sustainability of our private sector, this policy is possibly justified at a time of declining state school roll numbers.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate. I want to bring up a specific Northern Ireland and constituency-based concern. When the addition of VAT to special schools was first proposed, I was contacted by the administrator of Newtownabbey Independent Christian school. I want to quote what he informed me:
“We receive no revenue or capital funding from the Department of Education to run our school therefore our parents have no choice but to pay fees when, out of religious conviction, they chose to send their children to our school. We are not an elite school, nor do we practise academic selection in any form. We believe this policy lacks fairness. Some of our school parents are on low incomes, demonstrated by pupils being entitled to free school meals. An added cost of 20% will deprive them of their religious based choice to send them to a Christian School.”
That is important not only in a Northern Ireland context, but in the context of this Government’s intention to add VAT to independent school fees, because under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, public authorities must
“have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity”.
Adding this VAT fee to a religious-based school deprives the protected characteristic of religious belief. The administrator also believes that the addition of VAT may well be an infringement of parents’ religious freedom and liberty. Article 2, protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights states:
“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
Order. We have to move on to the next speaker.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. At the outset, I must declare a personal financial interest in relation to this issue. There is a multiplicity of reasons why the Government plan to impose a 20% VAT levy on private education is a fundamentally poor choice. It plays to the idle trope that independent schools are the preserve of the privileged and the wealthy when, as many of my own constituents will attest, that is simply not the case. It is a policy that lacks nuance in its pursuit of an ideological desire to level down rather than lift up the standard of education across the board.
The detrimental effect of this ill-conceived policy is nowhere better illustrated than in the cohort of pupils whose parents are in receipt of continuity of education allowance. CEA is critical for military and diplomatic service families, who need boarding schools to provide a stable education. A societal and moral contract exists between the state and our military, a golden thread that runs through our society and binds the two together. The Government’s proposals threaten not just to shake that bond, but to break it. To date, the Government have provided no assurances that the policy will exempt those service families in receipt of CEA. Combine with that the rushed decision to implement the plan by January 2025, and it is little wonder that service families are deeply distressed by the ongoing uncertainty.
If the Government fail to grip the situation, the cost of a suitable education for many armed forces children will become unaffordable. Many parents will be forced to withdraw their children from the school they currently attend and, in the worst-case scenario, many will make the decision that service life is no longer compatible with their family and leave, risking our national security.
By failing to act with competence, the Government are failing to uphold the contract between the state and our armed forces. My request to the Minister is to provide the service community with reassurances that they will not be left high and dry.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate.
My constituency of Huntingdon has three independent schools and the issue we are debating today will significantly affect Kimbolton school in the west of the constituency. The absence of any secondary school places at schools within a commutable distance of Kimbolton has caused concern for many of the parents who have contacted me. Cambridgeshire, and specifically Huntingdonshire, has grown significantly in recent years; with large areas of development already approved, as well as changes to planning regulations and the Government’s commitment to greater Cambridge, we will see tens of thousands of homes built in the county during this Parliament alone.
As secondary schools in Huntingdonshire already have waiting lists for every year group, and local parents are troubled by the governance and educational environment at the three schools within the Astrea multi-academy trust, an exodus from the independent sector might exacerbate existing issues and create unnecessary pressures. Thus far, the Government have done nothing to address or assuage these pressures and concerns.
The views of the students impacted are among the voices that we rarely hear. Harriet Dolby, the former head girl at Kimbolton school, who left the school this past summer, told me of her concerns about how the school’s culture could be irrevocably altered. She said:
“Kimbolton School has made such a significant impact on my life, giving me opportunities I would not have been able to get anywhere else, growing my confidence and helping me to gain positions of leadership, which have set me up with skills for the future. However, I am concerned that Kimbolton will not be able to make that positive impact on as many people’s lives in the future. 20% VAT on school fees will be too much of a stretch for too many parents and will likely damage the family feel made possible by having pupils from a wide range of family backgrounds. I am worried that the Kimbolton School that my siblings will attend won’t be the same school that I attended because of this VAT.”
I have little confidence that the Government will deviate from their present course, but mitigation of the concerns is much needed. The Government are wedded to their aspiration tax. It will level the playing field but, sadly, that level is likely to be lower and not higher.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure, Dame Caroline, to serve under your chairmanship and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. I am so pleased to speak in it.
I support all our schools and I am proud to have a range of independent schools in the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency. I declare an interest: my children, like one in five children in my constituency, go to an independent school.
I want to take the opportunity that we have today with a Treasury Minister responding to the debate, because Treasury Ministers are all over numbers and impacts. I am pleased to see that it would seem that, following the election, the Treasury has looked at Labour’s manifesto commitments and actually thought about them, to the extent that we are starting to get various leaks and stories that it will abandon them. I hope that the Treasury will do the same thing with this awful policy.
I know that a Treasury Minister will not make a decision without an impact assessment and I am sure that the Exchequer Secretary will express his concerns about the absence of an impact assessment for this policy. However, while he is considering what the impact of the change—I hope he comes to the Dispatch Box to tell us the numbers around it—let me share some information from my constituency, where about 7,500 to 8,000 children attend independent schools.
My schools tell me that about 5% to 10% of these pupils will move because of the imposition of a tax on education. That means there will be far more pressure on our local state school system and there will also be disruption for those children. It also means that the 10% to 15% of children with special educational needs who do not have EHCPs will start seeking them, which will mean more cost for the taxpayer and more transfers between schools, which would be a backwards policy. Most egregiously of all, the Government are going to do that halfway through the educational year, with no consideration for our constituents’ GCSE, A-level and baccalaureate exam results. Will the Minister think again and persuade the Secretary of State for Education to abandon this ridiculous policy?
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I should be clear that both my children attend independent schools. Like many parents who make the same choice, my wife and I, with the support of our families, made sacrifices to enrol them. We did so because, with that support, we could.
Make no mistake: I recognise it is a privilege to have that opportunity. Like many parents, I want to give my children something I did not have growing up—an excellent education. My schooling in Lambeth, where I grew up on a council estate, left a lot to be desired. As I grew older, I realised that an excellent education was the way out. With my children, I spent what I had to give them the best possible education. Crucially, our decision for our family did not impact anyone else.
Sending children to independent school—a personal and privileged choice—is not a bad thing that should be taxed and regulated out of existence, as Labour also want to do with smoking or by introducing a two thirds of a pint measure. It does not mean that state schools are poorer. In fact, we pay our taxes and opt out, leaving more space and school resources for others. Independent schools also offer bursaries and donate the use of their facilities to other local schools. Those who think differently have an ideological obsession, and I am afraid that this new Labour Government share it. They are not thinking about lifting schools up, but tearing some down. Remember, in 2019, it was the Labour party that voted to abolish independent schools.
Instead of the complete destruction they desire, the Government have settled, for now, on taxing these schools to the brink by imposing VAT on fees and removing their charitable status. What they picture are Eton schoolkids fresh from the family estate, high on their parents’ aspirations. They do not picture the kid done good from a council estate who also has high aspirations, the shopworker doing the extra shifts to give her kids the chance she never had or the parents giving up everything to get the extra SEN care they want to provide for their child.
This is ideological, not practical. It is knocking people down, not lifting our country up. Worst of all, it is ill-considered. As one local headteacher told me, this policy is nothing short of cruel.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline.
As the MP for Wimbledon, I am proud to represent a constituency with such a rich and diverse education offering, including fantastic primary and secondary schools in both the independent and state sectors. I am deeply concerned about the impact that the removal of the VAT exemption will have on many of these schools. Private school enrolments have already dropped in expectation of the tax hike, and there is growing concern that the numbers leaving the private sector and entering the state system will be much higher than the Government estimate.
As the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) made clear when she said it did not matter if imposing VAT resulted in state school class sizes increasing, this decision is ideological, not practical—levelling down, not up, with red meat to show that the red flag is still flying, or at least fluttering. It will be rushed through in just three months’ time, in the middle of the academic year, giving institutions with no tax expertise little time to register for VAT, let alone assess and adapt.
Labour can only do this because the UK left the EU. Who said there were no Brexit dividends? Not for the first time, my party is in harmony with Brussels, and believes that education should not be taxed. We are a party that believes in giving individuals agency and supporting them in making choices about their and their families’ lives.
For many, such decisions are made because they know their child would not receive the support they need within the state sector. Independent schools in my constituency, such as the Hall school, Willington and the Study, to name but three, do a huge amount to support children with special educational needs. I have spoken to many parents who have made tough financial sacrifices in order to send their children to these schools. They speak of the barriers to their children receiving the support they need, including long waiting lists to receive an EHCP. According to the Independent Schools Council, 90,000 children are receiving SEND support without an EHCP.
In short, this Government should be aiming to improve all schools, regardless of their status, and they should be pursuing policies based on evidence, not dogma.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
I thank all Members for their forbearance and efficiency this morning. We have managed to get through everybody. I also thank the Front-Bench spokespeople for forgoing a little bit of their summing up time. I call Sarah Olney for the Liberal Democrats.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate and thank all Members who contributed so eloquently.
The Liberal Democrats do not support imposing VAT on private school fees. We do not support treating independent schools differently to other independent education providers for VAT purposes.
VAT is a complicated tax with many quirks and exemptions. Goods and services that are outwardly similar can be given different tax treatments based on the smallest of variations and those different tax treatments can have a large impact on the eventual cost borne by the consumer. Administering VAT and negotiating its various intricacies creates a huge burden for organisations that provide VAT-able goods and services to the public, and that burden is expensive.
All forms of education have always been exempt from VAT for the simple reason that taxing education services would disincentivise people from purchasing them. As with healthcare services—also exempt from VAT—it has never before been considered good public policy to discourage people from purchasing education. Additionally, exempting education providers from VAT frees them from the burden and expense of administering the tax, which means that money that otherwise would be spent on educating children does not have to be spent on tax returns.
The Government propose that their new tax treatment should be applied only to the provision of private schooling, but taxing some forms of education and not others would almost inevitably create loopholes. Creative accountants will find ways of delivering education services that fall outside the VAT legislation, while other education providers—which the Government did not intend to tax—will unwittingly find themselves caught up in it. The risks of those distortions increase if the legislation is hastily framed, with insufficient time for scrutiny.
Of the 615,000 children in private schools in this country, almost 100,000 are being educated privately because they have special educational needs but do not have an EHCP. The Government have announced that they plan to exclude privately educated pupils with an EHCP from VAT on school fees. That is a welcome step, but does not protect those who do not have an EHCP from a steep rise in fees. The parents of many of those children will find that they cannot afford the increase, throwing the future of their children’s education into doubt. Moreover, there will be an increase in demand for local authorities to issue EHCPs stating that the local authority must fund a private school place. Local authority resources for special education needs and disabilities are already stretched to breaking point, and additional demand will be impossible to manage. The inevitable result will be that thousands of children with SEND will be forced into the state sector all at once, which will be enormously disruptive and potentially traumatic for those children, as well as being immensely difficult for state schools to manage.
It is not just children with SEND who will be affected. There will be many thousands of other children across the country whose parents will find that they can no longer afford to keep them in their current school. Those children will experience enormous disruption to their education as they are forced to change schools and, for many, the upheaval of being separated from their friends and a familiar environment. The Government should reflect carefully on whether the benefits of the policy they are intent on pursuing is worth the damage that it will cause to these children’s education and wellbeing.
I have been contacted by many schools in my constituency who say that even a small reduction in their roll as a result of this change will make their situation untenable. Between parents who cannot afford to pay their children’s fees and schools that cannot keep their doors open, the state will need to find space, and resources, for an influx of new students. That influx will not be evenly distributed. In my constituency it is estimated that more than 45% of children attend a fee paying private school. In common with other parts of London, demand for state primary places is down, so younger children will be easily accommodated. However, secondary schools are experiencing great pressure for places, and a rise in requests for in-year admissions will be difficult to meet.
The Liberal Democrats believe that a better alternative to charging VAT on school fees is to encourage private schools to support their local communities, by building links with local state schools and sharing facilities. There are already good examples of these kinds of partnerships happening all over the country and we believe that those can be developed further. Last week, I visited Lowther primary school in Barnes. As I was being shown round the school by Leo, Talia, Elia, Milla, Nick and Abdullah, they were keen to tell me about the swimming lessons they enjoyed at St Paul’s school, a nearby boys’ independent school. The schools link up for a range of activities, and I was very impressed to see the trophy that the children won in the recent Lego competition hosted by St Paul’s. A majority of independent schools have already developed similar partnerships with local schools and the Liberal Democrats want to see that become the norm with every single school.
In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats are opposed to the Government’s plans to impose VAT on private school fees because we believe that it is wrong to tax education, however it is provided. Imposing this increase in fees will cause a precipitate increase in costs for families, resulting in many being forced to undertake a forced, disruptive change in schools. That change will have a disproportionate impact on children with SEND, which will not just create hardship for those children and their parents, but also enormous difficulties for the local authorities and state schools that will be required to provide alternative schooling. There are other routes to equalising outcomes between those educated privately and those educated in the state sector, and the Liberal Democrats believe that communities can be strengthened by encouraging partnerships between different schools, of which there are already many excellent examples.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dame Caroline. May I first congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate? I thank all those who have participated today; we have heard some very insightful contributions. I am also glad to have the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), sitting beside me today.
We can see from the large number of contributions, particularly from Opposition Members, how important this issue is to Members and their constituents, many of whom are greatly distressed by the Government’s proposals. We believe they are flawed in both design and execution, or at least planned execution, which is perhaps why so few Members from the Government party are here to defend them today. The policy will move away from a long-held principle that educational services are not taxed in this country, or in most developed economies. We have five broad categories of concern: the impact on state schools, the impact on overall Government finances, the timing of the proposals, consideration of exemptions, and the impact on SEND and EHCP provision. I shall turn to each of these briefly.
First, it is clear that the policy will have a detrimental impact not only on the independent sector, but on the state sector. The imposition of a 20% VAT tax hike overnight will clearly mean that some families will no longer be able to afford the fees. That is basic economics. In addition, the imposition of business rates will further disrupt the business model of independent schools and make less money available for bursaries and subsidies, which many parents rely on. Inevitably, that will mean children leaving the private sector and moving to the state system, putting an additional burden on many state schools, some of which do not have the capacity. It will also make fewer spaces available at good and outstanding local state schools where spaces would otherwise have been available, because more pupils would have taken the independent route. This is not a fear or scaremongering; this is reality. It is happening now.
According to the Independent Schools Council, more than 10,000 pupils have already been pulled from independent schools. One think-tank has estimated that far from bringing additional money into the Treasury, the policy could cost the taxpayer £1.6 billion, which brings me to my second point about the impact on overall Government finances.
Out of total Government spending of more than £1.2 trillion, is this policy really the top target of the new Government? It smacks of the politics of envy, not of careful deliberation and consideration of evidence. On the topic of overall Government finances, will the Department for Education get more funding from the Treasury if the number of state pupils exceeds expectations, or will they be expected to pay for it within existing budgets? Have the Government set aside capital for additional new school places if that is needed?
Regarding the timing of the proposals, it is unfathomable why the Government are considering introducing this policy in the middle of the school year. Why? It does not make any sense to cause so much mid-year disruption to so many schools, pupils and families.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
This will clearly be open to legal challenge, which stands very little chance of being in the courts within the next three months. As it gets held up, will this policy not cause mass disruption by being introduced in the middle of the academic year?
Nigel Huddleston
My right hon. Friend raises another important point, and I believe some legal challenges are already in place. Regarding timing, is the Minister truly confident that the policy could be implemented within weeks? Is His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs adequately resourced and prepared for it? Is the legislation ready? Is the legislation and guidance sufficiently clear? Even if the answer to all of the above is yes, is it fair on independent schools to expect them to suddenly get their heads around new legislation, register for VAT, implement new systems and processes, and logistically carry out the execution of this policy, all before Christmas? The answer is clearly no. I implore the Minister at least to delay the implementation, and carefully consider some exemptions and special considerations, my fourth category of concerns, which have been raised by many hon. Members today.
The rushed policy appears not to have properly considered carve-outs for pupils from military families, students on the music and dance scheme, children attending small or small faith schools, those paying low fees or who are on bursaries, or children in exam years who may have to move to another school that does not offer their current subject, offers different syllabuses, or has different examination boards. I hope that when we finally see the impact assessment, we will see some consideration of those matters.
My fifth category of concern is what consideration has been given to pupils with special educational needs and those with an EHCP or who are in the process of getting an EHCP.
Ben Coleman
Given that the situation confronting the Government is entirely of the previous Government’s making, will the hon. Member apologise for the terrible state of the SEND system?
Nigel Huddleston
I applaud the hon. Gentleman for his bravery, given that 2,500 pupils attend independent schools in his constituency. I think they will have a different view from his.
Nigel Huddleston
As for provision, as my right hon. Friend will articulate this afternoon, more than 200,000 EHCPs were issued with SEND provision. We provided more support than the Labour Government ever did.
If, as many predict, there is displacement of children with SEND and EHCPs into the state sector, is there capacity? Is there adequate additional financial support for local authorities to deal with the predicted surge in demand? If the answer is no, or I do not know, to any of those questions, the Government must delay this policy.
Before I conclude, I ask the Minister to have the decency to recognise the apparent hypocrisy of so many Members on the Government Benches, including himself, who attended independent schools or send their children to one, yet are now determined to increase the costs on others, depriving many families of the choice that they benefited from.
I also ask him to apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education for her appalling divisive tweet over the weekend, which betrays her lack of awareness of the realities of independent schools across the country. Headteachers, teachers and parents in both the state and independent sectors, unions, tax experts and think tanks are all appealing to the Government to think twice about this policy. I appeal to the Minister to listen and act accordingly.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this debate, and thanking all hon. Members for their contributions. I have listened carefully and, although I do not have much time, I will attempt to address as many of the points raised as possible.
Every member of the Government cares deeply about education, and we are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity. We are determined to fulfil the aspirations of every parent in our country to get the best education for their children. We are committed to doing so by improving state schools, and by making sure that every child has access to high-quality education.
We will start to make that happen by expanding early years childcare for all, by opening 3,000 new nurseries across England. We will recruit 6,500 new teachers, alongside improving teacher and headteacher training. We will roll out breakfast clubs to all primary schools, so that no child starts class too hungry to learn.
Those improvements to the state education system will begin our work to make sure that every parent’s aspiration for their child can be fulfilled. We want to get on with those important changes right away, and to do so, they must be paid for.
James Murray
I will make some progress first. That is why, to help fund those improvements to our state schools, we have made the tough but necessary decision to end tax breaks for private schools. At the July statement, the Government announced that as of 1 January 2025, all education services and vocational training provided by a private school in the UK for a charge will be subject to VAT at the standard rate of 20%. Any fees paid from the date of the 29 July statement, relating to the term starting in January 2025 onwards, will be subject to VAT. As hon. Members know, the Government also announced that private schools in England with charitable status would lose their eligibility for business rates charitable rate relief from April 2025, subject to parliamentary passage of the legislation.
Those changes were set out in a technical note published online, alongside draft VAT legislation, which formed a technical consultation. As part of that consultation, the Government, at both official and ministerial level, engaged with a broad range of stakeholders, including the devolved Governments, to make sure that we understand the impact of the policy in each nation of the UK.
We have listened carefully to the points people have raised with us. We recognise that, while this policy will raise revenue to help support improvements in the state education sector, it may lead to increased costs for some parents and carers whose children are in the private education system. Let me be clear that while private schools will now be required to charge VAT on the education services and vocational training they provide, we expect most private schools will be able to absorb a significant proportion of this new VAT charge to keep fee increases affordable for most parents. They will be able to make efficiencies and recover the VAT they incur on the things they buy.
James Murray
I am going to make some progress. Those recovered costs can be used to offset the increases to feepayers. We are already seeing that some schools have committed to absorbing the VAT liability entirely, while others are choosing to cap fee increases at 5% or 10% to keep fees as low as possible for parents. Members have asked today why we will introduce this policy in January 2025. The reason for doing so is simple: we want to raise the funding we need as soon as possible to deliver our education priorities to state schools across the country.
James Murray
I do not have much time and I need to address the other points that hon. Members have made in this debate. Importantly, a January 2025 start date means that schools and parents will have had five months to prepare for the VAT change. HMRC is ready to ensure that schools are supported in delivering this change. To respond to the shadow Minister’s comment, HMRC will put in place a number of measures to ensure that all private schools can be registered ahead of 1 January 2025, including publishing bespoke guidance on gov.uk ahead of 30 October, updating registration systems and putting additional resource in place to help process applications.
Ahead of the policy being implemented, the Government have carefully the considered the impact the changes will have on pupils and their families across both the state and private sectors, as well their impact on state and private schools. The Government’s costings of this policy are currently being scrutinised by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. The Chancellor will confirm our approach to the measures at Budget, where we will set out our assessment of the expected impacts of the change in the normal way.
We recognise, as some hon. Members have raised, the changes may lead to some pupils moving into the state education sector. However, we believe that the number of pupils who may switch schools as a result of the changes will represent a very small proportion of overall pupil numbers in the state sector and such switches will take place over several years. We are confident that the state sector will be able to accommodate any additional pupils.
James Murray
I have only a few moments left to address a number of points, so I will make some progress. Several hon. Members in their contributions today also raised their concern about the impact of the policy on pupils in private schools with special educational needs. We have carefully considered that element of the policy. Our proposed approach makes sure that pupils will not be impacted where they have acute additional needs and an education, health and care plan—in England, or its equivalent in other nations—specifies that those can be met only in a private school. In such cases, where a pupil’s needs can be met only in a private school, local authorities will fund their places and will be able to reclaim VAT. Similarly, on business rates, the Government are developing an approach to address the potential impact of the changes in cases where private school provision has been specified for pupils through an EHCP. More widely, as a Government, we are committed to transforming the system for supporting children and young people with SEND in all schools. We need to deliver better outcomes in a financially sustainable way.
I close by again thanking all hon. Members for taking part in this debate. In our consultation about the technical detail of this policy, we have been engaging widely and in depth, and of course the views of MPs are an important part of that. As I said earlier, it has been a tough but necessary decision to end tax breaks for private schools. We believe it is the right decision and one we need to implement as soon as possible to help raise the funding we need to deliver our priorities for state education in our country. We are determined to improve the education that is available to all, because that is how we will ensure that the aspiration of every parent to get the best possible education for their children can be fulfilled.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
Bradley Thomas has one minute to wind up.
Bradley Thomas
I thank every single Member who has spoken today in this debate, and I particularly thank the families in attendance who are affected by this policy. We have heard Members talk about the concerns of the impact of the policy on capacity, SEND and simply the element of choice, as well as human stories of how this policy will impact many families and children across the country. I am disappointed that an Education Minister has not attended and instead a Treasury Minister has. The Minister has demonstrated that he can read Labour’s political script but has sadly lacked the courage to answer the points that have been raised in this Chamber.
To sum up, we have heard words such as “cruel”, “sacrifice” and “disruptive”, as well as concerns from families that their children’s performance will suffer in schools. In short, this is a joyless, mean-spirited policy from a joyless, mean-spirited Government, and I think it is evident from the lack of Labour Members present that they probably agree with the sentiments expressed on this side of the Chamber.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Creative Industries: Stoke-on-Trent
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for the creative industries in Stoke-on-Trent.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. I thank Members for joining me in what I hope will be a much better-tempered debate than the one you have just officiated over.
Stoke-on-Trent was and is the crucible of creativity. We were at the forefront of the last industrial revolution, and we are now quietly and diligently leading our very own creative renaissance in the city and the surrounding area. The last measurement suggested that growth in our creative industries stood at about 6.3%, which is in no small part down to the determination of a number of organisations. With your indulgence, Dame Caroline, and that of Members present, I will take a short canter through the A to Z of the cultural organisations and institutions in Stoke-on-Trent that are doing so much excellent work.
Let me start with Appetite, a public arts organisation that has been demonstrating to communities across north Staffordshire not only that public art is available to everybody but the joy that can be had from interaction with and involvement in art, in a way that would not normally have been available to some communities even 10 years ago.
B arts is a wonderful participatory arts organisation that currently has its Bread in Common shop at the bottom of Hartshill Road in my constituency, where it has fused creativity with a burning passion for food justice.
We are also home to some incredibly well-placed and innovative business organisations. Carse & Waterman, a Stoke-based animation company, is doing world-leading work from a converted bank on Stoke high street.
Members will have noticed the change to some of the design work on the crockery and tableware in the Members’ Dining Room, which has all come from Duchess China 1888 in Stoke-on-Trent, where it still manufactures using high-grade bone china techniques, and does so with flair.
On the ceramics front, Emma Bailey is still active in Stoke-on-Trent. She is one of the most beautiful designers, using her talent for creativity and art to keep alive the spirit and patterns of Clarice Cliff, who was of course one of the city’s best-known residents.
Alongside the well-known names we have a growing group of freelancers—I will talk to the Minister about this later—who indulge in the opportunity to turn their creative ability into a viable income. We have a network of individuals who see creativity as a path for their own determination, success and fulfilment, and we need a bit of help to ensure that that can come to fruition.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to see him back in the House, and I thank him for his contribution. He has outlined what is happening in Stoke, and we have the same things across Northern Ireland and in my constituency. In Northern Ireland, creative industries contribute some £1 billion to the economy, and the Department for Communities estimates that they account for some 5% of the entire workforce and 29,000 jobs.
In my town of Newtownards, action has been taken on controlled graffiti, as it costs the council and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive money to cover up illegal graffiti. A company has come up with a real opportunity for the creative sector in possibly employing students from local colleges to partake in action on illegal graffiti. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that is something the creative industries can do to help practically, in all communities?
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman, who is my friend, is absolutely right. With the right structure, creativity and public art can go a long way to helping to reduce some of the structural problems we see in our communities, whether that be antisocial behaviour or derelict buildings. If he would ever like to join us for a tour around Stoke-on-Trent, I can show him some of the wonderful public art and particularly some of the murals on our buildings, which not only succinctly tell the story of the city but do so much to brighten up the place in a vibrant way.
I had reached G in my A to Z, so I shall talk about “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, which is not only a wonderful demonstration of the heritage skills we have in Stoke-on-Trent but proof that blockbuster television can be made in Stoke-on-Trent. We are privileged that it is filmed at Gladstone Pottery Museum, which was also the set for “The Colour Room”, a wonderful Sky adaptation of the life of Clarice Cliff. That demonstrates that with the right imagination anything is possible in Stoke.
That imagination is what has allowed us to take some of our heritage buildings back into use. The Spode site in the middle of Stoke town is becoming a createch hub—a place where creative industries and organisations are coming together to work together, not only to share their ideas and aspirations but to put their creative skills to use. That is producing this microcosm of energy and ideas that is having real dividends for those organisations, particularly as they now have a shared apprenticeship scheme that allows individuals from Staffordshire University to see different areas of the creative industries that could be available to them once they graduate.
One of the organisations involved is i.creation. It is run by the wonderful Andy Jackson, who does so much work in terms of community news and helping organisations to tell a better story about who they are.
Just down the road from Andy’s i.creation we have Junction 15, which is technically in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), but we are one big, happy north Staffordshire family. One of Junction 15’s directors won an Emmy for the work they did at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. [Interruption.] The Minister corrects me—not for the first time—but we will hear his speech later.
We are fortunate in north Staffordshire that underpinning the creative industry are two wonderful universities. Next year, Keele University is bringing in a music production, game design and digital media course, because it realises that growing a pipeline of local talent is important for growing the local creative industry.
One of the companies looking for that pipeline is Lesniak Swann, an award-winning business-to-business marketing organisation. The company has asked me to point out that the creative industry is one of our best export markets because the work we do in the UK is highly desirable to organisations around the world. Lesniak Swann does wonderful B2B marketing work, which is incredibly creative, from its home in Stoke-on-Trent but for companies based in Norway and America. We need to think about where our creative industries can contribute to UK exports.
All this is part of Made in Stoke, a network of entrepreneurs, philanthropists and individuals who have a connection to our city and who want to come together to make it better. One of the strands they are looking at is how individuals who have gone away from Stoke-on-Trent and done wonderful things in arts, culture and creativity can come back to the city to help to inspire the next generation of new and aspiring creatives.
If people do come to Stoke, one of the best places they can visit is the New Vic Theatre, a purpose-built theatre in the round. Again, it is just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, but, again, we are one big, happy north Staffordshire family. The work the theatre does is not just about award-winning stage productions that often come down to London’s west end. It also does outreach work through Borderlines, which uses creativity and culture to tackle community cohesion issues and community prejudices through art, drama and music. Both as a theatre and through outreach work, the New Vic has been able to demonstrate that, if they want to be involved, there is a role in culture and creativity even for some of the toughest communities that may not immediately have thought about it.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend both on securing this debate and for acknowledging the wonder that is north Staffordshire, and not least for acknowledging the brilliant work that takes place at the New Vic Theatre, which is in Newcastle-under-Lyme but not too far away from the Stoke-on-Trent Central border. Through my hon. Friend, I extend to the Minister an invitation to come and see for himself the wonderful New Vic and the great work it does in the community.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend has stolen my thunder, as I was going to offer the Minister an invitation at the end of my speech. The New Vic is wonderful, and with a creative boundary review it may one day be in Stoke-on-Trent Central—but that is for another debate.
The wonderful and creative heritage of Stoke-on-Trent has produced an Oscar winner. Rachel Shenton, who is currently gracing our screens in “All Creatures Great and Small”, has demonstrated that being from Stoke-on-Trent is not a barrier to creative success or something that should hold people back. I am grateful for the work she does in coming back to the city to talk to young people about the potential for creative careers, be that in acting or theatre.
The process of learning through creativity is something we could all benefit from across the country. That is why I am glad that in my constituency I have a group called the Popcorn Learning Agency, which uses digital design and animation to create high-spec training and learning videos that go around schools throughout the country. The group is also working with some big-name organisations to create in-house opportunities. That is something thousands of people will see day in, day out, and it is all made in Stoke-on-Trent from a lovely small unit with people who are incredibly dedicated to their craft.
The Minister will be wondering what more questions there are—this is the only way I could fit a Q into this alphabet soup. He will know that I will put lots of questions to him at the end.
First, though, I will tell the Minister about Restoke, a civic arts organisation that has been using art and culture to engage some of our most disengaged communities. Its recent production of “The Lotus Eaters” was done in collaboration with the National Theatre, and saw people from Stoke-on-Trent come down to London and perform theatrics and creative industry work in the National Theatre. That is something people do not often associate with Stoke-on-Trent when they think about what we are and what we do.
There is so much going on that one organisation—Stoke Creates, run by the wonderful Susan Clarke—is taking a lead in trying to pull it all together. It is a cultural compact that is basically sitting in the middle of the sector and thinking, “What can we do to bring organisations together?” One of the challenges we have in north Staffordshire is the splendid isolationism in which people operate. Stoke Creates is teasing out the different aspects of what we can achieve and how we can achieve it. It is making the case that if someone wants to do culture and creative industries well, there are few places better than Stoke-on-Trent.
That was demonstrated recently by the exhibition Stoke on Clay, run by a gentleman called Simon, which brought together new ceramic artists for a wonderful display of creativity, making people rethink the material my city is synonymous with. It was a wonderful exhibition at the old Spode museum, bringing together the old and the new and demonstrating that what was our past and heritage is also our future.
Across north Staffordshire we are blessed with some wonderful theatre companies. I want to give a nod to the work of Claybody Theatre, run by Deborah McAndrew and Conrad Nelson. Claybody Theatre has started to think about the story of who we are in Stoke-on-Trent and what makes us who we are, and then to write plays so we can tell our story better. One of our challenges has always been how we tell our story in a way that is engaging. The theatre has put together “Bright Lights Over Bentilee”, a play currently being shown at the Dipping House in Stoke-on-Trent. It talks about the bizarre array of UFO sightings that happened over one of the largest council estates in my constituency. It is a story that in any other circumstances would be unbelievable, but it has been translated into a wonderful piece of theatre, for which I am grateful.
I need to mention the University of Staffordshire, because it is leading the country on e-gaming and high-quality creative design work. It now has a campus down in London, as well as the work that it is doing up in Staffordshire. It recognises that this is a growth industry and is working incredibly hard with partners, agencies and business—crucially, all this is with business —to ensure that the e-gaming industry in north Staffordshire is vibrant, buoyant and suitable for growth. A lot of the people trained by the university go on to work for VCCP, which is another organisation that ought to be name-checked. VCCP relocated from London up to Stoke-on-Trent because it knew that the quality of the graduate work it could get in Stoke-on-Trent was equal to, if not better than, anything it could get out of the London universities, but staff would also get the quality of life that comes with living in north Staffordshire.
All of this comes together because we are a craft city. I am happy that we were recently awarded world craft city status to recognise that our ceramic work and our creative approach to industry is in our DNA. It is who we are and it is what we do. Importantly for our younger generation, it is also about how we translate the opportunities that exist now into real opportunity. That is why, having run through all the letters of the alphabet bar two, I will move on to a couple of questions for the Minister.
First, will he visit and meet some of the organisations, so that he can see first hand the excellent work that we are doing not only in pursuit of our own economic development, but in pursuit of the Government’s own agenda to ensure that creative industries and culture are available to all? Will he consider recognising north Staffordshire as a cultural cluster—something that the last Government were not able to do, but which would give us the standing we need to demonstrate that we are here for the long run?
Will the Minister speak to his colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that any industrial strategy that comes forward to encourage growth in the UK looks seriously at creative industries? The creative industries in Stoke-on-Trent are where our growth can come from. That is where we can make a difference to all the organisations that are currently looking to take the next step to becoming vibrant, big, national groups.
Will the Minister also speak to his friends in the Department for Education to ensure that we keep art and creative subjects on the curriculum at B-tech, higher education, further education and A-level? The pipeline of talent that we need to service the expectations that the Minister has will come from young people who are already in education. I will leave him with those three points. I hope he has enjoyed the little tour around my constituency, and I thank him for listening so diligently.
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
It is a particular joy to see you in the Chair, Dame Caroline, as with one of your many other hats on you have a passionate interest in the creative industries. It is great to have you here.
I will start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) on being elected again, which is a great delight—this is a slightly different debate from the one we might have had if it had been led by his predecessor. It is good to see him return to the House. He says he hopes that I enjoyed his tour; the danger is that I enjoyed the tour so much that I might not need to make the actual tour.
I will answer the specific questions first and then make some other comments. First, on whether I will visit, I am very happy to; it is just a question of when we can make that work. I am in two Departments, so it would be good if we could try to combine some of the work on tech with some of the work on creative industries, which would follow on from what the council has done locally. I think of tech as a creative industry, but the council has led the way in trying to combine the two.
Secondly, on whether we will look at creating a creative cluster, my hon. Friend makes a very good case. We are looking at what we need to do about creative clusters in the next round of announcements next year, so he has made a good bid and my officials are listening very attentively.
Adam Jogee
Just very briefly. It is important to reiterate my hon. Friend’s point that there is a groundswell of support in north Staffordshire for such a cluster, so I urge the Minister to take not just his word for it, but mine. The Minister talked about combination. I hope that his visit will be combined with a visit to Stoke-on-Trent Central and indeed Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Chris Bryant
Well, I am also the Minister for tourism, so I feel as if I will be going on a tourism visit. We will see what works as the best kind of visit. I am always a little worried about trying to do too many things in one visit and then nobody gets a proper insight into anything, but we will certainly look at that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central makes a good point about creative clusters. It is a key way of developing a real levelling-up strategy.
My hon. Friend’s third question was whether the creative industries will be a key part of an industrial strategy. The Government are working on this at pace, and I can assure him that we are making a strong case for the creative industries being an absolutely essential part of that strategy. I do not think Britain can have a successful future economically speaking—let alone sociologically, and in many other ways—unless that is the case, so I can assure him that it will be.
My hon. Friend asked a fourth question—I am answering all these questions directly; it won’t catch on—about whether we would have conversations with the Department for Education on the curriculum. I will not bother reading out what has been written for me—the answer is yes. We are already having those conversations. We have seen a shocking decline—in the region of 40% to 50%—in the number of students studying music, drama and art over the past 14 years, and we want to reverse that. It is not going to happen overnight, but we have to put all these subjects right back at the heart of the curriculum. That is an essential part of what we have to do.
Gareth Snell
I thank the Minister for responding directly to my points—I do not think that ever happened during the entire time I was last in Parliament, so the novelty is not lost on me. On the curriculum, can the Minister ensure that when that conversation happens, there is emphasis on the communities that should have access to that? I know the Minister will do that, but I want it on the record. While having art on the curriculum works fine, often, in working-class communities like mine, it is not seen as being for those people or for those communities. I know the Minister is a great advocate for communities like those we represent. Can he ensure that the DFE understands that it is no good just having art on the curriculum, and that it has to be actively encouraged in communities that ordinarily would not take it up?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It will be a complete failure for this country if the only place a student can study an art A-level is at Eton, because it has a good art teacher and art classroom and all the rest of it, or if the only place a student can throw a pot in a school is in a very middle-class area with lots of middle-class parents. I know this from my own experience: in the Rhondda and Ogmore, a vital part of what we do well for the nation is producing people who have excelled in the creative industries, but those people have often had to do so despite not having those opportunities locally. Artists such as Ernest Zobole and Charles Burton were involved in teaching locally, which is important to ensure there is a pipeline for young people who are thinking about art, drama and so on.
I would also argue, incidentally, that a creative education is a force multiplier for all other aspects of education. What is it that many employers want? They want somebody who will be able to confidently answer the phone. That self-confidence is as likely to come from having done a drama course and learned how to speak publicly, to project and use the voice and to be part of a team, or from having sung in a choir or played in an orchestra, as it is from being really good at maths. That is the kind of attitude that we need to adopt.
I do not want to stray too far into the subject areas of the Department for Education, but it is worth pointing out that what is in the national curriculum needs to be advanced in every school, not just some schools. The structure of education in England is obviously different from that in Wales, but I am conscious that we need to take these issues forward.
The main point of this debate, of course, is that the creative industries are an enormous part of our cultural and economic future. They represent £125 billion of value to the UK. My hon. Friend referred to video games, which are a fast-growing sector. Last week, I visited Ubisoft in Newcastle, which represents significant investment; large numbers of people will be working there. Exactly the same is true in Stoke. The video games industry is worth something like £7 billion in the UK now, which I confidently expect to grow in the years ahead—not least because it builds on things that we have been exceptionally good at in the UK, such as producing books, telling stories, creating characters and music and technological development. I played “Assassin’s Creed” last year, very briefly; I was not very good. However, what was fascinating was that its development used archaeologists and historians to make sure that everything that people see on the screen is perfect. That is a whole nexus of creativity that we want to develop.
Growth in this sector over the last 14 years has been higher than in the rest of the economy and we know that it will continue to be higher in the future, as long as we make the right investments and the right decisions. The creative industries sector is a large employer in the UK, employing some 2 million people.
There is nobody here from the previous Government to defend themselves, but I felt that over the last few years that the creative industries sector was denigrated a bit, as if going into the creative industries was not a proper job; ballerinas were told to retrain and things like that. That is not our attitude. We believe that the creative industries are an absolutely essential part of our future economic growth.
My hon. Friend made the point about levelling up, in a sense, although he did not use the term—maybe we need to ditch it. Nevertheless, it is an important point that there are 55 creative industries clusters and 700 micro- clusters around the UK, and this is an opportunity to ensure that that happens everywhere, because talent is everywhere but opportunity is not. That is what we really need to change and that is what our strategy will be devoted to. It is not a “nice to have”; it is absolutely essential to our economic future.
My hon. Friend referred to Stoke as the crucible of creativity, which I think is a reference to the burning of the pottery at the start of the process, although I now have the title of Arthur Miller’s play going through my head; that play slightly ruined my school days. However, he made a very important point about the World Crafts Council granting world craft city status to Stoke. When Clarice Cliff died in 1972 lots of people probably thought that she would be forgotten, but she has now been brought back, not least because of things such as “Antiques Roadshow”. Again, this is a cycle of creativity, whereby different creative industries feed off and enhance one another.
My hon. Friend also referred to video games; I think that it is Junction 15 Productions that won the Emmy for its work on the Beijing Olympics. He is quite right—the industry is worth £7 billion. As I saw in Leamington Spa, it is essential that there is close working with the local university, to ensure that there are people coming through. The course at the University of Staffordshire is world-renowned. That is a really important part of ensuring that people are coming through into the industry, because it has vacancies; in particular, it has vacancies five and 10 years in. That is an important part of the work that we need to do.
I commend the city on developing a cultural strategy for 2022-28. It has been a cross-party process; the strategy was originally introduced by Conservatives and was carried forward by Labour. I wish that every single local authority in the land—as well as the Mayors, many of whom are advancing such plans—had a similar kind of strategy, because in the end all of this has to be delivered at local level, and it is creating that ferment of excitement that enables these things to happen. I commend Stoke for that. As I said earlier, the combination of culture and tech is important; for example, making sure that there is full fibre roll-out across the whole of the city is an important part of making many modern creative industries flourish.
There was a reference to the New Vic Theatre in Newcastle-Under-Lyme. I note that Angela Carter’s “The Company of Wolves” is on at the moment and I also note that the Christmas show is “The Three Musketeers”. Indeed, the publicity for “The Three Musketeers” might be referring to my hon. Friend when it says:
“A spirited country boy arrives in the big city with big dreams”.
There we are; I think that is him to a tee.
I will just make some final points. First, as I have said, creative education is absolutely essential for what we want to achieve, and we also want to reform the apprenticeship levy so that it works much better for creative industries, and so that there is portability and flexibility. Thus far, the levy has not really worked in that regard, but we are working on it.
Secondly, I have an ambition that there should be no impediment for somebody from a working-class, ordinary background from whatever community in the UK, to consider going into the creative industries as a career. All too often, the creative industries have almost become a kind of hereditary industry, because someone can only afford to start in them by taking an unpaid post for a year or two, which is paid for by the bank of mum and dad, or if someone has a parent or another family member who has worked in that creative industry. We need to change that situation completely, so that the full talent of the whole of the UK is embraced.
Finally, we need to ensure that the product of the creative industries is accessible to all, which is about people being able to go to the theatre, going to live art events, see art in their streets and having architecture in their city that is beautiful, and which lifts and inspires. That is the ambition that we have as a Government, and Stoke is beautifully exemplifying it in its crucible.
Question put and agreed to.
SEND Provision: East of England
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered SEND provision in the East of England.
Thank you, Sir Mark, for the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship. I thank colleagues from across the region and beyond for attending today’s debate.
I have a personal interest in this discussion: one of my children has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and, like other Members, I have first-hand experience of the problems of our system. I am sure that other Members have been contacted by many constituents who continue to be failed by the special educational needs and disabilities system. It is not right that constituents come to me in tears after being unable to get their child into a school that can support them, fearful for their child’s future and completely tied down by the need to care for them all day, often without support.
We seem to have a particular problem in the east of England. Nationally, half of all education, health and care plans were issued within the 20-week statutory period in 2023, but in the east the figure was just 34%. That is a low number, but it also masks inequalities in the region: 90% of EHCPs were issued within the time limit in Bedford, but in Suffolk—my county—it was only 4%, and in Essex it was only 1%. It is shameful that two thirds of children in need of support in our region, and 96% in my county, are being left without it, and in many cases are forced out of the education system entirely during some of the most formative years of their lives.
The rate of severe absences for SEND pupils is triple that for other students. Long waits that keep children out of school compound other problems relating to mental health, social development and life outcomes. I have a constituent who is still waiting for a school to send their child to and is extremely concerned about the behavioural changes she has begun to witness due to a lack of structured learning.
Absences further divide those with and without SEND. They isolate the children most in need and hamper their development. I am also concerned about the overly punitive way in which we deal with absences, particularly for parents of SEND children. Given my background of working with vulnerable women and children, I was alarmed to find out from the charity Advance that the majority of parents imprisoned for truancy are women. It is of course hugely important that children are in school, but for that to happen we have to support children and their parents, rather than simply add fines or the threat of prison to the already traumatic situation.
We seem to forget that education is a right, as well as a legal requirement. Where is the right to education for children with SEND? Where is the legal imperative to provide a decent education for all children, particularly our most vulnerable? The delays parents experience serve only as a “how high can you jump?” barrier, and send the signal that children with SEND are second- class citizens.
The SEND system is creaking at the seams: there has been an explosion in demand, and the supply has not caught up. Even for parents and children who have waited and received an EHCP, life does not get much easier. I have a constituent whose daughter experiences a range of health conditions and, despite having an EHCP, is forced by council delays to stay in her mainstream school, where she has been repeatedly held back a year. Another constituent’s son’s transition from school to college, and from disability living allowance to personal independence payments, was complicated by errors introduced by the county in his EHCP.
The SEND system is broken, but we knew that: it was highlighted by the SEND review published under the previous Government in 2022. Parents and children have been asked their views again and again, but very little has changed. What would first steps look like for the Government? First, delays to the issuance of EHCPs require work to combat the national shortage of educational psychologists. Indeed, solving that issue and being able to invest in those professionals can also save us money. The Association of Educational Psychologists has found that, on average, an EP costs £234 per day, whereas agency and locum staff cost £600. Secondly, preventive programmes are key, which is why I welcome the Government’s swift announcement to extend the Nuffield early language intervention into next year. That is particularly important, given that children with speech and language challenges make up the single biggest group within SEND. Thirdly, it is my hope that the Government look to extend the funding for the early years SEND partnership led by the Council for Disabled Children, which comes to an end in March next year. I also hope the Government work to ensure that health visitors have adequate training around the ELIM—the early language identification measure—as part of the two to two-and-a-half-year review.
The Government’s new core schools budget grant for special and alternative provision schools and the announcement that the Department is looking into the national funding formula are to be welcomed. After 14 years of Conservative Government cuts, the system needs to be rebalanced towards prevention and early intervention, which is more cost-effective in the long term.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for introducing the debate. The number of people in the Chamber is an indication of the importance of the subject, which is an issue in the hon. Lady’s constituency.
I have six grandchildren and three of them are in need of speech therapy. One of those had an early diagnosis and today that young boy has advanced incredibly well. The other two needed that early diagnosis, but the families had to go and get a diagnosis done privately so they could get the assessment and move forward. Does the hon. Lady agree that when it comes to SEND issues, the knock-on effect for SEND provision starts when a child is first diagnosed and that more must be done to ensure children’s health services get more children the assessments they need, meeting efficient timescales and thereby giving a child a better life?
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. I ask Members when intervening that they make it much shorter than the intervention we have just heard.
Jess Asato
I agree with the hon. Member that early diagnosis helps that child and their family, and we also save ourselves money in the long term. I also welcome the curriculum review, which I hope will bring about a broader curriculum that allows everyone the opportunity to flourish.
I am glad the Government have made breaking down the barrier to opportunity a key mission, ensuring that all children get the best possible start in life. It is such an important task. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about the Government’s ambitious plans and to hearing contributions from Members from across our region.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, everybody can see the number of Members present, and quite a number have indicated that they wish to speak. We are fairly limited, as we have only half an hour for wind-ups at the end and the right of reply for Jess Asato. I ask Members to keep their comments to about two minutes, then everybody will get in. Where possible, I ask that you try to resist the urge to intervene too often because that takes time away from others and we have to finish on the dot at 4 o’clock. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. It has been worrying to hear about many of the challenges faced by constituents across the east of England, particularly in my constituency of Broxbourne. Almost every week since my election, I have seen a constituent and the family of a constituent struggling with SEND issues with the SEND service in Hertfordshire, and I have been contacted by many more.
This issue is close to my heart. I have grown up with a brother and sister living with special educational needs. I saw at first hand how challenging it can be for children and their families when the system does not work. However, I have also witnessed positive differences when high-quality provision is delivered. When we get it right, we can absolutely get it right. For many of my constituents, for far too long, this has not been the case.
Since 2015, the number of children with special educational needs plans in Hertfordshire has grown by a staggering 223%—even more than the national average of 140%. High-needs funding has not kept up. Incredibly, Hertfordshire receives the third-lowest funding per head of every local authority in the country. If it was given the additional funding that the rest of the country, on average, gets, an extra £47 million would be available to kids in my constituency and across Hertfordshire. I urge the Minister to reset the funding formula. It should not matter where someone is born in the United Kingdom; they should have the same access to the funding that would allow us to deliver better SEND services across Hertfordshire and the wider region.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for keeping his comments brief. I call the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson).
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for introducing the debate. There are 19,000 children in schools in my constituency of Southend West and Leigh, and 1,000 currently have education, health and care plans. It is a figure that has been increasing every year for the past four years. Now, over 5% of all children have a plan. Overall, including all children with special educational needs, the figure rises to 10.3% of pupils. That is over one in 10 children. In addition, there are more than 150 families currently in the system, waiting for their assessments to happen after their applications have been sanctioned. On top of that, another 266 families have requested assessments, but are waiting for approval which, in part, is due to the national shortage of educational psychologists, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft.
There is also a shortage of social workers in Southend, which is above the national average. Almost one in four posts are vacant, which compounds the issue, because social workers help to assess children’s needs. I believe my constituency is not particularly unusual, and I suspect the picture is not very different in the constituencies of other hon. Members in the Chamber.
Some schools, however, are not set up or equipped to support children with special educational needs. I have witnessed that as a school governor. Despite the overwhelming desire of teachers to support SEN children, often they cannot be supported in a mainstream classroom. Specialist facilities are at a premium, or a child may be awaiting their assessment, which in turn can lead to their being removed from their mainstream classroom and separated from their schoolmates while not getting the specialist support they need to develop and thrive.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has announced, the Government will take a community-wide approach to SEND provision, with a number of positive measures already announced. It is vital that we address gaps in SEND provision urgently, and the Government have moved quickly since taking office. We need to continue to press forward with this work on behalf of our constituents so that they get the critical help they deserve. We must stop letting our young people down.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing this debate, as the issue has a significant impact in the region that we represent. The issue of SEND provision has grown in recent years, and it shows no sign of abating. In the past decade, the number of pupils with SEND requirements in the UK has more than doubled; 1.2 million children in school require SEND support below the level of an education, health and care plan or EHCP.
In my constituency of Huntingdon, there is a growing sense that SEND provision is reaching a critical juncture. I was recently invited to visit one of the outstanding-rated primary schools in my constituency. Somersham Primary School has been transformed under its new leadership within the Meridian Trust. It could also be considered a victim of its own success. Such has been the progress made, and the success in facilitating growth in the number of young children with special needs, those who are non-verbal or need dedicated specialist one-to-one support to meet their needs, the school now has circa 20 children on an EHCP, a significant population within one small school. Speaking with staff there, it is evident that to meet the increased demand these schools must be resourced properly. Although the Government have committed £315 million to universal primary school breakfast clubs, it would surely be more effective to retain free meals for those children who genuinely need them, and make further significant investment in increasing dedicated individual support for children with complex educational needs.
At secondary level, Kimbolton School has a number of children who receive support for either special educational or social, emotional and mental health needs. These are pupils whose parents choose to educate them in the independent sector precisely because of the dearth of places and support in the state sector. These are pupils who may struggle to thrive and fulfil their potential without the benefit of a smaller class size and the more personal support that they require.
Of the 12,400 pupils who receive SEND support in independent schools across the east of England, 80% will not be protected from the application of VAT to fees, as they do not have an EHCP. The only protection announced thus far is for pupils who are funded by local authorities. Councils will be able to reclaim VAT paid, simultaneously increasing demand for EHCPs and costs for councils. The SEND-specific schools in the constituency, within Huntingdon itself, are Spring Common Academy and the newly opened Prestley Wood Academy in Alconbury Weald.
Prestley Wood Academy opened this academic year to its first 70 students, being delivered as part of a wider housing development, and will ultimately cater for 150 pupils aged between four and 19. It is SEND-specific, and it has been designed with specialised facilities, including two sensory rooms, a hydrotherapy pool, trampoline room and soft play. Those are crucial facilities for those who would benefit from them, but it can only cater for a limited number of pupils.
It is not only younger children who are impacted by the lack of provision. I recently visited the Huntingdon campus of Cambridge Regional College in order better to understand the challenges faced by further education providers. Across its two campuses, there are in the region of 4,000 students but, owing to the nature of the college and the courses it provides, there are a staggering 600 students with an EHCP, of whom around 400 require additional assistance. That places significant additional strain on staff and staffing. With the added complexities posed by the needs of young adults, a huge effort is required to ensure that those needs are met. The college has a team of 12 dedicated solely to providing mental health support.
SEND funding in England is part of the dedicated schools grant, not allocated per individual SEND pupil. Local authorities determine the individual school allocations. The safety valve intervention programme was introduced by the Department for Education in 2020, to provide additional funding to local authorities with significant financial challenges. Cambridgeshire County Council entered the dedicated schools grant safety- valve programme in 2022. Despite receiving supplementary funding, as of March 2024, Cambridgeshire County Council failed to meet the conditions of the safety-valve agreement. The council completed only 5% of EHCPs within the 20-week timeframe, while the average in England is 49%. Across Cambridgeshire County Council, 73% of complaints relating to children and young people were over delays in publishing the EHCPs, issues with the plans themselves and poor communication.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. Could I ask the Member speaking to keep his remarks brief and perhaps come to an end? I do not mean instantaneously.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Thank you, Sir Mark.
As one of the fastest-growing regions in the country, the funding allocation formulae for Cambridgeshire desperately need to be reviewed. With thousands—potentially tens of thousands—of homes planned to be built in the constituency over the next decade, it is imperative to look at the underlying calculation that currently fails to recognise the demographic challenge that we face in the region.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing the debate on SEND provision in the east of England. Accounts from hon. Members today show acutely that, although we aim to highlight our local situation, there are similarities in issues and themes in SEND provision both regionally and nationally.
For me, this subject has been the most spoken about since I was elected Member of Parliament for Stevenage, and for a good reason. I ran an online campaign in my constituency to encourage residents to tell me their SEND provision stories, an unfiltered account of the frontline reality. I used those accounts to raise awareness of issues faced by SEND students and families in a recent Westminster Hall debate on SEND provision in Hertfordshire. I have used subsequent opportunities in the Chamber to lobby Ministers to help address the situation.
Ultimately, our primary function as MPs is to elevate the voices of those who elected us to this place. As I did in the last SEND debate I participated in, I want to raise an account from the frontline, which I did not get the chance to highlight last time. A distraught mother told me:
“My son was permanently excluded whilst we were awaiting the outcome of his EHCP—which left me to look after a traumatised, out-of-school, six year old, organise a new school, fight for his EHCP, look after my daughter, work my busy job and prepare practically and mentally for a tribunal. With NHS waiting lists for a diagnosis sitting at two years, I eventually funded a diagnosis 10 months later. He was deemed suitable for specialist provision but no places were available.”
That family was left traumatised. Such blatant accounts tell a clear story: the diagnosis and EHCP processes are hard to navigate and too slow, and placement in a suitable school is a postcode lottery, where too many cases can easily fall through the net. The problem cannot be fixed by simply holding our local authorities’ feet to the fire. We have to recognise the position they have been put in over the last 14 years, with soaring demand, plummeting budgetary power and mass reductions in staff.
I want to thank the frontline staff, who work so hard in tough conditions, to get results for children who deserve an education just as much as their fellow pupils. Their lives and their futures matter.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my neighbour, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), for securing this important debate.
Like other Members from around our region, my experience is that special educational needs are one of the biggest issues affecting my constituents. One constituent who came to my surgery recently told me that her young child, who does have an education, health and care plan, has been at home all year after leaving nursery, because there were no places available in a non-mainstream school. She said the system was hard to navigate, with little support given to families.
Another constituent has found that her child must wait two years for an ADHD assessment—two years from the beginning to the end of their GCSE courses; two crucial years in that child’s life. Other constituents have been in touch about the difficulty of getting a place in a specialist school. Even an educational psychologist who works in this area every day and is used to navigating the relevant systems told me she has had a long struggle to get her child a placement in a suitable school and was only offered a placement after her previous MP got involved. The school is a long way from her rural village and her child has to make a long journey each way. In rural areas, long travel distances and the pressure on school transport budgets compound the topics we are discussing.
What would help? We need a focus on faster initial diagnoses and then faster decisions on EHCPs. We need more specialist school places, clearly; better access to mental health and other support provision, whether that is for speech and language delay or ADHD; and more resource for special educational needs co-ordinators, who often have huge numbers of students to support. They need the time to be able to provide that pastoral and wellbeing support. There needs to be a streamlining of the current system, to make it easier and faster for parents and others to navigate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this crucial topic.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
As we have heard, the SEND system is in crisis, and Norfolk is emblematic of that crisis. I know that the Government are determined to do all they can to tackle that crisis and I believe they have the backing of all of us, across the House. We have touched on many of the topline issues affecting SEND provision and I want to focus on the local issues that are affecting people in my constituency and across Norfolk.
First, there is some good news on SEND from Norfolk today. I welcome the announcement of 76 additional places in Norfolk schools. Many of those places will be in schools in my constituency. This is a welcome step, but we need a lot more urgent action. As well as more places in mainstream schools, there is a lack of specialist schools, in Norfolk as in many places. In Norwich North, the Angel Road junior school has sat empty since 2021. We have been campaigning to turn that into a specialist school and we hope that the county council will act urgently to ensure that is the case.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) has mentioned, SENCO recruitment and retention is a real issue, which comes up again and again. It would be good to hear what steps will be taken to improve it. Thirdly, there is a feeling, sadly too often borne out, that the system is adversarial. In Norfolk, a huge amount of money has been spent on the tribunal system—£890,000 in one year. Of course it is important that we have legal processes in place, but will the Minister look into how we could address that and minimise the amount of money spent there? As the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) has mentioned, Norfolk is a rural county and children are spending far too much time on buses when they should be in schools. I hope that we can also take steps to address that.
I want to finish by paying tribute to the amazing staff, parents, support staff, in schools across the county of Norfolk and across the country, who are doing so much to support children and families.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. May I start by thanking the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for bringing colleagues from both sides of the House together? How we treat our vulnerable children seems to me to be one of those things that goes completely above and beyond party politics; we all see its importance.
My family has never experienced this issue—our two young children were very lucky—but, as the Member of Parliament for Mid-Norfolk, I am lucky to have two great special educational needs schools in my constituency. Chapel Green school and Fred Nicholson school are both institutions the community hugely values and supports and is very proud to have. Under the coalition Government, I was very pleased—and rather surprised, I have to say—that I managed to secure £7 million to relocate Chapel Green into a world-class facility.
Over the past five to 10 years, I have seen a huge rise in demand across rural mid-Norfolk. Data produced by the House of Commons Library shows that 18% of all pupils have serious special educational needs. We are providing support to 1.2 million of those 1.7 million, so half a million children around this country are not getting the support they need. I would suggest that quite a lot of them are in the east and in rural areas because, as one or two colleagues have mentioned, rural areas face a particular challenge.
Every day during the election campaign, I did a school gate visit. Every month I do a heads’ forum. Scarning school, Dereham school, Toftwood school and Yaxham school—all my schools—have reported an increasing surge that is causing chaos. Parents are having to stop work, we see hugely difficult legal processes and the EHCP system is broken. When I talk to teachers, they also highlight that in the past few years we have seen a huge surge in demand caused by the pandemic, by rural poverty and the cost of living crisis, which has hit us hard, by diet—I know the Government have made some announcements about children’s diets—and by the wider challenge of mental health.
I particularly want to highlight the rural aspect. I am sure that, at the heart of it, part of the problem is that the formula does not properly compensate for rural costs, or how the cost of living crisis has particularly hit rural families. The Minister is nodding—I know she understands this—and I ask her to put the needs of rural SEN at the heart of her work.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing this important debate.
The SEND system is in chaos. It is broken. I am the parent of a disabled child and I have seen first hand the damage and chaos wrought by 14 years of chronic underfunding, understaffing, and a lack of political will to understand the level of need, coupled with the stigmatisation of parents of SEND children when we fight for the educations our children deserve. How do we fix the system? How do we go back to getting what our children need? I believe that an education system that works for SEND children is one that works for all our children. Educational need and disability should not be seen as parallel to the education system; they should be absolutely central to it. If we get it right for our children, we get it right for every child. Secondly, a SEND system built around the lived experience of parents and carers, which comes at it from the perspective of a parent or a carer, has absolute success built in. I do not see my child’s journey through education in stages; I do not see early years, primary school, secondary school, further education and beyond as separate. My child’s journey is a lifelong one. Similarly, I do not look at the services that she requires in silos, nor do any parents of an SEND child.
To fix the system, we need to come at it from the basis of considering what the child needs from the moment that they enter the education system, whether that is in a pre-school setting or nursery setting, through to the moment that they leave the system. How have we created a successful individual who can go into the world and achieve their full potential?
At the moment, so many parents find themselves at a complete loss and in desperation because of the chaos of the system. They have to be all things to their child and they never get a chance to just be mum or dad. They have to be a speech and language therapist, an advocate, a physiotherapist and an educational psychologist arguing for an education, health and care support plan that is often absolutely impossible to obtain.
Our system needs an awful lot of work. We need to begin this journey and consider how we can properly deliver for children not just in our region—the east of England—or in our individual constituencies, but across the country.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
I thank Jess Asato, whose constituency of Lowestoft neighbours mine, for securing this important debate.
The issue of SEND provision in the east is pertinent, particularly in my constituency of Great Yarmouth. However, I wish to put on the record my concern about the issue of over-diagnosis relating to mental disorders: the rush to label any energetic or active child with a condition is not helpful. That is not to downplay the impact on the many, many children who suffer from a range of challenging issues and needs, but there is a debate to be had about what actually constitutes a mental disorder and how many children are affected. In March 2021, the number of under-18s who had been seen by mental health services in the previous 12 months was 572,912, but in July 2024 the number was 797,238. Are children becoming unhappier or more mentally ill, or is there an issue with over-diagnosis?
Lockdown played a brutal role, stripping millions of young people of what they loved and forcing them in front of televisions and smartphones for months on end. For many, habits have not changed and will not change. Is it a surprise that so many young people are now suffering? I am a huge believer in the importance of physical activity in tackling mental health issues: getting children active; getting them outdoors and competitive; and developing social, emotional and physical skills. Sensible public investment is required to build pools, parks and pitches, to give children the platform they need to get physically active. I fully agree that for many children the necessary facilities are simply not there.
I commend a range of clubs in my constituency that are doing wonderful work for young children, many of which I have had the pleasure of visiting, such as Hopton Harriers Football Club and of course Great Yarmouth Town FC. Such activity providers should be encouraged and, more importantly, funded, so that children have the opportunity to get more active in their communities. Of course, physical activity is not suitable at all, but for many it can and will help.
I would like to directly question Labour Members here about SEND provision. What effect will the removal of VAT exemption on private schools have on access to proper support for SEND children in the east of England? That cruel move will force thousands of students into a state system already buckling under the pressure from uncontrolled mass immigration. Schools are literally crumbling away, yet your callous policy will punish hard-working families who simply want the best for their children. Unlike the NHS, the British private school system is genuinely the envy of the world. We should encourage and foster it, rather than punitively attacking such a British success story.
Kevin Bonavia
The hon. Member appears to be conflating another issue with what we are talking about today. We all already know that if someone has an EHCP, VAT will not be affected in that situation. Does he not accept that?
Rupert Lowe
That is your subjective opinion—I accept that.
In my view, this policy is the politics of envy, pure and simple. This particularly distasteful tweet from the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, sums up the Labour party’s disdain for hard-working, aspirational parents. Our state schools—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. Can the hon. Gentleman sit down a second?
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I am interrupting you. You do not refer to other Members by their name, but by their constituency or position. Actually, you have taken nearly four minutes now; this is taking time away from others. Could you bring your remarks to a close?
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Sir Mark, to have you in the Chair today. Pupils with special educational needs and disabilities make up well over one in 10 of all pupils, and that number is growing. In the east, nearly 34,000 children have complex disabilities. Most of those pupils are in mainstream schools, and they need support in mainstream schools.
One of my greatest frustrations with the constant discussions from Opposition Members about our policy of VAT on private schools is this: the majority of children with SEND are not in private schools but mainstream schools. That is where the support is needed. It is not fair in any way to expect parents to send children with a special educational need or disability to a private school, and pay all of the fees associated with that. It is completely unacceptable.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) mentioned earlier, in our region there is a particular problem with education, health and care plans not being issued within statutory guidelines. Nationally, around 50% are; in our region, the figure is much lower so we have a particular regional issue. Demand for support is currently outstripping supply and, as a result, many children with SEND have been forced to leave school altogether. In a SEND debate in March, the issue of non-elective home education was highlighted: parents feel they have no choice but to take their children out of school to meet their needs.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The report issued last December for SEND provision in Scarborough and Whitby will chime with other Members: a 40% increase in the number of requests for EHCPs compared with the previous year, and an increase of nearly 30% in the number of suspensions. Charities such as Closer Communities in Scarborough are now supporting families looking after children whose needs are not being met in school. Does my hon. Friend agree that as we go forward we must not simply pay lip service to those charities, but actively include them as we make plans to improve provision?
Sam Carling
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am about to mention a charity in my own constituency that is doing amazing work in this space and encountering some difficulties. We need to support them.
I was speaking about non-elective home education. For years, the Education Committee has criticised the lack of clarity on the numbers of parents taking their children out of school for this reason, or indeed on the number of home-educated children overall. I therefore welcome the Children’s Wellbeing Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, that includes provisions to require local authorities to set up and maintain “children not in school” registers. Knowing the scale of the challenge will be critical to addressing it and allow us to provide much needed support to parents.
Family Voice Peterborough, a charity in my constituency that seeks to improve services for young people with disabilities, is having particular problems—it is not just the crisis within the sector, but the crisis around the economy, that is worsening things in many ways. It is having problems with energy bills, for example; it paid about £8,000 before the pandemic, and the figure is now about £40,000. Its work is impacted by the damage there. The needs of such charities are so important for understanding the needs of local areas. Family Voice has revealed concerning SEND trends in Peterborough, a large part of which I represent, with increased strain on the system and a more difficult experience for parent carers.
Like all children, those with SEND have the right to an education provided by the state. That right has been gutted by previous Governments, but we will clean up the mess that has been made and restore certainty and trust in SEND provision, to make education accessible for all.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) on securing this debate. I do not want to repeat everything said so far, but by and large the debate has been held in a constructive spirit; I associate myself with the constructive suggestions made by most Members.
We all know of examples from our constituencies where special educational needs provision works. My constituency has small primary schools with specialist provision within a mainstream setting; I am thinking of Exning primary school, and specialist schools such as the excellent Churchill school in Haverhill, from which I welcomed pupils to Parliament just before the conference recess. But we all meet constituents who are suffering agony and anxiety caused by the difficulties of screening, assessing and planning for their children who are in need. I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who said that the challenge is much greater in rural and semi-rural settings due to issues such as difficulties with the rural transport network.
We all know that provision across the country, including the east of England, has not been good enough for some time. We can talk about the reasons why there is growing demand for special educational needs provision, but the response needs to improve. There was already an improvement plan in place before the Ofsted and Care Quality Commission report on the provision of services in Suffolk was published, but there is now a SEND improvement board, a new strategy and a commitment of £4.4 million for SEND services for the year ahead by Suffolk county council.
We need to be better nationally, as well as locally, on screening and assessment, and we must address the problems with EHCPs that hon. Members have set out. If the Government and the education team come forward with constructive proposals to improve those things—in particular, the problems with EHCPs—the Minister will receive a constructive and positive response from me and Conservative colleagues.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing this important debate on a subject close to my heart.
Although the SEND crisis is a national issue, the devastating testimony from colleagues from across our region shows that hundreds if not thousands of families in Suffolk have been failed by this deep-rooted, unrelenting issue. The failure is not only structural but cultural, and it is not new. I have campaigned alongside families and campaign groups for many years and have battled to get them the support they need. There is nothing as heartbreaking as a parent breaking down in tears as they beg for help for their young child, exhausted and broken by a system that works against them, rather than for them.
In Suffolk, we have seen the same cycle over and again. There have been multiple versions of the damning Ofsted/CQC report. I say gently to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) that it was not the first report, but the third in less than a decade. Warm words and hollow promises of change and improvement follow, yet little change ever comes. The lived experiences of families across our county have not improved, and in many cases have worsened.
As I highlighted in my maiden speech, five years ago, after yet another damning report on SEND provision in Suffolk—the one before last—our local newspaper, the East Anglian Daily Times, carried a hauntingly memorable front page with the faces of children and families across Suffolk who have been badly let down by a failed system, accompanied by the headline, “We must be heard”. That simple plea has gone unanswered time and again.
I could give many examples to highlight the crisis in SEND provision in Suffolk, but in the short time I have I want to focus on school exclusions. It was absolutely right that the new Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson, has made driving up school attendance a priority—if a child is not in school, they cannot learn—but too often our education system fails to meet the needs of many children with SEND, and in the worst cases they are removed entirely.
Over the summer, the Department for Education released the latest school exclusion figures from English schools for school year 2022-23. Once again, they showed an increasingly familiar, and therefore increasingly alarming, trend across the east of England, in particular Suffolk. In our county this year, children with special educational needs received all but one of the primary school permanent exclusions.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I want to reflect what my hon. Friend has said on the amount of school exclusions for SEND pupils, and to state that parents often feel pressured into off-rolling their children—that is, into removing them from the education system—so as not to have what is known as a permanent exclusion on their record. In fact, a permanent record does not exist, and never has in this country; it is a work of fiction. However, a number of parents feel that they have no option other than to remove their children from the education system so that they do not face further penalties for having absent children when they should be at school.
Jack Abbott
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The statistics I am reading just scratch the surface. We know there are many more families who have had to make the difficult decision to homeschool their children not out of choice, but out of necessity, because they feel they have no other option.
To finish my point, in state-funded primary schools in Suffolk, fixed-term exclusions were 30 times more likely to go to a child with SEND and an EHCP than to a child without. I should add that our county’s fixed-term exclusions are, once again, some of the highest in the country—an unwanted and shameful record of inaction and indifference. Across all age groups in Suffolk, permanent exclusions are more than six times as likely, and fixed-term exclusions more than five times as likely, to go to a child with SEND.
While I am encouraged by the intentions of the new Government with respect to SEND provision, I join Members present, along with so many others, in reiterating that the challenge is enormous and must not be underestimated. Like families across Ipswich, I know there is no overnight fix for years of failure. What those families expect is a clear, credible plan with measurable defined goals for SEND provision, and not the half-baked, half-hearted SEND review that was finally dished up after much delay by the previous Government.
Jack Abbott
I am coming to an end. Those families expect Government to work with local authorities, particularly those such as Suffolk county council, to put that into place. It falls to us as part of this new Labour Government to follow through on our promise to do so, working with local authorities and families to make urgent progress. Children who need—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. Can the hon. Member take a seat, please? I remind Members that when they refer to Members of this House, they must refer to them as the Member for their constituency or as their position. They must not name Members of Parliament.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for arranging this debate. It is great to see so many MPs from the east of England present to discuss such an important issue. It is something that has come up time and again during my time as a youth mentor, school governor and behavioural mentor. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) referenced school attendance and the issues around punctuality, which is something that is close to my heart, as I also chair a disciplinary board for a local school.
First, I pay tribute to Raw Learning. I had the pleasure of attending the launch event of a new forest school with Raw Learning last week, which was my second time visiting a forest school. The first time, I did not take the right shoes—I recommend that all Members bring a pair of wellies if they visit a forest school. Raw Learning provides a fantastic service for young people who are not able to conform to traditional learning environments, transforming the lives of young people and their families.
Families should not have to wait more than a year to receive an education, health and care plan. In Southend East and Rochford and across the nation, we have seen a huge increase in demand for EHCPs. It is up to our local authorities to administer EHCPs; by law, the process is supposed to take a maximum of 20 weeks. However, in Southend East and Rochford, 90.4% of decisions took six months or longer. So often it is the children who are most in need who are left out of school while they wait. There are many factors that can exacerbate issues, such as catchment areas, income and social capital.
It is my absolute honour to represent my constituency in Parliament, to debate SEND in the east of England and to be part of Labour’s mission-driven Government. I welcome the fact that inclusion will be at the centre of SEND policy moving forward.
Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done to support families, parents and organisations such as Raw Learning, which so often fill the gap where local authorities are stretched, where mainstream schools do not have the resources to sufficiently support children with SEND in the classroom and where the previous Government failed?
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. Because of the time taken by Members who have already spoken, we are now down to two minutes per remaining Member.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I am pleased to say that the provision for children with special educational needs in Bedford and Kempston has improved greatly since 2018, following an Ofsted and CQC inspection that found significant areas of weakness in the local area’s practice. Next month, the brand new Rivertree Free School in Kempston for 200 children aged two to 19 with special educational needs will be completed, with transitions for students to start in January. It has taken a few years and it has been a frustrating wait for parents and children who are desperate to take up their places. I really hope this will be an improvement and provide the right environment for all the children to thrive; however, there is more to be done.
Families tell me they cannot access the health and mental health services they need. Most parents struggle for years to be heard and to get a diagnosis for their child. Securing an education, health and care plan is difficult and sometimes exhausting. We can trace the cuts to funding for all those services back to Tory austerity, and it will take time to recover and to train and recruit educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and other education specialists to help the most vulnerable children to access the support they need. However, I remain concerned about the waits for EHCPs, especially when the number of children with a SEND diagnosis is rising, as is the discrepancy between having a diagnosis and having an EHCP in place.
Sadly, all across the country, far too many children with a disability are still not having their needs met. I will stop here because of the time limit.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing this debate. Despite councils losing about 98% of tribunal cases, there seem to be no real consequences of their failures to act in the first place. Families are left to navigate a tribunal system that is overwhelmed, delaying the help their children desperately need. There seems to be a failure of accountability.
My constituents are frustrated and tired of fighting a system that should be working for them. The time has come for stronger enforcement mechanisms. Local authorities must surely face penalties for failures, particularly when they fall short of their legal duties. The public demand some change. My constituent Thomas Howard led a petition signed by more than 16,000 people calling for mandatory neurodiversity training in universities. That shows the breadth of concern about the lack of support across all levels of education, from primary schools to universities.
The call for accountability is not just about individual cases; it is about making the system work for everyone. This debate is an opportunity for us to push for real change in the east of England. Without stronger accountability, we will continue to let down children and families we are meant to serve. We must ensure that local authorities are not only meeting their obligations but are in some way held responsible when they fail to do so.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for giving us all the opportunity to talk about this important issue. I have been a county councillor in Norfolk for the past 11 years. During that time I have helped many families with SEND cases, but nothing could have prepared me for the avalanche of SEND-related casework in my new role as the Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk.
There is an obvious impact on children and their families and that has been ably covered by colleagues today. However, I wanted to highlight the impact on family finances, jobs and the wider economy. It has struck me that in nearly every single family attending one of my surgeries with a SEND case one or both parents have been forced to give up work to care for their child. Most recently, at my Downham Market surgery, a serving member of our armed forces told me how he had had to take a pay cut as he was now undeployable, forced to work from home and care for his child, as I am sure we would all do. There are many similar cases involving lost income and lost jobs. We must recognise the impact on children and families, but also on family finances and the wider economy.
SEND cases are detailed and complex and, unlike the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), I do not have the skills and qualifications to be able to assess the mental health diagnosis of a child. That is why I have employed a dedicated caseworker specifically for SEND cases, to support families in my area.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for securing this very important debate today. It is my absolute pleasure to represent the Liberal Democrats on this important issue. It is filling up my inbox, and I know that it is filling up the inboxes of other hon. Members, both here and not here today.
I would like to start by expanding on an issue that has been raised in this debate, but I think a bit more information needs to be put out about it. That is the issue of tribunals and what is happening with them. We have talked a lot about how difficult it is for parents to get EHCPs for their children, but having to take a local authority to the first-tier tribunal is such an arduous task that no parent should have to go through it. They have to wait on average a year to get an appointment at a tribunal and it is costing them tens of thousands of pounds, in many instances, to get to that point in the first place. They are employing solicitors who have to battle with the local authorities, and they get to the point where they have given up and have to go to a tribunal. Then they wait their year and get their tribunal date, and then they are often faced with legally representing themselves, because they have exhausted their own resources, but they are battling against local authorities that are not just using solicitors or barristers but King’s counsel in many cases, to fight against parents who are just trying to get what their children desperately need.
[Clive Efford in the Chair]
Even worse is the figure that has already come out in this debate but is worth underlining. Despite parents not being legally represented and despite local authorities using barristers and KCs to fight parents—what sort of system is it where that is happening?—local authorities lose 98% of cases. Local authorities are using public money to fight parents and losing. Then even if a judge, through the first-tier tribunal, has made an order about what the EHCP should contain—if a parent is lucky enough to even have an EHCP at that point—in cases in my constituency and, I am sure, in other constituencies, that provision is still not being delivered, even when ordered by the tribunal. We have examples of parents who have to go to judicial review to make the local authorities do what they are legally bound to do but are not doing. We have to strengthen the consequences for local authorities that are not doing what they are supposed to be doing as set out in law, because the system is not working in that situation at the moment. I ask the Minister to address that.
This matters because while we are waiting for judicial review and for tribunals, the children who are affected are growing up. Children have this uncanny knack of getting older, and as they get older, they need more resources and different resources. However, a parent in my constituency said, “But Marie, when I went to the annual review, the officer at the council said to me, ‘Every time we meet, you ask for something different.’” And she said, “Well, yes, because my child has grown up, he is now older, and he needs something different from what was in the last review.” As much as we may be shocked by comments like that from officers working for local councils, there are many, many officers who want to do the very best for children, but they are stuck in such awful situations, in which they are not provided with the resources that they need.
Although a lot has been said about EHCPs, the special educational needs system is not just about EHCPs. There are about 1.6 million children with special educational needs or disabilities in the east of England—we must remember that we are talking about disabilities as well, not just neurological conditions—and only 4.8% of them, or just under 48,000, have EHCPs. The rest of them are living with SEND but do not have EHCPs. We must make sure that we cater for them as well.
I am conscious of the time and want to mention the funding cuts that have happened since 2010. The School Cuts website is instructive on the subject. It tells me, for example, that one high school in my constituency has received a funding cut of £1,201 per pupil since 2010. Another has seen a cut of £1,174 per pupil. It goes on and on. A special school in my constituency takes the biscuit, with a cut of £4,815 per pupil since 2010. Schools are having to do more with less, and we must address that.
I want to bring out the voices of parents. Recently in my constituency I met 24 parents and grandparents who turned up to a meeting to tell me about their problems with the special educational needs system. They told me many things. They told me what could be done to make the system better in ways that would not cost the earth. We know that there are economic challenges ahead, so let us look for solutions that do not necessarily have to focus on money.
One of the things the parents and grandparents raised was the transition when a child goes from primary school to secondary school. We need to make that transition easier for pupils with SEND who need that bit of extra time to settle in and understand the new system. Can we put in place a better system of transition that gives them extra time without all the other children around?
The parents and grandparents told me about the blanket approach to attendance that many schools take. They told me about 100% attendance awards and how cruel they are for children with special educational needs and disabilities, who often have to attend medical appointments during school time. They can never get that 100% attendance rate and never receive the award that they see their fellow pupils getting. It is cruel and discriminatory.
The parents and grandparents told me about schools that are locking toilet doors during class times so that children cannot go to the toilet. That makes it very difficult for someone who has a physical condition that means they have to go to the toilet.
One of the people who came to speak to me was a special educational needs co-ordinator. They told me that it is not mandatory to have SENCOs on the senior leadership team, and how they are often teaching full time while also doing the SENCO role. They told me that they have no protected time to look after children with special educational needs, work out what is best for them and help them. In fact, parents told me that they believe SENCOs are just a name on a piece of paper for local authorities.
How does all this impact children? Children are often demoralised when they leave school. A parent told me that all their child’s energy was going into school and it left nothing—no energy afterwards for anything else. One parent said, “SEND shouldn’t just be a bolt-on.” I echo what other Members have said: SEND should be an integral part of education.
I could go on and on about local authorities not doing annual reviews, not replying to parents when they write to them, or sending encrypted emails that disappear after 40 days so that parents have no permanent record of what they have been told. I could talk about evidence disappearing and about dyslexia not being accepted as a diagnosis—as if that is not a thing—but I want to spend a little time talking about solutions.
One solution, which could be cost-free, is being more transparent. EHCPs should be issued within 20 weeks. In my local authority, Essex, 1% are issued within 20 weeks. When parents are waiting, in week 19, for that email to drop in their inbox, anxious and stressed, after having fought so hard to get to the point where they will finally get the provision their children need, deserve and are thankfully entitled to, and it does not arrive, that is incredibly stressful. Yet the local authority knows that there is no chance of that email arriving in that time. They know that the average wait time is probably 30, 40, 50 weeks, or even longer in some cases. Tell parents that. Alleviate their suffering just a little bit. It will not fix the problem, but it is a free option. Local authorities already know the figures—make them publish them.
The Liberal Democrats want to see a centralised national body for SEND, which would end the postcode lottery of funding. Lots more can be done, but there are things we can do without having to provide funds.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) on securing such an important debate for children and parents across the east of England.
As shown by the attendance at this debate, SEND provision is a priority for all of us throughout the House. Since my election in 2019, I have visited over 40 of the schools in my constituency and I have great admiration for all those working to deliver SEND support to children. This is the 10th debate on this topic in Parliament this year, reflecting its interest for constituents—the Minister is smiling; I am sure she will respond to many more, and I look forward to attending them—and the challenges that we face from increasing demand, increasing costs and inconsistent support and outcomes.
The need for change, on which we all agree, is why I welcomed the previous, Conservative Government’s SEND and AP improvement plan. I encourage the current Government to pursue those reforms, which took far too long to come forward but were developed with the sector. Parents, children, local authorities and others are looking forward to some much-needed clarity from the Government on their plans and how they will bring forward reform.
As we have heard, demand for SEND services has increased significantly, with over 1.6 million pupils having educational special needs. As the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) said, nearly 5% of pupils in England have an EHCP, and a further 1.2 million are identified as having support that is below that level. The prevalence of SEND varies across the east of England, from the lowest rates in Peterborough at 11.1% to the highest in my county of Norfolk—and the county of other Members present—of 14.3%.
All local authorities have seen increases in the rates of pupils with EHCPs over the last five years, but the size of those increases has varied, with prevalence highest in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire. Behind all the figures are individual children and families. We heard a powerful speech from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) referred to his own personal experience. That underlines the need for change.
We know what the challenges are. I want to reflect on three areas in which change is needed so that we can provide the right support, at the right time, in the right place, for every child. First, we need a national framework and standards that will address the inconsistency of support. The previous Government’s plan set out a blueprint for a unified SEND and AP system, driven by new national standards. The first one we were due to bring forward was on speech and language therapy, given the high demand for that support.
We also need to improve the EHCP process because, as we all know from constituents, many parents are battling against the very system that is there to support them. We had proposals to bring forward a standardised and digitised approach, which is much needed when less than half of EHCPs were issued within the statutory deadline of 20 weeks. As the hon. Member for Lowestoft said, the variation is striking, from 90% in Bedford to only 43% in Norfolk, and far worse in Essex, as mentioned. Will the Government confirm whether the plan is to continue with the national standards and to bring forward a standardised approach to EHCP plans and the process?
The second area in which we need reform is building capacity and expertise in mainstream schools and a focus on early help. That means improving training and skills in the SEND workforce, with a particular emphasis on early years and early intervention. I declare an interest as a number of my family members are teachers. It is important that teaching is seen as a valued profession—it is spoken of as a valued profession by everyone in the House—and ongoing training in SEND and other areas is very important to that, as well as to tackling the retention and recruitment problems that we have seen in recent years.
There is much knowledge and expertise in the system and we need to share it more effectively. Just a week ago, I was at Fen Rivers academy in King’s Lynn in my constituency. It is a specialist social, emotional and mental health therapeutic school where the headteacher is passionate about sharing her skills and those of her staff—who have turned the school around—with mainstream settings. That view was echoed in the recent report by the County Councils Network and the Local Government Association, which spoke about sharing expertise better and moving children between settings.
Primary SENCOs can be helped to identify support for children, but to do so they need access to speech therapists and psychologists. What are the Government’s plans to better share expertise and have more provision in the mainstream system? Mainstream will obviously not be appropriate for everyone, so it is important that we continue the expansion of places. The hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) referred to the new places in her constituency, and there are other projects. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), who has a special school coming in his constituency, is nodding, and I think there is one in Great Yarmouth too. There is a lot more provision coming and we need to continue that.
Lewis Cocking
I should have declared earlier that I am a Hertfordshire county councillor; I apologise for not doing so.
My hon. Friend is making valid points. Does he agree that it should not matter where a person is born or lives in the United Kingdom, as councils should receive the same extra funding to provide for children with additional SEND needs? That will make all the difference to residents across the eastern region.
James Wild
I agree. I will come to funding shortly, so I will address that point then.
The third issue is partnerships: we must get education and health groups working together. Currently, the system holds some bodies accountable for things they do not have responsibility for and does not hold other bodies accountable for things they do have control over, so collaboration between key partners is required. The previous Government proposed to create local SEND and alternative provision partnerships to lead change and commission provision, and to improve accountability with refocused Ofsted and CQC inspections. Speech and Language UK, the County Councils Network and the LGA endorsed those recommendations, so will the Minister tell us how the Government plan to pursue the partnership approach and embed it in the system?
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and others discussed funding. In the previous debate on this subject, I spoke about the increase in the high-needs budget to £10.5 billion this year—a 60% increase from 2020. Some £2.6 billion was invested in new places and in improving the existing provision.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
We have heard today about the fantastic work that SEND schools are doing in our constituencies. Does my hon. Friend believe that some form of ringfenced funding with tracked impact measures could help very good SEND schools, such as Five Acre Wood in my constituency, to flourish further?
James Wild
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We need to track the outcomes and the support that children get, so that is a thoughtful comment.
When I spoke on a panel at the Conservative party conference in Birmingham last week, a representative of the Association of School and College Leaders said that there is enough money in the system, but the problem is that there is too much bureaucracy. Clearly, demand continues to rise and funding is a challenge. Council expenditure has tripled over the past decade. Councils are looking for more clarity on the statutory override, which the previous Government put in place to help local authorities to deal with deficits—I think they are now above £3 billion. Only last week, the NASUWT urged the Chancellor in a letter to extend the period that local authorities have to address their SEND deficits. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give a bit more clarity on that very pressing issue for local authorities.
The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) referred to the pressures in respect of school transport. In Norfolk alone, that budget is £60 million, of which 80% is used to move pupils with SEN around and outside the county. That is money spent on journeys, not education.
I will touch briefly on VAT on independent schools, although a debate about that is going on in the main Chamber. It is clear that this tax on learning will disrupt children’s education. Reference was made to pupils with EHCPs, but 10,000 pupils with special educational needs at independent schools in the east of England will be hit by those fees, and their education will be disrupted. The Government have not even published an impact assessment, even though the Minister in the earlier debate referred to analysis that had been done. It is extraordinary that that has not been shared with the House. I hope the Minister, even at this point, will listen to parents, pupils, local authorities and others, and will delay those plans. I look forward to having an opportunity shortly to vote to do exactly that.
Sam Carling
Is the shadow Minister suggesting that it is fair that parents who have children with special educational needs or a disability should have to send their children to a private school and pay all the associated fees? Is that really the best solution we can come up with?
James Wild
No; the point I am making is that there are children in schools who will be hit with a very unfair tax of 20%—a charge that their parents will have to pay. That seems to be completely disregarded by the Labour party, which is disappointing, to say the least.
To conclude, the last Government set out a comprehensive package of reform, after a lot of work with the sector. During a debate here in September, the Minister said that the Labour Government were determined to fix the SEND system—alleluia to that. I hope that we will hear much more today about the Minister’s plans for practical action to be taken, rather than her talking about the last 14 years.
The Minister also referred on that occasion to the importance of working together. I will abuse my position to remind her of an invitation that has gone to her and the Education Secretary to join Norfolk MPs and members of Norfolk County Council who are coming to Westminster tomorrow, specifically to talk about SEND. I helped to push for that meeting and I hope that the Minister might be able to come along, even briefly, to hear about some of the challenges that we face. Ultimately, every Member here wants to ensure that children and families in their constituency get the support to realise their potential. I look forward to hearing her comments.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I would like to call the mover of the motion at two minutes to 4. If you can remember that, Minister, you will do me a big favour.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) on securing a debate on this incredibly important and timely issue. I know that she was a champion for vulnerable young people long before entering this place, and that she shares the Government’s vision for ensuring that all young people receive the right support to succeed in their education and lead healthy, happy and productive lives.
Improving the special educational needs and disabilities system across the country is a priority for all of us in this debate. I am regularly struck by the level of cross-party consensus on this issue, from Broxbourne to Southend West and Leigh, and from Huntingdon to Stevenage and Waveney Valley. So many Members have spoken powerfully on behalf of the children and families in their areas.
I appreciate specifically the hand of collaboration offered by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), because this is a priority for the Government, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), referenced. We are determined to improve services for children and young people with special educational needs across the country, including in the east of England.
More than 1.6 million children and young people in England have special educational needs. For too long, too many families have been let down by a system that is not working. The former Secretary of State described it as “lose, lose, lose” and she was right, because despite the high-needs funding for children and young people with complex special educational needs and disabilities rising to higher and higher levels, confidence in the system remains incredibly low. Tribunal rates—as referred to by the Liberal Democrat Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman)—are increasing, and there are increasingly long waits for support. Far too many children with special educational needs are falling behind their peers, and they do not reach the expected levels in fundamental reading, writing and maths skills, with just one in four pupils achieving the expected standard by the end of primary school. We know that families are struggling to get their child the support they need and, more importantly, deserve. That must change.
Helen Grant
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), the shadow Minister, did not quite answer my question on this, and I would love to hear the Minister’s response, bearing in mind what she is saying about the need and the work of special schools. Does she believe that the ringfencing of funding for SEND schools, with tracked impact measures, could help some of these amazing schools that go above and beyond in helping children who are highly vulnerable with their education and care, as well as supporting their families to flourish further?
Catherine McKinnell
I will take away the hon. Lady’s suggestion. I want to set out today how we want to improve our whole education system to serve children in the best way possible regardless of their needs, and especially, given the subject of this debate, children with special educational needs and disabilities. We want to reform the system to achieve that across the board.
We know that for many years, parents have been frustrated, but we are determined to fix the system, and I will repeat and reiterate that. However, this starts with being honest with families about the challenges in the system. We urgently need to improve inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, and we need to make sure that there are special schools that can cater for those with complex needs. We are determined to restore parents’ trust that their child will get the support that they need to flourish, no matter their additional need or disability. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) spoke powerfully about these issues.
We know that effective early identification and intervention is key to reducing the impact of a special educational need or disability in the long term. That is why we announced the extended funding for the Nuffield Early Language Intervention programme to continue it into next year, so that we make sure that children get the extra support they need to find their voice and to give them the best start to their education.
But there are no quick fixes for these deep-rooted issues. After 14 years, we know that the system is really struggling. It is in desperate need of reform and it is vital that we fix it. That is why we have started this work already; it is a priority for us, but it will take time. We are clear that we cannot do this alone, which is why we will work with those in the sector as essential and valued partners to ensure that our approach is fully planned and delivered together with parents, schools, councils and the expert staff who go above and beyond every day to look after the children in their care.
We are acting as quickly as we can to respond to the urgent cost pressures in the SEND system, which are causing real financial problems across the east of England and nationally. Many hon. Members have referred to those problems today. Before the parliamentary recess, we announced a new core schools budget grant, which will provide special and alternative provision schools with an extra £140 million of funding this financial year. Some £13.6 million of that has been allocated to local authorities in the east of England region. That is in addition to the high needs funding allocations for children and young people with complex special educational needs and disabilities, and the existing teachers’ pay and pensions grants.
The Department for Education’s budgets for the next financial year have not yet been decided. How much high-needs funding is distributed to local authorities, schools and colleges will depend on the Government’s spending review, which is due to be announced at the end of the month. That means that next year’s high allocation funding to local authorities has not been published to the normal timescales, but we are working across Government to announce next year’s allocations for local authorities as soon as we can. I take on board the comments in that regard from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk.
Resolving the problems with the SEND system—I repeat this point—will not be easy or quick, and it will not happen as quickly as we or any families who need it want it to happen. But I am keen that we deliver long-term solutions together, and I am grateful for the contributions from across the House on these important issues, because I know that we all want the same thing.
As well as making sure that we have better outcomes from the investment made in young people, it is important that there is a fair education funding system and that it directs funding to where it is needed. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) raised this issue, and we want to make sure that we have a system that allocates funding in the fairest and most appropriate way possible. However, it will take time to look at that formula, and we will consider carefully the impacts of any changes on local authorities.
Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission jointly inspect local area SEND provision to ensure that there is joined-up support for children and young people. Those inspections enable the Department for Education to intervene in cases of significant concern and to work with local authorities and professional advisers to address areas of weakness. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) raised this issue, and I, too, am concerned that the SEND inspections in central Bedfordshire and Peterborough in 2019, and in Hertfordshire and Suffolk in 2023, found significant concerns about the experiences and outcomes of children with SEND. The issues raised in the inspection reports are serious. The Government need to be confident that the right actions to secure sustainable and rapid improvement are being taken in these areas. The 2023 inspection report for Southend-on-Sea is also notable. While not being found to have serious concerns, the judgment by Ofsted and the CQC relating to the partnership’s
“inconsistent experiences and outcomes for children and young people”
highlights the need to work closely with local area partnerships to support and help to drive crucial improvements.
It is essential that rapid action is taken to improve SEND services in areas where they are not meeting the need, and that leaders accept collective responsibility and accountability for delivering on agreed actions. That will require a relentless focus on improvement across all service providers so that children, young people and families can access the support they need. Department for Education officials will continue to work closely with these local areas over the coming months to ensure that the necessary progress is being made. For local area partnerships that have yet to be inspected under the new framework, meetings will also continue with SEND leads to keep abreast of emerging issues and concerns, as well as gathering evidence of good practice. Areas that do this well can share that with other local authorities, other regions and nationally.
Specialist place sufficiency was raised by a number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald). Local authorities can use their high needs capital funding to deliver new places in mainstream and special schools, as well as in other specialist settings. It can also be used to improve the suitability and accessibility of existing buildings. Suffolk, for example, has been allocated £23 million in high needs capital funding between 2022 and 2025, and the east of England region as a whole received £236 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) mentioned, in addition to specialist places, it is right that this Government are committed to working with councils, school leaders and other sector partners nationally, and in the east of England, to develop a more inclusive education system within mainstream settings. To ensure the high and rising standards that we want to see in our schools, we have to deliver the right places at the right time and in the right sufficiency.
Hon. Members have raised the issue of exclusions— I am very conscious of the time, but I take on board the concerns. A framework is in place that must be followed to ensure that these decisions are made correctly.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft again for bringing these matters forward. We recognise that the SEND system needs to improve. We acknowledge the difficulties faced too often in securing the right support for children with SEND. I am determined that that will change. My final word must go to all those working in education, health and care, in the interests of our children and young people with special educational needs, both in the east of England and across the country. Together, we will deliver the best for all our children and young people, no matter their special educational needs or disabilities.
Jess Asato
I thank the Chair, the Minister, the shadow Minister and all hon. Members for their contributions. I cannot do them justice in such a short time, but I hope that this issue will continue to command cross-party and cross-regional support.
I just want to talk about the so-called “over-energetic” child, who faces exclusion for consistent poor behaviour. I want to see that child get access to the diagnosis and support that they need to stay in school and flourish, and to support our struggling families. As one mum told me:
“I didn’t want to have to become a lawyer; I just wanted to be a loving mum”.
I thank hon. Members very much for the debate today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered SEND provision in the east of England.
Chalk Streams: Sewage Discharge
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling sewage discharges in chalk streams.
One Friday evening, I received a text and photos from a desperate resident, Maz, as the numbers cranked up on the sewage discharge map, asking:
“Surely something can be done about our precious chalk stream!”
I had been following the situation, but as soon as I saw the photos of sewage-filled water flooding the roads, I called her straight away, saying:
“I am coming down—can you meet me there?”
Twenty minutes later and my Friday evening started by checking sewage and seeing trails of toilet paper and algae float by the side of the road next to one of the world’s rare chalk streams. The River Ver, one of the four chalk streams in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, had seen more than 1,000 hours of pollution through the sewage discharge overflow. To date, that number has reached more than 2,500 hours. That is just not good enough.
Chalk streams, long described as England’s rainforest, provide a unique environment. The stable temperature from running through chalk, combined with a high mineral content, means that chalk streams are the ideal environment for vegetation to grow and wildlife to flourish. As havens for the natural environment, chalk streams attract a diverse array of flora and fauna. From the green drake mayfly to the kingfisher, the brown trout to the endangered water vole, those precious rivers are home to a whole host of wildlife.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing the matter forward. We are unfortunate not to have chalk streams in Northern Ireland, but we do have limestone rivers, which are equal in the aqua life they have and the health of the land. Does the hon. Lady agree that when it comes to ensuring that aqua life and the environment are sustained, we need to have short-term action and long-term protection?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. The English chalk downland houses 85% of the world’s total. It is a privilege to say that in my constituency we are home to four of those rare and precious habitats: the River Bulbourne, the River Gade, the River Lea and the River Ver.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for securing a debate on this crucial issue. My constituency of Reading West and Mid Berkshire boasts several beautiful chalk streams. The Pang is one and it is said to have inspired “The Wind in the Willows”. I recently tested the water quality there with campaigners from the Angling Trust and found phosphate levels were three times what they should be. We would not find Ratty or Mole there any more, sadly, because that is a dangerous level of phosphate.
Olivia Bailey
I apologise. Does the hon. Lady agree that the previous Government let our chalk streams down when they abandoned their chalk stream plan? Will she join me in calling for urgent action to protect our chalk streams?
Victoria Collins
We have absolutely been let down by the last Conservative Government and we need to turn that around. Chalk streams and their catchment areas, such as the one in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, have been a lifeline around which our towns and villages have flourished, using the chalk streams to power thriving mill communities and supply the watercress industry. Even today, chalk streams form an important part of everyday life. Batford Springs and Redbournbury Mill are prime locations for families to paddle and play, especially on warm, sunny days. However, those precious habitats are under continued threat from pollution, from road run-off and sewage. Not one is in good overall river health.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on securing the debate, and I thank her for giving way—as I do my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon).
My constituency of Wokingham is blessed with the River Loddon, which flows across its boundaries. It is a rich, biodiverse environment and a reminder of the beauty in our natural world, yet the scourge of sewage discharges persists. Thames Water must make the necessary infrastructure investments to halt its appalling record, but the company’s future is far from certain and those plans may be undermined.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Can you bring your comments to a conclusion? This is a very short debate, but there are long interventions.
Clive Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must ensure that these investments proceed, no matter the financial position of Thames Water?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. These are vital investments that have to go ahead.
Locally, many organisations have worked tirelessly for many years to highlight the importance of precious catchment areas and protect them. From the Chiltern Society, the Ver Valley Society, the Chilterns Chalk Streams Project, the River Colne Catchment Action Network and the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust to local volunteers at Batford springs, Friends of the Bulbourne and the Not Bourne Yesterday project—
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate her on securing the debate today. In Epsom and Ewell, we have two chalk streams, which are important not only ecologically, but for our cultural heritage. The Hogsmill river is a chalk stream so serene that it provided the perfect setting for John Millais’s painting, “Ophelia”. Knowing the ecological and cultural significance of Hogsmill, it has been sad to see its water quality worsen due to pollution. In September alone, sewage overflowed into Hogsmill for over 30 hours. Does my hon. Friend agree that our chalk streams, including the Hogsmill, are not just local treasures, but part of our national heritage, and that swift action is needed to protect them against degradation from sewage discharges?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. Many of my constituents are horrified at the local state of rivers and frustrated by the lack of progress, and feel compelled to attend the march for clean water on Sunday 3 November. Sewage pumping in our rivers is hugely damaging for the local environment, contaminating the water with unacceptably high levels of phosphates and nitrates, and poses a major health risk.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does she agree with me, and with Action for the River Kennet, that the requirement for sewage treatment works should be based not only on the population size they support, but the importance of the waterways they protect, such as the Lambourn and Kennet chalk streams that flow through my constituency of Newbury?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. We have to do all we can.
After the thousands of hours of pollution into the River Ver, the Ver Valley Society found worrying levels of E. coli in the water. This has been blamed on high groundwater levels, but it still contains sewage and the fine sediment can lay in the river bed. That incident has been raised with Thames Water and their planned scheme to resolve the issue by upgrading the overflow will not be complete until 2026. We need action sooner. In the meantime, the rapid polluting of this waterway and the threat to public health and the local environment continues. That is, of course, by no means an isolated incident.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this important debate. My constituency of Eastleigh has the precious chalk stream, the River Itchen, running through it. Earlier this year, Southern Water was found to be negligent by the Southampton Magistrates Court for dumping sewage into the Shawford lake stream that flowed into the YMCA Fairthorne Manor in Fair Oak in my constituency. Over 1,000 schoolchildren missed out on summer activities as a result. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should introduce a sewage tax on water company profits?
Victoria Collins
I will be calling for a lot in holding water companies to account.
Analysis completed by the Liberal Democrats found that almost 50,000 hours of sewage was discharged into chalk streams in 2023. That is more than double the previous year. The dire situation speaks to the 2022 report, which found that only 14% of England’s rivers had “good” ecological status. Compared with several other countries such as Austria, Greece and Malta, where 95% of bathing sites are classified as excellent, it is clear that we are letting down our rivers and streams. That must change. Despite the situation, the Conservatives stood by and let us down again and again, failing to regulate water companies properly.
Victoria Collins
Exactly.
I call on the Minister to provide proper protection, regulation and enforcement. Although Ofwat has finally taken action, ordering water companies to return £158 million to customers via lower bills, that is just a drop in the ocean—or, should I say, a drop in the chalk stream. We must go further. I call on the Minister for a blue flag status to protect our precious waterways, such as chalk streams, to replace Ofwat with a stronger regulator—a clean water authority—and to enforce tougher restrictions on water companies. A blue flag status for rivers and lakes would enshrine their protection, and our precious chalk streams would be ripe contenders to get such a status. Indeed, given their rarity in this world, it is worrying to know that only a dozen have sites of special scientific interest status that currently protects them.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Given that one has to go through quite an onerous process to get the SSSI status and that we recognise that chalk streams are rare, does my hon. Friend agree that a recognised special status and designation for chalk streams is needed, so that they can get the protections they actually need?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. As my hon. Friend says, chalk streams are extremely rare. There are almost 200 in the world—not many at all. As for regulating our water, Ofwat simply is not fit for purpose, and we ask the Minister to replace it with a new clean water authority that takes relevant powers from the Environment Agency. We ask her to strengthen the regulatory powers and resources and set legally binding targets to prevent sewage discharge in our highly sensitive nature sites.
The clean water authority should have the power to revoke the licence of poorly performing water companies swiftly, fine top executives of water companies and initiate prosecution. It should increase water monitoring with new sewage inspectors, including unannounced inspections, with the aim of ending the self-monitoring of water companies. When it comes to water companies, we must hold them to account and reform the way in which they work. We must ask for meaningful targets and deadlines to be set for water companies to end sewage discharges, with local environmental experts on water company boards. Water companies should publish 25-year investment plans to encourage sound investment and promote the use of nature-based solutions.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
My constituency suffered quite considerably from flooding in the past month. One reason is that chalk streams can be over-engineered, culverted and canalised through villages. Nature-based solutions offer a really good solution to improve the flow of rivers. Does my hon. Friend agree with me on that point?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. We must also see a ban on bonuses for water company executives until sewage spills end and leaks are fixed. Ultimately, we need to transform water companies into public benefit companies.
Our precious chalk streams are of rare, global ecological importance and the backdrop to our towns, villages and daily lives. We must protect them for our future generations and for today’s generation. We cannot squander the opportunity to protect them under our watch.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to be part of this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing it. Is this the first debate that she has secured in the House?
Emma Hardy
I am very pleased that one of the hon. Member’s first debates is on such an important issue. I do not want to get into a competition over who has the best chalk stream, but I must mention that the one near to where I live featured in “Mortimer & Whitehouse: Gone Fishing” the other day. They were at Driffield beck. We get not only to share stories here about who has the most beautiful chalk streams, but to see them on national television. I share the hon. Member’s love of them: they are England’s equivalent of the Great Barrier Reef. They are amazing things to have and to be able to say are held within our own country. They are so precious to us. They are the rarest freshwater habitat on earth, and in England we are home to 85% of them. That is a remarkable achievement.
The hon. Member is absolutely right to feel outraged and upset about the levels of river pollution. I am sure there are more enjoyable things that she would like to do on a Friday night than go and examine a sewage discharge into the water, but it is good that she was there and able to document it, because where we have evidence of illegal sewage discharges, of course we wish to prosecute.
Emma Hardy
I will move on to talk a little bit about run-off and other issues involved. I join the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted in praising her local community groups and organisations. One of the pleasures I have had since taking on this brief is meeting many committed environmentalists, environmental non-governmental organisations and people who care so much about the area. I liked the tale of people going picnicking by the edge of her chalk stream; I am tempted now to go and visit it when I am next on holiday. However, she is also right to point out that England’s chalk streams face pressure on their water quality, with pollution coming from different point sources—especially from sewage treatment works, as she discovered on that Friday evening—and diffuse sources such as phosphorus and road run-off mean that chalk streams suffer from higher levels of nutrients, sediment and toxic chemicals such as pesticides.
I will go on to explain some of the actions that the Government are taking with regard to addressing those concerns. However, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), it is not water quality alone that affects the chalk streams flowing in the constituency of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, as they face pressures affecting the quantity and physical habitat quality too. On the quantity, we have seen excessive removal of water from its original source, which can lower the natural river flow of these streams.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
In the Chichester constituency, we have two crucial chalk streams: the River Ems and the River Lavant. Portsmouth Water has been abstracting from the River Ems since the 1960s, which has moved the flow two kilometres downstream at the point of flow. Does the Minister agree that water companies that rely on our chalk streams to supplement their water supply need to come up with some sustainable water solutions to ensure our water supply for the future? [Interruption.]
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the House, so we must suspend the sitting for 15 minutes.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. I think that the debate will finish at 4.46 pm.
Emma Hardy
I had just taken an intervention from the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), who talked about the excessive removal of water and the situation that she finds herself in with the water company. I agree that we need to look for a long-term solution.
When we abstract too much water, that increases the concentration of pollutants and the water temperature, and decreases oxygen levels, leading to increased silt and loss of habitat. As the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) mentioned, the physical habitat of our chalk streams has also been altered. They have been modified by people over recent decades, limiting the naturally varied habitats that plants and animals rely on and exacerbating the negative impacts of abstraction and pollution. Taken together, along with the sewage incidents, these pressures are placing our chalk streams under increasing strain and environmental stress.
In the constituency of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, where chalk streams including the River Lea and River Ver flow, these pressures are no different. That is why this Government are continuing to ensure the conservation of chalk streams. Under the Government’s water industry national environment programme, improvements have been agreed for three waste water treatment works in the Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency. They include stricter phosphorus limits for the discharge of fully treated sewage effluent and improved waste water flow monitoring to ensure that the required volumes of sewage receive full treatment before any storm overflow can occur. The capacity of the Berkhamsted waste water treatment works to fully treat sewage has also been increased from 247 litres to 316 litres per second, providing for a higher and larger quality of treated effluent.
The Environment Agency is investigating the cause of a prolonged storm discharge from the Markyate sewage treatment works into the River Ver. Unfortunately, as it is a live investigation, I cannot go into more detail now, but I greatly encourage the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted to speak to the director of the Environment Agency about that and, of course, when the investigation is concluded, we can have a more detailed conversation about the issue and about what enforcement action can be taken.
I should also note that the Environment Agency has been working with Affinity Water and local partners to revitalise chalk rivers by leaving more water in the environment, addressing the issue of over-abstraction of our chalk rivers, and improving the physical habitat and water flow. Water abstractions across the catchment have been reduced by 33.3 megalitres per day, with a further reduction of 23.5 megalitres per day to be delivered by spring 2025. This is ongoing work in progress to address over-abstraction from chalk streams, which we rightly recognise is a concern.
Sarah Green
The Minister is making the point, rightly, about individual projects that water companies such as Affinity Water have invested in. What is missing is a strategy across the country for all chalk streams. That is why I am calling on her, in her position as a Minister, to give chalk streams the designation and special status they need so that this is not treated in a piecemeal way.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I was addressing the specific chalk stream raised by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted. However, I completely agree with the wider point about having an overall strategy to deal with the problems faced by water.
There is also the Spring Clean for Colne project, covering the River Ver and River Bulbourne. This partnership project is identifying, logging and mapping the outfalls, channels and ditches that could be a source of pollution in the Colne catchment. By first identifying the sources of pollution, we can then work on providing the solutions.
On a broader scale, which I think is the question that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) wanted me to consider, the Government are continuing to take action to ensure the recovery and preservation of chalk streams. Earlier this year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs launched its species survival fund, which aims to bolster conservation efforts across the country. Through this fund, 20 conservation projects will collectively receive a share of £25 million, with the goal of restoring 3,300 hectares of vital habitat for wildlife.
Notably, two of these projects will specifically benefit our chalk streams. These are the partnerships for nature in the north Wessex downs area of outstanding national beauty, which will restore over three kilometres of chalk stream habitat, and the riparian habitat improvements in Hertfordshire’s chalk rivers from the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust, which will restore chalk river habitats across 11.15 kilometres of the River Lea catchment. We are also contributing £1 million to chalk river initiatives in 2024-25, collaborating with partners on 30 projects aimed at safeguarding these rare and irreplaceable habitats. That effort is crucial to our commitment to protect these habitats as part of the water resources chalk partnership fund.
Taken together, those points demonstrate that this Government are continuing to view chalk stream recovery as a key, important issue. Although money has previously been invested in their conservation, I am aware—very aware—that more work needs to be done and that recovery is not a quick fix.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Southern Water, working with Portsmouth Water, is making plans to reduce chalk stream abstraction by introducing effluent recycling at the Havant Thicket reservoir. Does the Minister think that this scheme—turning effluent into drinking water—is a good idea?
Emma Hardy
I think, as with all schemes, it needs to be looked at and considered carefully. Nothing will be signed off if it presents any danger to the general public. As she knows, we have one of the highest levels of drinking water quality in the world. That is not changing under this watch. There is no way that we would allow drinking water that was not completely safe for everyone to use.
Dr Chambers
On the earlier point about nature restoration around chalk streams, in Winchester we have the River Itchen going right through the heart of the city. A lot of farming clusters around the edge are looking at protecting nature on the side of the chalk streams. One specific issue we have is flea and worm treatments that are used to treat parasites in cats and dogs. They are overprescribed—they are used within routine health plans, which is not really necessary—and they contain neonicotinoids which can contaminate the chalk streams and damage the ecosystems and the insects that live in them. Would the Minister look at how we can put pressure on the veterinary industry to allow vets to make clinical decisions on whether treatment is needed rather than customers having a blanket treatment every month, whether it is needed or not?
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions have to be short; this is a half-hour debate.
Emma Hardy
I will go on to talk about agriculture and some of those other issues.
To turn to sewage, which I know is on the minds of many people, we have undoubtedly inherited a deeply flawed system and one that is now discharging record levels of sewage into our lakes and streams, and into our chalk streams. This is a public health crisis, demanding our immediate and decisive action to rectify decades of neglect and mismanagement.
We have committed to a rapid review of the environment improvement plan, to be completed by the end of the year, which will set out how DEFRA will deliver the Government’s legally binding targets. The Government will develop a new statutory plan to protect and restore our natural environment, with delivery plans to meet each of our ambitious targets under the Environment Act 2021, including cleaning up our waterways.
This Government require water companies to publish sewage discharge monitoring data online in near real time and in an accessible format. The Environment Agency independently monitors and scrutinises all the data submitted by water companies as part of its requirements for the monitoring of sewage outlets.
All that activity must be seen in the wider context of the actions that this Government are taking to demonstrate our commitment to prioritising the clean-up of all our waterways. In the first weeks of this Labour Government, the Secretary of State met water companies to make it clear to them that under this Government they will be answerable for their performance for customers and the environment. We have secured an agreement from all companies to amend their articles of association, which are the governing rules of each entity, placing customers and the environment at the heart of their objectives, thereby reinforcing the inherent social and moral responsibilities that come with operating a public utility.
The Secretary of State has also written to Ofwat, securing agreement that vital funding for infrastructure is ring-fenced and can only be spent on upgrades that benefit customers and the environment. Ofwat will also ensure that when money for investment is not spent, companies will refund customers, with money never being allowed to be diverted for bonuses, dividends or salary increases.
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I thank her and the Government for the decisive action they are taking to clean up our rivers and streams. Will she reassure us that chalk streams will very much be a part of that plan?
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and she is absolutely right—chalk streams are a precious, beautiful habit that mean a lot to this Government and to the people of this country.
Ofwat has set out a record £88 billion in proposed expenditure to deliver cleaner rivers and seas, and better services for customers through price review 2024. On 4 September, we introduced the Water (Special Measures) Bill to Parliament, which is a key step towards fulfilling our commitment to put water companies under special measures. Through this legislation, we will drive meaningful improvements in performance and the culture of the water industry.
Although the Bill marks a significant first step towards a transformative change across the sector, this Government are clear that the Bill alone will not be sufficient to fix our broken water system. However, it represents an immediate downpayment on the comprehensive reforms that are needed after years of failure and environmental degradation. We need to reform the whole water system to tackle the deep-rooted problems, which is why this Government will carry out a review to fundamentally transform how our water system works. We are bringing in expertise from a range of people who cover specific areas such as the environment, public health, consumers, investors, engineers and economics, including a public consultation to test these proposals and bring in a diverse range of views.
This Government also want to work across the House to fix our broken system. The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted is very welcome—indeed, like all hon. Members—to consult key stakeholders in her constituency and to feed their thoughts into the review, because we want to reset the water system for decades to come and we want to involve as many people as possible in that consultation.
That work will culminate in further legislation to fundamentally transform our water industry and restore our rivers, lakes and seas for good. I will provide more details on that as soon as possible, including on how each Member of Parliament can take part in the process. Also, because this question came up, I will just add that there is a regulatory review at the moment of all of the regulators involved in DEFRA.
This Government are committed to the protection and restoration of our cherished chalk streams. We recognise that these unique rivers are not just vital ecosystems but a symbol of our national heritage. The measures that I have outlined today are just the beginning. They represent the crucial first steps towards a comprehensive reset of the water industry. By implementing these strategies alongside a broader range of initiatives, we can drive long-term, transformative change through the entire water sector. Our goal is to rehabilitate and protect these invaluable resources while effectively regulating against adverse impact, including sewage discharge.
Together we can restore these rivers, not just for our own benefit but for that of the generations that will follow us. Let us stand united in this mission, ensuring that our chalk streams continue to flow clearly and vibrantly, reflecting the beauty and richness of our natural landscape for years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Edinburgh Festivals: Cultural and Economic Contribution
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and I am very grateful to the House for allowing me to have this debate today.
I have three purposes for calling the debate. First, I want to draw attention to the economic and cultural phenomenon that has developed in Edinburgh. Secondly, I want to talk about the challenges and opportunities that the Edinburgh festivals face, and how there is a clear role for public policy. Thirdly, I will argue that it is not just about what the Government can do to support the Edinburgh festivals, but what the Edinburgh festivals can do to help the Government achieve their goals for the country at large of economic growth, breaking down barriers to opportunity and establishing Britain’s place in the world.
The Edinburgh festivals and Fringe are not simply a highlight in my city’s annual calendar, or an attraction to lure some tourists for the month of August. In August, Edinburgh becomes the cultural capital of the world. The gathering of creative talent and cultural wealth is truly unique. The Edinburgh festivals and Fringe did not happen by accident. Years, indeed decades, of painstaking commitment have led to the phenomenon we see today—not least in recent years, with a pandemic, Brexit uncertainty, and a cost of living crisis, which is also a cost of putting on a show crisis.
The Edinburgh international festival started in 1947, when Europe was emerging from the shadow of war. The German venues that had previously played host to opera and classical music festivals were closed. Edinburgh, undamaged by bombing, with stunning scenery and spectacular venues, was a perfect location to bring people together. Indeed, in the years after the war, the international festival was twice nominated for the Nobel peace prize for its work bringing people together. At the same time, a group of acts that were uninvited to the official festival pitched up anyway and performed in the city. They were described as performing “on the fringe”, so the Edinburgh Fringe was born. We politicians have just come from our party conferences, with a hive of activity on the conference fringe, but the very concept of a fringe event comes from Edinburgh. Ours, I have to say, is more glamorous than the political version.
But that was then. Today, the Edinburgh festivals and Fringe are the third biggest ticketed event in the world. Edinburgh puts on an event on the scale of the FIFA world cup or the Olympic games every year. I think we have become numb, through familiarity, to the scale of what has been achieved. We are talking about 4,000 shows that attract an audience of 3.5 million and over 300 venues across the city, ranging from the Usher Hall to basement comedy clubs. It is a phenomenon, truly unique and exceptional in scale.
What started in the 1940s as the international festival and Fringe has now grown into the biggest cultural gathering in the world. It includes the Edinburgh book festival, the world’s largest literature festival; the Edinburgh film festival, the world’s longest-running film festival; the Edinburgh military tattoo, an iconic celebration of one of Scotland’s biggest cultural brands; the jazz festival, the biggest of its kind in the UK; the television festival, with its agenda-setting Mactaggart lecture; and the arts, children’s, storytelling, and science festivals.
Other countries take years to plan, and millions in public money, to put on events at such a scale. The Paris Olympics this year attracted 20,000 participants to its one-off event. The Edinburgh festivals attracted double that—and we do it every year. The scale is impressive, but I argue it is important for two reasons. The first is economic. It not only generates £400 million in economic impact, creates a supply chain of £15 million for 800 businesses, of which 97% are based in the UK and 80% are small and medium-sized enterprises, and represents incredible public investment, with £33 generated for every £1 invested by the public purse—it also creates an economic ecosystem. We may not get that one emblematic, televised moment of an Olympic opening ceremony, but that moment is attenuated throughout the year, every time we watch a comedy show, drama or talent that was incubated in Edinburgh.
Think of the Fringe: it is not just an attraction for audiences to watch shows, but the global trade fair for comedy and the arts. New shows, new materials and new acts show off their wares and get snapped up. We just get to watch. The UK is a cultural powerhouse, and our cultural and creative sectors can thrive in the way that they do because we have the Edinburgh festivals and Fringe operating at this capacity in our country. On that note, I am sad to see that today the Fringe’s chief executive, Shona McCarthy, is stepping down after nine years. She has done an incredible job in Edinburgh, and we wish her well.
Secondly, the festivals put Edinburgh on the global plane, and Britain needs cities operating at that level. Edinburgh has the raw material to thrive in the 21st century: we have a thriving university sector, with world-class clusters in research and development, IT and biotech; we have the energy transition on our doorstep; we have a dynamic financial services sector; and we have a world-class tourism offer. When we add the festivals and Fringe, Edinburgh’s potential moves to that of the top tier of global cities, ranking like a British San Francisco.
I have not secured this debate to extol the benefits of my city, although, as I think you can tell, Mr Efford, I could do that at length. My argument today is that there is a role for Government, and I want to make five points about the role of public policy.
First: funding. I am not asking for more money, per se—although that would be welcome—but I do argue that the Edinburgh festivals need economic stability and the ability to plan. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that she plans to move to multi-annual budgeting; no sector would benefit more from that than the creative sector. Will the new Government be exploring how to leverage economic stability and multi-annual financial planning to support the arts?
Secondly: recognition. I have tried to set out how the Edinburgh festivals are a national jewel. We value our cultural sector in Britain and we know how much institutions such as Wimbledon, the premier league, the Proms and the Edinburgh festivals set us apart. No Government would let those fail, so is it right that we make the Edinburgh festivals compete for funding like any and all creative ventures? Is it fair on any arts project, big or small?
Thirdly: cross-UK engagement. Cultural policy is devolved, quite properly, and you will find no greater defender of devolution and the importance of respecting the status of the Scottish Parliament than I, but, with the election of a UK Labour Government, I hope that we are moving to a less antagonistic, more constructive relationship. There have been some failings in Scottish Government policy on culture in recent years, such as the ongoing debacle in Creative Scotland and the fact that, in just nine months, the Scottish Government published an absurd 10 strategies on culture, but I hope that the new Government will work as constructively as they can with the Scottish Government to support the festivals.
I would also say that to see the festivals thrive we need a constructive relationship between UK, Scottish and local governments. Edinburgh puts on a show of this size every year, yet, per capita, it is the poorest-funded local authority in Scotland. Council budgets are severely overstretched, as disproportionate cuts are passed from Holyrood to the city chambers. That means that the People’s Story Museum in my constituency, which tells the story of working class history, is currently temporarily closed, and it means that the Brunton theatre in the Musselburgh part of my seat is also closed. I know that the Minister has no responsibility for that, but it is important to set it on the record when we talk about culture in Edinburgh.
Fourthly: visas. The festivals depend on artists and technicians coming from overseas, but the process is cumbersome, expensive and, most dangerous of all, unpredictable. Can the Department for Culture, Media and Sport work with the Home Office to explore ideas, such as those set out by the festivals visa working group, to navigate that?
Finally: crisis support. This year the Edinburgh book festival, the world’s biggest book festival, lost its funding from Baillie Gifford, the investment firm, after a campaign by Fossil Free Books. I do not wish to rehash that affair here, save to say that although I fully support tackling climate change, I am unconvinced that defunding a book festival is the way to go about it. Is there something we can learn from that episode? In this country, the cultural sector depends on philanthropy as well as public investment. Is there a way that DCMS can help book festivals, or indeed any festival, navigate the controversies that can abruptly arise in the social media age? I know that the new Government are fully committed to seeing the cultural and creative sectors thrive, so I would be grateful if they could undertake to give these issues some consideration.
It is important that Parliament recognises that other countries would give their eye teeth to have what Edinburgh has established in the past 75 years. We fail to polish the cultural jewels in our crown at our peril. We have an opportunity. The potential for the festivals to thrive is right in front of us. The Fringe is opening a new home in the Old Infirmary and the Dunard Centre will add a new modern concert hall to the city’s venues, but the support of public policy is necessary to achieve that.
Think back to the 18th century. Some argue that the reason Edinburgh became a leading city of the enlightenment was the structure of the old town. Nobles, artisans, middle-class professionals, skilled and unskilled workers lived cheek by jowl on top of each other in the old town’s tenements. That created the incubator where debates and ideas could thrive, and that is how the enlightenment took hold there. Today we have a similar phenomenon, from the most avant-garde and edgy Fringe performances trying something new to the international festival and the best classical music performances in the world, with the world’s biggest literature festival discussing the most salient ideas of our time in the same place at the same time. It is in this petri dish that humanity hatches and nurtures the creativity that can drive our economy and our society in the years ahead. That is why I called this debate to discuss the power of the Edinburgh festivals.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should stand if they intend to contribute to a debate.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) on securing the debate and on the excellent way in which he championed his city. As someone who has visited the festivals during August many, many times over the years, he has made a fine case for the value of them and makes me want to go back again.
Anyone who has visited Edinburgh at any time of the year will say what a wonderful, vibrant and historic city it is. I was not at all surprised to find out that of all the cities in the UK, Edinburgh receives the highest proportion of international visitors to the UK: 68% of the total. The challenge for policymakers is how to grasp the strong pull factors and turn them into gold dust that benefits not only Edinburgh but the rest of Scotland and indeed the rest of the UK. The festivals play a massive part in that.
How can we best use our cultural heritage to further our soft power abroad and promote prosperity at home? The 11 major festivals that comprise the Edinburgh festival are a perfect tool to do it. The international festival, the Fringe and the tattoo always get the limelight, but of course 11 festivals make up the complement. The Edinburgh international book festival, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, remains the biggest in the world, with more than 900 authors in attendance.
However, the reports that have been released by the festivals lay bare some of the significant challenges, including the rise in the cost of living accommodation and security expenses, and the costs are being exacerbated by the frustrating, restrictive and punitive bureaucracy that has been imposed on Edinburgh’s landlords by the Scottish Government. I also have concerns about the future of funding for acts at festivals such as the Fringe. Both those issues tie into the all-important question of how and why the Government should and could be stimulating cultural activity, specifically to develop artists, actors and creators.
This issue is too big for Edinburgh council to deal with alone: it has an impact on the whole of Scotland and the whole of the UK. In short, it is for all of us to work out how the various festivals can continue to play a role as the incubator—a sort of research and development department for world-class artistic talent—and a role in tourism, expanding the horizons of those who come along and see them. That is why, despite the fact that both culture and tourism are devolved, the previous Government spent £1 million supporting the festivals with their digital offer.
It is the talent that brings visitors in their hundreds of thousands. There were 700,000 unique visitors last year alone, and that number does not account for the many artists who require somewhere to live. They are the up-and-comers who are looking for their big break. They are young, not well off and looking for somewhere cheap to stay, but for many the heavy-handed licensing and prohibitive legislation around short-term lets is destroying any chance of their being put up for the night. Gone are those days when a well-meaning, friendly person who wanted to support aspiring artists could just give over their spare bedroom for a few weeks.
New regulations require landlords to be compliant with rigorous safety rules, fit and proper person tests and assurances that the let will not adversely affect the community. The measures have adversely impacted the availability of short-term lets, which is especially ironic considering the fact that 72% of locals say that the festivals make Edinburgh a better place to live. If my local city was inundated with people every year and I could not find a table to go out and eat, I am not sure whether I would feel the same way, but people do feel the benefit of the festivals.
I urge anyone with a stake in the future of Edinburgh festivals to engage with Edinburgh council’s consultation on the scheme, which closes on Monday. The Scottish Government would do well to review the 2022 regulation and ask themselves why they have decided to restrict access to one of our most successful cities and festival programmes at a time when the events are inevitably finding it more expensive and difficult to operate.
I hope the Minister will have a conversation with his counterpart in Holyrood and emphasise the benefits not just to Scotland but to the nation as a whole, and the need to cut through the bureaucracy and enable the market to work a lot more effectively. I am worried about the effect of the Scottish Government’s budget cut to Creative Scotland. The almost £700,000 fund was a vital resource for participants in the festivals. It was already extremely over-subscribed, so it is difficult to rationalise the decision by both the Scottish Government and Creative Scotland. Artists cannot rely on pots of money such as Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s “Keep it Fringe” fund. We need artists whose careers have started at the festivals to pay into support to help others coming up behind them, but we also need all the authorities to feed in and support them.
Festivals such as the Fringe are often the first big test for an emerging artist. They are a way for people to have the most amazing experiences, and the cultural contribution is second to none. They also bring the world and its cultural wonders to Scotland, whether that is through the Tattoo or the international festival. It is vital that the Scottish Government recognise the part that they can play, and I hope the Minister will do his bit to encourage co-operation with the festivals in future years.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I intend to call the Front Benchers at 5.26 pm. A number of Members did not indicate to the Chair before the debate that they wanted to speak. We will get everybody in, but I will have to impose a four-minute time limit.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Efford.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) on securing time for this important debate. Edinburgh—Scotland’s beloved capital and my home—is renowned worldwide not just for its historic beauty and ancient heritage but for its vibrant cultural scene. This goes beyond grand shows with expensive tickets. It includes things like Big Noise Wester Hailes, Forget Me Notes, Edinburgh Printmakers and the Filmhouse, which I hope will reopen soon. All four of those organisations operate in my constituency. Edinburgh’s festivals are a beacon of cultural expression, showcasing the very best of literature and all varieties of performing and creative arts. But more than that, the festivals serve as a cornerstone of the city’s economy and underpin the wellbeing of its citizens.
I welcome the progress made by the Dunard Centre and the redevelopment of the Royal High School. These venues will extend the tourist season in Edinburgh and enable it to compete with the great European cultural centres—places like Hamburg, Vienna and Paris. I have no doubt that the Dunard Centre will be world-class. That will be not just because it is a fantastic building but because of its values. I not only expect people from the most deprived parts of my constituency to be working in the Dunard Centre; I expect them to have places in the audience, and I also expect Big Noise Wester Hailes to be on the stage. This reflects the Edinburgh International Festival’s mission statement, which is
“to provide the deepest experience of the highest quality art for the broadest possible audience.”
For countless businesses across Edinburgh, the festival season throws a lifeline of increased footfall, which provides income that sustains them right through the year. The associated demand for staff is invaluable in providing local young people and students with the opportunity for summer work. The festivals provide many people in Edinburgh with their first paying job. We in this place have a responsibility to ensure that staff are supported by legislation and that they are well treated at work. That is why I will support the Deputy Prime Minister’s new deal for working people, which will help to enable that.
Investing in the breadth and depth of the festival offering in Edinburgh also helps to spread the tourist economy to the quieter parts of the year. It will help Edinburgh to move upmarket, with visitors staying for longer and spending more. This will mean that working in the tourist economy will be a career for more people—rather than just a summer job—with better pay and better conditions.
The economic contributions of the festivals do not stop at employment opportunities and turnover for local businesses. They also provide a wholly unique opportunity to show off and sell not just Brand Scotland but Brand Edinburgh to the world. Culture lets us connect with our international partners on an emotional level that no sales pitch can compete with. We should not forget that Rudolf Bing, a Jew who escaped Nazi Germany, established the Edinburgh international festival in 1947 as a way of bringing people together in post-war Europe.
I am proud that people come to Edinburgh from all over the world, but too often I am ashamed of what they see. Edinburgh’s position as Scotland’s worst-funded local authority comes with consequences, not least where homelessness is concerned. To address the point about why Airbnb is being regulated, it is a key driver for that in Edinburgh. The indifference that our capital is shown means that hardly a year goes by without a council-owned cultural venue being put at risk. Last year it was the King’s Theatre; this year it is the People’s Story Museum. Edinburgh needs fair funding, and the importance of its ecosystem—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) on leading today’s debate and on setting the scene and giving us a flavour of the Edinburgh festival. It certainly seems exciting. For all our constituencies, we have things to be proud of. I have heard so much from others about the Edinburgh festivals and what they bring to Scotland, so it was fantastic to hear the hon. Member speak so highly of that.
Similarly, if we look to Northern Ireland, there is so much to highlight, so it is great to be here to discuss some of the things that we do, with the inspiration of the Edinburgh festival. The hon. Member set out the role for Government that could and should be the plan for other parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He referred to it as a UK public project and UK engagement. Bearing those things in mind, and looking at what the hon. Member said, gives us an idea of what we need to do elsewhere and what we have tried to do.
It is fantastic to hear of the variety of cultural entertainment that Edinburgh has to offer, including the science and the jazz festivals, the Edinburgh Fringe, the arts and the book celebrations. It is the biggest book show in the world. I did not know that but, again, it shows how important it is. In my Strangford constituency we have numerous events, some of which are private and some of which are run by the council, to celebrate the true essence of what Northern Ireland and Strangford are about. We can take a lead—if I may say this gently to all our people back home—from the Edinburgh festival. We can all learn from it and get ideas for the way forward.
The coastal peninsula where I live has recently had some other events, including a kite festival, which has been held for a number of years, and the Portaferry gala. A few months ago, we celebrated the Comber Earlies; hundreds came along to that festival in Comber to celebrate its famous, EU-designated farm potato. Chefs showcased their culinary skills and talents, and there was live music and an artisan bar. Mount Stewart in my constituency also holds dozens of festivals, and some of the ideas are taken from the Edinburgh festival, including jazz Sundays for jazz lovers.
One thing that sticks out is how loved the Edinburgh Fringe festival is—especially the comedy. That is an example of some of the good things we see. It ripples across the United Kingdom: some of the people who perform there are from Northern Ireland, and they take those skills, that entertainment and that value back home to my country. Comedy is on the rise across the UK. Especially in Northern Ireland, the wealth of comedy is outstanding. Events at comedy clubs and festivals are important for the local economy, as they truly have the means to bring everyone together to have a laugh. We sometimes forget about the fun that we have; perhaps we need to focus on that more.
In North Down, the constituency neighbouring mine, the Open House music and arts festival takes place each summer in Bangor. I know dozens of constituents who would not miss the events it has to offer. That highlights how instrumental these examples are to our local economies. One of the thrusts of argument of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh is that we can grow the economy and do more. He is right to pursue that; we should be doing it. Our constituents rely on such events and festivals to boost our local economies and bring communities together. The mark they make on local tourism is phenomenal, so it is important that we give them the means they need to succeed.
I am pleased to see the Minister in his place; he takes his responsibilities incredibly seriously. I look forward to his comments, which will give us some ideas about how the Government can help more. I gently ask him whether he will consider engaging with local councils and the Northern Ireland Assembly back home to ascertain what more the Government can do to support and celebrate culture across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) on securing this debate, which is important not just for the city of Edinburgh but for the whole country and beyond.
The Edinburgh festivals make a tremendous contribution to the UK economy. They bring people from around the world to perform and experience music, dance, drama, comedy, literature and culture more generally, and I have been lucky to enjoy them on many occasions. We are lucky to have many arts, music, theatre and cultural festivals across the country offering similar opportunities. The International Gilbert and Sullivan festival, which takes place each August in Buxton, near my constituency of Mid Derbyshire, is one such example.
In 2022, it was estimated that the creative industries contributed about £126 billion in gross added value to the UK economy and employed 2.4 million people, but they are so much more than an item on a balance sheet. They are a vital catalyst that enables people to express and explore ideas, and they bring communities together.
The arts are common to every culture since the earliest times; music, the visual arts, dance and drama provide an opportunity to walk in somebody else’s shoes. They build a more inquiring society, and help us to understand who we are and what it is to have somebody else’s experience. They are also a vital educational tool, but far too often they are not a staple in schools and are not something that people have the opportunity to adequately engage with throughout their lives.
One of the most important roles of festivals such as those that take place in Edinburgh each summer—especially the Fringe—is to be an incubator for young performers, who can test new ideas, grow their confidence and build their profile in front of a truly international audience. But the future of cultural festivals across the country, and all they offer, is being undermined, because increasingly young people do not have the opportunities they should have to benefit from a creative education.
There has been an overall decline of almost 50% in the number of arts GCSE entries since 2010, and some schools no longer offer some arts subjects at GCSE level at all: 42% of schools no longer enter any pupils for GCSE music, 41% no longer enter any pupils for drama GCSE and 84% enter no pupils for dance GCSE.
Increasingly, the creative subjects are becoming the preserve of those with the ability to pay. However, talent has no postcode and every young person should have the right to a creative education. That decline matters—for our economy and the UK’s standing around the world, but also for who we are as people and how we understand the world and interact with each other.
I am delighted that the Labour manifesto commits the new Government to supporting children to study a creative subject until they are 16, and that it will integrate a creative industries sector plan as part of its industrial strategy, creating good jobs and accelerating growth in film, music, gaming and other creative sectors. The new Government are also committed to launching a new national music education network—a one-stop shop with information on courses and classes for parents, teachers and children.
The new Government face huge challenges, and they have inherited an appalling legacy from their predecessor. I urge them to keep the creative industries and arts education at the forefront of their thinking as they undertake their work of national renewal.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Just to warn the two last Members: I will have to drop their time to three minutes after the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine).
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh on securing this debate. We cannot talk about the festival too often—I have loved it since I was a child. I learned the story of Rudolf Bing for the first time from Allan Little at the book festival that went ahead this summer. Rudolf Bing was an Austrian-born opera impresario, a Jewish refugee from the Nazis, who set up the Edinburgh festival in 1947 to heal, he said, the wounds of war through the arts. The very first performance was the Vienna Philharmonic orchestra, and they performed Mahler. Since then, it has become the massive event that it is today.
Growing up in Glasgow, we were slightly jealous because all those famous people were going to Edinburgh, and that city had all the publicity, but actually, we got to benefit, too. I went with my school to see “Hamlet” as part of our higher English. We saw Derek Jacobi, and my love of the theatre was born that night—I love Shakespeare. The festival provides a valuable educational tool for children throughout Scotland, and I have grown up with it. My husband, an Aberdonian, spent one August working on a show at the festival. My daughter, a Glaswegian, spent a summer working there, and I got to “headline” at the political festival this year. It is part of people’s lives.
In Edinburgh, we have a strange relationship with the festival. We love it—it is the world’s window on us and our chance to show off. However, there is also an underlying tension, which the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) referred to, between the influx of tourists every year—we have also seen that tension in Vienna and Barcelona—and the cost to the city, which has the most underfunded council in the country; the mess when we have strikes which coincide with it; the pressure on our public transport; and the cost of accommodation in Edinburgh, which is now outrageous. However, looking at what the festivals bring to the city, I do not think the tensions can be compared with the benefits. Think about where we would be without the £400 million that it brings to the city itself, and the other £300 million it brings to the rest of Scotland when it acts as a tourism gateway. It is a jewel in our cultural crown and we need to preserve it.
It suffered during the pandemic and lots of venues only just survived. We need to help it to extend the level of tax reliefs for small businesses, many of whom make a massive contribution to the festival, and to address the barriers to financial support that they face. We need to do more to support small venues, which do not have the massive events. Let us say, £1 on tickets for Murrayfield stadium would help—but do not tell Murrayfield I said that! It also provides a stage for new talent—the incubator that has been talked about. In any comedy programme on British television on any weekend of the year, there will be someone who learned their trade at the Edinburgh festival.
In short, over the past 75 years, it has enriched our city, its reputation across the globe and our national reputation, for music, theatre, comedy, books, television—you name it. It has enriched our reputation. I believe that we can say with some confidence that it has played a part, particularly this year, in fulfilling that original vision of fostering international understanding through the arts.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) on securing this debate. From the early days, it has been the people of Edinburgh who have pushed for the best. At the inaugural festival in 1947, the Minister for fuel and power banned the floodlighting of Edinburgh Castle, as coal rationing was still in place. However, the people of Edinburgh would not stand for that and generously donated their coal rations so that the castle could be lit from dusk to midnight during the festivals.
There is no doubt that the festivals are an economic success for Edinburgh and Scotland. The economic impact study published by BOP Consulting showed that the gross economic impact of the festivals in 2022 was £492 million for Edinburgh’s economy and £620 million to Scotland. However, a worrying development highlighted by that study showed that between 2010 and 2022, visitors spent more money on accommodation and less money on local public transport, entertainment and food and drink.
In 2010, visitors spent 37% on accommodation, which jumped to 51% by 2022. With the expansion of the short-term let market and the increasing numbers of hotels, that spend does not benefit our communities but rather industries that are ripe with insecure and low-paid work. Similarly, in 2010, visitors spent £11.4 million on transport, which tumbled to £4.1 million in 2022, reducing the ability of Lothian Buses and train companies to increase stretched local services, but also, crucially, indicating that the wealth of the festival delivery remains concentrated in the very localised area of the city centre.
I was lucky. At my state school, we were all given a recorder. I say lucky; I am not sure my parents felt the same. We had a school orchestra and our teachers ran theatre productions and our school trips took us to galleries and museums, so we knew that those places were for us. That must be everyone’s experience.
That is why I am impressed with projects such as the new Dunard music centre that I visited over the summer, a new venue in the constituency that is committed to delivering a model to enable up-and-coming amateur talent from Edinburgh to perform there, as well as having a ticketing system that will enable people to enjoy what is on offer. Similarly, I look forward to supporting impressive plans at Customs House in Leith for a community and creative hub that will bring Leith’s rich history and culture to life, and also long-established projects such as North Edinburgh Arts, which since 1998 has been based in the heart of the community in Muirhouse, supporting local people to access high quality arts and cultural opportunities. Its new purpose-built centre will open later this year.
Affordability is key to delivering arts for all—affordability of tickets, but also of studio and hire space. That is evident in the private sector, too, where Wasps Studios, whose ethos was to provide affordable studio spaces, have sadly moved—
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray)—I hope he does not mind this interloper from Glasgow West coming into the debate. The importance of the book festival is well worth recognising, particularly as Edinburgh is the first UNESCO city of literature, something that we sometimes forget.
As we have heard, the Edinburgh festivals make an important contribution to the economy of Edinburgh and Scotland and provide a showcase for Scotland and a venue for art and artists from around the world. Every year, hundreds of thousands of tourists and art lovers fill up the city as they make their way from one venue to another, to enjoy one of the 40,000 performances on offer.
Many artists come to Scotland to showcase their work, but I want to focus briefly today on a homegrown artist who is synonymous with the Edinburgh festival, my old friend Richard Demarco. Richard was born in Edinburgh in 1930 to parents who had come to Scotland from Italy. Now aged 94, Richard Demarco has attended every Edinburgh festival, which is really quite something, and he has organised arts programmes at most of them. Since its inception, he has also been heavily involved with the Fringe festival.
Over the years, Ricky Demarco has hosted hundreds of artists and staged more than 1,000 art exhibitions, featuring artists from over 60 countries. He has challenged the boundaries of the Fringe by staging performances outside Edinburgh, including a production of “Macbeth” on Inchcolm island. He has also been a critical friend of the Fringe, speaking publicly about what he saw as the over-emphasis on commercial considerations and also the increase in the prominence of the comedy festival, which was something he did not quite approve of.
Ricky has won many awards over the years from Governments and arts organisations around the world, because of his own artistic excellence and his devotion to internationalism. He has a CBE and in 2013 was the European Citizen of the Year. During the cold war, Demarco crossed the iron curtain 100 times. He often went to eastern Europe to bring back artists and groups to perform at the Edinburgh festival. That emphasis on internationalism is, of course, no accident; it is underpinned by the founding principles of the Edinburgh festival, which have already been remarked upon today. When it was founded in 1947, the idea was that the festival would be about healing the wounds of war through the language of the arts, which is something that Ricky Demarco did not just talk about but actively participated in, as he does to this day and encourages others to do the same. That alone is quite a legacy, but it also emphasises the so-called “soft power” of the arts, and I offer that “soft power” as a third reason for supporting the Edinburgh festivals and the arts more generally.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Apologies, but I have to call the Front-Bench spokespersons.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure, Mr Efford, to serve under your chairmanship and I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) on securing this important debate.
We have heard many inspiring stories today about Edinburgh. I regret that my most recent cultural experience in Edinburgh was bellowing out Proclaimers songs in Fingers piano bar at my stag party. That was a great day out, but it does not match up to some of the other stories that we have heard—
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
It does not sound like it would. [Laughter.]
Max Wilkinson
It was a lovely evening out as well, Minister.
Our challenge is that we must build a creative environment that showcases the best of British talent—bringing together British culture and creativity, and showcasing it for the world—and that we use that to foster a thriving and informed democracy. The impact of cultural festivals in achieving those aims is substantial.
In the case of the Edinburgh festival, we have already heard that it benefits Edinburgh itself by more than £400 million; the wider impacts on the rest of Scotland and the UK are much, much bigger. The festival opens the door to tourism for the rest of our nation, which is a really important aspect that we must not miss out when speaking about cultural events.
That is why it is very worrying to hear the concerns of festival organisers, which have been highlighted in recent news coverage. Regardless of funding pressures, it is our opinion that it is extremely important that the Scottish Government do what they can to meet their past funding pledges. For appropriate balance, I will add that such responsibility extends to other public funders of cultural activities across the rest of the UK, whether those are devolved nations or local government.
Festivals, such as the festivals in Edinburgh that we are debating today or the Cheltenham festivals in my own constituency, play a key role in our cultural life. It is vital that they receive the support necessary to continue to flourish. This week, my constituency is celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Cheltenham Literature Festival, which continues to flourish. However, despite large ticket sales, reductions in funding and in-kind support mean that the organisers of the Cheltenham Literature Festival have had to make some really tough choices in the past few years. Nevertheless, they still engage youngsters in reading to the tune of around 23,000 children every year. Of course, reading for pleasure is one of the single biggest indicators of a child’s future success.
At the launch event for the Cheltenham Literature Festival last Friday evening, supporters—including me—were reminded that the UK spends just 0.46% of its GDP on culture; that is based on the latest figures, which are from 2022. According to the University of Warwick’s “The State of the Arts” report, the UK is not alone in Europe in cutting its cultural budgets in recent years, but that does not make it right and we remain towards the bottom of the European league table, lagging behind our neighbours. If we are to remain a cultural superpower, that situation needs to be addressed.
Cultural funding extends to local festivals, theatres, cinemas, museums, art galleries, music and dance venues, libraries and public spaces. These are all vital to communities the length and breadth of our country. They are spaces devoted to creative endeavour. They not only fuel local economies; they also stimulate community participation across a whole range of creative activities.
In addition, we must not ignore the positive impact of the cultural sector on another great challenge facing our nation: deteriorating mental health. As we seek to reduce pressure on the NHS, we should look to the arts and culture as part of the non-medical therapy available. While few in the Chamber would dispute the difficult economic inheritance of this Government, we cannot look past the positive economic and social impact of investment in culture. It generates incomes and helps communities to thrive in non-monetary measures, too, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out.
What can we do to help our cultural sector boost the economy and increase happiness and wellbeing? Central Government can make a difference in many ways, although at heart it often comes down to money. However, Westminster and devolved Governments can make other important contributions. The promise made by the new Government for the restoration of multi-year funding settlements for local government will provide an important route to that. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) mentioned creative subjects, and we agree on that.
Planning reform offers another opportunity. Engaging the cultural sector in that will be important. We can beef up powers for local areas to protect cherished cultural venues. The cultural sector, too, would benefit from the abolition of business rates and the introduction of a commercial landowner levy.
A more sensitive subject is freedom of expression in the cultural sector. We all need to remember that sometimes we will see and hear things that we do not agree with. If art is not there to stimulate debate, it is nothing.
Finally, Chair—
Max Wilkinson
I appeal to the Government to make a small re-prioritisation: appoint a Minister for tourism and hospitality.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Efford. I hope you do not mind that I have taken off my collar to allow a bit of movement. If my head starts to wobble, please do intervene. Congratulations to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) on securing this debate. It is fantastic to have a discussion on this. Looking through Hansard, I note there has not been a debate on this topic since 1992. He brings a wealth of knowledge and passion that clearly came through, as it did in speeches by a variety of MPs whom I do not have time to thank. That was our own MP fringe event happening right here.
I admit I have never been to the fringe festival, although strangely I, too, have been to a stag do in Edinburgh. I always like to look what the best joke was each year. This year’s was from Mark Simmons:
“I was going to sail around the globe in the world’s smallest ship but I bottled it.”
I first saw him on TikTok, which shows the power of how these artists can spread. Have I stolen the Minister’s line?
Dr Evans
I was also interested to hear that another major Scottish city—Glasgow—has been successful in getting the Commonwealth games. I believe the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh moved to Edinburgh from his home town of Glasgow. It is great to see that success in both those cities is supporting the UK as a cultural destination. I wish the city of Edinburgh well as it prepares for its international storytelling festival, with Hogmanay on the horizon.
The previous Government provided significant support to the sector, including the then Chancellor’s spring Budget, in which he announced £8.6 million of support to festivals, to help boost Scotland’s status as a destination for creative industries, as we have heard. I also understand that the Edinburgh and South East Scotland city regional deal, agreed under the previous Government, is giving the city the chance to unlock opportunities for economic and cultural growth.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh is well aware of the successes of the festivals. I thought I would add a couple more bits of data: more than 2.6 million tickets issued, more than 3,746 shows registered, and more than 60 different countries represented on stage. That shows the appeal, not only locally but internationally. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said, the R&D incubator for the creative industries is something we must cherish.
I noted that the Edinburgh fringe app was downloaded 124,000 times, which shows that a traditional festival can move with the times, and work with others to be creative and engage more people. The extent of the data on the impact of this year’s festival has not been fully quantified or produced yet. In 2022, the Edinburgh fringe festival was on a par with the FIFA World cup. In 2022, BOP Consulting was commissioned by the Edinburgh festival to undertake an economic impact of the previous 11 Edinburgh festivals. The festival in 2022 generated an economic impact of £407 million—a significant increase from £280 million in 2015—not to mention the 7,000 direct jobs and 8,500 jobs across Scotland.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said in his maiden speech just a couple of months ago,
“culture, hospitality and tourism form the economic backbone of my constituency, not least in August, when it plays host to the Edinburgh international festival and fringe.” —[Official Report, 25 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 883.]
With that, and turning to the Minister, I am interested in understanding whether he believes the visitor levy being proposed in Scotland will benefit the Edinburgh festivals. Will it benefit the city of Edinburgh and Scottish tourism as a whole? I understand that Edinburgh City Council, as well as Glasgow and Aberdeen, are looking at using the legislation. Does the Minister feel that Scotland has got this right and is he considering that across his Department in Westminster?
The Minister has a jam-packed portfolio, and I would hate tourism and the creative industries to become a fringe, as they are too valuable for that. Will he ensure that the creative industry budget is maintained in the upcoming Budget? Has he spoken directly to the Chancellor about tourism and creative industries? What assurances has he received that the creative industries will be protected, with tax reliefs maintained?
That being said, we are all here to celebrate a fantastic event. I again put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh for bringing this forward, from 1992 all the way to 2024.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Minister, I wish to call the mover of the debate at 5.45 pm, so I ask that you give him a minute at the end of your speech.
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I should point hon. Members to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I was paid by the Edinburgh book festival a year ago. I note that nobody else has had that to point out.
I will start by paying tribute, as many others have, to Shona McCarthy. She has done a phenomenal job over nine years. She has taken the festival through some of its most difficult moments, and it is striking that 2.6 million people bought tickets this year, which is the fourth highest number in its 77 years. That is absolutely brilliant, and we wish her well.
The Minister—I am sorry, I meant the shadow Minister. We keep on doing this because we are not used to it. I do not think the shadow Minister said that the joke he told was by Mark Simmons—he should attribute jokes. Simmons also had the no. 5 joke, which was:
“I love the Olympics. My friend and I invented a new type of relay baton: well, he came up with the idea, I ran with it.”
[Laughter.] Yes, it was terrible, wasn’t it?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray). It is great to have a lot of new friends, especially from Scotland, and we are delighted to see Edinburgh so well represented. I will try an innovative thing, which is to answer the questions that have been asked as much as I can.
My hon. Friend asked about multi-annual financial planning. In so far as we possibly can, we want to be able to give economic stability to arts organisations, just as we do to local authorities in many other parts of the economy. That is one of the things we are driving towards in the spending review. However, I am afraid I must point him to the fact that there will be a Budget at the end of the month, and I can hear my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the back of my ear already saying, “That’s far enough, Bryant!”
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh asked about cross-UK engagement. I want to make this absolutely clear: I do not want to engage in any kind of cultural battles with Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. We should be seeing this as a joint venture. The creative industries are a part of what defines this nation across the world, and we will only do well if we work together to achieve the best outcomes for performers, people who might become performers and the industry as a whole.
My hon. Friend makes a good point about visas. I will take that away and think about how we could work most creatively with the Home Office to make sure we get this right. It is not just about people coming into the UK; I also argue that it is about UK acts being able to tour in Europe. I was absolutely delighted earlier this year to go and see Depeche Mode in Cologne. I have never seen Germans so excited; they just can’t get enough. [Laughter.] Thank you.
My hon. Friend made an important point about crisis support. I am worried about the situation that arose, in particular, for the book festival and Baillie Gifford. He makes a fair point about whether that is the right way to go about making important points about climate change. One of the things we need to do as a Department is look at the whole package of the whole funding of all the arts and creative industries, which used to come from five or six different segments, including local government, which was prominent in that when we were in power before 2010. Most of that funding has completely gone, and philanthropy is struggling outside London and the south-east. We need to look at this in the round.
It is great to see the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), in her place, as she always is—she was in your place earlier for a previous debate, Mr Efford. She makes very good points about short lets. The legislation already in place for England and Wales, for which we are now considering how we will implement and take forward secondary legislation, would not apply in Scotland. However, we want to learn some of the lessons of what has happened in Scotland so that we can apply sensible legislation in England and Wales. I thought her point about co-operation was very well made—my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh made that point as well. It is not just about us: there is a Government in Scotland, and it is also about local government across the whole of the UK. In England, I would argue that it is also about regional mayors, who play a very important part in the creative industries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) referred to quieter parts of the year. It is a very well-made point. I would also argue that there is an issue about quieter parts of the country. It is all very well getting all the tourists to come to London, Oxford, Cambridge, Stratford, Bath and Edinburgh, but if they do not also go to other places—Stirling, I know, has a very fine castle, because I danced the Highland fling in it when I was 12, I think. Making sure that the benefits accrue to the whole of Scotland and to the wider economy is a really important part of what we need in our tourism strategy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West also made a good point about a tourism career. That is something we need to take far more seriously as a country. Why is it that somebody who works in a bar in Paris, or in a restaurant in France, Spain, or wherever, thinks that is a career for life, whereas we think it is somehow a demeaning job, which it is not? We need to completely transform that if we are to transform our tourism opportunities so that we get more than 32 million people coming to the UK.
The omnipresent hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made important points about Northern Ireland performers—some of the best comedians we have known over the years—coming to Edinburgh and getting an opportunity, and about other festivals. Trying to get the economic possibility for festivals to flourish goes back to the point I was trying to make about the whole package of finances available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies)—a former music teacher, no less— made very good points about other festivals. I am not sure about the Gilbert and Sullivan festival—I am worried now that I might get into trouble. I just remember that line from “Trial by Jury”: “She might very well pass for 42, in the dark, with the light behind her”—
Chris Bryant
There we are—I have been corrected. The most important point my hon. Friend made was about creative education. We need to make sure that every single child in this country gets a proper creative education. It is a force multiplier for other forms of education and means that children will prosper better in the work market. We are determined to transform that.
My hon. Friend—sorry, the hon. Member—for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine)—she is a friend as well; she is a very friendly person—is from my mother’s part of the world: Glasgow. She made a very important point about the world’s window on us. That element of soft power, which several Members have referred to, is important. The Edinburgh festivals as a whole are an important part of that. For instance, the film festival and the television festival are world-renowned moments when people look to the UK. She talked about the cost of accommodation in Edinburgh, which goes back to some of our discussions about short lets. It is a significant concern, and one of the things that we want to learn lessons from.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) also referred to accommodation costs. I am conscious that some people think we are going to be looking at dynamic pricing in relation to those costs: we are not; we are looking at dynamic pricing in relation to tickets. It is very interesting that the Edinburgh festivals do not use dynamic pricing. That is a really important part of making the whole package affordable and more accessible to more people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) referred to the book festival—it is not just because Walter Scott gets a great big statue; so many literary figures have come from Edinburgh. She also referred to the importance of Edinburgh being a UNESCO city of literature.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) talked about the Cheltenham festival. I welcome him to his place and look forward to working with him. I am going to answer the questions from the shadow Minister, who I think sings in a barbershop quartet or chorus—
Chris Bryant
Not yet—all right. He asked about the levy in Scotland, which is of interest to lots of people. Lots of other countries do it; it is not something that we are pursuing at the moment. He asked about the creative industries in the Budget—well, he will have to wait for the Budget, won’t he? He asked about tax reliefs—he can wait until tomorrow morning.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the cultural and economic contribution of the Edinburgh festivals.
Written Corrections
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Corrections
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Work and Pensions
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Does the Minister agree that the problem is that wherever we draw the line, there will always be those just above who end up being poorer because they do not gain the benefit and do not get the passported access that gaining the benefit gives? Those individuals end up being worse off than the people who do claim. That is one of the problems with the means-tested system.
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. For those just above the threshold, we have extended the household support fund. I urge hon. Members to work with me, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Deputy Prime Minister, who have written to local authorities to encourage them to ensure that those just above the threshold who are struggling get the support they need with bills.
[Official Report, 10 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 243WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds):
Emma Reynolds
…I urge hon. Members to work with me, and with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Deputy Prime Minister, who have written to local authorities on the issue.
Emma Reynolds
We will write to all pensioners about housing benefit; this is a question that one of my hon. Friends asked me yesterday. He had a constituent on housing benefit who was concerned that that would be taken into account as a form of income when the Government looked at his eligibility for pension credit. I confirm that that is not the case: housing benefit is not taken into account with regard to income.
[Official Report, 10 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 244WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:
Emma Reynolds
We will write to all pensioners on housing benefit who may be eligible for, but are not claiming, pension credit; this is a question that one of my hon. Friends asked me yesterday.
Written Statements
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Resident Doctors Agreement
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I am pleased to be able to inform the House that on 16 September 2024, the Government and the British Medical Association’s Resident Doctors Committee (BMA RDC), formerly known as the BMA Junior Doctors Committee, agreed a deal on pay for resident doctors—this includes those previously referred to as doctors and dentists in training. This follows BMA RDC agreeing to put the offer to its members.
We will now move to implement the deal, putting an end to strikes which have had a catastrophic impact not just on the country’s economy—with NHS strikes costing the taxpayer almost £1.7 billion in the 2023-24 financial year—but to patients and the nation’s health, with over 1.5 million appointments cancelled.
Resident doctors are a vital part of our NHS and go on to become the consultants and GPs we need tomorrow. This deal is the first step in rebuilding trust between the Government and the profession. This is a Government that cares for those who care for others.
In the deal, resident doctors will receive:
an average investment of 4.05% into 2023-24 pay scales effective from 1 April 2023 with a payment to reflect backpay. This is on top of the average 8.8% uplift they have already received for 2023-24; and
a further consolidated uplift of 6% plus £1,000 in 2024-25, in line with the recommendations of the Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration (DDRB).
This deal will increase the base salary for a full-time doctor starting foundation training in the NHS to over £36,600 compared to around £32,400 before this deal. A full-time doctor entering specialty training will see their basic pay rise to over £49,900 from around £43,900 before this deal. On average, resident doctors earn around one third additional to their base salary in overtime and out-of-hours payments.
As agreed in the deal, we have now instructed the DDRB to consider, as part of its pay recommendations, the overall reward package and a career progression for resident doctors to ensure that medicine is an attractive and rewarding career choice to deliver our consultants and GPs of the future.
The Government have also committed to improve the current exception reporting process and to work in partnership with the BMA RDC and other health organisations to review the current system of training and rotational placements.
The BMA RDC will withdraw the rate card for doctors and dentists in training in England with immediate effect.
The Government recognise the significant challenges that affect resident doctors. While this deal has agreed to review parts of the training system, we are also committed to addressing challenges, for example through initiatives under NHS England’s Working Lives programme, to improve the working and learning experience of resident doctors in the NHS. We continue to encourage local employers to engage with these policies to address these issues better locally.
This deal marks a significant step forward in fixing the NHS, rebuilding a relationship of trust with doctors and delivering better patient care.
[HCWS113]
New Towns
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The post-war new towns programme was the most ambitious town-building effort ever undertaken in the UK. It transformed the lives of millions of working people by giving them affordable and well designed homes in well planned and beautiful surroundings. The 32 communities it created are now home to millions of people. This Government will continue to invest in their regeneration, but we are also committed to bringing forward the next generation of new towns.
This Government’s new towns programme will include large-scale stand-alone new communities, but also a larger number of urban extensions and urban regeneration schemes that will work with the grain of development in any given area. The unifying principle will be that each of the new settlements will contain at least 10,000 homes, although we expect a number to be far larger in size. Collectively, we expect they could provide hundreds of thousands more homes in the decades to come.
This Government believe that sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people. Getting Britain building again is integral to kick-starting that growth. Our new towns programme will not just make a significant contribution to meeting housing demand and housing need across England, but will also support economic growth by releasing the productive potential of constrained towns and cities across England and ensuring that our house building drive is aligned with our industrial strategy and national infrastructure plans.
We have been clear that we want exemplary development to be the norm, not the exception. The next generation of new towns must be well connected, well designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live, and must have all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities. The new towns code will ensure that they deliver to the highest standards and help meet housing need by targeting rates of 40% affordable housing, with a focus on genuinely affordable social rented homes.
The new towns taskforce
We have established an independent new towns taskforce to support this mission. The role of the taskforce is to advise Ministers on appropriate locations for significant housing growth. It will deliver a final shortlist of recommendations by summer 2025, but will have the freedom to share conclusions in respect of specific sites earlier, if beneficial to the Government’s house building drive. The taskforce will work in partnership with local leaders and communities wherever possible, but its selection of sites will be made in the national interest.
The taskforce is chaired by Sir Michael Lyons. Sir Michael has had a distinguished career in public service, including over 26 years in local government, and 17 years as the chief executive of three major UK local authorities. He has a detailed knowledge of the housing sector, not least through the Lyons housing review, commissioned by the then Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). He was also a former chairman of the BBC. Sir Michael is the current non-executive chairman of the English Cities Fund, which is a joint venture with large-scale regeneration developments in London, Liverpool, Plymouth, Salford and Wakefield.
Sir Michael is supported in his role by Dame Kate Barker as deputy chair, a former non-executive director at Taylor Wimpey. Dame Kate is experienced in working with the Government on housing policy, and has previously been commissioned by the Government to conduct a major independent policy review of UK housing supply, and subsequently a review of land use planning. Alongside her experience in housing policy, Dame Kate also chairs the trustees of the universities superannuation scheme and has previously been an external member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee.
We have appointed a further eight members of the taskforce, who have a wealth of expertise across housing, local government, planning and house building. Full details on the taskforces membership can be found here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66eaab18732be801e5501664/New_Towns_Taskforce_Membership.odt
The taskforce has met twice, in Milton Keynes in September and Cambridge in October. At both meetings, they met with local partners to understand the key lessons learnt from previous large-site delivery. They will continue their work to deliver a final report by summer 2025, and consider key matters including: the strategic case for new towns; location identification and selection; place making; design and standards; funding, risk and institutional investment; and unlocking delivery and innovation. We will continue to update Parliament on the work of the taskforce.
[HCWS112]
Regulatory Innovation Office
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
British innovators and businesses are developing world-leading products and services powered by technologies such as artificial intelligence. However, they often encounter barriers and delays from red tape when trying to get started. This is why the Government pledged in our manifesto to establish a new Regulatory Innovation Office—a priority for ensuring innovation and promoting new opportunities for technologies through focused collaboration in the regulatory environment.
The RIO will help position Britain as the best place in the world to innovate by ensuring safety, speeding up regulatory decisions and providing clear direction in line with our modern industrial strategy. Today, I am pleased to update you on the early progress we have made to establish the RIO and foster safe innovation through regulation.
We are setting up the RIO as an office within DSIT, expanding existing functions such as the Regulatory Horizons Council and introducing new programmes to match our increased ambitions to support innovation. Consistent with our mission-driven approach, the RIO will work closely with other Departments to unlock change, including the Department for Business and Trade, which will continue to oversee wider cross-cutting work on regulator performance.
The new office will have three core pillars of activity: knowledge, strategy and capability building. The knowledge pillar will enhance our understanding of regulatory barriers to innovation, drawing on the work of the Regulatory Horizons Council. To address the most critical barriers, the strategy pillar will set clear priorities for regulatory innovation, aligning with our missions and industrial strategy, while ensuring safety. Through the capability building pillar, the RIO will work with regulators to ensure they have the necessary tools to achieve our shared goals. For example, it will build on the work of the regulators’ pioneer fund to provide strategic grant funding to regulators supporting the responsible development of novel or experimental regulatory approaches and on the work of the Regulators’ Innovation Network to share skills and disseminate best practice among regulators.
The RIO’s immediate focus will be on priority areas: drones and other autonomous technology, engineering biology, space, artificial intelligence and digital in healthcare. These four areas hold significant potential to drive innovation in support of the Government’s missions, particularly our mission to grow the economy. For example, the UK drone economy is projected to be worth up to £45 billion by 2030, if fully adopted. The cross-cutting nature of these emerging technologies, which do not fit neatly into existing regulatory frameworks can mean a slower process in getting them on to the market. The new office will work closely with Departments, including the Department for Transport, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, ensuring that while the RIO actively collaborates on addressing regulatory barriers, regulatory responsibility remains with the relevant Department. The new office will also bring regulators together and work to remove unnecessary obstacles and outdated regulations to the benefit of businesses and the public, unlocking the power of innovation from these sectors to generate tens of billions of pounds for the UK economy in the coming years.
We will also shortly be progressing a campaign to appoint a chair. The chair will offer trusted advice and challenge to both officials and regulators, helping to shape the design of the new office and supporting its successful delivery.
In the coming months, we will work in partnership with industry and regulators to address barriers in these critical sectors and unlock new opportunities.
Alongside the RIO, I am pleased to share our wider progress in supporting regulatory innovation. These advancements demonstrate how we can foster an environment where innovation thrives by adapting our regulatory approach:
We are publishing on gov.uk our response to the Regulatory Horizon Council’s quantum report, accepting 11 of the 14 recommendations (and accepting in principle the remaining 3). This will see the UK become the first nation to outline its regulatory approach to quantum technologies, providing certainty to businesses and encouraging the responsible development of the sector. A copy of this report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
We are announcing the winners of the first round of the engineering biology sandbox fund. The sandbox will accelerate regulatory reforms for engineering biology-derived products and improve the quality of decision-making when assessing these products.
Working closely with the Cabinet Office, we are publishing voluntary screening guidance for the providers and users of synthetic nucleic acid. The guidance contributes to the UK’s vision of unlocking the societal and economic benefits of engineering biology research and innovation, while mitigating associated risks. The guidance keeps the UK at the forefront internationally of fostering responsible innovation in this transformative technology.
I am confident that together we can unlock Britain’s dynamism and innovation, and kick-start economic growth.
[HCWS111]
Fraud, Error and Debt Bill
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I would like to advise the House that the Government will bring forward a new Fraud, Error and Debt Bill in this Parliamentary session to be tough on criminals, fair for claimants and provide confidence to the taxpayer.
Fraud and error in the social security system currently costs the taxpayer almost £10 billion a year and, since the pandemic, a total of £35 billion of taxpayers’ money has been incorrectly paid to those not entitled to the money—including to criminal gangs. Just as we do not tolerate tax evasion, this Government will not tolerate those who defraud the social security system. We will ensure that every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent with the same care with which working people spend their own money.
The measures in this Bill are expected to save up to £1.6 billion over the next five years and will extend and modernise the DWP’s powers to stop fraud in its tracks, recover money lost to fraud and, crucially, help protect claimants who may already be on the edge financially from racking up debt.
The Government are determined to prevent incorrect payments where we can, so the DWP will be given new powers to better identify and prevent potential overpayments. These will help officials to ensure eligibility criteria are being met—including being able to see sooner where they are not—which will mean fewer claimants accruing debts and getting into financial difficulty. This will also serve to ensure every claimant is treated fairly.
We will ensure that these powers are proportionate. We will introduce safeguarding, reporting mechanisms and independent oversight, to give greater confidence to claimants that the powers are being used fairly and effectively. DWP staff will receive training on the use of any new powers. We will rely on codes of practice where they already exist and, where they do not, we will consult on and produce new codes of practice to provide further reassurance on the safe use of the powers.
Some of the DWP’s fraud powers have not been updated for over 20 years and we are currently misaligned with other Government Departments and public bodies such as HMRC.
The measures in this Bill will remedy that, giving the DWP powers to:
Better investigate suspected fraud and new powers of search and seizure, so the DWP can take greater control of investigations into criminal gangs defrauding the taxpayer.
Make changes to the penalties system, so that no one found to have committed fraud against the social security system avoids punishment, bringing increased fairness for claimants who do the right thing.
Allow the DWP to recover debts from individuals who can pay money back but have avoided doing so, bringing greater fairness to debt recoveries.
Through our eligibility verification measure, require banks and financial institutions to examine their own datasets to highlight where someone may not be eligible for the benefits they are being paid. This will help the DWP identify incorrect payments, prevent debts from accruing for the claimant and help identify where there may be fraudulent activity. Banks will only share very minimal information, and this will only be used by the DWP to support further inquiry, if needed, into a potential overpayment.
The powers in this Bill will be legal, proportionate and targeted to reduce overpayments, detect and prevent fraud, ensure prompter investigations and bring greater fairness to the system.
The eligibility verification measure will not give the DWP access to any bank accounts, nor any information on how claimants spend their money. The proposed new power instead helps verify benefit eligibility, using very limited information from banks and financial institutions. A human being will always be involved in any investigations and any decisions taken afterwards that affect eligibility or benefit awards, as they do now. This measure will not be used on the state pension.
This legislation will support the delivery of the Government’s manifesto commitment to safeguard taxpayers’ money and demonstrates the Government’s commitment that they will not tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in public services, including the social security system.
Further details on the legislation will be set out when the Bill is introduced to Parliament shortly.
[HCWS114]
Grand Committee
House of Lords Conduct Committee: Code of Conduct Review
Baroness Manningham-Buller
That the Grand Committee takes note of the review by the Conduct Committee of the House of Lords code of conduct.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, this is not going to be a conventional debate. I am not going to pose as a Minister, attempt to sum up or answer or deflect questions. The aim of the debate is for me to listen—other members of the committee are here—and feed noble Lords’ views and opinions into the review that we have in hand, on which we have already had some excellent contributions, including from people in this Room, and on which we are continuing to take evidence until the end of October. This debate was suggested by some Peers. I welcome it because it is a further opportunity for us to collect information before we come back to the House, probably towards the end of this year—perhaps early next year —with our recommendations for changes to the code. We hope we will get as broad a range as possible.
I come to the timetable. Following the launch of the review in April, the suggestion of the Conduct Committee—it was our view—was that the code needs reform. This was disrupted by the Dissolution of Parliament in late May, so we have extended the deadline for contributions until the end of this month. For the record, I ask Peers who wish to say things but who are not able to be here this afternoon to please write to us, because we want to have all views. Also, party leaders and the convenor are coming to give evidence quite soon, so another way would be to put contributions to them.
Let me say something about the scope of the review. We start with the existing code. As your Lordships’ Conduct Committee, we operate within parameters agreed by the House over many years. These include the House’s decision in 2009 to appoint an independent Commissioner for Standards—at that stage, I also chaired the precursor of this committee, the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct—and its related decision a decade later, in 2019, to appoint four lay members of the committee to add to the five Peers who sit on it. I take this opportunity to thank the commissioners—we now have two of them—and lay members for their insight and help.
Why are we suggesting a review? There are several reasons. The code and its guide are too long. Regular amendments since the first major overhaul in 2009 have led to the code and the related guide, taken together, doubling in length since 2010. Some changes have been forced on us by statutory change or outside events or to clarify points of uncertainty—for example, in the processes of investigation or the rules governing financial issues. With the greater length has come complexity with, for example, the distinction between general principles and specific rules being unclear. It is a bit of a patchwork document which may confuse. It is also clear that many Members have never actually read it and have certainly not got to appendix B.
I know that some noble Lords feel that we need only a simple statement of general principles of conduct. I agree that the code should articulate these principles clearly, including the Nolan principles, that guide us as Members of the House. However, it is worth pointing out that the Code of Conduct is not just to guide Members but to reinforce public confidence in the House. To that extent, it is an outward-facing as well as inward-facing document. It is clear from the comments we get that the public, whom we serve collectively, expect Members of the House of Lords, like MPs or other public servants, to abide by clear rules requiring high standards of conduct to try to ensure that we meet the Nolan principles of openness, accountability, selflessness, objectivity—that of course is not possible in politics, but never mind; the others still stand—integrity, honesty, and leadership.
The registration of relevant interests lies at the heart of this. In past generations, noble Lords declared their interests in debate, largely for the benefit of other Members, but for the past 30 years it has been accepted that we should make those disclosures in a public and lasting form, by means of the register. To support the process, we need clear rules, covering categories of interests, thresholds for registration and so on. Expectations of radical change to the code probably need to be tempered, because some length and complexity will be difficult to avoid. I am none the less of the view that we can make it very much better than it currently is.
It is also clear that some noble Lords feel that the reach of the code has gone too far and are apprehensive that this review is another excuse for mission creep. I assure all noble Lords that it is not. The committee, including the lay members, fully understands the value to this House of our Members having extensive experience, in many cases elsewhere, and bringing it to bear on current issues.
We have asked some difficult questions in our call for evidence, but these are questions that regularly reach us. That is why we need noble Lords’ views. A particularly difficult question is whether there should be a general rule to prohibit conduct that causes significant reputational damage to the House as a whole. This is not a new issue. Our predecessor committee, the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, recommended such a rule as far back as 2016 in a report entitled Undermining Public Confidence in the House. That report was never taken to the Floor of the House and nor has the Conduct Committee ever brought forward firm proposals, despite repeatedly being invited to consider the issue, usually in the wake of some media uproar. There is no easy answer and it may still be too difficult, but it is right that we are asked the question once more.
We aim to satisfy ourselves that the code is fit for purpose and the rules are expressed as clearly and succinctly as possible. I will end there. I emphasise that we really are listening. We see this as an evidence-collecting session. I welcome the proposal that we do this, but I will not respond in detail, as I said at the beginning, because we have not had all the evidence in yet; we still have to hear from the heads of the parties, the convenor and the Leader of the House. Then we will be ready, at some stage, to put proposals to your Lordships’ House. I thank noble Lords for coming. We will listen very carefully.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. I had the privilege of serving under her as a member of the Conduct Committee. I am no longer a member, but I felt that this was an issue which needed people to speak out on it. Now is not the time to be seen to go backwards on standards. As well as having been a member of the Conduct Committee, I was on the appointment panel for the two Commissioners for Standards, one of whom has just taken up a new role outside Parliament. I was also on the appointment panel for the independent lay members; I am pleased that at least two of them are here today. I was also co-opted on to the predecessor committee, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Hussein-Ece, to prepare for the new rules around sexual harassment and bullying. So, as your Lordships can see, it is all my fault.
Perhaps I should repeat that I was a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—it is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, who I think is now the former chair—and I was an interim chair of that committee in 2007.
We need a system which is sufficiently robust to see off the frivolous and vexatious cases that anybody in public life is subject to—that is a given. I think there is an increased feeling of vulnerability among Peers and, to a much greater extent, MPs. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said, this is an outward-facing exercise, and anything that looks as if we are trying to water things down will go down extremely badly with members of the public.
I, like others, left the Chamber while the noble Lord, Lord True, was speaking on the one-year anniversary of the Hamas attack. As usual, his tone and response was wholly appropriate. I just remind noble Lords that he said, when the code was being debated in May:
“The Chief Whip and I have taken the liberty of discussing this with some colleagues in the usual channels and, of course, with my noble friend Lady Manningham-Buller, the chair of the Conduct Committee, in whose work I think I fairly say the House has the fullest confidence and trust … The Motion will be neutrally worded to enable all Members to express their—no doubt varying—views before the evidence-taking period concludes. The purpose must not be to rake over the coals of specific cases ”.—[Official Report, 20/5/24; col. 863.]
I will not quote the rest of it but I thought that it was an extremely useful statement, and I see this as the continuity of that particular effort.
I do not want to go on for a long time and I will certainly not suggest detailed changes. To some extent, this is a necessary tidying-up exercise, and I thought that this was what the Conduct Committee was trying to do. It had left open questions which had been asked over a number of years, and the answers may well be the same. However, it is quite right that it should ask those questions, such as about bringing the House generally into disrepute. Should we take that forward or leave it well alone and keep the issue of “on one’s personal honour” as a way of interpreting cases?
I do not have an awful lot to say except something about the importance of the confidence from staff. It is not that long ago that staff did not really have much confidence in any complaints being dealt with fairly. They would say to new members of staff, “Don’t go into the lift with that person”. These issues were well known; they were not well known to us as Peers but were well known among staff. There was no confidence that any complaint would be upheld or dealt with fairly, and it is not that long ago. It is extremely important to recall that staff will listen to this debate and get a feeling of the direction that we want to go in. Even though that is not part of the public point of view, it is extremely important from the internal point of view that we have a system which means that staff feel that they are dealt with fairly. When we first took over as a Conduct Committee, some of the cases were of extremely long-standing. They were called historical cases, which just meant that somebody had been misbehaving for a very long time indeed and had not been dealt with. We do not want to go back to those bad old days.
I have an open mind about a number of the questions that the Conduct Committee has asked. I shall put my views in, but I wanted to make the point that the world will be looking at us to make sure that we are not slipping backwards. If we have different processes from the House of Commons, that is absolutely fine, as long as our standards are the same. That is the difference. The processes have to be different because MPs are elected and have a larger number of members of staff—and to some extent the issue of salary versus fee income is a difference. We do not need necessarily to be consistent in our processes. I happen to think that our system is better, because the role of the commissioners has made it better, but that is not to say that the standards are different. I would defend that difference as not being harmful in any way.
I should have declared—I apologise for not doing so earlier—that I chair the Steering Group for Change, which was set up by the commission. That has been working for five years. It started off as a response to the Ellenbogen report about sexual harassment and bullying, but is now moving into wider directions of how we consolidate the culture change in the House, which I firmly believe has improved since the Conduct Committee was established, with the wonderful work that the members do—both the Peers and the individual lay members.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for giving us this opportunity and for the brilliant way in which she has carried out the chairmanship of this committee, which I hope will go on for many more years. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, who is very wise—and I think that we are all grateful for the work that she has done. However, the world has changed a bit, and we need to reflect that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said at the beginning that the code was too long and too detailed, and I could not agree more. It is not just that it takes a long time to read it. Incidentally, the copies that have been provided in the Printed Paper Office do not include the appendices that were in the original document, including appendix B on page 56, paragraphs 19 and 20 of which were frankly just offensive. I hope that the fact that they are not included means that they are going to disappear for the foreseeable future.
There are trivial complaints made that should really be dealt with by the usual channels and not by the commissioner, and an abuse of the complaints system for political purposes is now happening, often through social media. The reputational damage done to an individual who may be subject to a vexatious complaint when the complaint is made public is enormous. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, urged us not to talk about individual cases, but I am going to talk about one. We can see what has happened to the noble Lord, Lord Alli. Someone apparently made a complaint that he had not declared a particular interest. I do not know whether that is right or wrong, but it has resulted in pages and pages and day after day of coverage about him, and he is in a position where he is not allowed to comment on this or defend himself, which to my mind is neither fair nor right. One sees people doing this again and again. I do not make this accusation about any one party; we all have people in political parties who think that this is an appropriate way to behave, but I do not.
The other issue that worries me, which is again to do with Members’ vulnerability, is that if the commissioner is investigating a particular complaint Members are not allowed to have any legal representation.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
I said I was not going to interrupt. Anybody can have legal representation. That is not improper. What they cannot do is ask their lawyer to answer the questions for them. In fact, most people who are subject to serious allegations seek legal advice immediately and have it beside them at all stages.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am aware of that; it is actually spelled out in the document on the basis that this is seen not as a legalistic procedure but as a more informal one. However, if your entire reputation is on the line, you should be able to have the basic standards of natural justice. In the case of a criminal prosecution, for example, no one would argue that your lawyer should not be able to make representations on your behalf. It is the business of confidentiality not being able to share that with colleagues; that is probably observed more often in the breach but, if you have been wrongly accused of something, it is all over the newspapers and you are not allowed to talk to any of your colleagues to get advice and help, that is a very unpleasant position to be left in. There is also the issue that it takes for ever for the matter to be decided. By the time it is, if you have been found to have been traduced, nobody is interested. You might get a single line in a newspaper. I worry about the process.
I am conscious of the strictures of the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, not to mention particular cases, but I also worry about a recent case where the commissioner decided on a particular sanction and then asked the complainant what they thought of the sanction. The commissioner then changed the sanction to make it more severe as a result of talking to the complainant. To me, that feels a little dodgy, to put it mildly. It is true that, in the legal system, we take evidence from people who have been subjected to a crime about its impact on them, but we do not allow them to decide what the sentence should be.
Picking up the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, I agree that the House of Lords is different from the House of Commons. We should be. However, we are a part-time House while the Commons is a full-time House. Look at the sanctions that are applied in the other place: if people who have committed quite serious breaches of the code there and done some pretty stupid things are suspended for more than a set number of days, they can find themselves subject to a recall petition. The sanctions over exclusion therefore tend to be small numbers of days. However, colleagues in this House have been excluded for months—six months, in one case. The difference is that, in the House of Commons, if you are excluded for less than the recall period, you continue to be paid and to receive all your allowances, while Members of this House are unable to gain any of their allowances and go unpaid. Therefore, an extended period of exclusion is a far more severe penalty than would apply to Members of the House of Commons. Although I accept that we should be different, I do not really see why we should have such broadly different tariffs for breaches of the codes.
The other issue where I hope we will be different is where people have been accused of some criminal offence. It is essential that any decision to exclude them should be made only after they have been charged, not on arrest, for the obvious reason of maintaining the principle of innocent until proven guilty. I know that a different view has been taken in the other place but I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, that we should decide our own rules on these matters—although that does create a slight anomaly.
I am also worried about what I would describe as the committee’s mission creep; the chairman touched on that. It is highly inappropriate that Peers’ conduct not related to their parliamentary activities or role should be within the scope of the commissioner. I do not think that it is for him or her to look at that. I also cannot for the life of me understand why, under the code, you have to inform the Clerk of the House if you are subject to an investigation by a professional body. What has that got to do with the Clerk of the House? A doctor subject to a complaint to the GMC would have to tell the Clerk of the House about that. Why is that appropriate? Why should a company chairman, perhaps found to be in breach of health and safety legislation and subject to an investigation by the HSE, have to tell the Clerk of the House? What business is that of the House of Lords?
It is just wrong. We have a number of Peers in high-profile public and private roles. Where does it end? Does it apply to a head teacher who is accused of breaching employment law, or to a landlord/tenant dispute? I felt that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, got quite close to touching on this: there seems to be a suspicion growing that anything that damages the reputation of a Peer damages the reputation of the House. That cannot be right, and it is dangerous.
There was a recent example in the debate the other day about VAT on school fees. A colleague on the Government Benches made an accusation about what had happened in a particular school. Someone then said that it was not true and made a complaint to the commissioner and, as a result, got a whole load of coverage about this person having misled the House. The newspapers put it rather more strongly than that. It is none of the business of the commissioner to look at what is said in the Chamber. Lots of things are said in the Chamber that are a matter for debate. If people think that someone has misled the House in some way, there are lots of processes by which that can be corrected or debated. I worry about the idea of mission creep and the perception of the role of the commissioner. They will say, “We’ve had a complaint that so-and-so didn’t tell the House the truth”, which then becomes a story. That is a real-life example. This is not a partisan point; in both cases I am defending people who are members of the government party. I was going to say opposition party, but that is me now.
I am sure that the independent members of the Conduct Committee do a great job, but I worry about the balance between external members and people who have detailed knowledge of parliamentary procedure and an understanding of the political process. I wonder if the balance is too far in one direction. An example of that is the requirement to declare your interests. It is absolutely impossible to declare your interests at Question Time without irritating the House. Therefore, people stand up and say, “I refer to my interests in the register”, which is frankly a waste of time. We do not have the register and we do not know what the interests are. If you are watching from the outside, you think, “Ah, he or she must be in someone’s pay”. It is a fatuous requirement. We end up in a situation where people are breaching the code, as is explained in the document.
I also want to re-emphasise the difference between paid advocacy, which is speaking in the House or to Ministers specifically about a business interest—it is quite rightly forbidden—and speaking on the generality of policy, which may impact negatively on a company from which they receive payment. While I was chairing a bank, I never asked any questions about issues which affected the bank because I felt vulnerable to being accused of paid advocacy, even though I know that the rules would have provided for the general position. It is undoubtedly the case that people are afraid of speaking on certain areas because this is not widely understood. Because it is not widely understood, mischievous journalists can make hay from it.
In short, I really welcome what the chairman of the committee said, because the committee needs to rewrite the code and to undertake a review of the approach which is taken, so that it takes account of the impact of social media and the increasing exposure of Members to unjustified reputational damage from malign political influences.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I wish particularly to endorse what he said about the dangers of mission creep, particularly the risk that complaints made about things that we say in the House might be taken forward as a ground for some criticism under the guide.
I join the noble Lord in welcoming and congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, on securing this debate and on the way she opened it, as it were for general discussion rather than anything else so that we can really put across ideas and they can be taken on board by the committee.
I am afraid that, as a lawyer, I have fallen into the trap of looking into the words of the code to see whether I can find things wrong with it. I have picked up three questions which are in the call for evidence. The first is whether there are
“any elements of the Code and Guide”
which are “unclear or confusing”, the second is whether any
“provisions of the Code or Guide”
are “unnecessary”, and the third is how
“the presentation of the Code and Guide”
could be
“improved, to make it more accessible and user-friendly”.
I will take the first two questions together, because my points about them relate to a particular issue, which is the way the guide deals with the registration of interests by arbitrators. I have to declare an interest here because I sometimes engage in international arbitration. I am engaged in one just now, which is listed in the register, as I was nominated to act as one of three arbitrators by a foreign state; that is declared in the register, and I have no complaint about that.
The introduction of this requirement into the code had a rather uncomfortable birth. It was suggested that it was needed for reasons of national security. It is not unusual for those who engage in arbitration to be nominated by the Government of a foreign state or an organisation controlled by a foreign state. However, the then chairman of the committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, had to recuse himself because he was engaged in many of these arbitrations and felt he should not take part in the debate. The discussion was then chaired by Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, the only remaining lawyer, who found himself in a minority of one when the matter was debated.
The matter then came before the House for approval. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, is smiling at me because, like me, she remembers very well the nature of that debate. It was—I think I can put it this way—rather highly charged. Those noble Lords who opposed the proposal, which did not include myself, were all arbitrator lawyers, and they did not win the sympathy of the House. We now find two provisions in the guide, paragraphs 56 and 63, which deal with the issue.
The first point about this is that it is unnecessary for the point to be dealt with in two separate paragraphs. The two paragraphs I mentioned say exactly the same thing, and one of them is plainly in the wrong place because it is under chapter 1, which deals with directorships. Arbitrators are not directors at all of the party by whom they are nominated. They are acting as independent adjudicators on the issue before them. It should not be in paragraph 56, and if it is taken out nobody will miss it because it is repeated in exactly the same terms in paragraph 63. That is the first point. It is simply a provision which is unnecessary and should be taken out.
Paragraph 63 itself is a bit confusing because it deals with the problem of arbitrators by saying that:
“Members providing legal and arbitral services need to register the identity of registrable clients … under this category only once (a) the identity of the client or party has entered the public domain or (b) they have been paid for the work (wholly or in part), whichever comes first”.
The problem is this that point (a) seems to suggest that registration is required only where the fact that the arbitration is taking place has entered the public domain.
There is something to be said for that because, on the whole, arbitrations are meant to be private affairs and there are some cases where it is in the interests of the state that the fact that the arbitration is proceeding should not be known by the public. I had some experience of this when I advised the governor of one of our overseas territories. I declared my interest to the register, but I said that it would be unfortunate if the name of the governor or the identity of the territory were identified because there was a considerable political debate and she did not want it known that she had applied to London for advice. Very wisely, the register simply said that I had advised the governor of an overseas territory, the details of which could be provided on request. I thought that was a very sensible way of getting around my problem.
However, it comes back to the point that there are cases where there is a reason for something not entering the public domain. The problem is that the second branch of this clause states that you have to declare when you are paid, and that could happen before the public knows about the arbitration or in a case where arbitration is meant to be confidential. I am not suggesting a solution to this, but I suggest that the committee might like to look more carefully at what exactly it wants to be declared by arbitrators. I am sure we will follow the guidance. At the moment, it works reasonably well for me, and I am not complaining, but there is a lack of clarity that needs to be addressed.
On the third point—presentation—I hope I am not treading on any toes when I say that our code does not stand up very well in comparison with the House of Commons code of conduct. I am not talking about content, and I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said about the differences between our two Houses. That is not my point. It is a question of presentation. Its code is much better presented than ours.
Perhaps I can put forward some basic requirements. First, the content should be divided into distinct sections under clearly labelled headings. Secondly, the contents of each section should be set out paragraph by paragraph, each of which is designed to deal with one topic only. These paragraphs should be kept short, ideally no more than about six lines, so that the point that they are making can be easily and quickly understood. People tend to speed-read when they look at documents of this kind, and they need to be able to grasp the point quickly. If a paragraph runs beyond about six lines, they will miss the point, so there needs to be brevity and clarity. It is all about presentation, and I do not think our code meets that test as well as it should. It is partly because things have been added, but as it is there is a bit of confusion.
The purpose of our code is set out in paragraph 3 under the heading “Introduction”. It would be better if it said “Purpose”. Paragraph 3 is divided into sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) which, quite correctly, set out propositions that are clear and simple, but the clarity of that original presentation is undermined—indeed, cluttered—by adding two sentences to sub-paragraph (a) which deal with the scope of the code, not its purpose. They are important sentences. The first states that
“the Code does not extend to members’ performance of duties unrelated to parliamentary proceedings, or to their private lives”,
but that deals not with the object of the code but with its scope. It should be set out in separate paragraphs, separately presented. I would keep sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) in paragraph 3, but the middle sentences should be set out in two separate paragraphs after that.
Paragraph 7 is another paragraph that needs to be broken into separate paragraphs for clarity. It talks about three different things. First, it talks about the application of the code to the Lord Speaker and the Senior Deputy Speaker, then it deals with its application to candidates for those offices, and then to the spouses or partners of officeholders. All that is bunched into a single paragraph. It would be much easier to follow if it was divided into three paragraphs, one by one.
Another one is paragraph 28, which is 17 lines long and contains six sentences. It is far too long, and it should be broken down into separate paragraphs. Paragraph 12 sets out the seven principles identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. That, of course, is good and helpful, but it also states that it should
“act as a guide to members in considering the requirement”
in paragraph 10
“to act always on their personal honour”.
I understand the intention to say a bit about what that time-honoured phrase means, but it is not helpful to then say, “Have a look at the standards in public life”, because not all of them relate to that. The first two are related—for example, integrity—but then it goes on to other things. There are a whole lot of things to go through.
This is my point about simplicity; if you are going to make a point, it should be pure and simple. A better way of doing it would be to refer to the passage in the guide which sets out, in paragraph 7, what the committee on standards suggested we should understand by that phrase, rather than going on to the principles. We should keep the principles as they are, but not make that cross-reference. If a reference is needed, it should be to refer to the guide.
Finally, I will make a brief comment on the question asked in the call for evidence:
“should there be a rule covering behaviour … that causes significant reputational damage to the House as a whole?”
As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, suggested, we move into quite dangerous territory if we try to make provision about that. The question reminds me, and I am sure many other noble Lords, of the case of Lord Sewel, whose conduct, as reported in the Sun, was clearly of that character. The problem was that the conduct took place entirely in private. As he pointed out, the code relates only to standards of conduct expected of Members in the discharge of their parliamentary duties.
It was a very anxious period. As convenor, I know well how difficult it was for our Leader, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, to deal with. In the end, fortunately Lord Sewel recognised that his conduct was not compatible with membership of the House and that he could serve the House’s interests best by leaving it. That solved the immediate problem, but the point remains that the code applies only to a Member’s parliamentary duties and does not extend to what they do in their private lives, however damaging that may be.
Nothing was done by altering the code at that stage, but it would have been very difficult to extend it to private lives. I am not suggesting that we should do that. However, there is a question we might like to think about. I suggest that to broaden the code to cover private lives, or professional lives outside the House, by sets of rules would be unacceptable. However, it might be sensible to contain a note of advice, advising Members that they should at all times avoid engaging in conduct likely to cause significant reputational damage to the House. It would be advice, not a rule, but it would serve as a reminder of the inescapable fact that Members need to have regard to the reputation of the House, whatever they do and wherever they are.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for arranging this. I will not keep noble Lords long, but I would like to make one important point. As was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, there was a recent newspaper report which claimed that a noble Lord had misled the House and that a child had not been allowed to run in her state school’s playground because there was insufficient space to scamper about. The noble Lord pointed out that this was because some of the school’s property had been sold to an adjoining private school.
Apparently, there has been a complaint to the House of Lords commissioners, claiming that the noble Lord’s statement was incorrect. Whether that statement is true or false, it is not the place of the Lords commissioners to have any say in what is said in a Chamber of this House. It is an issue of paramount importance that there should be complete freedom for Members of this House when speaking here to say what they will, with no outside interference of any sort. To go down the road of censoring or adjudicating speeches in the House would inevitably end up stifling free speech. We have parliamentary privilege specifically to be able to speak freely, and I would be most grateful if the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, could clarify in her report that the Lords commissioners have no role whatever in overseeing what is said during debates in the House of Lords.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, the chairman of the Conduct Committee, for initiating this debate, because it gives us the opportunity to comment on the direction of travel, which I do not believe to be ideal. It is unfortunate that there are so few speakers—despite the evident quality of the speakers.
I suspect that most Members of the House think that, provided that they declare their interests and do not stick their fingers in the till, they will not experience any problems, even if they omit to carefully scrutinise our Code of Conduct—a point noted by the noble Baroness. Sadly, this is not the case, because the direction of travel hitherto has been to increase the number of possible transgressions—and she touched on the length of the code. For instance, how many noble Lords realise that it is against the Code of Conduct to pay for sex? It is not something that I intend to do, but the term is very imprecise—and the noble Baroness talked about lack of clarity. For instance, does the prohibition catch paraphilic infantilism? I hope that I have the pronunciation right. What it certainly does is to create vulnerabilities where they did not previously exist, just as homosexuality did, sadly, in the past.
In the past, Conduct Committee reports were debatable and divisible, and the House demonstrated a clear willingness to discipline Members when they had transgressed. However, in the aftermath of a highly controversial debate and Division we, wrongly I believe, decided that Conduct Committee reports would not be debatable. The case that I am referring to involved a Peer who was a leading human rights lawyer. He was my political opponent, and I was always on the other side of his argument. I am not a lawyer, I am of a different creed, and I had never socialised with him. Nevertheless, I voted in support of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, against the conduct Motion. I did this because the report of your Lordships’ Commissioner of Standards was full of holes, in my opinion. For instance, the investigation took place more than 10 years after the events in question; no documentary evidence was available, as there would be in a paid advocacy issue; and the commissioner interviewed witnesses by telephone about crucial telephone conversations that had taken place 10 years earlier.
All the other conduct reports that I have ever read made a cast-iron, open and shut case. In a recent case, one noble Lord became intoxicated and, regrettably, abused other pass-holders, resulting in an official complaint to your Lordships’ Commissioner for Standards. The noble Lord made a sincere offer to meet the victims as part of a reconciliation process, and I am confident that, if that meeting had taken place, there would have been reconciliation. Regrettably, the victims declined that offer, as was their absolute right. No doubt the Commissioner for Standards took this into consideration when recommending one week’s suspension. However, your Lordships’ Conduct Committee decided to treble the sanction, safe in the knowledge that it would not be challengeable in debate.
Some issues that are drawn to our attention require considerable moral courage to address. For instance, right now, I am dealing with the systemic harassment of the heavy haulage industry by a few police forces, but I am not getting very far despite the risks I am taking in taking on the police. In the last few Parliaments, I attempted to get Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, better known as the Leveson reforms, commenced. This was not some niche issue as, in the past, I had won a Division against my own party when in government—in other words, a majority of the House was with me. At the time, one noble Lord privately suggested to me that I was brave to take on the press. I gently pointed out that I knew I had no skeletons in the cupboard. I must note that few other Peers would engage the press in the way that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, did. Only one Conservative MP would even discuss the matter with me; that was the late Sir David Amess.
At the very end of the previous Parliament, the media Bill provided one final opportunity to get the carrot component of Section 40 retained, while the stick component would be repealed in line with the Government’s manifesto commitment. I tabled a suitable amendment and was working up my speaking notes and arguments when I glanced at the Conduct Committee’s proposal to make a transgression of the Code of Conduct be considered as bringing the House “into disrepute”, or words to that effect; in essence, that means how much adverse publicity the Peer in question has generated. I must tell the Committee that all my moral courage evaporated immediately. I immediately withdrew my amendment and persuaded the clerk to take it off the Marshalled List, even though I was technically too late. I confess that I left the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to move her amendment in Committee on her own. It was a complete lack of moral courage on my part.
I did have some powerful new arguments about why IPSO was not fit for purpose. As it happened, the advent of the election and procedural issues put me in a strong position, so I ran a Report stage amendment but without the benefit of having made a detailed argument in Committee. In the end, I was unsuccessful. I must tell the Committee that I am not confident that, if my conduct had been called into question, I would have been dealt with fairly. My noble friend Lord Forsyth just talked about the position of the noble Lord, Lord Alli. A major reason for this lack of confidence is the inability to defend myself, or to have someone defend me in front of the whole House, before the House decides on the matter.
I intend to retire next year, despite being two years short of the average age of the House of Lords. I can assure the Committee that only 10% or 15% of this decision is due to the issues we are discussing today; most of it is due to demotivation caused by constant and unfair criticism of your Lordships’ House, which the House authorities appear to do nothing to counteract. Nevertheless, this issue is a factor.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I should declare that I am the former chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life is the custodian, so to speak, of the Nolan principles—the Seven Principles of Public Life—to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy and Lady Manningham-Buller, have already referred. When Lord Nolan drew up his seminal report on public standards, he envisaged that the principles would stand at the apex of the system but would not stand alone and would not be justiciable. He envisaged that there would also be two other key parts: first, codes of conduct, which we are discussing today, in order to read down those overarching principles into the particular circumstances of different institutions; and, secondly, training and an opportunity for people to learn and consider what standards meant in their particular environments. It seems to me that that model of how standards should operate has stood the test of time.
One of the privileges of being in that job as chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is that one got exposure to a very large number of different organisations and the way they approach these problems. We took evidence from government, Parliament, the private sector, charities and other organisations. Of course, the issues are different in different parts of the system, although one of the things that I was struck by was that the seven principles seemed to command considerable support even, for instance, from people in the corporate sector. They took notice of them and an interest in them and in how we applied them in public life, so we have something there that we can be proud of. I was also struck that quite often there would be delegations from a variety of countries coming to talk to the UK about the way in which standards issues were managed here. You might say from a purely UK perspective that that was slightly surprising if you read the papers at the time that I was chairman. Respect for public standards was not the most evident aspect of what was going on, but nevertheless we have traditionally had quite a strong reputation in this area.
Of all the areas that we looked at, the most difficult was Parliament. I say that for two reasons. The first is the immense complexity of the arrangements in Parliament at both ends, and of the systems, some of which are specific to particular Houses, some of which are common across Parliament. The interplay between them takes a considerable amount of detailed work to understand. I remember spending a lot of time talking to all the relevant stakeholders to try to work out how the bullying aspects, the conduct aspects and so on relate to each other, so I strongly support the suggestion that there should be greater clarity. However, I do not underestimate how difficult it is to achieve that clarity, partly because it is much easier in an environment in which everybody is an employee and you can set a policy and say that if you do not like it, you can leave. That does not apply in political life or in your Lordships’ House.
The Code of Conduct in the Lords in some ways bears even more weight and does more work than is the case in the Commons. The reason I say that is that ultimately in the Commons there is a political price to pay for individuals who breach public standards. Partygate and the many other scandals that we saw over recent years led in due course to a political price, but Members of your Lordships’ House do not have that electoral jeopardy if they breach standards in a way that the public would find unacceptable. Therefore, it is particularly important that the Code of Conduct here should be as effective as it possibly can be. It is also particularly complicated because of the fact that Members of the House are not on a salary, and in that sense what is and is not acceptable in terms of payment for various aspects of individuals’ lives is difficult, and some of the complexities in the Code of Conduct reflect that. I suspect that, looked at from the outside, most people in the street would find the system perplexing. Certainly, the postbag that I used to receive when I was in that role suggested quite low levels of confidence that standards were being appropriately upheld in Parliament—probably more critical than the reality, so there is an issue of reputation and an issue of credibility that is an important part of the work that is currently in hand in the Conduct Committee.
Certainly, from my perspective, the Code of Conduct needs to do two things. It needs appropriately to regulate the business of the House so that we can be confident in the integrity of the way in which Members approach their responsibilities in the House, but it also needs to protect the House’s reputation and project the integrity of the House to a very sceptical public. Without that, our role, and the role of the House in general, is undermined.
Against that background—I have submitted specific evidence in writing—I highlight two things. The first is that I support a clause that suggests that anybody who undermines the reputation of the House is breaching the Code of Conduct. I recognise that there are those who feel that that is overreach, and I hear that, but it is completely normal in many environments for that to be included. If you look at the way in which the professional bodies look at their responsibilities today in the regulated professions, the question of who is a fit and proper person is taken into consideration.
I declare an interest as a member of the board of the KPMG Anglo-Swiss partnership. The regulator for audit looks at the way in which audit is done but also takes at least a glance at whether individual auditors are fit and proper people to take on that trusted role as an auditor. I find it difficult to understand why we would not expect a similar approach to those who are taking on the trusted role as a member of a parliamentary body. I believe that there should be a clause in respect of reputation, and that in doing so, we are not over- reaching; we are doing what is actually quite widespread in many organisations. If you looked at the concerns that certainly I have seen expressed about Parliament, you would see that people do not understand why things are so different now. In many ways they need to be different, but in a number of other ways they are different without needing to be so.
I have a second suggestion. I realise that in suggesting this I am tilting at windmills, but I will tilt anyway. I personally believe that—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
On this point about the reputation of Parliament, which is obviously very important, what is the noble Lord’s view on former chairmen of the Committee on Standards in Public Life who appear regularly in the media to provide a commentary about how dreadful standards are? Is that not far more damaging than anything any individual would do?
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
I do not want to comment on my predecessors in the role, but I point out that I have not appeared myself in the media to comment on that, despite many invitations. Rather similarly to the people who run the security service, it is probably better to shut up and go. Although predecessors in the committee take their own judgments on these things, it does not seem to me that opining on matters about which you have no current knowledge is necessarily a wise approach. But that is a matter for myself.
My second point, my windmill, was that I personally do not think that the phrase “acting upon personal honour” is very helpful. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, things have changed a bit. Although we in the House of Lords understand what we mean by that, almost anybody looking at it from the outside would roll their eyes and say, “What on earth is that about?” I realise that we have definitions which are derived from it, all of which I think I support. Nevertheless, the use of the phrase, despite the fact that it is time-hallowed, is difficult reputationally to present. It suggests an approach to standards which is not actually the one that we see. There has been very considerable progress on the way in which standards issues are tackled in your Lordships’ House, but I do not think that that is the way in which it would be perceived through use of language which I think would be widely misunderstood.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for this discussion. I share a lot of the concerns already raised, especially those from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, because I have a dread of mission creep. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, I will look at some of the specific wording in the code, because I have read it several times and will raise some things that worry me.
I encourage one aim of the review—that is, to shorten the code. At present, there seems to be an overly complicated deluge of details on rules that, dangerously, threaten to drown out the general principles around standards that we are so concerned about—the very standards that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has just indicated are so important. We have to be able to see them very clearly. At present, the problem is that the rules are all you can see.
There is also a danger of turning the code into a counterproductive box-ticking exercise, if it is dominated by rules in this way. It means that you can feel virtuous obeying the letter of the rules rather than believing in or having any feel for their spirit. We have seen over recent weeks with the “glasses for passes” or Taylor Swift ticket sagas and so on that the “We are acting according to the rules” defence does not engender public trust, regardless of whether it was within the rules.
My main reason for wanting to speak today is that my interests and knowledge are in relation to how, in broader society, straightforward do’s and don’ts about, for example, professional conflicts of interest have gradually seeped into the more subjective and intimate spheres of interpersonal relations and the problems that can create. The devil is often in the detail, and later I shall raise questions around problematic parts of the small-print definitions of bullying and harassment. But there is actually an absence of detail in the part of the code that is mandatory for all noble Lords. The code demands attendance at seminars designed
“to raise awareness of, and to prevent, bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct”.
Yet there is no detail about the contents of these compulsory sessions. How can we debate their effectiveness here without being able to scrutinise what they say? That is hardly transparent. These compulsory seminars have created headlines in the last couple of years when various high-profile noble Lords were disciplined—indeed, named and shamed—for non-attendance. But I challenge the value of these courses per se.
I raise this with some trepidation, because the implicit accusation lurks in the code that not taking these courses somehow implies that you are not taking bullying or harassment seriously. Yet these sorts of training modules, which are ubiquitous throughout the public sector and of notoriously mixed quality, can be politically contentious, deploying the worst and most divisive EDI stereotypes and using an insultingly patronising and hectoring tone. Worse, they act as a form of compelled speech. You have to nod along and give the correct answers to prove that you are not guilty of harbouring some dodgy or malign attitudes. Why are there compulsory seminars only for these behaviours? Why not have courses on financial propriety or the correct use of political donations? Given the mission creep front, I am not suggesting that, of course. Yet somehow, bullying, harassment and sexual harassment are treated as especially grievous.
The backdrop to some of my reservations over the part of the code relating especially to bullying and harassment is the way that, over the last 20 years or so, interpersonal relations in the workplace have become politicised while, conversely, the ordinary conflicts of public life, such as political disagreements, are being conducted in personal terms. Politics has become personal in the worst possible way. What is more, the accusation that a public figure has behaved inappropriately towards another person can exact a far greater price than any amount of corruption. That alone means that it can be too easily weaponised.
I first encountered this a couple of decades ago when I cut my teeth as a trade union rep at an FE college. Shortly after management added bullying to its disciplinary procedures, there was a spate of complaints. I represented two members of staff, one of whom was accused by an incompetent fellow member of staff and the other by a student who struggled academically. Both, as it turned out, were victims of false allegations and were eventually totally exonerated, but the process dragged on for months. At the end of it all, one of the accused took early retirement and, after an exemplary 30 years as a lecturer, was left feeling bitter and betrayed. The other had a nervous breakdown.
I learned then that, often, the process is the punishment. I have tracked similarly destructive ways in which anti-bullying and harassment codes have spread in universities, as well as how they are often used by activists to cancel speakers and hound and silence lecturers whose so-called toxic views are deemed bullying by some students.
Only recently, closer to home, the Equality and Human Rights Commission eventually closed the case against the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, after many hellish months. She was being investigated because EHRC employees filed bullying complaints that seem to have been ideologically motivated because of her completely correct stance, as chair of the EHRC, in clarifying the protection of biological women’s rights.
One reason we see such cases is that the charge of bullying can be used as a political weapon in a witch hunt to discredit opponents, since the definitions of bullying are so nebulous and subjective. This is even admitted in the code’s appendix, which details these definitions:
“Bullying may be characterised as offensive … behaviour … that can make a person feel vulnerable, upset, undermined”,
et cetera. We are told:
“Whether conduct constitutes bullying will depend on … the perception of the person experiencing the conduct”.
Perhaps less cynically, the data shows that, once anti-bullying procedures are formalised by an organisation, claims of victimisation inevitably grow. That is hardly surprising; increasing prevalence may be less a response to actual behaviour and more about people’s changing interpretation of that behaviour.
Much of what is listed in the code seems almost to incite complaints about minor incidents. Under bullying, we have “being sarcastic”—I mean, what? I have just done it. It also lists using “inappropriate nicknames” and “practical jokes”. We are told that bullying can be verbal or non-verbal,
“may be persistent or an isolated incident and may manifest obviously or be hidden or insidious”.
That is a very wide brief. Can the committee explain how such vast parameters will not encourage trivial complaints? What procedures exist—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I think I am right in saying that, in the case of bullying, the identity of the complainant is kept from the person being complained about, which makes this even more egregious.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
It just gets worse and worse; that is all I can say. I want to know what procedures exist, or will exist, in any review to avoid vexatious complaints. How will the use of accusations, either in pursuit of vendettas or due simply to misinterpreting harmless personality clashes, be dealt with? Who decides what is actionable, and using what criteria?
The definition of harassment in the code is arguably even more troubling. We are told that harassment
“can be intentional or unintentional”
and, again, that it depends on perception. There are some extraordinary quotes; I urge noble Lords to read them because they are frightening. It says:
“A person may … be harassed even if they were not the intended ‘target’”.
The example that made me gulp was that
“a person may be harassed by jokes about a religious group that they do not belong to”.
What on earth censorious identitarian doors does that open? Then there is—wait for it—this example: “Deliberately”—I do not know who decides on that—
“holding meetings or social events in a location that is not accessible for an individual … by reason of religious prohibitions”.
So, a get-together in a bar, which some practising Muslims will not want to attend, could be seen as harassment; that is the word used.
Finally, the code refers to the use of “unacceptable or inappropriate language”—again, who decides what is unacceptable or inappropriate?—
“or racial or other stereotypes (regardless of whether the complainant is in fact a member of the group stereotyped)”.
Is this harassment? It insults the victims of proper harassment to say that. Using a recent controversy, perhaps I can claim harassment here. I heard one noble Baroness call a member of the public a “coconut”, which I consider a racial slur. Well, it does not affect me, but I heard it. I am harassed, am I? I am certainly offended, but let me assure noble Lords that I do not need a code to say that; I will just argue back instead.
It is a mistake to encourage people to police their conduct or language using an ever-prescriptive code. If anyone actually read this code and took it literally, or if it was heavily enforced, it would stifle frank and open debate and undermine us holding each other to account in public. Two of the seven Nolan principles denoting standards in public life are openness and honesty. What gives us the ability to be honest and open is not a bureaucratic code but an unapologetic commitment to free speech, so I am glad to see on page 6 of the code—I hope this will stay and be highlighted even more—a recognition of the primary consideration of the principle of free speech in parliamentary proceedings to allow Members to express their views fully and frankly. Hear, hear to that.
I wonder how we all feel about a rather disappointing letter, not directly to do with the code but part of mission creep, that we were sent by the Chief Whips across all the parties in which we were asked to mind our language. At the start of the new term on 2 September, we were asked to ensure
“debate that does not descend into vitriol … or use of rhetoric designed to offend and inflame”.
I find that chilling, perhaps because I wrote a book entitled I Find That Offensive. I know that attempts to purge so-called offensive speech can be a less than subtle code for telling people “You can’t say that”. I want us to avoid reducing political rhetoric to carefully manicured, rehearsed lines from a sanitised script and instead stand up for what we believe to be right with passion and plain speaking. If that sounds vitriolic, so be it. To be honest, there are so many challenges in national and international politics at present that deserve our vitriol that maybe saying it out loud is the mark of honourable public service, far more evidently than following any code of conduct, which, broadly speaking, I would cut, cut and cut again.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for initiating this debate. We have just heard an excellent presentation from someone who should be the next chair of the committee.
I was for 10 years a member of the European Parliament’s house administration committee. We looked after the administration of Parliament—no politics, but lots of administration. We did not have a lot of time to keep on looking at complaints. Although we did, that was a very subsidiary part of our job. My first concern about this committee is that it exists at all, that we have four independent experts and five Members of the House as, basically, a voluntary police force. I am not sure we need it. It should be part of a general committee looking at the administration of the House, the way Members are treated and what we get. We might then get some of the few demands that we make attended to—at the moment, after 11 years in this House, I still do not know how on earth to get some quite simple things done.
I think my noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned the declarations of our interests that we make in the Chamber. Frankly, saying “I draw attention to my interests in the register” is absolutely meaningless. People look at me and think, “Balfe is on about his engineering unions”, but I bet they do not know them. We need to look at how we present that. Do we need to get up every time? Do we do it at the beginning of a speech that is nothing to with those interests, or somewhere else? There is no real guidance about it.
The second point I will make is that it was said that the House of Commons has a better set of rules than we have. Well, they have certainly got themselves in a bit of a mess at the moment with, “My clothes were within the rules” and, “These glasses are from Specsavers”. Perhaps I could introduce someone down the Corridor to the virtues of Specsavers. What went on, which was supposedly within the rules, is certainly not in the spirit of what is acceptable to the general public, and that is what really matters. My view—I say sorry to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller—is that this committee has gradually had mission creep and is now busy looking for things to do. I think the best thing it could do is to amalgamate itself with the House’s administration committee.
I will give one example, which is to do not with the committee but with what has been mentioned: reputational damage. Those who know me will know that I have my own definition of what should constitute foreign and defence policy. It is quite a respectable definition, but it is not supported by any political party in this House. It led me—because I believe the Russian Federation is part of Europe—to attend a function at the Russian Federation embassy. I have warm words to say about the Russian ambassador; I think he is a nice chap. I have served in the Foreign Office and know how difficult it is to go abroad to lie for your country—that, of course, is what most ambassadors have to do. That visit drew the attention of the Sunday Times, which put me and my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who sits next to me, on its front page.
I got into the House on the Monday, as I normally usually do, and received a telephone call saying that the Chief Whip would like me to see her. I went to see the Chief Whip, who rather sheepishly led me into the office of the Leader. The Leader, the noble Lord, Lord True, said “I have received a complaint that you are doing reputational damage to this House by going to the Russian embassy”. I said, “Oh, really?”. He said, “I could withdraw the whip”. I said, “That would be very good. It would really go down well in Moscow if you were to withdraw the whip from me for going to the Russian embassy to a national day reception, together with the high commissioners of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka and lots of European ambassadors. Maybe you could ask for them to be sent home and withdraw their accreditation?”. Of course, the Leader being sensible, he said that he did not say that he would withdraw the whip, but that he could. That was the last I heard of it. I will oppose anything that tries to bring a concept such as reputational damage into our rules because what is one person’s reputational damage is another person’s legitimate political expression of belief. I think that is very important.
Before I sit down, I want to mention two particular cases that have concerned me. One is my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, who was sentenced—for want of a better word—before the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, was chair of this committee. Ken is well over 80. He is—I think I will say—a curmudgeon, but a very nice one. He came over one night from Belfast, and he had mislaid his pass. He was shot during the Troubles, and he has suffered for many years from severe pains in his leg. His leg was hurting badly. He got to the barrier, and he ended up in a dispute—I put it no higher than that—with the man behind the glass box. We all know the way in from Westminster tube station. A noble Lord tried to sort it out, but it got into a confrontation. It was reported to the committee. Ken was suspended for six months, I think, and he was told that he had to go on a course to make him racially aware, or some such thing, and he refused to go on it. He still has not been on it, and he has not been back to this House because it was made a condition. Frankly, I think that was totally over the top.
My next case is that of the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, who had a few too many, shall was say, and instead of choosing the Red Lion, chose the bar in the House of Commons in which to fall out with a member of staff. Had he chosen the Red Lion at the bottom of Whitehall, nothing could have been done, because the Conduct Committee’s remit, as far as I know, does not run as far as the Red Lion. None the less, as has been mentioned, the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, was sentenced to a week’s suspension, which miraculously turned into three weeks and, which has not been mentioned, a year’s ban on ordering alcohol in the House. This is totally over the top.
Both those cases demonstrate—and nowhere in the report is it mentioned—not even a shred of compassion or understanding. By all means know the Nolan rules and be able to recite them in your sleep, but if we do not know how to treat people with compassion—and both these cases showed that—we are failing, and we are failing considerably. No one said to Ken, “Look, old boy, we realise you were a bit over the top, but”—this is what I would have done in the European Parliament—“I’m going to arrange a meeting between the two of you. You know you were over the top and you have got to apologise”. Ken told me that he would have apologised if he had been able to. We have to look more at the human compassion that is needed to run an organisation like this. You cannot run it on the basis of a set of rules. I am terribly sorry, but it is not the way you run an organisation of human beings with human foibles.
I have read these rules thoroughly, and I will be quite honest: I stay away from the staff. Apart from with Simon Burton, I make it a point not to engage with any of the staff in this place beyond the absolute minimum necessary because I do not want to be landed with some sort of complaint. I am not a particularly bad-tempered person, or anything; I am just a careful person. Part of the fault of the rules is that it is ruining the interaction within the building itself.
The final point I shall make is that it is totally unacceptable to have reports that we cannot debate or question. Even if it has to be in a private committee room, such as this, without minutes, there should be an opportunity for these reports to be questioned and to be justified. It is absolutely unacceptable that we can have something worse than a Star Chamber because at least the Star Chamber goes to the Cabinet. What we have is a group of people, four out of the nine of whom are not even Members of this House, who can pass sentences which ruin and wreck people’s careers. That is not acceptable, and we need some very fundamental reform.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, in taking part in this debate, I must declare an interest: recently, I was a victim of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. Although this is not the kind of interest a Member is normally obliged to declare, I believe that my personal experience has given me a certain insight into the way the system works, which may be of public interest.
I welcome the committee’s aim to shorten and clarify the code and guide wherever possible—they require drastic pruning—but, because their expansion is part of a more general demand for increased transparency in public life, it is very hard to know how and where to stand out against the tide; one then sort of looks rather like King Canute. That is a problem the committee must face.
When I was made a Peer in 1991, there was no register of interests, Code of Conduct or daily attendance allowance. New Peers were given a brochure telling them not to be vexatious in speaking—I have tried to stick to that faithfully—but that was about it. The custom, which continues to this day, was that Lords with a pecuniary interest in the subject under discussion should declare an interest.
In 1996, that was extended to non-pecuniary interests. I have done a bit of research on this. Had I taken part in a debate on crossbows in 1996, I might have had to declare my interest as chairman of the crossbow association, whether I was paid or not. In fact, this example is not entirely fanciful because there was a debate on crossbows in the early 1990s; I did not take part in it, but that was the kind of interest you were supposed to declare. Unlike MPs, Lords received no pay. They could claim actual expenses incurred for attending Parliament.
This relaxed system started to unravel in the 1990s. A register was created in 1996 to “restore confidence” in parliamentary institutions even though it was MPs, not Peers, who were involved in the “cash for questions” scandal. That register was not particularly intrusive: Lords were required to register their interests under two compulsory registrable categories, one covering paid consultations for providing parliamentary services and the second covering any financial interest in businesses involved in parliamentary lobbying. Registration under category 3, which included all other interests, was voluntary. About 10 Lords registered their interests under the first two compulsory categories. Some 308 Lords registered interests under the third, voluntary, discretionary category, while 208 Peers had failed to register any interest whatever. In an attitude of lordly disdain, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead registered his discretionary interests as:
“Chancellor of the University of Oxford (unpaid) … President of the Royal Society of Literature (unpaid) … Writer of books and articles … Occasional lecturer … mostly but not invariably unpaid”.
Then came the Williams report in 2000, which really started the regulatory escalator. There was now to be a short Code of Conduct built on seven principles, which, by virtue of repeated incantation, have come to be regarded as sacred: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership. No one can be against these virtues, but they do not do any work in the code. They are vestiges of a pre-code attitude to behaviour that has somehow survived into this world of contractual obligation.
More importantly, the number of registrable interests shot up from two to 10. In effect, discretion as to what or what not to register was abolished. Peers who aspired to be legislators could no longer decline to register their interests. As a direct result of the new requirement, eminent hereditary Peers such as Lord Cranborne resigned their membership of the House.
The next flurry of reform followed the parliamentary expenses and “cash for amendments” scandals of 2009, which involved both Peers and MPs. As a result, the expenses claim system was turned into one of attendance allowances and the Code of Conduct was expanded. There was a new independent commissioner for standards and an explicit sanctions regime was introduced, allowing for expulsion or suspension.
That was not the end of it. The 2010 code was extended to Members’ staff on 1 April 2019, while a new section covering bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct was added to the code in April 2021. At the end of this process, noble Lords could no longer be trusted on their honour to behave decently in matters, either monetary or sexual affairs; they must sign a contract promising to do so.
As has rightly been said, there has been a huge mission creep since the 1990s. Some detail of that makes it a bit more vivid. The register, which started with 59 pages, two registrable categories and one discretionary category in 1996, now has 10 mandatory categories and 414 pages. This partly reflects an increase in numbers, of course, but, much more importantly, it reflects the incentive to register an interest in almost anything for fear of being sanctioned for missing something. Among the monumental collections of interests that it has been my privilege to look at, one Peer has listed no fewer than 200 relevant interests—I counted. It is impossible to say whether he was being boastful or merely prudent.
The code and guide have expanded from 137 paragraphs and 27 pages in 2009 to 262 paragraphs—including appendices—and 57 pages in 2023. The enforcement procedure alone now comes to 79 paragraphs and 15 pages. Although the ritual appeal to Lords’ honour continues throughout all this, honour has been completely devalued. In fact, in an extraordinary passage, the Committee on Privileges says that
“any definition of ‘personal honour’ … would quickly become out-moded”—
that is, personal honour is simply what is expected today: a contractual promise to do what present opinion decrees to be honourable. So much for Edmund Burke. But the phrase should be dropped, perhaps because it has stopped having any relevance to the code. In the same period, from 2010 to today, the daily attendance allowance has dropped by 50% in real terms—that is, the cost of membership of the House has risen relative to the rewards for membership.
I come to the last set of things I want to say. How do we explain this regulatory explosion? What, if anything, can be done to stop it or even reverse it, as a number of noble Lords have suggested? I suggest that one source of the explosion arises from a defect of language. “Interest” is always defined in terms of private benefit or profit. This sets up an automatic conflict or potential conflict between interest and duty. The older idea that it is in the legislator’s interest to secure good government has gone and interest has become something completely apart from duty. In that confusion lies a lot of what has gone wrong in the expansion of the code.
The second source of regulatory creep is the importance given in your Lordships’ reports to public perception. This has been mentioned a number of times. Again and again, it is stated not that noble Lords should act honourably but that they should be perceived to act honourably. Perceived by whom? Typical is this from the current code:
“The key consideration in determining relevance … is that the interest might be thought by a reasonable member of the public to influence the way in which a member of the House … discharges his or her parliamentary duties”.
The code says that a reasonable member of the public is taken to mean
“an impartial and well informed person, who judges all the relevant facts in an objective manner”.
Where is this individual to be found? Maybe only on the judicial Bench.
Beneath the stately prose, one can detect a succession of capitulations to two pressures: on the one hand to journalists, who make their living by snooping and entrapment; and on the other to lawyers, who aim to construct cast-iron defences against any possible allegation of skulduggery. These objects, which I completely understand, have only a remote connection with securing public accountability for Members’ actions. Again, the word “public” needs clarification.
I would like the committee, first, to go back to the original purpose of no paid advocacy and ask whether the vast regulatory superstructure now in place is needed to achieve it. How many registrable interests are relevant to the issue of corruption? Is it really necessary for Peers to record all their journalistic outpourings? Some are more prolific than others in this respect, but what relevance does that have to their parliamentary duties? Secondly, I suggest the mechanical rule that any addition to the register should be matched by a subtraction. Thirdly, I would remove the demeaning requirement that Peers attend behavioural seminars. You may need these for children or possibly university students, but not for adults who are determined mature enough to be legislators, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, touched on. Either make them real and show up their absurdity, or abolish them. Finally, any Member of the House sanctioned by the Conduct Committee should have a right to test the opinion of the House. We should not be condemned in camera. I beg the committee to set its face against using hammers to crack a small collection of nuts.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. Unfortunately, he has stolen some of my thunder, as I was going to go through some of the history of the evolution of the Code of Conduct. I will cover a little of it but will attempt not to repeat what he said.
I welcome this debate, but it is sad that only 12 noble Lords have opted to take part, although perhaps encouraging that others have stayed to listen. It would have been better to see greater involvement.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
Quite a lot of Peers, not all of them here today, have put in written submissions and have been doing so since spring. If noble Lords chose not to come today or preferred the very interesting things happening next door, it may be because they have already sent us a note, of which we have had quite a few.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I accept that point. The choice of the Government to put the debate in this Room may well have affected the willingness of noble Lords to take part, because putting it here usually says “not so important” to noble Lords.
The code has become a monster and we need to do something about it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, when I joined the House there was no Code of Conduct. We managed perfectly well with the rather minimal rules of declaration of interests and very light-touch registration of interests. We had the two foundational principles that Peers should always act on their personal honour and should never accept any financial inducement for exercising parliamentary influence. That served us well.
I had not been in the House very long before we acquired our first Code of Conduct. We got it back in 2000 because the Committee on Standards in Public Life decided to have a look at whether the House of Lords should have a code of conduct. It fully accepted that there was no scandal or issue leading to the suggestion that we needed one, but nevertheless recommended that we have one. The rationale, so far as one was given, appeared to be that, because other legislators and organisations had codes of conduct, we should have one too. That, as far as I can see, is the only reason why we started to have one.
As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, reminded us, in the wake of the “cash for amendments” scandal and, in timing terms, in alignment with the MPs’ expenses scandal, it was decided that something more should be done. It is said that hard cases make bad law. I must say, I think that media-based scandals make rotten rules; that is one reason we have got stuck with a Code of Conduct that does not seem to work for a lot of people.
We got to 2010, and we had those scandals. We had the feeling that we had to show public penance—that is, we had to wear hair shirts and do things. Self-regulation, which is a defining principle of the way in which we run our affairs in this House, partially went out the window when we started to get outsiders in, first in relation to the Commissioner for Standards then later in relation to the Conduct Committee. I regret that we went down that route because I could see no necessity for it.
I turn to the code. When the Committee on Standards in Public Life decided that we should have one, it said that it needed to be only a short code, which I think was probably a recognition that we did not really need one at all. I have not been able to track down a digital or physical copy of that first code, so I do not know how long it was, but it was certainly shorter than the version that appeared in 2010; the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said that that one was 28 pages. The earlier one was certainly shorter because, looking at the debates around the time of the 2010 revision, there was a great desire from people to show that they were doing things—that they had to have more rules, more penalties and, ultimately, more pages. We now have a code that is double that length; it particularly grew when the behaviour code and the infamous appendix B was added.
It should also be said that 2010 was the time when all noble Lords were compulsorily obliged to waste their time and taxpayers’ money on the completely useless course on the behaviour code. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said about this. There should be no reason for any compulsion; I include in that the requirement for new Peers to attend the course.
The two foundational principles remain valid and cover everything that is relevant. We should question whether these 56 pages add to or detract from those principles. My own view is that the usefulness of the code in guiding Members’ behaviour is inversely related to its length. The mass of detail in the code conceals the underlying principles, in effect; I do not think that it enhances the effectiveness of the code to have so much detail in it. I encourage the committee to go back to basics when looking at revising the code. It should not be just a question of making small amendments here and there; it should be about going back to asking what we absolutely need to put in it and what can be relegated somewhere else or dealt with in another way.
When God gave Moses the 10 commandments, they were written on two tablets. In modern day parlance, I think that is roughly equivalent to one side of A4. Moses did not think that it was necessary to add any more tablets, another 50 or 100, of detailed rules to underpin the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments have endured and are well understood, but I am not sure that the same can be said of the Code of Conduct. I hope that the committee will take as a style guide the conciseness with which the 10 commandments are expressed and the lack of need to embellish them with unnecessary detail.
In addition to focusing the code back more clearly on its roots, and the focus on the underlying principles, I hope that the committee will look at whether material not directly related to the Code of Conduct can be removed. I am not at all clear why the Code of Conduct for Members includes a Code of Conduct for Members’ staff. That could be dealt with elsewhere, in a way that is accessible to Members’ staff. That is only three pages—but there are 14 or 15 pages about enforcement. I query whether a document intending to deal with the Code of Conduct should have in it detailed rules about how complaints are dealt with. That is a separate issue from the Code of Conduct and can be safely put in another document.
I can just about live with the page of motherhood and apple pie of the behaviour code in the first appendix, but the extraordinary detail in appendix B, which we heard about from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is certainly not necessary to Members of this House and exposes this House to ridicule. There is one good place to put the five pages of appendix B, and it is not at the back of the Code of Conduct.
I shall focus my remarks primarily on the issue of the broad approach to the code—that is, that it should be more principles based and less detail based, focused on essentials. I would like to cover some specific additional aspects. First, I very much regret the fact that the rules introduced about declaring earnings from clients that are foreign Governments led to several noble Lords taking leave of absence. Those of us who had careers in professions that regard client confidentiality as sacrosanct were frankly appalled by them. I am not convinced that the benefit of those rules stands up to scrutiny; they are certainly worth revisiting.
Secondly, I do not think that the rules that govern how the commissioner handles complaints meet the rules of natural justice that the Code of Conduct itself requires. The commissioner is the investigating policeman and the prosecutor but also the judge and jury. The accused Member does not have effective legal representation in the sense that he does not have a person who is able to put a case for the Member.
All that is justified on the basis that the proceedings are inquisitorial rather than adversarial in nature. I have talked to several noble Lords who have been caught up in the process of having a complaint against them. Whether they are guilty or not, I do not think that they share that analysis—that it is a mere inquisitorial process. They all find it extremely stressful; it goes on for a very long time, and many still bear the scars a long time after the process has completed. Lives have certainly been ruined by judgments being reached on the balance of probabilities. We really need to look again very carefully at the procedure for handling complaints.
Lastly, although it is not my final concern with the rules—but I have rationed myself to three for the purposes of today’s debate—I very strongly believe that we should not extend our code to activities outside Parliament. The requirement to act on personal honour effectively covers egregious matters that can bring the House into disrepute. The most egregious examples have been effectively dealt with by the House without formally extending the rules into private activity. I am absolutely clear that we must not open the floodgates to vexatious complaints based on private beliefs and private activities.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, my reason for taking part in the debate today is that over the past three or four decades in my professional life, which was in the charity sector, I had experience of advising complainants who believed that they had been subject to inappropriate behaviour or abuse. I advised defendants who were accused of such activities, and I have also advised boards of trustees who had before them both those groups of people and had to implement grievance and disciplinary processes to come to a judgment. Ever since I started to do that more than 30 years ago, I noted the toll it took on everybody involved, not least those whose professional lives were in jeopardy. I have been interested to watch that process happen in different organisations in different sectors—in the public sector and in the private sector too. It is one of those things where, when something occurs that you hear about on the news, you find yourself listening to it and going back to the sorts of questions that you had to deal with many years ago.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, said about issues being different in different organisations. I do not think they are. The issues are always much the same. The details and the context may well be very different and have a very different bearing on the judgment that people make. What is considered to be bringing one organisation into disrepute is very different from what brings another one into disrepute. His point about the role of professional codes of conduct was important. I observe that we do not have a professional code of conduct in this House. We rely on, in the current wording, our “personal honour”. I will turn to that in a minute.
My experience in all the cases I was involved in led me to a clear belief that what is needed in any organisation is a system that is robust, that can investigate matters as and they arise to resolve matters so that everyone can work in the organisation without fear and to their full potential, and that is timely and clearly understood. It is important that it is there before an issue arises and is not hurriedly cobbled together as an issue arises. Most complaints and grievance processes, which is what this essentially is, evolve over time. I therefore think that it is important that we have this debate on a periodic basis to make sure that our code keeps up to date.
It is important that we note this afternoon that we are Members and have the enormous privilege of saying publicly what we think about this code, but this code is important to our staff, and they do not have it. We have heard cases made vociferously this afternoon about individual Members who have felt hard done by, by this code, but we have never heard the other side of the story. One thing that I learned from decades of dealing with these things is that there are always two sides of a story, and what matters is the process which is gone through and the judgments that arise.
Processes such as this are very easy targets. They are very often very easy to take apart, and there has been a flavour of that today. You can seize on particular details and score cheap points. What matters is whether they work in practice. Looking back over the history set out for us in great detail by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, we can say that our processes have worked and have brought about, for staff and Members, an improved environment in which we can all work.
Others may disagree with that, but that is the purpose of this. I think that for the majority of Members, and certainly for a lot of members of staff, it has been an important thing. It is very easy to have a go, and we do when these matters occur. It occurred only this morning on the “Today” programme, where somebody was talking about being abused by a teacher many years ago. I am really pleased that over the past 30 years, young people at work are no longer having to put up in silence with the sort of behaviour that I had to many years ago. They have done that only because—it always follows the same pattern—somebody has to be brave enough to speak up about the existing culture in which they work and to point out the damage.
I listened to Members being outraged about the idea of compulsory training. I look back particularly to my experiences in the workplace, and it was always the people who were most hostile to that who were always terribly surprised to find out that they had in fact been doing things which were greatly offensive or harmful to other people. My experience of being on training courses which were put on in this House was that the majority of people who went on them—and maybe people who did not—learned quite a lot from them and were very grateful. They came out of the room having thought very differently about matters from when they went in and some of them, such as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, did not feel so worried about talking to members of staff afterwards because they felt that they had gone through the training and they had a greater understanding.
I make one plea to the noble Baroness, in so far as she has any influence, which is that she does not listen to the siren calls about that and to make sure that the training is there. One of the biggest and most important things about a code of conduct is that it is there for protection and for protection against vexatious claims. I have had them made against me, and I have also been involved in defending somebody in the House of Commons from a vexatious claim. The fact that our code was explicit in many ways helped in both of those cases.
I agree with the noble Lord who said that what we say in the Chamber has to be protected. I wish that many of the people who sit in the Chamber and make some of the statements that they do would think more profoundly about the effect that they might be having on other people.
I want to finish with just two observations. In all sorts of areas of life, attitudes to work and the expectations of people who go to work have changed. That is for the better. The more I listen to people coming forward and talking about horrible things that happened to them as individuals in the workplace, the more I think it is a good thing, and we should encourage that, and we do encourage that for other groups. More to the point, in this place we not only criticise other people but legislate about other professions: the Metropolitan Police, doctors and all the rest of them. Therefore, it is more important than ever that we have a process for ourselves and that we apply it to ourselves in a way that meets the highest of standards, and that includes transparency and having input from individuals who sit on the board. They are not random individuals who are put there for no reason; they sit on the board because they have relevant experience and advice to bring to it.
I simply point out that this is a protection not just for us but for our staff, and if we do things well, we have nothing to fear. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, will convey to her committee that, while it has not been the tenor of the debate today, a lot of us believe that this is very important and we do not want to go back, ever.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I said at the beginning that I was not going to answer all the points and that this was an evidence-collecting sitting. I very much thank all noble Lords who have contributed. The committee—despite the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, to abolish it altogether—is determined to do a good job on this Code of Conduct. I point out that we are reviewing it not because any Member of the House asked us to do so but because we, looking at it critically and reading it ourselves on a weekly basis, decided to suggest to the House that we should review it. That is the background. A few errors of fact have been stated in this debate, but I will not pick up on them because they are probably caused by some confusion in the code itself.
I suspect this will be like an outcome to a public inquiry; we will not please everybody. Some will say that we have not gone far enough and some that we have gone too far. We have heard and taken in all that noble Lords have said. If noble Lords who have not spoken have additional things they want to say, they should please send them to me or to the committee’s clerk, Chris Johnson, in the next three weeks and we will take them on board in the same way as we have the comments this afternoon. Thank you very much.
House of Lords
Horizon Europe
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s membership of Horizon Europe since rejoining the programme in September 2023.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I warmly welcome my distinguished noble friend to the Dispatch Box for his first Parliamentary Question.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
We have early indications that UK applications have increased in 2024 following Horizon Europe association in January. Making the association a success is our priority, but we recognise that it will take time to recover to the participation levels that we enjoyed in Horizon 2020. We are working with businesses and academia to address the barriers to entry and to support greater participation in the programme.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the House will welcome the Minister’s reply, because it shows that we are moving in the right direction. I also welcome the letter sent by the Secretary of State last week to the Science and Technology Select Committee, of which I am a member, which outlined the Government’s negotiating stance in respect of framework programme 10 —Horizon’s successor. Do the Government hope to associate themselves with work on computing and space, with which we have not so far been associated? Finally, can the Minister, as I hope he will, give the House some encouragement that his department and the Home Office will have discussions to ensure that the visa system and its costs are designed in such a way as to maximise the chances of getting the best and brightest scientists to come to do their research here in Britain? That would be good for science and good for Britain.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I praise my noble friend Lord Stansgate for his persistence and effectiveness in bringing the matter of European science funding to this House. He will have seen that, on 26 September, we published a position paper on FP10, laying out that we would like to explore greater association with that programme and to be part of trying to shape it, provided that it delivers excellence, is relevant and delivers value for money for both the taxpayer and researchers. Visas are under constant review by the Home Office. What is encouraging is that the visa costs, for both the fast-track visas and others, can be covered by Horizon Europe funding.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, it was reported in the press about a year ago that a substantial sum of money allocated to the research budget in relation to our association with Horizon had subsequently been withdrawn by the Government. Can the Minister tell us whether those reports were correct, and, if so, what the sum of money was?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Any underspend on Horizon in the last year has been fully kept within the department.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, following the answer on visas, I think we all know that it is harder now for scientists to come in, and to bring their families, to work in the United Kingdom. We also know that Horizon projects have to be multinational, or have the most success by being multinational. Anecdotally, we hear that progress being made on Horizon is difficult and slow. How much of that slow progress does the Minister attribute to visa issues? In his conversations with the Home Office, what is the ask of that department to speed those visas up?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
There are, of course, a number of visa programmes—it is a points-based system—including the global talent visa and the skilled worker visa. We know that the number of applications for the global talent visa increased by about 16% between 2023 and 2024, so that we had 8,000 or so in 2024. It is important that the costs of those, including the immigration health surcharge, can be put on to the grants. The noble Lord is absolutely right that it is also important that it is as easy as possible to get these things done. We rely, and always have relied, in this country on immigration of talented scientists and exchange of people, and I hope that that will continue and be as easy as possible.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, rejoining Horizon was a no-brainer. Will the Government reassess their position on Erasmus, a student mobility scheme that polls suggest has very wide public backing?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord thinks it was a no-brainer; that was not always the situation when trying to get that through. Erasmus, of course, was an important scheme that it was not possible to reach an agreement on. Consequently, it is important that universities can attract the best people through other means. The Turing scheme that was put in place in 2021 provides an opportunity for exchange; in the last round, the number of applications was up from 520 in 2022 to 619 in 2023, and more than 40,000 pupils and students were able to do exchange programmes, 60% of whom came from a disadvantaged background. The proposal at the moment is to continue with that scheme.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interests. The Minister indicated that we have got off to a good start in 2024, but that is particularly in terms of applications for European Research Council funding. The start has been less promising for Horizon pillar 2 funding, which requires collaboration between businesses and academia. What action do His Majesty’s Government propose to take to ensure that those kinds of relationships can once again be established and that we have a more successful approach to achieving that funding?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right that the numbers are looking more promising for 2024, particularly in the European Research Council mono-beneficiary schemes. In the collaborative and industry schemes, things still look fairly flat, although there are some examples of very good progress. In the European rail project, 61% in the most recent round had a UK participant and five out of the seven successful bids had UK participants, so there is some progress. We are doing a number of things: there is an increased communications campaign, the last one having led to a substantial increase of 64,000 hits on the UK Horizon website; there are roadshows, most recently in Birmingham and Glasgow and soon in Northern Ireland and Wales; there are pump priming grants, which have led to an ability to get money to work out how to make applications to Horizon programmes—I am pleased to say that of those people who received those grants and put in applications, 100% were eligible. Finally, European network programmes are being set up to link UK academic teams and industry to European teams in the most successful countries.
Lord Markham (Con)
I also welcome the Minister to answering his first Question—I know what it feels like. Following on from the last question, obviously we want to maximise participation and I am pleased to hear that the roadshow that we introduced is continuing to be rolled out. Are there particular sectors that we need to focus on in the outreach? I hear that the SME sector is particularly underrepresented.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. He is right that the SME sector is underrepresented, and there is a specific effort to increase its ability to engage and to raise awareness within it. We hope that will be a major part of the European networking programme as well.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, can the noble Lord give us an estimate of the damage done to our research and development programmes through our absence from the Horizon scheme over the past few years?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
There is absolutely no doubt that quite significant damage was done. That the participation rate dropped so dramatically, from 16% of all grants coming to the UK in 2015 to 6.5% in 2022, shows the scale of the damage. At the moment, it is not possible to work that out in terms of patents or publications, partly because those indicators are so lagging, but we will look at that and I fully expect to see some change.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister confident that the UK’s association with Horizon and its successor programme can be dealt with as a one-off or does this have to be wrapped up in a broader reconsideration of our relations with the European Union?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Now that we are back in Horizon Europe and FP10, we will be looking to engage in that fully and shape it. In answer to an earlier question, I hope that that will include areas from which we are currently excluded. That will all depend on the backdrop of our relationship with Europe; you will see that it is warmer now and therefore we have had encouraging noises. I am due to meet Manuel Heitor, who is chair of the expert group on Horizon and FP10, to discuss how we can fully engage.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, it is good to hear the Minister, whom I welcome, say that the Government will engage in the Horizon 10 programme and its future form. Important also is that, when we were not members of Horizon, we collaborated with the Swiss research foundations. Will the Government assist in a negotiation to engage with Switzerland and the EU Horizon programme to readmit and collaborate with Switzerland?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Obviously, it is up to the Swiss to determine their association, but I will travel shortly to Switzerland to meet Science Ministers there. I will discuss our memorandum of understanding and how we can further engage in collaborations with Swiss scientists, which we see as incredibly important for the UK science base.
Operation Conifer
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will appoint an independent legal expert to review the seven allegations of child sex abuse against Sir Edward Heath left unresolved at the end of Operation Conifer in 2017.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware that four reviews of this operation have found it legitimate and proportionate. This is a complex matter with significant history, which I am approaching with an open mind. To that end, I will listen carefully to any representations that noble Lords make on the issue.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords may recall the debate that we had on this in January. Did that not confirm and strengthen the conviction long held in all parts of this House that the seven unresolved allegations against Sir Edward Heath, to which this Question refers, should be subject to independent review? Do we not owe it to the memory of this deceased statesman to ensure that his reputation is not unfairly and improperly compromised in the eyes of posterity? That could so readily happen if we do not establish the full truth now, while the matter is still relatively fresh. Evidence in police files can be scrutinised carefully and impartially by an independent legal expert attuned to the circumstances of our times.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As the noble Lord mentioned, it is unfortunate that Operation Conifer was not able to resolve conclusively the position in respect of the allegations made against Sir Edward Heath. The Operation Conifer summary closure report emphasises—and I must emphasise this as well—that no inference of guilt should be drawn from the fact that Sir Edward would have been interviewed under caution had he been alive. I will reflect on the points that the noble Lord has made, as I will on any other points put before the House today.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend has said from the Dispatch Box, but is it not time, with a change of government, to put this story to rest by holding a comprehensive case review to examine all the papers? The instinct of the powers that be will be to leave well alone; however, an injustice remains. Cannot we, Labour, be the honest brokers who put this story to bed? Will Ministers give serious thought to my request for a specific inquiry?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. If he reflects on what I said at the beginning of my Answer, I am approaching this with an open mind, and it takes time to reflect on those issues. The points he has made today are important, and I will reflect on those as part of my consideration of the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that, before leaving the Home Office and after exhaustive consultation with very helpful officials, I had managed to draft a letter to the chief constable of Wiltshire Police that encouraged the possibility of another look at this while also scrupulously respecting the force’s operational independence. Can the Minister shed any light on whether this letter was ever sent? If not, will he agree to draft his own?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope that I do not ruin the noble Lord’s reputation when I say that I agree with him, in the sense that it is appropriate, potentially, for the chief constable of Wiltshire Police to examine the issues in the first instance. I am not aware of what happened in the previous Administration, because I am not party to that, but, equally, it could be a course of action for the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, to take forward to write to the new chief constable and ask her for her opinion on the issues that have driven the Question today.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I greatly welcome the Minister’s response and his declaration of an open mind. When I was a working television producer, I spent a very great deal of time—many days—in the company of Edward Heath and all those around him. As far as I am aware, no one who ever worked with him believes that he was a paedophile. We have a poor record in this country of speedily resolving perceived injustice, so I strongly encourage the Minister to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, for his comments. I must again say to the House that no inference of guilt should be drawn from the fact that Sir Edward Heath would have been interviewed under caution had he been alive. It is unfortunate that Operation Conifer ended without resolution. I personally feel, although I will reflect on the issues raised today, that the first port of call should be going back to the chief constable of Wiltshire for an investigation into the concerns that have been raised. I hope that that will potentially be undertaken by the noble Lord. I will certainly follow up on the Opposition Front Bench’s suggestion as to what happened to any previous letter.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that some legal process needs to be established in the case of deceased people being accused of serious criminal offences, in light of the fact that it is not possible to hold a criminal trial nor to libel the dead?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that the College of Policing has looked at investigating allegations and calls for allegations made against individuals both living and dead and is currently potentially issuing guidelines to police forces around these matters. Again, this is a complex area. I want to reflect on the points raised today, and I am open to further scrutiny from this House in due course.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, both noble Lords can get in; we have plenty of time. Shall we take the noble Baroness’s question first?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, following the publication of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in October 2022 and the government response a year later, the Government issued a consultation on mandatory reporting by professionals working with children when they suspect possible abuse. The result of that consultation has still not been published a year on. One of the best ways of ensuring that there are no malicious allegations against senior politicians is to see that result and for a government response. When do this Government plan to implement the recommendations of the IICSA report?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If I may, I will look into the issues that the noble Baroness has raised and write to her with the detail very shortly in response.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, in declaring my interest as the immediate past chair of the Sir Edward Heath Charitable Foundation, I warmly welcome the Minister’s commitment to this House that he has an open mind, which I believe has tremendous support. But it is not just what is in the police files; there are a number of other matters that require scrutiny. The first is the fact that the former chief constable of Wiltshire, Mike Veale, has now been totally discredited. There is also the fact of the manner in which the police and crime commissioner was cut out of the whole investigation by the appointment of a so-called scrutiny committee, and then there is the fact that so many of the police logs at the entrance to Sir Edward Heath’s home, Arundells, were wantonly destroyed. All these matters require close investigation.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his comments. It draws me back to the point I put to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on the suggestion of the Opposition Front Bench. The chief constable of Wiltshire rightly has the investigatory powers to investigate any matters that are of concern, including those raised by the noble Lord in relation to her police force, as indeed does the police and crime commissioner in response to this, who is a different police and crime commissioner to the one who was operational at the time. I would suggest that, whatever my reflections on these matters are—I will make those reflections—it would be helpful for the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, to raise those issues again with the current chief constable and the current police and crime commissioner.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, it is very good to hear that the Minister has an open mind on this matter and will listen to representations. I think he will find that there are a lot of representations from Members of this House. There is merit in asking the chief constable to look at it, bearing in mind that it was her predecessor who is the source of all this trouble.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, the noble Lord will have great experience of government and I think served as an official in Sir Edward’s Government at some point. I joined the Labour Party because of Sir Edward, but that is another story altogether—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
But what we should try to reflect upon is the fact that the chief constable has responsibility for this investigation in Wiltshire. It is not for Ministers to investigate; it is for the chief constable. That would be a useful source of direction, and I am grateful for the noble Lord’s suggestion and support.
Public Procurement: Data Offshoring
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Evans of Rainow
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of public bodies and services, including the NHS Digital app, procuring professional services through processes which purport to be “onshoring” to firms which contract third parties outside the United Kingdom to do the work; and what assessment they have made of the risk this poses to private data and cybersecurity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
Each contracting authority carefully considers and makes risk-based decisions on whether, and where, data can be offshored, and what restrictions are appropriate for service delivery and development activities. The new standard security schedules for all central government contracts, published on 1 October 2024, include greater controls over data offshoring and stronger security requirements. Buyers also have greater transparency over where, and how, their data is hosted and processed, and stronger remedies where suppliers do not follow buyers’ requirements. Outsourcing contracts also contain complementary provisions on the offshoring of this personal data under GDPR.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply. NHS Digital has contracted with Splunk, which subcontracts to the Bulgarian company Bright Consulting. This practice, which Splunk refers to as “onshoring”, began during the Covid-19 pandemic and continues to this day. Can the Minister reassure the House that under this practice of onshoring to third-party non-UK-based companies patient data really is safe? Is the taxpayer getting value for money by paying UK rates to a company that outsources the work for a considerable margin?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The government model services contract is one of three template contracts for use by government departments and wider government when procuring complex outsourced services. Value for money for taxpayers is central to good government procurement. The Government recognise the potential risk of data offshoring taking place without the explicit consent of public sector buyers. New standard security schedules for all government contracts include greater controls over data offshoring and stronger security requirements.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, thanks to a whistleblower, we learned on 4 August from the Daily Telegraph that, up to 2021 when it was discontinued, a chain of outsourcing resulted in software for our nuclear submarine engineers being developed by private companies in Minsk and Siberia. The Telegraph reported Ben Wallace, the then Defence Secretary, as saying that the breach left the UK’s national security “vulnerable to undermining”. Can my noble friend tell us whether this story is true? If it is true, where can we find a credible, comprehensive rebuttal? Otherwise, is it not likely that our deterrent will be undermined?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As my noble friend will appreciate, the Ministry of Defence took these reports extremely seriously. In response, on 6 September this year, Maria Eagle, the Minister of State for Defence, confirmed that both the MoD and Rolls-Royce Submarines had conducted an investigation into the matter. The Minister assured that the investigation found no evidence that Belarusian nationals had access to sensitive information and concluded that no change to the MoD procurement policy was required. The Ministry of Defence has set a policy of using Secure by Design. This is a modern approach whereby senior responsible owners, capability owners and delivery teams are accountable and responsible for delivering systems that are cybersecure. This includes ensuring new systems being bought or built carry out due diligence on the security of their systems.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my dental practice changed its IT supplier a year ago. After going online to confirm an appointment and agree the usual dental practice use of my data, I was invited to check the IT supplier’s data. Seven layers down, it appeared that I gave permission for all my medical data to be used by the UK company, its parent US company and all its commercial subsidiaries. The practice has now got a new IT contractor. How well aware are clinical practices and surgeries of this underhand technique by major digital contractors?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a really important point. I will speak to my noble friend Lady Merron, to make sure it is taken forward through DHSC. The Government are quite clear that government data is owned by the Government and any commercialisation should be agreed with His Majesty’s Government.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
My Lords, obviously cybersecurity is vital for the NHS Digital app, as it is for anything. However, we know that the app is way behind, say, banking apps, which in this country are very good. Can the Minister make sure that NHS digital services are not held up by all the other stuff that is going on, because NHS apps are a vital part of NHS reform?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I think the security piece and the development piece can and should go in tandem, otherwise neither is sustainable. Three in every four people in England have already downloaded the app. This Government want to establish adoption through improved patient experience and system benefits, and to expand the services offer. This is part of making sure that more people can access the services they require.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, Microsoft gave a view to the Scottish Government in June this year that it could not guarantee that data held by public services on its Microsoft 365 and Azure hyperscale cloud infrastructure will remain in the UK. What mitigations are the Government looking at in the light of this statement by Microsoft?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I refer back to my initial Answer, which is that each contracting authority should carefully consider, and make risk-based decisions on, whether and where data can be offshored. We can get really hung up on offshoring, onshoring or where the data is stored, but we have to make sure that all data and cybersecurity are central to how we move forward with this type of procurement. This is why the Government are introducing a cybersecurity and resilience Bill, which will help ensure our cybersecurity for the future.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lord Browne, I think that the response from the MoD is not satisfactory. These Belarusians, although they might not have had access to highly classified information, were writing software that would be used within our nuclear deterrent. This cannot be satisfactory. Can the MoD give an answer, maybe through the Minister, to say that this is no longer allowed to happen? We all know how you can use software in various clever ways to cause real damage.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will speak to my noble friend Lord Coaker and ask him to provide a letter responding to that point.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, the heart of this Question is the safety of public data and the resilience of services. As we saw with the ransomware attack on Synnovis in the summer, cyberattacks of these sorts on supply chains can cause significant disruption to public services. Can the Minister say exactly how the cybersecurity Bill that is coming up will improve the regulatory framework for the supply chain, and when exactly it will be brought forward?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I can give a bit more detail on what the Bill will focus on. I cannot give a precise date for when it will be brought forward, but it was in the King’s Speech, so we can anticipate it coming forward in due course in the relatively near future. The Bill will make crucial updates to the legacy regulatory framework by expanding the remit of regulation, putting regulators on a stronger footing and mandating increased incident reporting, which will give the Government better data on cyberattacks, including where companies or organisations have been held to ransom.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the new Procurement Act will bring more transparency and new entry into contracting, which will help with these kinds of outsourcing and security issues. Will the Minister ensure that the disappointing delay in the commencement of that Act into next year is minimised? In the meantime, will the model services contracts that she mentioned ensure that patient data is kept in the UK or in a country with which we have a robust data- sharing agreement?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On the national procurement policy, our entire focus is on delivering change through our national missions. We will therefore be publishing a bold new procurement policy statement in February to harness the billions of pounds spent by public sector organisations each year and ensure that commercial activity aligns with our missions. We think it is really important that that statement is in place before the Procurement Act goes live, so that everything is aligned and as effective as possible. The Government recognise the potential risk of data offshoring, as I mentioned, and the new standard security schedules for all central government contracts include greater controls over data offshoring and stronger security requirements.
British Indian Ocean Territory
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for the United Kingdom’s strategic relationship with the United States of America of the decision to cede sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, on 3 October, the UK and Mauritius reached an historic political agreement that will ensure the operational effectiveness of the joint US-UK military base on Diego Garcia well into the next century. Throughout the negotiations we have worked in lockstep with the US, and this agreement is strongly supported by the US. President Biden issued a statement applauding it within minutes of its announcement. Secretary Austin and Secretary Blinken have also voiced clear public support.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I did not fully appreciate the strategic value of Diego Garcia until I visited it in 2019 in my capacity as Minister for the Armed Forces. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that there would be “robust security arrangements” to prevent other nations occupying the outer islands. Of course, the best way to do this would be to maintain sovereignty. Short of this, are we simply relying on other nations to follow the international rules-based order? We need look only at what the Chinese have done on the disputed Spratly Islands to realise that this would be naive. I simply ask: what is the rush? My understanding is that we are in such a rush that no Minister has even had the opportunity to go to Diego Garcia. Can the Minister confirm that that is not the case?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the easiest way to put this is that there is no easy time to make this kind of decision. Noble Lords will be aware that the previous Government took part in 11 rounds of negotiation on this issue. The situation was getting to a point where legal rulings had made it clear that the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands belonged to Mauritius. I accept that those legal rulings, to which I can refer Members opposite should they need me to do so, were not legally binding; however, it is clear that they were going in that direction. We found that it would be much better to take this decision from a position of relative strength, rather than wait for a legal ruling that would be legally binding to go against us.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I must congratulate the Chagossians on the return of their islands. How far back in time do His Majesty’s Government intend to go with their restitutionary zeal? We have seen reference made to the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, and I should note my interests as a feudal proprietor of the Isle of Wight.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not quite clear where the noble Earl is going with that, but it gives me the opportunity to state not only self-determination for the Isle of Wight but the unequivocal and longstanding clarity of this Government that the future of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar lies squarely, wholly and unarguably in the hands of the Falkland Islanders and the Gibraltarians.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that not all Chagossians have welcomed this agreement, not least because it precludes resettlement on the unoccupied part of the largest island, Diego Garcia, the homeland of many who were so cruelly forced off the islands. Will the Government therefore look again at the exclusion of the whole of Diego Garcia and undertake genuinely to consult all parts of the Chagossian community before finalising the treaty?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend is right that the history of the Chagos Islands is a very unhappy one, and the Chagossians have been appallingly treated over many decades. The history is that these islands were uninhabited until they were discovered by the Portuguese, then colonised by the French, then taken over by the British after the Napoleonic Wars. The British then expelled the population in order to set up a UK-US military base.
The future and security of that base is what has driven this treaty. It is not for me or anybody else in this Chamber to speak on behalf of the Chagossians, but I think it a good thing that the intention of this treaty is that Chagossians will be able to return to the outer islands, and we will be resuming visits to Diego Garcia. This will not satisfy every Chagossian—as I say, they have been badly treated for many years— but it is an improvement on the situation we have had until now.
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the Minister has just confirmed, in 1967 the then Labour Government forcibly evicted 1,700 Chagossian people from Diego Garcia. Can the Minister tell us precisely how many of them or their descendants, now here in the UK, were consulted before the Government took the decision to hand over the islands to Mauritius?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we have engaged for a long time with Chagossian communities. This was a decision made between Governments, and the noble Lord will know that it is Governments who negotiate international treaties. It is right that we offer citizenship to Chagossians who want it, and a trust fund will be set up for Chagossians. As I have said, they will have the right to return to the other islands and the right to visit Diego Garcia.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Does the Minister recognise a remarkable similarity between this exchange and the last time there was an exchange on the Chagos Islands, in the last Parliament, when the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for whom I have the very greatest respect, stood at the Dispatch Box and defended the negotiation of an agreement to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but to keep the base in being for Britain and the United States? Is it not a bit odd?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Far be it from me to comment on things that get said during Tory party leadership elections. However, I think it would help if I explained why the legal decisions have been made in this way. When Mauritius gained independence in the 1960s, the UK separated part of the country, in the form of the Chagos Islands, and that has been found to have been unlawful. Separation by the colonial power is not allowed in any circumstance under international law, and that is what the UK was found to have done at that time. That is why we have now had 13 rounds of negotiations to take us to this point.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that the human rights of the Chagossians have been denied for generations. However, during the rounds of negotiations, and now with the agreement this Government have made, there has been no mechanism of consent for the Chagossians. I understand that we will be receiving a treaty, but in opposition Labour supported a human rights Motion on agreement for treaties. Given the seriousness of this issue, will the Government consider tabling an amendable Motion that can be voted on in both Houses in advance of the limited scrutiny of the treaty, so that all the issues, including the voice of the Chagossians, can be heard?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Noble Lords may or may not be aware that there is no single Chagossian voice on these issues; Chagossians live here in the UK, but many also live in Mauritius itself and in the Seychelles. The treaty will come before both Houses in the usual way, and there will be amendable primary legislation alongside it that will deal with some of the changes we need to make to the law in order to ratify the treaty.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on solving this issue, which was handled appallingly for many years during the last Government, and which has rightly been applauded by all the American players. First, will she confirm that the Government of Mauritius, one of the African democracies, have never shown any interest in an alliance with China, least of all over anything like this? Secondly, will the question of the right of the Chagossians not only to return, which is enormously welcomed by them, but to live on the outer islands remain on the table for discussion with the Americans so that, in due course, a resolution to that problem can be made?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The agreement, which noble Lords will be able to look at in detail in the treaty, will allow for Chagossians to return to the outer islands. There has been a lot of old nonsense spoken about China in relation to Mauritius. Mauritius is one of only two African countries that do not take part in belt and road. It is a member of the Commonwealth and a close ally of India.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, the previous Government consistently consulted the Chagossian people and consistently concluded that this deal is not in the UK’s national or security interests. I am interested in the financial settlement. The Foreign Secretary said yesterday that Governments do not normally reveal payments but, of course, that is up to the Government to decide; and, for example, the US has revealed that it pays $63 million a year for its Djibouti military base. Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful, in the interests of transparency, to explain just how much taxpayers’ money is going to be spent on this deal? Where will that money come from—from the overseas development budget?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we never reveal the cost of basing our military assets overseas—we never have, we never will, and I do not think other nations do either. There are very good reasons for that. If we started to do so, I expect we would see the prices of these things start to go up fairly rapidly. No, we will not be disclosing that.
Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I will repeat a Statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday on the anniversary of the attacks on 7 October and on the Middle East. The Statement is as follows:
“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 Jewish people around the world, the Jewish community here in the UK 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 of 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, nor what their 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 on northern Israel, forcing 60,000 Israelis to flee their homes, and it 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 far 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 honourable 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 and an end to fighting.
In the weeks ahead, we will continue this work, focused 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 life-saving 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. This 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 our 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 your friends, hoping a terrorist will not find you, mere minutes after dancing at a music festival. Nobody in this House can truly imagine seeing your city, home, schools, hospitals and businesses obliterated, with your 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 these Benches, it is what the whole House has done, and it is what the Government will continue to do. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this important Statement. Yes, she did indeed speak for the whole House when, in the most graphic and moving tones, she invoked the horror of that terrible day and all the victims: dead and still alive and, frankly, those who will never forget, so long as they live, the heinous frenzy of terror committed last 7 October by Hamas. We on this side share every sentiment she expressed about that horrific day.
As my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition said yesterday, this was a
“modern pogrom—the worst loss of Jewish life since the second world war”.
It was, as he said,
“a horrendous reminder of the antisemitism in our world and the existential threats that Israel faces”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/10/24; col. 25.]
Like the noble Baroness, in particular our thoughts are with those British families who lost loved ones and with the family of Emily Damari, our innocent compatriot still held hostage by Hamas. We hear that many hostages are being held to shield the frankly worthless life of the vicious and cowardly killer Yahya Sinwar. Can the noble Baroness give us our latest assessment of whether Sinwar is still in control of Hamas?
Did the noble Baroness see the despicable remarks of the Supreme Leader of Iran? In calling yet again for the total eradication of the State of Israel, he declared, about 7 October and the rape, slaughter and hostage-taking, that it was a “correct move”. A correct move, my Lords? Palestinians, he said, had every right to do this. Such sentiments, in my judgment, have no place in the civilised discourse of mankind. Can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the Iranian chargé d’affaires was called in by the Foreign Secretary to condemn that repulsive endorsement of the events of 7 October, and what the Prime Minister so rightly described in the Statement as a wholly illegal “act of aggression” by Iran against Israel in support of terrorists?
We on this side fully endorse the noble Baroness’s remarks that Israel has every right under international law to defend itself against the aggression by the Iranian regime and its paid proxies. Like her, we salute those in our own Armed Forces who have played and who, right now, as we speak, are still vigilantly playing a part in protecting Israel and the right of free navigation on the high seas.
No one wishes to see an escalation of this conflict. It has gone too far and too long. Matters could be solved far more speedily if Iran and its terrorist proxies ended their threats to destroy Israel and the raining of terror and rockets on Israeli civilians. Another unprecedented attack on Haifa by Hezbollah was reported today. The activities of this axis of terrorists have caused untold and avoidable suffering to peoples across the Middle East—Jew, Muslim and Christian; Iranian, Israeli, Arab and Palestinian. These actions must cease.
Much concern was expressed yesterday—as it should be every day—about anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom. According to the Metropolitan Police’s official statistics, there has been a fourfold increase in anti-Semitic crime since 7 October. Nationwide, 2,170 anti-Semitic incidents have been reported since last 7 October. I know the whole House will agree with me when I say there is no place for anti-Islamic or anti-Semitic actions in our country. Does the noble Baroness think that more could be done to protect our Jewish community and make all Jews feel safe in our country?
I very much welcome the humanitarian support to Lebanon that the noble Baroness reported, as well as the support to Palestinians who are suffering so grievously in Gaza. In light of the Prime Minister’s call for all British citizens to leave Lebanon, can the noble Baroness assure the House that His Majesty’s Government are doing everything in their power to ensure that British nationals are being helped to leave? I welcome the news that 430 have come home. Can the noble Baroness tell the House how many British nationals we believe may still be left in Lebanon?
Let me be very clear: Israel has the right to defend itself against the existential threat from Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation proscribed by our Government. Israel has a right to eliminate terrorists who threaten its right to exist. I agree with the noble Baroness that Hezbollah should have implemented UN Security Council Resolution 1701. The nature of its leadership can be seen by the fact that in 2006 it promised to abide by that resolution and to withdraw north of the Litani. Instead, they filled the whole area with hundreds of thousands of missiles, underground fortifications and the infrastructure of vicious, militant terror. The leaders who broke those undertakings have paid a heavy price. Of course, I support the sentiments in the Statement for a ceasefire and an end to hostilities but, at this moment, one has to ask what trust Israel could have in the words of Hamas or Hezbollah.
The road to peace may, regrettably, be long and difficult, though I support the Government’s intention to strive with every sinew to achieve it. Peace will never come about without guarantees of the security of the State of Israel. The best benefit to the great Palestinian people, who are suffering so much, would be the peace and security that could and must follow from that security for Israel.
As the world becomes more dangerous, with war in Ukraine and the Middle East, the Conservative Party will support Israel and our other allies in the Middle East and around the world. This is not a time for weakness. I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s resolute condemnation of the events of 7 October and her unqualified expression of solidarity with Jewish people everywhere. I expected no less. So long as this Government support Israel’s right to self-defence and the search for a just, secure and sustainable peace, they can count on our support.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. Today, we mark an extraordinarily sombre anniversary. The barbarism of the Hamas attack was almost beyond imagining, and our thoughts today are very much with Jewish people, wherever they may be—not just in recognition of the sorrow and grief felt by those directly affected but because the events of 7 October were only the start of a year of fear and anxiety for the entire Jewish community, wherever they live, which continue to this day. Of course, it has also been a horrendous year for the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as for the population of Lebanon, which now finds itself engulfed in a cycle of increasing violence and destruction.
The last 12 months have amply demonstrated that the British Government’s ability to influence events in the region is limited. Neither Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah nor Iran is exactly in the mood to be told what to do by the United Kingdom. But that does not mean that we should do nothing. The Statement mentions three areas where we can and are doing something distinctive, and where we might do more.
First, we can do more to aid the innocent populations of Gaza and Lebanon. In the case of Gaza, we are now funding UNRWA again, which is most welcome. The Statement is unclear about how much our new commitment to UNRWA amounts to and how far this provision of aid is constrained by our financial resources and how far by the unjustifiable Israeli restrictions on the flow of aid into Gaza. Can the Leader clarify this? What is the Israeli Government’s response to our requests for the opening of more crossings and the provision of a safe environment for aid workers?
Secondly, on Lebanon, the Government are now providing £15 million of support, but this is a small fraction of the £200 million that we were providing in 2019, when obviously there was nothing like the level of devastation that now prevails. Will the Government accept that £15 million, though helpful, is plainly a very small drop in the ocean? Will they commit to increasing it?
Thirdly, the Government have supported Israel militarily in countering the bombardment it suffered from Iran last week. We are sympathetic to this support, but the Statement is totally silent on the form it took, and the Government have been unclear about its limits. At a point when Israel is clearly contemplating a military response to the Iranian attack, it would be helpful if the Government could confirm that the military support they give to Israel in the future will continue to be limited to defensive purposes.
We can and should do everything possible to fight hatred of Jews or Muslims in the United Kingdom. Attacks on both communities have increased greatly in the last 12 months. Passions have been inflamed and, although the situation in the UK will inevitably remain more tense as long as there is severe conflict in the Middle East, calmer voices can and must prevail. In a number of places, faith leaders from Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities have come together to deliver messages of unity in their localities, not least in schools. Such initiatives are hugely important, and we should do whatever we can, as individuals, to support them in the places where we live.
The last year has seen an escalating cycle of violence and destruction across the Middle East, and it seems quite conceivable that this cycle has some way to run. However forlorn it may seem today, we need to redouble our efforts to get the hostages released, to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon, and to add impetus to the political process, with the aim of establishing a two-state solution. Unless and until these aims are achieved, we will inevitably see more death and destruction. Peace and stability in the region seem further away today than ever, but we must continue to do all we can to replace today’s despair with a more positive hope for the future.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and for the tone of those comments. I think we all feel the weight of what has happened upon us. Many of us have met families of the hostages—I met Mandy Damari in your Lordships’ House just before the Conference Recess—and you can almost feel the weight of their dignity and their suffering; it is sort of physical and you wonder how on earth people can cope under those circumstances. I think the tone of both noble Lords reflected our understanding of the pain and trauma they are going through.
Noble Lords are also right to say that under any criteria, there is no justification at all for the attacks that took place on Israel on 7 October. It is hard to see how anybody, including the Supreme Leader of Iran, can seek to justify such comments. It must be understood that Hamas will have known that Israel would have to defend itself, and the horror that would be unleashed in the region as a result. It is deeply shocking. There is no route to peace of any kind—temporary, long-lasting or an eventual two-state solution—that does not involve international diplomacy. That is the only way forward to try to find a resolution to protect people in the region.
Both noble Lords made the point that what is happening in the region is played out in the streets of the UK. Up and down our country, people have been subject to attacks and abuse for being either Jewish or Muslim, and I think everybody in this House will totally and utterly condemn such abuse and attacks. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about the tone of the debate that takes place, both in your Lordships’ House and in our communities, are very important. I pay tribute to those who have reached beyond their own communities and across the divide, understanding the problem that it is causing within their areas.
I turn to specific points raised by both noble Lords. They will realise that Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation and is treated as such. We all utterly condemn its actions: that is why it is proscribed. How can Israel trust Hezbollah or have trust in progress towards peace? It is precisely because there is no trust that international efforts are so important. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the point that the UK is but one voice and that working with partners across the world is the only way that any progress can be made. That is why the Prime Minister has had so many meetings with leaders across the region and others to try to build that coalition, to bring pressure to bear and to do what we can to bring about an initial cease- fire in Gaza but also to protect those in Lebanon.
I do not have the exact number of British nationals remaining in Lebanon. More than 500 have been brought out so far. There are still commercial flights, but about 500 have been brought out, plus the 430 on the chartered flights. We will continue to do that. We have been saying for over a year to those in Lebanon, as did the previous Government—the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, is nodding at me, because he recalls saying it—that they should return home and that we will facilitate and give support as best we can. Their safety is clearly a deep priority for us.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked for details of our operations in support of Israel. I say to him that all defensive operations are in line with international law and always will be. He will understand that I will not give any further information than that, but I can give him that assurance.
The key point is, and both noble Lords expressed this succinctly and very sincerely, that we must work across nations to bring people together and be steadfast in our support for the security of Israel, for security in the region but also for the humanitarian aid that is so essential to civilians who are suffering and dying now. We have to work internationally to achieve that or no progress will be made. I am grateful for their support for the Statement.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I have been to Kfar Aza kibbutz and seen for myself the dreadful, terrible devastation which occurred on October 7, and I have visited the town of Sderot both before and after October 7 and seen a terrible difference. The Statement referred to Emily Damari, the only British hostage remaining in Gaza, whose mother I had the privilege of meeting last week. Would the Leader tell us what specific action His Majesty’s Government are taking, through Qatar or other intermediaries, to try to secure her release? In view of the part played by Iran in fomenting violence across the region, and the remarks of the Supreme Leader to which my noble friend referred, will the Government reconsider their decision not to proscribe the IRGC?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Clearly, Emily’s mother had the same effect on the noble Lord as she had on me when I met her. We must try to understand how she must feel, with not knowing. When I spoke to her, she had not heard from her daughter for some considerable time. Not knowing is almost worse than understanding what is happening. Some of the reports of Emily’s bravery are quite incredible; that will become evident and hopefully she can be returned home. Ongoing efforts using every means appropriate to ensure that Emily comes home to her family are being taken by the Government. That is an ongoing process.
The issue about the IRGC is under review. It is sanctioned and that will continue. The noble Lord will know that there is never ongoing reporting back or dialogue on these issues, but it is a matter under constant review. We will do everything we can to ensure that we take the appropriate action in that regard.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very compassionate and clear Statement and the tone in which it was delivered. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken and no doubt those who will speak about these terrible, terrible events and the effect they are having on our own communities.
On Sunday evening I was privileged to take part in the anniversary of the last day of relative peace, in a large community and interfaith vigil in Oxford, for Oxford and Oxfordshire. Despite terrible weather, well over 200 people came together, drawn from the Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities, as well as those from other faiths and those of no faith. We listened to our local council leaders, civic leaders from the county, the vice-chancellors of our two universities and other representatives of the community. It was an enormous encouragement and comfort to see the way in which different sections of the community were able to come together and make a stand for peace, in remembrance and lament for all that has been lost, and in a common commitment to community cohesion.
As other noble Lords have said already, this is a particular conflict that places almost unique strains on our own communities in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister say what the Government are doing and plan to do in the future to encourage this deeper and greater community cohesion, as these stresses no doubt continue in the year to come?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments. Indeed, we had a vigil, or a meeting, in your Lordships’ House in a Committee Room yesterday, where Members of both Houses came together—those of all faiths and none. I pay tribute to those across the country who have organised such vigils, particularly, as the right reverend Prelate said, as it was very wet, rainy, cold and miserable when they were doing it. It is an expression of strength and solidarity and it shows that we can achieve that.
I know that this is one of the issues that my noble friend Lord Khan, the Faith Minister, is interested in: bringing faiths together not just in times of conflict but as a general understanding in our communities. In areas where faiths work together and churches reach out, community cohesion is stronger as a result. So we need to look beyond this conflict, as well. As important as it is now, it is also important that community cohesion through faith communities—involving those of all faiths and none—is an ongoing process. We should never lose sight of how important it is, and the contribution it can make to strengthening our communities.
Lord Walney (CB)
Do the Government share the deep alarm of so many in this country that on this weekend, the anniversary of the heinous attack on Jewish people in Israel, many felt emboldened to march through our capital with clear displays of support for Hezbollah, an organisation committed to the violent eradication of Israel? The Government—the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and Ministers—showed commendable focus through the riots in combating the extremism we saw in our towns. Will they bring a similar commitment to root out this evil extremism in our communities?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation. Its views are abhorrent and there is no place for promoting the role or organisation of Hezbollah at all on the streets of London. The Home Secretary has made comments on that, making her views very clear and in a very strong way. People have a right to peaceful protest and we should always respect that—even when I sit in my office and can hear the amplified voices across the road as I work. That is peaceful protest, but when people stray beyond peaceful protest and support terrorism, that is a different matter.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, we all know that, sooner or later, the dreadful violence that has erupted in southern Israel, in Gaza and now in Lebanon will subside. There will then be an uneasy truce and, as sure as night follows day, the violence will occur again until the fundamental problems of the region are addressed. The most fundamental problem, surely, is that there cannot possibly be peace in this part of the Middle East until the Palestinians obtain what the Israelis achieved and love: a state of their own. Until the Palestinians can receive that support, including from this Government, I am afraid that the cycle of violence will just go on and on.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about everybody in the region feeling safe and secure. That is what the two-state solution is: a safe and secure Israel and a strong and viable state of Palestine. There is a lesson on this. At the beginning of his comments, the noble Lord made a really telling remark that, at some point—we want it to be sooner rather than later—violence will subside and we will move towards peace and negotiation. At no time can the countries involved in negotiation, and in trying to reach the two-state solution, take a step back and think, “It’s quietened down now, we can forget about it”. The point he makes is that we need constant vigilance to ensure that, until we can guarantee the security and safety of civilians across the region, we have to remain engaged. I take very seriously the points he made on that.
Lord Swire (Con)
For some years now, we have had a British military programme, with British military training teams training the Lebanese army extremely successfully. Does the Leader of the House include the remnants of those trainers, if we still have them in Lebanon, in her calls to come away from that country now? If they are still there, does she share my concern that they could be inadvertently drawn into this conflict?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not sighted on the issue of the trainers that the noble Lord referred to, but he will know that our military personnel will always act within international law, which is defensive. I will double-check the point about whether we have anyone in the region in that regard. I was looking hopefully at my noble friend the Minister of State for Defence, who will come back to the noble Lord and write to him with the details.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder if I might help the noble Baroness by suggesting some kind of solution that we have not discussed enough. I must thank her very much indeed for the wonderful way she made that Statement. I am also grateful for the feelings expressed around the House.
I have not spoken on this issue before, but I have numerous family members in Israel, including my brother’s family and nephews, many friends, PhD students and scientific connections who have helped us in my lab and have been there. There are also many Arabs and Palestinians who have worked in my lab in London and have been funded through various funds that we have raised for them in London, as well as PhD students whom I have been supporting in the West Bank and Gaza, so I have some reason to speak briefly.
I want to suggest to the noble Baroness one thing that has perhaps never really been understood. As Jews, we have been pointed out as different, as everybody knows. Over many generations and hundreds of years, Jews have felt eventually very lonely and extremely alone. There is no question that if you look at the Israeli mind now and speak to Israelis, they feel they are finally alone. Many attempts have been made on both sides to arrive at peace; since 1967, there have been so many attempts at political solutions. Israel has come, eventually, to the awful decision that the only solution for it is a military one.
The loneliness is massively increased by anti-Semitism; the noble Lord, Lord Walney, was absolutely right. Anti-Semitism is so widespread and really affects Israeli public opinion. We need to get public opinion in Israel much more understanding of how so many of us really feel. That, plus the irregular and inappropriate reporting in our news media, is something that we need to think about very clearly. Until that happens, it is very difficult to have better dialogue; with that, we might come to some conclusion where we could have better chances of peace in the future.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for the information about his experiences in his medical field. I hope the message that has gone out from this House and across the country is that Israel is not alone. The expressions that have been made, the international support and the discussions taking place are very clear that Israel has a right to defend itself. Both Houses, in Statements yesterday and today and throughout the conflict, have been clear that we stand shoulder to shoulder in ensuring that Israel has a right to defend itself. I hope that Israel and Jews across the country understand that they are not alone, but we want to ensure a peace throughout the region so that everybody, Arabs, Jews, Muslims, Christians, people of all faiths and none, can live together in peace—if not in harmony, at least in safety.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I want to say quickly that we are taking questions, and I want to get as many noble Lords in as possible.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the Statement and all noble Lords who have spoken. There is one important fact which I hope the noble Baroness can focus on. When the attack on Israel happened, there was a majority of Jews who were tragically killed by the abhorrent organisation that is Hamas—and now what we also see from Hezbollah. But let us be clear, as one Muslim leader said to me on my first visit to Israel after 7 October, that there were 26 young Muslim attendees at that very festival. Israel has a rich diversity; places such as Haifa and Jerusalem reflect the three great Abrahamic faiths.
My question is specific to the role of Qatar; I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is sitting next to the noble Baroness. Qatar is investing a lot, and, as my noble friend Lord Howard has said, plays a crucial role in the release of hostages. Can the noble Baroness update us on the specifics of the peace agreements to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza? We were nearly there, just before the Lebanon escalation, and the United States was also very bullish in what are extremely challenging circumstances.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I think the whole House, even those of us who were delighted by the election result, would pay tribute to him for his work over many years and for the way that he kept the House updated— I thank him for that. Engagement with Qatar, which he is absolutely right to highlight, is ongoing and we are very grateful for its support. It is a friend in the region and that work continues.
The noble Lord’s point about the Muslims who were killed in the October attacks is profound. It illustrates how those who were victims were bringing people together. That is the future: young people, at a music festival, working across faiths and enjoying each other’s company. They paid a price for hatred. To get rid of that hatred—the right reverend Prelate commented on this as well—we have to go beyond the boundaries of our own faiths, not just in the UK but throughout the world, to bring people together. The point is sometimes lost, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for making it, that Muslims were also killed in those attacks. For the whole region, whatever someone’s faith is is irrelevant; the suffering is beyond any faith.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Does the Leader agree that, at this time, it is of the greatest importance that we have an independent, impartial media that can provide analysis? That is needed more than ever. Does she share my great surprise that, as I was informed by the head of the BBC World Service, the BBC Arabic radio service in Lebanon has now been closed as a result of funding restrictions? That spectrum has been taken up by Russian state media. This is a time to support the BBC World Service and to expand, not reduce, its provision. I hope that the Leader will take this away for discussion with her colleagues.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am a great admirer and fan of the BBC World Service and the soft power that it has exercised across the world for many years has been great. It was a great shame that the World Service was rolled up into the last funding settlement that was undertaken for the BBC. We are concerned about that and looking at it. I do not make any commitments to the noble Lord, but we certainly share his concern. That the vacuum has been filled by a Russian player adds to the concern that I would have. I also agree with him that it is important to have independent voices who are respected in the region.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the Minister’s words are much appreciated, but does she agree with me that the hatred that has come about since 7 October, which has been widely commented on around the House, has to some extent been fed by the BBC? There have recently been two independent reports, one of which I co-signed, which pointed out in great detail mistakes and bias on the part of the BBC. There have been the most appalling statements on the BBC Arabic World Service by people who hate Israel. Does the Minister agree that it is time for an inquiry into the BBC’s coverage? For example, Jeremy Bowen casually reported that Israel had bombed a hospital. This soon turned out to be untrue, but that statement, which he never went back on, gave rise to more slaughter and hatred. It is time for an inquiry into the BBC’s impartiality on this issue.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness will understand that I am not going to accede to her request for an inquiry, but I think that all news outlets have a duty and responsibility to the truth. One thing I have found difficult in the coverage of this conflict is its focus on the destruction and hurt that have happened; I would like to see some balance around the political efforts to reach a solution as well. That would help people to understand what the conflict is about. I think that many people watching the TV news are obviously horrified, upset and distraught by what they see, but there is no great understanding of the background to it and why things are happening. All news outlets have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that their reporting is accurate.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, what evidence can the noble Baroness point to that there is any desire on the part of the Iranian, Palestinian and other terrorist proxies for a two-state solution? Ever since Israel was founded, their determination has been to wipe it off the map. Israel has tried and wants to live in peace, alongside its neighbours. It was not occupying Gaza or Lebanon, but somehow all that seems to have been forgotten, while Hamas builds its terror infrastructure underneath the schools, mosques and hospitals of its own people, seemingly deliberately to place them in harm’s way, to attack Israel from them and attract Israel to retaliate. Israel does not wish to kill civilians; it wishes to kill the people who want to wipe it off the map. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what recognition there is that so much of the responsibility for the civilian deaths is on Hamas, which is the aggressor that chose this war, rather than Israel, which is fighting for its very existence?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
In some ways, the noble Baroness has emphasised the point I made a moment ago about people understanding the background of what has happened. It looks and feels at times as if a two-state solution will be impossible, but if we allow that to take hold, we will never strive or make those efforts to achieve some peace in the region. I cannot see any other way forward but diplomatic solutions. She makes the point about people understanding what is behind this; the very first question I answered today was on the attacks on 7 October, and it was because of those attacks that this wall of violence and terror has been unleashed, but there have been similar intentions for a very long time. As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, unless those intentions are dealt with and addressed, we will not see a lasting peace.
NHS: Independent Investigation
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am glad we are having this debate on the report by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, even if the tone set by the Statement—which I am sure noble Lords have read—is, as far as I am concerned, rather regrettable. It is regrettable because the noble Lord, as one would expect of that most distinguished man, has produced a thoughtful and carefully argued diagnosis and set of prescriptions for the NHS. It would have been better to treat those findings on their own terms rather than as an excuse for a highly charged political rant. Having said that, I hope that, in this House at least, we can maintain debate on a rational and civilised level.
There are indeed problems in the health service that are there for all to see and others that are less immediately visible. These problems are real and indeed require sustained remedial effort. The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, attributes them to a mixture of causes, one being inadequate central government funding. I do not expect the noble Lord to be an apologist for the previous Government, but it would have been nice if he had acknowledged more fully that, despite so-called austerity, health service funding rose in real terms in every year since 2010 and in the last five years by nearly 3% in real terms per annum. The problem, as Sir John Bell has pointed out, is not a lack of money: it is that too much of the money has been sucked, suboptimally, into acute care settings and not enough into the community. The noble Lord goes on to say that very thing. But let no one conclude from that that community funding has been neglected. The last Government oversaw the opening of 160 community diagnostic centres. As my right honourable friend said in the other place, this is the largest central cash investment in MRI and CT scanning capacity in the history of the NHS.
Is there more to be done? Yes—but the results are there and proving their worth. The NHS is currently treating 25% more people than it did in 2010. It is delivering tens of millions more out-patient appointments, diagnostic tests and procedures than it did when the coalition Government came into office. Some of the community services are being delivered by staff employed by acute trusts—the statistics tend to hide those numbers. Yes, we can talk about the need for greater productivity, but this progress—it is indeed progress—is all down to the efforts of the dedicated clinical staff across the health service on whom we all rely, and who are more in number than at any time in the service’s history.
Please do not criticise the last Government for focusing on the numbers. The imperative of planning ahead to train the right number of staff for the right care settings was amply fulfilled in the last Government’s workforce plan—a publication heralded by the NHS chief executive as
“one of the most seminal moments”
in the NHS’s history.
Can the Minister nevertheless say, despite the fact that the report is not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, whether the Government will embrace the workforce plan and take it forward as the NHS clearly wants and needs? Can she also say whether the Government will adopt the productivity plan announced in the last Government’s Spring Budget? That plan—again, unaccountably not mentioned in the report—would deliver the “tilt towards technology” that the noble Lord rightly advocates, with a big productivity gain to boot.
I said that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi’s report was carefully argued, but not all of it is well argued. I cannot allow his colourful statements about the 2012 Health and Social Care Act to go unchallenged. To attribute the NHS’s current difficulties and challenges in large part to that Act is, frankly, ridiculous. What that Act did was to complete the process that the noble Lord himself started, which was to ingrain quality into the commissioning and delivery of healthcare based on clearly defined standards and outcomes, meaning that providers would be competing with each other based on the quality of care and treatment that they delivered to patients.
The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, now says that we need to move away from the whole idea of competition, but I suspect he has misled himself, because he goes on to say:
“The framework of national standards … incentives and earned autonomy … needs to be reinvigorated”,
along with patient choice. What is that framework if it is not a framework of healthy competition between providers based on quality? Therefore, what role does the Minister see for competition alongside collaboration —I do not think the two are mutually exclusive—in driving up the quality of NHS care?
I have a few final questions. We are told that a 10-year plan will be produced based on the findings of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi. Whose plan will that be? Will it be the Government’s plan, and if so, how will the Government avoid what might look like a prescriptive top-down set of instructions to the health service? Does the Minister think it important that the NHS takes ownership of the plan and, if so, how will that be achieved?
In essence, the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, believes that we need to get from point A to point B—in other words, from acute settings to community settings; from tired old premises to brand new ones; et cetera. Does the Minister agree that we cannot transition from point A without first finding the money to create a functioning point B? In other words, will she and her fellow Ministers urge the Chancellor to commit to the capital expenditure necessary to achieve that?
Lastly, I quote the noble Lord, Lord Darzi:
“The vast array of good practice that already exists in the health service should be the starting point for the plan to reform it”.
Does the Minister agree with that and, if so, how does she reconcile those sentiments with the Government’s mantra—which is so discouraging to the men and women of the health service—that the NHS is “broken”?
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the Statement to the House. You do not have to be a mastermind to realise that the NHS is straining at its seams. It is only down to the great work of the many thousands of people who work in the NHS that millions of people get great care, even though some fall between the cracks.
The Darzi report is a very good medical history and it gives a diagnosis, but we all know that the treatment plan is going to be the important point if we are to deal with a reformed, new and productive NHS. There are some welcome themes in the report that are not new. Those who know the previous Darzi report will see have seen some of them before: prevention; moving resources from hospital care to primary and community care; dealing with the wider determinants of health; improvements in and parity for mental health; and a bigger role for public health.
I understand that the Minister will answer many questions by saying that we need to wait for the 10-year treatment plan, and probably the Budget, before such specific questions can be answered, but I have a few general questions for the Minister, to get at least a sense of the direction that the Government wish to take.
Is it the Government’s intention to restore the public health grant back its 2014 levels? Are there any general views about looking at changing the structure of public health, nationally or locally? On capital, what is the Government’s thinking about the general theme of allocation to hospital and non-hospital services, and how will this be managed and monitored? On data, what is the Government’s thinking on the workforce plan, particularly when there is a huge imbalance when it comes to digital and data between the private sector and skills within the NHS? That is not to say that there are not some good skills within the NHS, but there is clearly an imbalance.
Welcome as it is that the report talks about moving resources from hospital to non-hospital settings, I was a manager in the health service in the early 1990s and I know that this has been said since at least the 1970s. What are the Government going to do to be able to move resources from sunk costs in the acute sector into other sectors? What mechanisms will be put in place? How will this be monitored? More importantly, who will be held accountable for making sure that it actually happens? How will the new neighbourhood approach affect the existing workforce plan? If a new health service is anticipated, what will the effect be on the workforce plan and the implications for capital allocation?
We all want to see a productive and effective healthcare system that improves peoples’ health and independence, but that cannot be brought about if we do not have a strong, effective, well-funded social care system. I do not understand why social care has been kicked down to the next Parliament, or how we are going to solve the health and well-being of the population without that being done. If the major reforms of social care are in the next Parliament, what steps are the Government going to take in this Parliament to deal with the social care crisis?
I look forward to the Minister’s answers, but, more importantly, to the 10-year treatment plan’s arrival in the next few months.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for their opening observations. I will seek to deal with as many of them as I can; I am sure a number will be iterated in the course of the Back-Bench contributions.
I start by expressing gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Darzi—my noble friend, if I can call him that—for what I regard as an open, honest and thorough review. He is known as a man of great service, not just to your Lordships’ House but to the National Health Service. He has served Labour and Conservative Governments with distinction. As noble Lords will be aware, he is an eminent cancer surgeon who has driven innovation and speaks up for staff and patients. It is not surprising to me that the Secretary of State asked him to conduct this review, tasking him to provide what we might refer to as hard truths, warts and all. I realise that when one asks for that it can be uncomfortable, but I hope that we in your Lordships’ House can sit with discomfort in order to find a way forward for the National Health Service.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the terminology that the NHS is “broken”. I understand that that is uncomfortable to hear, but when I speak to NHS staff they recognise that terminology. We are at great pains to say that we are not being critical of NHS staff, but unless we start in an honest and open fashion we will not be able to—as the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, referred to—restore the trust that is necessary. As the Secretary of State said in the other place, this Government have resolved to be honest about the problems faced and serious about fixing them. That is why he commissioned this independent investigation. I very much hope that noble Lords can be of assistance in finding the way forward, because we now have a diagnosis on which we can consult and then move on to the necessary prescription to improve the health of our National Health Service.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to the 10-year plan. I am glad that he looks forward to it—as do I—but how will we get there? We now have a very clear explanation of where we are. It is evidenced and has widely involved many people and organisations. It should therefore be regarded with great respect, and I think it largely has been. However, the next stage for the 10-year plan will be to have what will be the biggest consultation we have ever had in this country on the National Health Service. It will involve patients, staff, parliamentarians, stakeholders—all those who have a vested and informed interest in it. That will lead us to the 10-year plan. On the question about this being top-down, this is very much a bottom-up exercise, with the Government’s commitment underlying it.
It is important to say that the 10-year plan does not mean that we will wait 10 years for everything. We will identify those areas in which we can make swifter progress and we can then look beyond. The fact is —this came out many times in the report from the noble Lord, Lord Darzi—that this has been a long time in the making and to turn it around will not be quick.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, acknowledged that there were problems in the NHS. I am grateful for that and for his reference to the need for change. I also listened closely to his reference to what had been done under the previous Government. Facts are facts, but what matters is output. As we are discussing today, whatever the previous investment and previous actions, some of which were very much to be commended, the output has not delivered the results we need. That is why we have the report by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi.
On the issue of dedicated staff, the staff team to whom I pay tribute goes way beyond clinical staff, important as they are, and includes the cleaners, porters and administrators. Noble Lords will recall that, when the workforce plan was published, we said that this was a useful step forward. Our job now, as a new Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, is to adapt the plan to ensure that it brings in one of the three pillars we will be going for: hospital to community. That will absolutely be our focus.
I note that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, does not accept the assessment by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. I see the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in his place; I am sure he will have a contribution to make. I have to part company with the noble Earl on that point, as the evidence in the review is that the Act did not work in the direction we were seeking to take.
On capital expenditure, we find ourselves with a massive backlog of capital works, such that the ability of the NHS to deliver is being held back by the buildings and facilities. We have therefore instructed a review of this, which we will then look to.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was generous enough to say that he does not expect me to respond to the detailed questions about funding. However, I can assure him that all these matters are being considered—in other words, how we can best deliver the output and the improvements in health that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, seeks to achieve.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, if this were a Committee stage, I would have been delighted to engage in a debate with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who is a class act at presenting a case even though he might not believe in it. He is a lovely man. I would have taken issue with him on the 2012 Act—maybe not all of it, but a significant part of it.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Darzi on his report. It is an honest report about the state of the NHS currently, whatever the genesis of that might be. As this is a Statement, I can only ask a question. One of the areas the report refers to is the need for capital investment. This has been neglected for some time, and without it, we are unlikely to be able to deliver quality care in all the aspects the report seeks. So, what is the Government’s plan for capital investment in the NHS?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I begin by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in his assessment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as I am sure your Lordships’ House does. On the issue of capital, the total maintenance backlog stands at £11.6 billion, an increase of nearly 14% on the previous year. As I mentioned in my opening comments, this is holding back the productivity, ability and capacity of the National Health Service. Our financial situation is well documented, but we have asked the department and NHS England to review the health service’s capital requirements, and that includes NHS England’s assessment of long-term estate needs across a range of areas. We will have to establish the position and where we are to go from there, but I assure the noble Lord of the importance of this matter.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I should declare an interest as a non-executive member of Whittington Hospital, and indeed as its maternity safeguarding champion. I have huge admiration and regard for the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, with whom I worked when he graced these Benches as a very successful and effective Minister. I agree with his analysis of the Health and Social Care Act 2012; I was opposite the noble Earl, Lord Howe, when we were debating that legislation—for what felt like many years—before it reached the statute book, and I agree that despite the challenges to the NHS, the vital signs remain strong.
Page 38 of the report addresses the question of inequality in maternity and neo-natal mortality, which is described. Does the Minister agree that after East Kent, Morecambe Bay and Shrewsbury, we do not need further research into understanding the challenges in our maternity services? What we need is leadership, attention and focus, so that our maternity services can benefit from the proposals in this report and the 10-year plan.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. I am pleased to inform the House that just this week I announced a number of pilot programmes, through which maternity staff will be taught and supported to better identify the signs of a baby in distress in labour, so that action can be taken more quickly, and which will help staff deal with obstetric emergencies during caesarean sections. Such actions help to avoid preventable brain injuries and are right for the baby and the mother. We also need to tackle the issue of the more than £4 billion cost of the lawsuits that have been brought over a number of years.
I have seen good examples of teamwork in Bristol and Surrey, to name just two, and there are many things that can be learned. We know what strategies work—one of which is listening to women—but the challenge is, how do we roll out what is successful, including from the pilot programmes? Following the recent report, which showed a devastating situation in maternity and neo-natal care, that is a high priority for this Government.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the excellent report of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, refers to the stress our GPs are under and how patients are no longer flowing through the hospitals as they should. One issue is that hospitals are constantly referring patients back to their GPs when they are still on the same treatment pathway. Recently, a member of my family was at a post-op review following a pacemaker operation that had gone wrong. Her heart was still giving her problems, and she was told she had to go back to her GP to start the whole process again. Many patients in hospital clinics are being told to go back to their GP to get a scan or an MRI—which is one of the reasons why they were referred to the hospital. This is not fair on hard-pressed GPs and, above all, patients. Can this practice be stopped?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sorry to hear of the circumstance that the noble Baroness raises. I agree with her about the pressure on GPs who, of course, are working harder than ever. We know, not just through the Darzi report but through much evidence, that discharge into the community has to take place at the right time and with the right support, and that is not the case at present. I will certainly take up the specific thing the noble Baroness asks for and look into it in far greater detail, because this is clearly a practice, as she described, that is not supporting patients or GPs but working against them.
Lord Lansley (Con)
A wholly different report could have been written based on the underpinning evidence. To that extent, the report may call itself independent but it was not objective. If the Minister subscribes to some of the hyperbolic criticisms of the 2012 Act, can she then explain how the NHS in Labour-run Wales—where the 2012 Act had no effect whatever—performed worse on almost every measure of performance? She said that output was what matters. Can she therefore confirm that productivity in the NHS rose after 2010, relative to the preceding period, up until the pandemic? Can she actually agree that it is outcomes that matter most? Will she say that the Government will maintain the progress that needs to be made in making the NHS accountable to the NHS outcomes framework that we established a decade ago?
Finally, to revert to what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, rightly asked about, in the last decade the 10-year plan has been something that the NHS owned. There was the five-year forward view in 2014 and the 10-year plan in 2019, and now in 2024 the NHS should own the refresh of the 10-year plan, but I do not think that is going to be the case. Can the Minister explain why the Government are taking that earned autonomy away from the NHS?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I do not recognise the description of taking autonomy away; I appreciate that that is the noble Lord’s opinion. The National Health Service is so key to not just our health and well-being but the economic health of this country. In my opinion, it is something of a backbone of the country. It is right that the Government have made this an absolute priority and have commissioned a very honest report—I hear his criticisms of the report; they are not ones that I share—and that the Government are held accountable. That does not mean taking away autonomy from the NHS. I accept the noble Lord’s point that it is outcomes that matter, and perhaps I should have put that better because by output I mean things not just being done but actually being effective. I thank him for that point.
On frameworks and meeting obligations, one of the points made not just in the Darzi report but elsewhere is on how many of the standards are not being met. We will return to a number of the standards to ensure that people can feel that they know what they are going to get and within what timeframe, and that that will be absolutely possible. We are interested only in what works. We are not interested in scoring points; we are interested in improving the health and well-being of the nation, and I hope noble Lords will want to join with that.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I say straightaway that I entirely support the concept of an independent inquiry into the National Health Service. Indeed, it was something I advocated to the previous Government —not with notable success. I also pay tribute to the excellent National Health Service treatment and care I received when recovering from a recent heart attack. It was excellent in every way, from the ambulance service right through to the hospital treatment itself. In that context, does the Minister agree that the Government’s description of the National Health Service as “broken” is both unjust to the staff and an altogether false generalisation? It takes the language of the recent election into healthcare, and I would have thought that was one of the things we needed to avoid now.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am very pleased to see the noble Lord in the rudest of health and to hear of his positive experience. Of course, there are many positive experiences every single day, and the noble Lord is quite right to remind us of that and of the need to thank the whole NHS staff team who make that happen.
On the point about the NHS being broken, I understand the noble Lord’s view. However, I think it is important that we lay it bare and say what we have found. Having read the report by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, I find it hard not to conclude that there are fundamental points within the National Health Service that are just not working. Of course there is good practice and there are brilliant outcomes in some areas, but it is not universal and that is what drives us to make that point. I hear what the noble Lord says. However, it is important to be honest, and that is what we have said we will be, uncomfortable though it might be at times.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that integration between the different branches of the NHS, or rather a lack of it, is one of the problems? It is particularly a problem for patients. It works best when you cannot see the joins between various branches—when you cannot tell who the community nurse is working for, whether it is the hospital nurse and so on. Those are the things that puzzle patients. In thinking about the workforce, therefore, will the Government look at ways—for example, joint training—in which we can better integrate the staff, so that they work less in professional silos and much more across various branches of the NHS?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, I certainly agree with my noble friend about the need for better integration. Joint training is a very practical example and will be part of how we develop the workforce, because silo working clearly is not working, as we can see in the current state of affairs, particularly if we look at the relationship between the National Health Service and the social care service. It is not seamless, and individuals are suffering for that, so I very much agree with my noble friend.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interests, in particular as chairman of King’s Health Partners and of the King’s Fund. In the report by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, a picture is clearly painted of what now represents a very serious national challenge in securing the long-term sustainability of our health service and, as the Minister has recognised, the parallel need to consider questions of how we develop a long-term strategy for the provision of social care.
On 18 April this year, in a debate in your Lordships’ House initiated by my noble friend Lord Patel on the question of the long-term sustainability of the health and care systems, there was a discussion about how one might achieve consensus—consensus among the public, consensus among the professions and political consensus to ensure that a plan might be adopted which will require very difficult decisions and great courage and commitment over a sustained period of time to deliver the kind of objective about which we all agree. How will His Majesty’s Government go about developing that consensus in addition to developing the plan that must be applied?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This will take us towards the 10-year plan. There will shortly—really shortly—be an announcement as to how the consultation will take place. It will be available to everybody with an interest in and a commitment to the National Health Service, and to those with lived experience, which is extremely important. It will be the biggest consultation that there has ever been on the National Health Service. I believe that is the way to achieve consensus, but you have to start by asking what the diagnosis is. Although I hear differing opinions in some areas of your Lordships’ House about the contribution of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, for me it makes a major contribution. If one does not know where one starts, one cannot end up in the right place. However, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that consensus is key. We do not have the luxury of time for arguing the case, so this widespread consultation will get us to the right place.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, the forensic report of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, shone a much-needed spotlight on the deteriorating state of children’s health services and worsening health outcomes for children, particularly the long waiting lists of over a year that some were facing before getting hospital treatment. What plans do the Government have to focus investment on children’s health services, which seem to have fallen behind adult health services, and to develop a children’s health workforce strategy as part of the overall NHS long-term workforce plan?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that that is unacceptable. There are just too many children and young people who are not receiving the care that they deserve. We know that waits for services are far too long and our determination is to change that—not least, as I am sure the noble Baroness has seen, given that children are at the heart of our opportunity and health missions, and rightly so. To ensure that every child has a happy and healthy start to life, among other measures we will train more health visitors and digitise the red book of children’s health records, so that parents and children can access the right support. We will be restricting vapes and junk food from being advertised to children, which will assist in the prevention of ill health, and we will ban the sale of high caffeine and energy drinks to under-16s. There will also be specialist mental health support in every school and walk-in mental health hubs in every community. I hope all of those will make a difference.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests as a trustee of the Royal Marsden Cancer Charity. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, discusses oncology services and life science research, both of which are at risk given NHS England’s planned closure of the paediatric oncology unit at the Royal Marsden in Sutton, cited alongside the Institute of Cancer Research as offering bench-to-bedside research and care. Does the Minister agree that such a closure would be devastating to the provision of paediatric cancer services, to research and to drug trials, and that it would undermine the recommendations of the report, which highlights the need to improve cancer survival rates and bolster our life sciences capability?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising this important question, as she has done before with me. I know she is aware that I cannot comment on the individual case. What I can say is that research, diagnosis and treatment in all these areas, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, are absolutely crucial to ensure that cancer patients are not being failed. We need to improve cancer survival rates, and we need to ensure that patients wait for no longer than they should. We have to research cancer, diagnose it on time and treat it faster.
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 8th October 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. As I said during—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
With trepidation, I ask whether now is the moment for a speech. I believe it is.
As I said during Second Reading in July, this is an important Bill which provides two significant organisations with a long-awaited change in their legal status. I again pay tribute to noble Lords across all sides of the House, including the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for his continued support and dedication in seeing this Bill through. The Bill has received unwavering support in both this parliamentary Session and the last, demonstrated by the fact that no amendments were tabled ahead of Committee in September. This is a true testament to the value that all noble Lords place on the aims of this Bill.
It is critical that both the CPA and the ICRC are given the correct status in UK legislation so that they can conduct their work and deliver their objectives while operating in the UK. This will guarantee that the CPA remains headquartered in the UK, and that the UK is able to give the ICRC the guarantee that the information it shares with the UK Government is secure and protected.
The UK is deeply committed to the Commonwealth and believes that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting which commences in Samoa later this month will be an important opportunity to mobilise action on shared interests, including upholding Commonwealth values—values which are embodied by the CPA’s important work in strengthening inclusive and accountable democracy across the Commonwealth. The UK’s long-standing programme partnership with the CPA is testament to the organisation’s value. Treating the CPA as an international organisation will allow it to continue to operate fully across the Commonwealth and international fora, and to participate fully in areas where it is currently restricted, including signing up to international statements and communiques.
The ICRC is an essential partner for achieving the UK’s global humanitarian objectives. It has a unique mandate from states to uphold the Geneva conventions and works globally to promote international humanitarian law. It has a unique legitimacy to engage all parties to conflicts, and has unparalleled access to vulnerable groups in conflict situations. The ICRC is frequently the only international agency operating at scale in many conflicts. It is therefore critical to enable it to operate in the UK in accordance with its international mandate, maintaining its strict adherence to the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence, and its working method of confidentiality.
Officials will work closely with the CPA and the ICRC to agree written arrangements, setting out the parameters of the status change as well as the privileges and immunities which the Government have decided to confer on both organisations. These arrangements will then be implemented by secondary legislation. Privileges and immunities will be based on functional need, and other facilities and the relevant exemptions and limitations will be specified in the Order in Council. Once again I assure noble Lords that any Order in Council made under Clauses 1 and 2 will be subject to the draft affirmative parliamentary procedure. This means that both Houses will get the opportunity to debate and approve them.
I thank all noble Lords for their continued support and useful contributions throughout the passage of this Bill. Like many others, I look forward to seeing it progress in the other place, where I am sure it will receive the same unanimous support. Finally, I pay tribute to the FCDO policy officials and lawyers, whose efforts in both this parliamentary Session and under the previous Government have contributed to making the Bill happen. I also extend my gratitude to the drafters in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for preparing the Bill.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the Government for their speedy and decisive actions, without which the Bill may have lingered for a little too long. The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is coming up shortly, and it will be a great pleasure for those involved to announce the acceptance of the Bill. Had it not been accepted, there would have been some rather serious threats to the position of both the ICRC and the CPA within the UK. So my thanks are due.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, following the noble Baroness, I congratulate her on her work when this was a Private Member’s Bill, which I was able to contribute to in the debate, even though I was not in the country to contribute to the Second Reading of this Bill. I thank the Minister for her remarks. These Benches have been very supportive of the Bill. It is not the biggest of Bills, but it is necessary for the reasons the Minister gave. I thank Mohamed-Ali Souidi in our Whips’ Office for his support and for helping us on our way to knowing all the details of these elements.
Following the noble Baroness, I say that this will no longer be a distraction or an issue to be discussed whenever UK representatives take part in international Commonwealth forums. I had the great privilege of serving on the executive committee of the CPA UK branch for a number of years, and I look forward to the AGM—I hope that many Members in the Chamber will be present and will support the CPA UK branch. In the upcoming CPA conference in New South Wales, the discussions among parliamentarians will be on the issues that the Minister raised—about the value and the benefit of the Commonwealth, rather than its status within the United Kingdom. So we support the Bill.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has my sympathy. I have lost track of the number of Bills that I have taken through this House, and I always confuse these final two stages and who should speak at what particular stage. The Lord Speaker got it wrong once when I was doing it—so we all make mistakes.
The noble Baroness is due congratulations for taking her first Bill through the House. I assure her that they will not all be as easy as this one, which has the support of all of us—we were supportive when we were in government and we remain supportive now. I too congratulate the noble Baroness on all her work when it was a Private Member’s Bill. The support across the House is shown by the fact that there were no amendments after Second Reading, so this remains an easy Bill for the noble Baroness. I promise her a more difficult time on the next legislation she brings forward.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]
Tuesday 8th October 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate. Safety and effective regulation lie at the heart of this legislation. Whether you place an online order for a new toaster or your business is investing in a new piece of machinery, you should have confidence that what you are buying is safe. At least 300,000 UK businesses, with an estimated market turnover of £490 billion, are affected by existing regulations, which are a critical element of the UK’s business and consumer landscape. As we embrace the opportunities of the digital age and exciting new technological advances, it is clear that the products we buy and the way we buy them are changing. It is only right that the rules and regulations that keep people safe and enable businesses to trade effectively are updated too.
This Bill will underpin the UK’s position at the forefront of international trade and enable the recognition of EU product requirements where it is in the UK’s interests to do so. It supports consumers, businesses and economic growth. However, we have to be honest with ourselves in saying that current outdated product and metrology regulations hinder more than help these ambitions. That is why it is now essential to update our framework and future-proof it to meet the challenges ahead.
Historically, the majority of the UK’s product regulation and metrology framework was managed through EU law. From EU exit until the present, the UK Government simply did not have the powers to regulate these areas effectively or efficiently, which is why we are bringing forward legislation now, so we can respond to anticipated changes in the global regulatory landscape next year.
The Bill will preserve the UK’s status as a global leader in product regulation, supporting businesses and protecting consumers. It will ensure that the UK is better placed to address modern-day safety issues, harness economic opportunities and ensure a level playing field between the high street and online marketplaces. It will allow the UK to respond to modern challenges, such as the fire risk associated with such products as e-bikes and lithium-ion batteries. Without these powers, we will not be able effectively to contribute to the regulation of such potentially high-risk products. I take a moment to pay tribute to the family of Sofia Duarte, who have been tirelessly advocating for more legislation to better regulate e-bikes, along with the batteries and chargers associated with them, and generally raise awareness of their risks. Sofia sadly died as a result of an e-bike fire on New Year’s Day 2023. This legislation will allow us to take action to help prevent similar such tragedies.
I would also like to mention the work of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in this space. He introduced a Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill in September, which generated a highly interesting debate. I look forward to continued engagement with him on both Bills. I also acknowledge and thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his tireless work on lithium-ion batteries over these years. There are already strict legal requirements in place whereby manufacturers must ensure that such products are safe before they are sold. This includes ensuring they provide instructions for safe use, including safe charging. However, this is a complex issue and our understanding is developing over time. We need to tailor any regulatory intervention in the most effective way. This Bill will allow us to ensure that the responsibilities of those involved in the supply of products, such as online marketplaces, are made clear.
Online marketplaces already have some legal responsibility, but the Bill will enable the Government to modernise and clarify the responsibilities of online supply chain actors, and any new duties will be in addition to responsibilities they may already have as distributors under the current framework. Without these powers, it will remain far too easy for unscrupulous suppliers to place unsafe products on the UK market through online marketplaces, which also sees them undercut good British businesses. The legislation will enable improvements to compliance and enforcement, reflecting the challenges of modern digital borders. It enables the Government and our regulators to tackle non-compliance and target interventions by allowing greater sharing of data between regulators and market surveillance authorities.
Finally, the Bill will allow us to update the legal metrology framework, which governs the accuracy of weights and measures for purchased goods, to give consumers and business greater confidence in what they are buying. This will allow for technological progress, including in support of net-zero aims—for example, ensuring that energy smart meters are accurate in their readings.
The Government have worked closely with businesses, representatives and consumer groups, which is why organisations as diverse as Which?, the London Fire Brigade, the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Appliances, Electrical Safety First and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute are all supportive of this legislation.
The Government are bringing forward this legislation as there are insufficient powers to update the existing body of law, either to keep pace with technical developments or to deal with new risks and hazards. Existing legislation recognises EU law as it stood from our date of recognition. Recognising the product rules of key trading partners such as the EU—should we wish to do so—will help to support trade and consumer choice, but current legislation only allows us to recognise EU rules as they currently stand. The Bill ensures we have the ability to end recognition of EU laws where they do not work for our businesses and consumers.
I would like to give a brief overview of the contents of the Bill. While it is relatively short, it deals with some technical matters. It has14 clauses and a schedule. First, it creates new regulation-making powers to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations for prescribed purposes:
“Reducing or mitigating risks presented by products … ensuring that products operate efficiently or effectively … ensuring that products”
used for
“weighing or measuring operate accurately”,
or, when making provision that
“corresponds, or is similar, to … EU law”,
making regulations to reduce or mitigate
“the environmental impact of products”.
The Bill limits the scope of the products we seek to cover to tangible products that are manufactured or result from another method of production, with specific excluded products listed in the schedule.
However, while the Bill will not regulate AI on its own, we need powers in the Bill to cover it when it is integrated into, or as a component of, a physical product. With the expected increase in the inclusion of AI and machine learning in new products, it is likely that we will need to make amendments to regulations in the future to adapt to technological advances that could pose specific risks to consumers, particularly where AI is a component of a product’s safety.
It includes provision to continue recognising EU product requirements, where this is in the UK’s interest, or to end this recognition. The legislation confers an emergency derogation power to allow for the disapplication or modification of product regulatory requirements in certain emergency situations. This is subject to the affirmative procedure and builds on our experience of needing to bring products to market more quickly during the pandemic.
It creates new regulation-making powers to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations on the quantities in which certain goods may be made available in the UK market: for example, maintaining an average system of quantity control for the sale of packaged goods, including food and drink, and providing legal definitions of units of measurement and measurement standards. The Bill will also confer powers to allow tailored enforcement provision to be made in both product and metrology regulation, including the creation of criminal offences and new civil sanctions, including fines.
The Bill contains a power to amend, repeal or revoke provisions of specific primary legislation that deal with product safety and metrology, namely the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Weights and Measures Act 1985 and the Gun Barrel Proof Acts of 1868 to 1978. This allows us to address the outdated governance requirements placed on the Birmingham Proof House. These were designed during the Napoleonic Wars, when there was a thriving Birmingham gun trade. This trade no longer exists. Again, this is subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.
The Bill contains powers to make provisions in future for a charging regime that will allow the relevant authority, such as local trading standards, to recover some of the costs attributable to the operation of enforcing the regulatory regime. Finally, it contains powers to allow the Secretary of State to make provisions in regulations permitting or requiring the sharing of information between relevant bodies, the emergency services and other persons who may be specified. This ensures that we have access to the right information in support of our market-surveillance activities and incident management.
Before finishing, I will touch on two key issues that I am sure will be of interest to noble Lords here today. The first relates to delegated powers. This Bill is what is sometimes called a framework Bill, as the vast majority of its provisions are delegated powers. The Government are fully cognisant of the importance of getting the right balance when it comes to delegated powers and using them as sparingly as possible. For technical policy areas, we believe that it is sensible and proportionate to give powers to Ministers to update and amend legislation, future-proofing the ability to respond quickly and flexibly to new technology and evolving innovation. We have minimised the use of the powers in the Bill as much as possible and we have worked closely with the Attorney-General—who, quite rightly, is a stickler for these kinds of things—to find the best approach. So we look forward to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which we will carefully consider.
The second issue relates to devolution. In line with the Sewel convention, the UK Government are seeking the consent of each of the devolved legislatures for provisions that engage the legislative consent Motion process. Product safety is reserved, and, in the main, metrology is also reserved, but the Bill powers are UK-wide and subsequently touch on some elements of devolved competences. We are actively engaged with the devolved Governments on these provisions and will continue to work with them on any concerns they may have. We want to see that the broad support for the policy in this Bill is translated into legislative consent from the devolved Governments. I will update noble Lords as the Bill continues its passage.
I end by saying that this Bill will protect consumers and support businesses by ensuring that the UK is better placed to address modern-day safety issues. It will let us harness opportunities that deliver economic growth and will create a level playing field between the high street and online marketplaces by putting in place appropriate responsibilities throughout the supply chain. The result is that consumers can buy with confidence and businesses can trade effectively and compete fairly. Ultimately, it allows the UK to decide how best to protect consumers and support businesses on our own terms. To echo an often-used phrase, this legislation allows us to “take back control”. But, crucially, it allows us to do so in a way that supports our twin-track approach to trade: seeking a closer, more mature trading partnership with the EU and forging new trading relationships with countries around the world, too. I beg to move.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, this Bill gives the Secretary of State wide powers to make product regulations. The detailed content of these regulations—the what and the how—will affect us all, whether we are manufacturers, importers, retailers or consumers. This Bill provides for yet more criminal offences and gives the power to impose civil sanctions for non-compliance. Yet it contains no detail of how all this will be achieved. What will be the limits on ministerial powers? What oversight will Parliament have in respect to the regulators? These are important questions that are as yet unanswered.
These gaps become more serious when it is appreciated that the previous Government instituted a consultation of all interested parties. That consultation closed a year ago, in October 2023. This Government have yet to publish their response. Why? What is the point of consultation if the Government do not publish a response?
As one who has, on many occasions in the past, answered government consultation papers as an interested party, I know the time and effort that go into responding to such things, often on tight timetables. A year has now passed; the previous Government did not publish a response, but they had not introduced legislation. This Government have now had three months; Ministers have had plenty of time to respond and set out their views before bringing forward this Bill. Sceptic that I am, I none the less believe that the Government would not introduce the Bill if they did not have at least some idea of their direction of travel. Yet we are kept wholly in the dark on important matters: what did the respondents have to say?
The Government have seen fit to introduce this Bill, which lacks particularity on all the issues that really matter to those who will have to live and work with it; that is, business, legislators, consumer groups and environmental groups. We all have different interests in the delivery of this legislation and in its practical impact. We will all have different points of view and things to say, yet we are being asked to legislate completely in the dark as to what the respondents to the consultation said in their submissions, and what it is this Government believe are the right answers to their points—answers have come there none.
This is poor way to begin a new Government’s legislative programme. In discussing this Bill, we should proceed today on the basis that the Government have not yet collated firm conclusions they feel could be put in a published response to that consultation—because, if they had, they would surely have published them. The Government would not be keeping us in the dark on purpose, would they?
So I am afraid that we must proceed, in considering this Bill, on the generous basis that the Government do not yet have their own answers to the responses in the consultation—unless, even worse, which I hope is not the case, they are afraid to let us know what their answers are. Are they proceeding, covertly, to ignore very good points made by respondents in the hope that legislators in Parliament will simply miss the point? Whichever it is, this is a shabby and poor way to proceed on a Bill of great practical importance to industry, consumers and the people of this country. What is the rush? We on these Benches accept the need for reform, but this is ill-informed haste and it is discourteous to us in Parliament.
So my first question is: when will we see the Government’s response to this consultation, which closed 12 months ago? Secondly, does such a response exist, at least in draft? Whatever the basis, why are we being asked to legislate without that information? We need to know what respondents have said and what the Government’s views are. Why is that being kept from us? Is it because they are afraid of the answers? Is it because they have yet to decide their direction of travel: that is, what regulations they propose to introduce and what they will address? Is it because they are afraid that, if they do reveal their plans, everyone will be up in arms? Or is it simply the Government’s view that the man in Whitehall knows best and, we—the consumers, manufacturers and legislators—should not trouble our pretty little heads and just do as we are told?
Have the Government formed a view of the landscape? They say that the regulatory regime needs modernisation: surely they must know where we are headed. This is a Henry VIII Bill par excellence, so now we must be told, in much more detail, what direction the Government think we should be taking on the matters of substance and importance that the Bill addresses.
The lack of a response to the consultation is of particular concern because the Bill grants the Secretary of State such wide-ranging powers without full parliamentary scrutiny. The Opposition would like to seek clarity on a number of areas of the Bill. Where necessary, we will probe these in Committee. I will give some examples. On enforcement, Clauses 3 and 4 grant Ministers the power to designate new relevant authorities to ensure compliance with a new body of regulations and to create new criminal offences by regulation. However, the text of the Bill gives us scant detail on what these new offences will be. Who would bring the prosecutions and gather the evidence? How will these enforcement actions be funded? All these questions are not answered in the Bill.
So, too, Clause 5(3), in the context of metrology—this new word for all of us—includes new requirements for business about units of measure. In practical terms, units of measure and how they are defined will be very important, but there is no clarity on how these rules will be tested and assessed to ensure that they are appropriate, in particular for smaller businesses. It is crucial, as the Government seek to deliver on their stated objective to grow the economy, that regulation does not hinder the growth of small and emerging businesses. Nor, indeed, should we allow a level of regulation that would discourage risk-takers and entrepreneurs from setting businesses up in the first place.
I come back to the issue of consultation. Business and all interested parties, consumers and environmental interest groups must be able to make sensible submissions about regulations before they are laid. Consultation will be critical. So I ask, on this framework Bill, as it has been described—I have described it as a Henry VIII Bill—whether the Government will undertake to publish substantive regulations in draft and consult on them before they are laid. That is really important.
These Benches are also concerned that the lack of clarity in these measures will allow Ministers to align with European Union standards without proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is true that much of our trade is with the EU, but there is a strong case to be made for standards that allow British businesses to trade also around the world. Boosting global trade is vital if we, as the Government intend, are to grow the UK economy. So can the Government confirm that no regulations made under the Bill will prevent or impede United Kingdom businesses from trading globally?
In conclusion, this is a poor way to approach legislation: rushing the Bill without responding to the consultation, without us knowing the Government’s view, is inappropriate and discourteous to the many respondents who have put a great deal of thought into their submissions. This is more worrying in the light of the wide-ranging powers to be granted to Ministers without sufficient clarity on what the Government intend. We need clarity from the Government on their real intentions and I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will engage constructively with these concerns and reassure the House of the Government’s aims as the Bill makes progress.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his helpful opening remarks and make it absolutely clear that we on these Benches broadly welcome the Bill and very strongly support its aims. However, the Minister did point out that it is a framework Bill and, echoing the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we are acutely aware that none of the statutory instruments is before us: the secondary legislation is to follow. As he also pointed out, neither do we have details of the responses to the previous Government’s consultation—so it is somewhat difficult to know whether the Bill will achieve those aims.
In a sense echoing the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, can the Minister give us a categorial assurance that at least the key draft statutory instruments will be available to your Lordships as soon as possible, and certainly before Third Reading? The devil will be in the detail. We need to be assured that no loopholes remain and that the secondary legislation is robust enough to address the wide-ranging risks associated with product safety and online marketplaces. He will be well aware that we are unable to amend statutory instruments, so we clearly need those assurances before we can give the Bill a Third Reading.
My noble friend Lord Fox will also want to probe how the Bill will relate to the changes to product safety that the EU intends to introduce in December, and how the Bill will take into consideration the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. He and, no doubt, many others will also want to probe the impact of the Bill on the devolved Administrations—an issue the Minister touched on—in respect of common frame- works, the internal market and the Windsor Framework, for example. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have already raised concerns in this regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, rather suggested that there was no rush for the Bill. I will raise address two issues on which I genuinely disagree with him and believe that urgent action is needed: online marketplaces and lithium-ion batteries.
The Minister has made it clear that the Bill is intended to provide a level playing field between online marketplaces and the high street. This is welcome and long overdue. I have raised the concern in your Lordships’ House on several occasions that, for too long, unsafe products, especially electrical products, have been freely available on online marketplaces. A lack of adequate regulation and poor enforcement has created a “Wild West Web” teeming with rogue traders. We even have the ludicrous situation where items recalled by manufacturers, often because of safety concerns, can still be purchased online.
The charity Electrical Safety First has long campaigned on the dangers associated with unsafe electrical products sold on online marketplaces. One of its investigations found that 93% of sampled electrical products were non-compliant or unsafe. That is not an outlier: the British Toy and Hobby Association found that 86% of sampled toys tested from popular online marketplaces were illegal.
It is really welcome that one of the aims of the Bill is to remedy this critical safety loophole. However, as I said earlier, we need assurances from the Government that any secondary legislation will confront and tackle the full scale of this issue.
I am sure the Minister is well aware that a number of organisations such as the British Toy and Hobby Association, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, Electrical Safety First and Which? have identified three key areas necessary to strengthen the Bill in this regard. There needs, they argue, to be a clear and enforceable duty on online marketplaces, and an extension of liability to the online marketplace for unsafe or defective products sold on their platforms. They argue—and I strongly agree—that the key terms in the Bill must be more clearly defined, and that the definitions of “an online marketplace” and “product” are far too narrowly defined. Thirdly, they argue—again, I strongly agree—that consumer protection should have an underlying primacy in the development of new regulations. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on these three points.
The Bill also intends to address another issue in which I have been involved for some time: the safety of lithium-ion batteries, which was addressed so well in my noble friend Lord Redesdale’s Private Member’s Bill. I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about the work I have been doing on this issue. I hope that, very soon, if we can get this Bill through, it can be taken off my to-do list.
I recognise that lithium-ion batteries are increasingly important for the development of our economy: they store more energy than any other type of battery, allowing for longer use. But, if over-heated through incorrect manufacture, misuse, damage or using sub-standard chargers, they can create fierce fires of over 600 degrees centigrade, which are very difficult to extinguish—for example, you cannot use water on them —and release toxic gases.
I have on many occasions provided details of the number of fires caused by such batteries and the damage to property and the tragic loss of life caused by those fires. For instance, the London Fire Brigade attends a fire involving an e-bike or e-scooter once every two days. It is now London’s fastest-growing fire risk. This trend is being repeated right across the country, to the point where many local transport bodies now ban them. It is interesting that Chiltern Railways, for instance, has posters everywhere stating,
“NO e-scooters allowed on trains or stations”,
and then, in big letters,
“Lithium batteries are a fire risk”.
Incorrectly used, they certainly are. Indeed, even the very small lithium-ion batteries, such as those found in vapes, can cause fire and destruction as they enter the waste stream: 84 million disposable vapes are thrown away every single year. Zurich insurers found that the incorrect disposal of vapes led to nearly 250 fires in the last year, an increase of nearly 120% since 2022.
While the majority of lithium-ion batteries are safe, made by reputable retailers already testing their batteries to the relevant safety standards, the lack of third-party safety certification for e-bike and e-scooter batteries, for example, means there is no way of knowing that all the batteries in these products are safe.
The Bill is clear that a product presents a risk if it could, under foreseeable conditions or intended use, endanger health or safety or damage property. Given the statistics, I was very pleased to hear the Minister say in his opening remarks that he believes that lithium-ion batteries should be classified as high risk. That is the first time that has been placed on the record. I hope he will go further and agree with Electrical Safety First, which has argued that there must be third-party safety certification for every battery used in an e-bike or e-scooter before it is placed on the UK market. I hope he agrees that the same should apply to bicycle conversion kits and battery chargers.
There is huge support for that measure from many bodies, including the National Fire Chiefs Council and over 500 local councils right across the country. But there is one omission from the Bill which my noble friend Lord Redesdale’s Bill has sensibly picked up: the disposal of lithium-ion batteries. The safety of products applies to their entire lifetime, from manufacture to disposal. As evidenced by the vape fires in the refuse stream, which I mentioned earlier, action is needed. Can the Minister explain why the safe disposal of lithium-ion batteries has been omitted from the Bill and tell us what can now be done about it?
Finally, I raise the issue of enforcement. Changing regulations to improve safety will have the desired effect only if there is effective enforcement of them. The Minister knows only too well that trading standards officers will play a key role in this, yet in the 10 years to 2020, the number of trading standards officers in local councils declined by between 30% and 50%. Continuing budget cuts, an ageing workforce and, frankly, increased workloads caused by Brexit mean that the situation is getting worse. Can the Minister explain what plans the Government have to halt and then reverse this decline? Without action on improving enforcement, the good intentions of the Bill will not be realised.
As I said at the beginning, we support the Bill, but we are concerned that, without sight of the draft statutory instruments, we have little opportunity to discuss, scrutinise and, crucially, seek to amend the mechanisms by which the Bill will achieve its ends. I hope therefore that, in his response, the Minister will start the debate that we need by giving detailed answers to the questions, including mine, that will be raised today. I look forward to hearing from him about them.
I also look forward to hearing the maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, in thanking the Minister for the way that he introduced the Bill. I welcome the Bill, principally because it gives Parliament an opportunity to mitigate some of the problems—or, if I am being charitable, some of the unforeseen consequences—resulting from our withdrawal from the EU. As I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, castigating the Government for introducing a skeleton Bill with Henry VIII powers, I ruminated, as a Cross-Bencher, how much the late, much lamented, Lord Judge, would have enjoyed hearing that—pot calling the kettle black comes to mind, or, if Mandy Rice-Davies had been one of Henry VIII’s wives, she probably would have said, “He would say that, wouldn’t he?” I should also mention that, as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I have skin in the game, as they say.
The Bill will guide the future regulation of standards for thousands of products. Consistency of standards across key markets helps give businesses certainty about the quality requirements they must be able to meet to be able to sell their products in target markets. I suggest that one way to provide this certainty might be to consider a formal commitment to dynamic alignment, in the same way that Switzerland, the countries within the European Economic Area and, to a limited extent today, the UK have mechanisms to ensure that regulations with the EU are aligned and continuously updated.
The UK abided by the “CE” European conformity marking system until our exit from the EU. The 2019 EU withdrawal Act created a UK-only system, using the new UK conformity assessment marking “UKCA”, introduced on 1 January 2021, which it required all UK businesses to adopt by 31 December this year—not very far away. The response from businesses has been lukewarm or rather negative. In May this year, after repeatedly extending the UKCA transition deadline, the UK Government acknowledged its impracticality and extended the recognition of many CE goods in GB markets indefinitely; covering 21 regulations across products that are estimated to save UK businesses £640.5 million in net savings from not having to manage two standards regimes.
The powers contained in the Bill allow Ministers to decide whether to recognise or end recognition of EU requirements. In practice, this would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, either aligning them or ending that requirement, without needing any additional primary legislation. This will help with the smoother management of the somewhat contentious Windsor protocol for Northern Ireland. It also requires Ministers to have regard to the social, environmental and economic input before any decision.
In paragraph 4, in the third bullet point, the Explanatory Notes state that:
“The Bill aims to support economic growth, provide regulatory stability and deliver more protection for consumers by … ensuring that the law can be updated to allow a means of recognising new or updated EU product requirements, with the intention of preventing additional costs for businesses and provide regulatory stability”.
As I read this, it is the Government’s intention that the Bill will allow the UK to align itself to EU standards in circumstances where they judge it sensible to do so. Working with others across the House, I will lay amendments in Committee to probe whether there is a case for the Government to commit formally to a policy of dynamic alignment; to clarify how best to measure and assess the costs or benefits of alignment; and to set out a process of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability when a Minister determines that divergence is in the best interests of the UK. The intention is simple: to place the delivery of consistent regulatory standards beyond the reach of short-term thinking and to ensure the restoration of long-term stability in regulation, to the benefit of British consumers and British businesses.
I finish by wishing the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, well. We met on the staircase that we share going to our joint offices. I have already wished her well once, and I now do so for a second time.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour to make my maiden speech in today’s debate and to follow the detailed, witty and informed contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. First, let me thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for the very warm welcome I have been given since my introduction. I thank also Black Rod, Garter, the clerks, the doorkeepers, the police and staff of the House who made that day so memorable for me, for my family and for my friends.
I am so grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon for being my supporters. We go back a long way, to when I was head of Lord Prescott’s office when he was deputy leader of the Labour Party, and we all three came into Parliament together in 1997. My supporters have always been good friends, always give good advice and, very importantly, are always good fun.
I was rather nervous about the introductory ceremony, but my supporters calmly assured me that nothing could possibly go wrong. In fact, all seemed to pass without incident, but I have more than a suspicion that if I had tripped over my robe, fallen flat on my face and fluffed my words, your Lordships would have smiled benignly and told me afterwards that never had a ceremony of introduction gone so smoothly.
In preparing for today, I looked back at the maiden speech of the late Lord Walker of Doncaster 24 years ago. As a strong trade unionist, he spoke passionately about industrial relations, and I know that he would have been pleased about the current Government’s focus on workplace rights. It was a tremendous honour to follow Harold and to represent the people of Doncaster for 27 years as their Member of Parliament. I hope that I can be as helpful to my successor, the brilliant Sally Jameson, as Harold was to me.
Doncaster was where I grew up and where my father was headmaster at Armthorpe comprehensive and my mother was the head of the nursery at the Park school. Such is the power and influence of teachers that, when I would visit the miners’ social clubs in Armthorpe, even though my father had ceased to be headmaster 30 years before, they would not say, “That’s Rosie Winterton, our MP”, they would say, “You see that lass, that’s Rosie Winterton, Mr Winterton’s daughter.”
My first ministerial appointment was in the Lord Chancellor’s department, headed by my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg. My last one was in the Business Department, run by my noble friend Lord Mandelson. Both were Secretaries of State from this House and both were formidable operators. They had a clear idea of what they wanted to do, led their Ministers and officials, and persuaded their colleagues.
In between, I served in a number of departments including Health, Transport, DWP and Local Government. A key lesson for me from my time in government, especially as Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber, is that the key to achieving economic growth and closing regional disparities in wealth and economic development is devolving power and decision-making to regional and local levels. I believe the same principles of devolution will be necessary to get the NHS back on its feet.
I went on to become Opposition Chief Whip. The noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, was the Government Chief Whip at the time, and I benefited greatly from his guidance and good humour in our usual channels exchanges—I thank him for that. In fact, there are so many ex-Chief Whips in this House that surely there must be an exclusive club of them. If there is, I am waiting anxiously for an invitation to join the ex-Chiefs club, not least because it might be therapeutic for recovering Chief Whips.
After being Chief Whip I served on the Council of Europe, along with my noble friend Lord Foulkes, and was a Deputy Speaker of the other place from 2017 until the general election in July. During that time, I came to appreciate the high regard in which our Parliament—the mother of parliaments—is held in the world, and how important it is for us to be passionate advocates of our democracy. I am deeply disturbed by the lack of voter participation in local and general elections. I hope a focus of this current Parliament will be on how we can bring home to people the impact on their lives of the decisions taken by politicians at national and local level, and impress on them how important it is to use their vote—so crucial in a world where so many are deprived of their democratic rights.
What has become very apparent to me during the time I have spent listening to the debates in this House is the high level of expertise here, and the detailed and rigorous scrutiny of legislation undertaken. It is with some trepidation, therefore, that I admit that I am not the world’s expert on product regulation and metrology, but I am quietly confident that by the end of this debate, having listened to your Lordships, and with the guidance of my good friend the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, I will be far better acquainted with the finer details of the subject in hand.
What I do know is that this is an important and very necessary Bill that updates the existing body of law. As consumers, the public need to know that the Government will play their part, through legislation, to protect them. Product safety is not something we give enough thought to these days. We take for granted that the things we buy are safe, but as technology develops rapidly and the products we buy are invented and updated with increasing frequency, it is important that we know what we are getting. In a world of ever-increasing online shopping, it is vital that consumers are not hoodwinked by false claims or put in any danger by unsafe products. We certainly need to know, as others have said, that our e-bike, mobile phone or tablet is not going to catch fire, with all the tragic consequences that can follow.
It is the job of government to horizon-scan technological changes and ensure that protections are in place because, as always, it will be the most vulnerable in our society who will become victims if the Government do not act to curb the predators. That is why I welcome the Bill and, in closing, thank your Lordships once again for the warm welcome I have been given.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, it is an absolute delight to follow the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Winterton of Doncaster, who has just demonstrated what an astute, feisty, gifted and yet totally grounded parliamentarian she is. I have known my noble friend Rosie for many years, for more years than she and I would wish to recall. She has always stood out as a true champion of the people, an authentic voice in British politics.
My noble friend has held many senior offices in government, and she referred to some of them. It is a long list so brace yourselves, my Lords: from the Lord Chancellor’s Department through Minister of State for Health Services, Minister of State for Transport, Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber, Minister of State for Pensions through to Business and Local Government. She was rightly made a dame in the New Year Honours List in 2016, and we all know that there is nothing like a dame. My noble friend Lady Winterton also spent many years as Labour’s Chief Whip in the Commons. She has indeed been there, done that, got the T-shirt. She was a wonderful Deputy Speaker in the Commons, combining being a stickler for the rules with being the epitome of calm and persuasion, especially with the awkward squad—a talent in anybody’s language—and all this while wearing the highest heels on the planet.
My noble friend chose this Second Reading to make her maiden speech because it is about the everyday concerns and safety of people and businesses up and down the country. That is, and always has been, her politics. I look forward to hearing much more from her in this Chamber, as I am sure we all do.
I welcome this landmark framework Bill, as does the Chartered Trading Standards Institute in coalition with the British Toy & Hobby Association, Electrical Safety First and Which?. As Which? has said, this Government are prioritising legislation that addresses a growing gap in consumer protections. The coalition also has concerns about the Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, has referred to, and which will no doubt be addressed in the passage of the Bill.
The online marketplace in particular is not protecting consumers today and leaves them open to illegal, unsafe and, indeed, very harmful products, with few repercussions at present for those perpetrating these violations and finding gaps in the law. It is also so damaging to the very many good businesses that trade online in safe and legal products. There has been no real domestic reform to product safety regulation since our exit from the EU. The previous Government extended recognition of EU requirements, which had been due to fall away at the end of this year, but did not prioritise what comes next, either in general terms or in relation to the specific known issues, such as unsafe batteries in e-bikes and scooters, counterfeit electrical goods on online marketplaces, children’s toys, smoke and carbon monoxide alarms—on and on goes the unsafe products list. Although the powers in this Bill will not solve all these issues, they should allow us to make progress in a number of areas.
Some may see this Bill as EU alignment through the backdoor. I disagree. As I see it, the Bill will allow the UK to align with the EU when it makes sense to do so but also give us flexibility not to if, as a country, we want even stronger safety standards. Given the unique position of Northern Ireland in the post-Brexit trading landscape under the Windsor agreement, perhaps my noble friend the Minister could set out how the Bill’s provisions affect Northern Ireland.
I welcome the provisions on information sharing, which are designed to make it easier for public authorities such as trading standards and the emergency services to alert each other on cases they are working on across the country. The Bill’s enforcement aspects are also welcome but must be looked at in the context of very limited local authority resources—I speak as a vice-president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute.
We have all been lobbied on concerns over the Bill’s metrology regulations, in that they focus on units of measurement and quantities of goods but are limited in scope. For some, the Bill does not grant sufficient authority to test and verify the equipment used for measurements. Perhaps my noble friend could write to me about this, as accuracy is key here.
The coalition of product safety organisations I referred to earlier wants the Bill to safeguard consumers through clear and enforceable duties on online marketplaces, clearly defined definitions of new terms, putting consumer safety on the face of the Bill, and more effective scrutiny processes.
The Regulatory Policy Committee has scrutinised the impact assessment published alongside the Bill and decided that it provides
“sufficient evidence of the problem under consideration and a strong argument for intervention”.
However, it suggests that the Bill’s impact assessment
“could be improved by including further detail of the impacts expected from the related secondary legislation”.
Will my noble friend the Minister comment on that part of the RPC’s opinion?
As I understand it, the Government want the Bill to tackle modern safety issues for consumers, grasp opportunities to deliver much-needed economic growth and offer a much improved level playing field to businesses. I am sure many of us would support those aims, and I wish the Bill well.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and a particular pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton. She has a distinguished career in government and in the service of her party. I am sure we all look forward to hearing her future contributions to your Lordships’ House.
I read the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill with great interest when it was published earlier this summer, and with not a little surprise because it was not foreshadowed in the manifesto of the party opposite. The Minister sought to present the Bill as a technical one, to downplay concerns and to suggest that there is nothing to see here. I agree, of course, that there are technical elements in the Bill, but the technical in this area is often highly political and there is a long history, I am afraid, from those involved in managing the relationship with the EU of obfuscation and lack of clarity about the obligations that are really being undertaken, so it is right that we look under the surface of what the Bill implies.
My basic concern is that the Bill goes further than a purely technical Bill really needs to. It goes further because part of the motivation behind it is indeed to revive a process of alignment of goods with EU single market laws. That is not just my interpretation; it is said in the quite frank briefing prepared for the King’s Speech before the summer break. I will refer to that from time to time. The core of the case for the Bill is that the Government need to be able to regulate new products and continue to give status to the CE marking in the UK. I agree with that in principle, but I do not think that aim requires this Bill in this form. I want to explain why and what my concerns are.
I accept that the Government need a power to regulate in this area. Of course, the Government always have that power. I think the Minister said that the UK simply did not have the powers. With the greatest respect, that is not correct. This Parliament has the powers to do anything it wishes. Of course, it has to do it by primary legislation if there is no other route, and in some areas it will probably be better so done, especially for genuinely new products breaking genuinely new ground. But let us accept that a regulatory power is needed.
The current power to update regulations and recognise the CE marking is the retained EU law Act, which we debated with such pain about a year ago. In fact, that power has been used very recently in the Product Safety and Metrology (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which came into force just a few days ago. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: can he explain why it is not possible simply to extend the deadlines that do expire for those powers in the retained EU law Act? Why can they simply not be extended, and we proceed as we have done in the last year or so?
I think I know the answer to that: the Government want to do more than that. Specifically, I suspect they want a new set of provisions enabling dynamic alignment with EU law. As the briefing for the King’s Speech said, it will
“enable us to make the sovereign choice to mirror or diverge from updated EU rules”—
that is, to create a power to make sure that our law can automatically follow changes in EU law. Indeed, that is what we find in Clause 2(7):
“Product regulations may provide that a product requirement is to be treated as met if … a requirement of relevant EU law specified in product regulations is met”.
In other words, this is a power to reimport EU law concepts back into our system. It allows UK product standards to be described not in UK law terms but simply by a cross-reference to EU law. When that EU law changes, so ours will change. So my second question to the Minister is: can he confirm or deny that the intention is indeed to make simple cross-references to EU law in that way? Does he agree that such cross-references amount to dynamic alignment with EU law?
Similarly, Clause 1(2) enables the Secretary of State, by regulations, to make provision
“which corresponds, or is similar, to a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products”.
Again, it is not clear exactly why this separate provision is needed, but EU rules on traceability are certainly increasingly complex and intrusive.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Is it the noble Lord’s case that the Government should be prevented in any case from having the same regulations as the EU?
Lord Frost (Con)
I will come on to that. I am trying to get clarity about the purpose of this Bill and why it needs to go further than the powers we already have.
My third question is: can the Minister explain the purpose of the separate provision in Clause 1(2) and the situation it is designed to deal with? I will table amendments to this and other clauses.
Why are any of these provisions necessary beyond simple administrative convenience? The answer is that this Bill is entirely in tune with the lack of clarity that so often surrounded the detail of our relationship with the EU. It is simply the beginning of a path on which, without voters noticing—this is my point: we need clarity—we slip back, closer to single market-like trade arrangements.
Obviously, it is already true that, if a British company wants to export to the EU, its products must comply with EU law. What these provisions would do over time is require producers covered by them to produce in the UK, for the UK, to those EU standards, and make those EU standards the only legal standards on the British market, even when they are not good standards, or are complex or costly. This set-up is a core element of the way the single market works.
Simply mirroring those EU laws does not itself improve trade with the EU. There will still be customs and regulatory paperwork in those circumstances. The only way of eliminating that is to satisfy the EU authorities that our laws are in fact the same as theirs, and I suggest that they are very unlikely to be satisfied without the usual panoply of Commission and court enforcement—subordination once again to the EU authorities. After all, what other way is there for the EU to decide whether our laws genuinely mirror its laws, or to settle any disputes arising?
My further question to the Minister is this. Can he explain how he sees these clauses working in practice? What actual trade frictions does he see being removed as a result of using them? Will he give a commitment that, in conformity with Labour’s policy not to rejoin the single market, the Government will not agree to subordination to EU law or EU-style enforcement?
The Bill also constitutes another step—and this is rather unfortunate—in using the Northern Ireland arrangements to keep this whole country in line with EU rules in certain areas, as we had always feared. Once the previous Government had given up trying to dismantle or override the Northern Ireland protocol and instead agreed to support and enshrine it as the Windsor Framework, something like this Bill became extremely probable. The previous Government were at least discreet in discouraging officials from proposing reforms to goods standards for fear of complicating the Windsor Framework arrangements. The new Government are quite open about it. Their own briefing prepared for the King’s Speech says:
“EU changes to product regulation only apply in Northern Ireland, resulting in divergence within the UK internal market as EU laws are updated. This Bill gives the Government specific powers to make changes to GB legislation to manage divergence and take a UK-wide approach”.
The aim is absolutely explicit. So as we always feared, the Windsor Framework is being used as a tool to inhibit reform and change within GB—not that I think this Government plan to do much of that anyway—and to keep this country in the tractor beam pull of EU laws and rules without having any say in them. Does the Minister agree with his own briefing?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
Would the noble Lord, Lord Frost, not accept that the Windsor Framework was a necessary instrument to ensure that trade could flow easily on the island of Ireland and to prevent a border being recreated there that would have been an encumbrance to trade, society, the economy and business development?
Lord Frost (Con)
The noble Baroness is probably familiar with my view on the subject: I do not agree with that. I think that it would have been much preferable to proceed with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill that was then proceeded with in 2022, but that is really not to the point now. We have the situation that we have, and the effect of the Windsor Framework, whatever view one takes of it, is to create a massive incentive to push for GB rules to be kept in sync with those of the EU and in Northern Ireland. That is one of the effects that I think this Bill will create.
To finish up, I have a couple of technical questions. The internal market Act has already been raised.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The noble Lord led me to believe by the way he answered my question that he would tell us whether he took the view that the Bill should positively prevent alignment in any area. Is he willing to answer the question now?
Lord Frost (Con)
I have not finished my remarks yet. Under the internal market Act, goods that are legally on sale in Northern Ireland—those meeting EU standards—may be sold anywhere in the UK already. That is one of the provisions of that Act. One might wonder about the point of this panoply of rules when we already have the internal market Act. It would seem unnecessary, unless perhaps the Government are concerned that the Windsor Framework might require them to bring in elements of Northern Ireland to Great Britain’s border at some point. Again, I wonder whether the Minister could answer that question.
The Government clearly want to go down this road because, whatever they say now, they want to make eventually rejoining the single market and customs union easier. I know from reactions to what I have been saying that many noble Lords regard this direction of travel as a good thing; they doubt this country’s ability to prosper as an independent country with its own rules and laws. I am afraid there is nothing to be done about those who have that opinion. To others who want this country to be a global trader, but without necessarily having our own rules for every single area, I say there is an alternative. It is one more consistent with our global aspirations and membership of the CPTPP, which the Government want to support.
The alternative is to make this country open to the best standards globally—that is my answer to the question that has been raised a couple of times—and to recognise that any goods produced in high-standard, well-regulated economies, such as the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and the EU, would be safe to put on our market. I accept not just the CE standard but similar conformity and standards from other developed economies, and where necessary we can develop our own. This is not just a fantasy; it is what the MHRA is already doing with its new international recognition procedure for medical products. Can the Minister explain why it is not possible to proceed in this way instead?
My speech has been quite long and I will wind up now, but there are important points about the purpose of this Bill that will shape the statutory instruments that will come before us at some point that need to be properly understood. We will put forward amendments in Committee to test the thinking behind some of these provisions and their purpose, and to perhaps reshape some of the more unsatisfactory elements of this Bill. To conclude, I have deep concern about the direction of travel and the direction in which this will take our regulatory framework. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to my questions.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, this has proven to be a more engaging debate on the subject of product regulation than I had anticipated, principally due to the pleasure of hearing the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster. We both arrived in the other place in 1997—there were a few of us, and rather more on her Benches. I left before she did, but all through that period it was a very great pleasure to work with the noble Baroness. I look forward to working with her in this place and I much enjoyed her maiden speech.
I am also pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Frost. As I will come on to explain, the purpose of my speech is not necessarily to embrace his argument entirely but rather to embrace his solution. I do not need to ascribe to the Government any ulterior motive about alignment with EU regulation, and I happen not to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that we should aim for dynamic alignment. Much as I would have wished that we were still members of the European Union and all that flows from that, that is not the point. The point is that we are where we are. From my point of view, the worst outcome is if we become essentially rule-takers rather than rule-makers. The risk is that, through dynamic alignment, that is exactly what would happen; that alignment would contribute to the problem.
I know that a number of noble Lords here today took part in the debate on the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations, just before the Dissolution in July. Quite rightly, concerns were expressed about the loss of capability in the standards-making and regulatory processes in this country as a consequence of the continuing extension of the CE marking on the part of the European Union.
This legislation is necessary. Many in industry welcomed the 21 product sectors having the CE marking extended to them, but they said we were getting closer to the point where there will be a divergence between the CE marking and the UKCA marking. At that point, what do we do? Do we allow two different products to be marketed inside the United Kingdom while arguing to consumers that they are equally safe and effective? I do not think that is a tenable long- term solution, so we must have—as I think my noble friend Lord Frost admitted—more powers, which are in this Bill.
I will not talk on some of the many other interesting subjects that I look forward to our discussing in Committee, but I do want to look at the serious question of how we support and maintain the capability in product regulation, in which the noble Lord, Lord Leong, in his admirable opening to our debate, said we are a world leader. We want to remain a world leader in product regulation, so how are we to do that? Many in industry would say, “Let’s carry on with CE markings for ever and, as they change, just accept them”. I am afraid that is not the solution. I add in parentheses that the Bill’s scope does not extend to medical devices, but the same issues arise in relation to them. Although I endorse the solution in relation to medical devices, we still do not yet get the answer we are looking for; we still run the risk that we recognise other people’s product regulation but do not sustain our own.
Where should we go to? We need to escape from this outcome, and now is the time for us to adopt a much-strengthened policy in relation to our work in international standards. If our regulations and those of the European Union, and indeed the regulations of other countries, are based on international standards, we can reduce regulatory compliance costs and remove technical barriers to trade. Now is the time for this country to lead in an accelerated push for the development and adoption of international standards as the basis of product regulation.
As my noble friend referred to earlier, I think we are to accede to the CPTPP by 15 December. Article 8.5 of that treaty says:
“The Parties recognise the important role that international standards, guides and recommendations can play in supporting greater regulatory alignment, good regulatory practice and reducing unnecessary barriers to trade”.
Article 8.9 says that
“greater alignment of national standards with relevant international standards”
should be pursued,
“except where inappropriate or ineffective”.
It calls for the parties to the CPTPP to
“strengthen their exchange and collaboration … to support greater regulatory alignment”,
which is absolutely right. Very interestingly, in its February 2022 strategy on standardisation, the European Union said:
“Traditionally, the EU has been a strong leader in international standardisation activities but”—
this is interesting—
“needs to take account of a changed geopolitical situation, as other countries start to approach international standardisation more strategically and gain influence”
in its committees. This is a relatively recent acknowledgement by the European Union—in this case, the European Commission—that its policy of making standards in Europe and then handing them to the rest of the world is not going to be sustainable indefinitely; I think it is right about that. Indeed, Mario Draghi, in his recent report on the competitiveness of the European Union, identified the value of international standards in promoting regulatory harmonisation and reducing trade friction. He sought European Union action to lead in framing international standards.
Article 92.1 of the trade and co-operation agreement refers to the use of
“international standards as a basis for the standards”
that each of the parties develop, so we do not need to change the mandate or renegotiate the trade and co-operation agreement; we need to use that agreement. That is where the negotiations with the European Commission should be aimed: at maximising the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement.
We know that we all use international standards, some to a greater extent than others. We all agree that we should use international standards more in the future, but that fact is not stated anywhere in the Bill. Could it be? Like other noble Lords, I participated in the debates on the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. Section 16(2) of that Act, referring to how to meet product regulation requirements, says that provision
“may … identify relevant requirements by reference to international agreements or standards relating to the marketing or supply of medical devices”.
So where medical devices are concerned, we have statutory backing for a process of recognising international standards as the basis for our own product regulation requirements. I want to see this Bill incorporate the potential for international standards to meet the requirements for product regulation across a broader range of products—not just medical devices, but taking them into the scope of this Bill—and the very wide range of industrial products that are covered. I also hope that in the course of the discussion on the Bill we will give statutory backing to a lead by the United Kingdom to accelerate the development of international standards to be the basis of greater regulatory alignment with our leading trading partners, including our existing agreements both in the CPTPP and the trade and co-operation agreement.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I am glad he started referring to international products. Given the earlier contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, I am reminded of this House’s scrutiny of the Biocidal Products (Health and Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2022. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, told the Grand Committee that there was a huge backlog in processing chemical standards given that we lost access to the EU chemical standards database. As a result, the Health and Safety Executive’s chemicals division had to have its budget increased by 39%. On those figures alone, any sensible Government would want to be able to use existing standards—in this case, the EU’s standards—not least because any organisation manufacturing products in the UK that sell in the EU will have to conform to them. I have not had time to check what the HSE chemicals division’s budget is now, but over five years from 2018 to 2022 it increased by 39%.
I was also delighted to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton. With her wit and experience, she is already being heard very seriously and with some smiles in this House. I wish her well.
As noble Lords have heard, these Benches support the scope of the Bill and the secondary legislation. Others have already explained how necessary it is, but, along with my colleagues, I have some concerns and I will try not to go over the points they have already made. The Government’s delegated powers memorandum says at paragraph 5:
“We judge it essential to be able to respond quickly to an evolving evidence base on product safety and metrology issues”.
I want to focus on those powers being used in a slightly different way and I hope that the Minister can give your Lordships’ House some reassurance that emergency procedures made available to Ministers will not be used on this Bill, as happened on many others over the previous eight years—not least, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on the issue of leaving the EU.
I also saw it at first hand when I was the Lib Dem health and social care spokeswoman from January 2020. The emergence of the pandemic inevitably meant that there was obviously a need to introduce emergency statutory instruments but, to be frank, using the emergency powers completely negated the importance of Parliament being able to scrutinise affirmative SIs before they are introduced. Between January 2020 and March 2022, the Government laid 118 affirmative Covid SIs, of which 66 were introduced by emergency procedures, meaning that they were implemented before either House had any chance to see them, let alone debate them.
The Hansard Society Covid statutory instrument dashboard website is a brilliant resource for this period—perhaps I am extremely sad, but it really is extremely useful. It also noticed that those SIs implemented using the emergency procedure were more likely to have to be amended or revoked, which was perhaps not surprising because of the speed of response needed and the fact that there had been no time to scrutinise them. I hope the Minister will give the House some reassurance that emergency procedures would be used only in true emergency.
I say that because it has become something of a habit inside Whitehall to use them. I had a call from the Paymaster-General in August, informing me that the SI relating to the redress scheme for the infected blood compensation scheme was laid in the middle of August. We do not debate it until the end of this month. We have a debate on the inquiry and the redress scheme generally next week but we have to wait to the end of the month, which is two months after the SI was implemented. I really am keen to hear from the Minister on that.
I turn to one of the examples that was repeatedly raised in the preparation of the Bill and was the subject of my noble friend Lord Redesdale’s Private Member’s Bill—lithium-ion batteries. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Foster for his many years’ work in this area. I declare my interests as a vice-chair of the APPG on Fire Safety and Rescue and a vice-president of the LGA. The APPG on Fire Safety and Rescue, the National Fire Chiefs Council and almost everybody involved in manufacturing safety equipment for the fire service want urgent regulation of the use of lithium-ion batteries.
E-bikes and e-scooters present one of the fastest-growing fire risks. In London on average there was a fire every two days last year. There were 143 e-bike fires, three deaths and around 60 injuries. This year, up to the end of August, London Fire Brigade has so far recorded 127 e-bike and e-scooter fires. The real problem is the intensity of the lithium-ion fires, both the heat and the length of the flame. It is not even a flame; it is more like a firework. If you have ever seen a video of such a fire, it is never forgotten. Temperatures get up to 1,000 degrees and substantial damage can be done.
We also need regulation for those who use products with lithium-ion batteries that do conform to very strict regulation. I have a travel wheelchair that uses lithium-ion batteries. It complies with IATA regulations but I have been refused permission to go on a plane because the pilot has the final say on whether or not you can take medical devices on board. He said he was not having any lithium batteries on his plane at all and did not care whether they were IATA-certified. Having regulation would enormously help those of us who rely on these things. It cost me €900 to get back from Bucharest that night.
I also think that lithium-ion batteries stand as a proxy for everything that the Bill is trying to achieve. Many of the e-bikes and e-scooters in these fires have had different batteries or converters bought in an online market and added to the machine, so regulation is vital, as is compliance and ensuring that there are enough people to be able to find out where these are. The below-the-radar sales of these batteries, which often look identical to ones which comply with current safety regulations, mean they can be hard to track down.
It also takes us into what I think is a grey area of the Bill and I have not heard anybody else talk about this: at what point do the product regulations apply to individuals as opposed to businesses or people working in businesses? The Bill sets out those people covered by the regulations in Clause 2(3) and, helpfully, paragraphs (a) to (g) explain those with particular responsibilities and roles, but Clause 2(3)(h) refers to
“any other person carrying out activities in relation to a product”.
Does this include individuals who may have bought an e-bike online as an individual, changed the battery to one bought elsewhere online and then after a couple of years decided to sell it on through eBay, which has a mixture of professional sellers and individuals?
I am trying to find the boundaries here because if the answer is that individuals are included, communications to the public about their new responsibilities when they buy and sell will become vital. But if the answer is no, how will the Bill prevent what is happening at the moment, which is individuals buying and adjusting products from a global marketplace, often untraceable, where the UK has no ability to scrutinise or take action? How would this be enforced? If it is helpful, I do not necessarily need an answer now but would appreciate a letter from the Minister before we go into Committee.
I am very interested in who will be the statutory consultees and wonder whether we might have access to lists—again, before we move on to Committee—because there are some professional associations that might be very obvious to include if you are in the fire industry but not necessarily obvious to the Department for Business.
I turn briefly to the creation of criminal offences through affirmative statutory instruments, which has already been referred to. I want to pick up on the earlier comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about medical devices, which are specifically disapplied in the Bill because of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act. Can the Minister explain why this Bill has a maximum imprisonment of up to two years, whereas the Medicines and Medical Devices Act, which covers at least as sensitive and dangerous issues, has provision for conviction and jail sentences of up to 51 weeks only? Why have those different figures been used?
It was good to hear the Minister say that the Attorney-General had been involved. Is there a formal consultation with the Ministry of Justice once these regulations are drafted? I remain concerned that our court system is really congested at the moment and if there were, for example, a particularly large, concerted campaign to bring people to justice, that might involve breaking gangs, frankly, even 30 or 40 extra people in prison over a short period would put real pressure on our prisons. What can the Minister say on that?
Finally, we need this Bill but we must have access to affirmative instruments in plenty of time to be able to scrutinise them.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, after a first-class maiden speech and with her impressive CV, I warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster, to this House. Equally, I welcome the Bill, but before I say why, I should declare two interests: first, as the chair of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, UKAS, which is the Government-appointed body for the accreditation of organisations providing testing, inspection, certification and similar evaluation services; and, secondly, as the president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, the CTSI, a role in which I was preceded by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley.
The provisions set out in the Bill will help to ensure that the UK’s product safety and metrology regulatory framework is fit for purpose. I therefore agreed with my noble friend Lord Lansley when he said that this legislation is necessary. As the Minister set out, the majority of the United Kingdom’s product safety and metrology framework derives from the European Union, transposed into UK law using powers in the European Communities Act 1972. The repeal of the European Communities Act means that we need new powers to update this body of law and, furthermore, it is timely that we do this. The world is changing, consumer products are changing, and the marketplaces through which consumers access those products are also changing.
The Bill recognises that, as technology continues to develop, new powers will be needed to update our regulations so that they can address both current and future threats and hazards. It recognises that both products and marketplaces are evolving and they will continue to evolve in tandem with new technologies. The United Kingdom needs to be able to keep pace with these technological advances and to be in a position to respond with agility to new product risks and opportunities as they arise.
The increased risk from more complex and often digitally or AI-enabled products may mean that they require additional testing and independent inspection or certification to monitor and assess regulatory compliance. With my UKAS experience, I welcome the fact that the Bill will enable that. UKAS is already a long and well-established part of the product regulation regime. We work closely with the Government to provide trust and assurance that all higher-risk products requiring third-party conformity assessment are subject to assessments that have been conducted by independent, impartial and fully competent organisations, as demonstrated by their conformity with UKAS’s robust and rigorous requirements as the UK’s national accreditation body.
We are likely to see more higher-risk products in the future, as has been evidenced by some of today’s speakers, and the regulatory powers within the Bill—which include the power to place requirements on UKAS and all involved with conformity assessment—will help to mitigate that risk. Importantly, as part of this future- proofing of the regulatory framework, the Bill intends that new and emerging supply-chain business models will also be identified, ensuring that the responsibilities of those involved in the supply of products, such as online marketplaces, are clear. This will enhance compliance and enforcement, and in my CTSI role, I applaud the Bill’s intentions to create both a clearer definition of “online marketplace” and a more level playing field between high-street retailers and online marketplaces.
Also welcome is the focus on entities controlling access to online marketplaces. This aligns with the CTSI’s call for a clearer regulatory framework to cover intermediaries, such as fulfilment service providers, ensuring that they, too, bear responsibility for the compliance and safety of goods where there is no UK-based manufacturer or importer. These expanded definitions are crucial for ensuring that both current and future innovations in online commerce are regulated effectively to protect consumers and legitimate businesses.
I also acknowledge that the coalition of product safety organisations, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, of which the CTSI is a member, wants to see the Bill strengthened to properly safeguard consumer safety, with a clear and enforceable duty placed on online marketplaces. This was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. This would provide confidence for consumers, businesses, and the online marketplaces themselves, together with the extension of liability to online marketplaces for defective products, particularly those sold by third-party sellers. The coalition similarly sees the need for greater clarity regarding the specific obligations placed on fulfilment houses and clearer definitions of key terms to ensure that all existing and future online marketplaces and products cannot take advantage of gaps to avoid responsibility. Of course, these more detailed points will be explored in Committee and on Report.
Also deserving of special scrutiny in Committee and on Report are the nature and extent of the delegated powers being proposed in the Bill, as focused on by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. As a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House, I am aware that the committee will be considering the Bill tomorrow and reporting to the House shortly thereafter, but for the moment I welcome the Bill. It aims to preserve the UK’s status as a global leader in product regulation, supporting both businesses and consumers. It seeks to ensure that the UK can maintain high product standards and be better equipped to address modern-day safety concerns with agility, while also taking advantage of opportunities for economic growth. It strives to create a level playing field between high street retailers and online marketplaces—at long last—and it will update enforcement requirements and the legal metrology framework.
Finally, I welcome that the Bill gives the UK the choice to mirror or diverge from updated EU rules, so that we can maintain high product safety while supporting businesses and economic growth. I also support the specific power to make changes to legislation to manage divergence and take a UK-wide approach where it is in the UK’s interests to do so.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am going to start with history. I used to live on Leather Lane in central London between the City and Westminster, where, despite Victorian urban expansion, a dairy farm continued to operate in the middle of the city. That was no historical accident. With the adulteration of milk rampant, with filthy water and much worse, the only way consumers could be sure that milk would not kill them or their children was if they actually saw it come out of the cow.
A few years ago I was privileged to visit the Rochdale Pioneers Museum in the home of the first successful consumer co-operative in the UK: the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers, founded in 1844. Its aim was to ensure not just affordable products but safe and genuine products, without sawdust in the flour or arsenic in the sugar. But not everyone had a co-operative nearby. It was eventually conceded back in the 19th century that it was the responsibility of the state to protect consumers.
Amid a huge ideological debate about the freedom of traders to sell whatever they liked, the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875 was passed. However, it took time to take effect. In 1877 a quarter of all the milk examined by the local government board was seriously adulterated. However, the law worked. By 1894 adulterated milk accounted for less than 10% of all samples. Campaigning worked to get the law and the law worked for the good of the people. Lives were saved. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster, noting in her wonderful maiden speech that such protections are particularly important for the most vulnerable in society.
Today, in 2024, however, we are seriously failing to provide protections. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others referred to the fact that it has been clear for some time that there is a huge problem with lithium-ion batteries and chargers. We have seen this problem, yet there has been no action. I would like to ask the Minister specifically about what timeframe the Government see for taking action on this. Do we have to wait for the Bill to go through the many months it will undoubtedly take? I do not know if that is necessary. Could something not be done sooner? As the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, said in bringing his particular expertise to this debate, in the current age we need a kind of agility in reacting to changing products, circumstances and methods of sale, but we are utterly failing.
Last weekend, I was listening to the London Review of Books podcast. James Butler, who closely followed and reported on the evidence to the Grenfell Tower inquiry, was speaking angrily, and rightly, about the decades of regulatory failure that led to the deaths of 72 people. When you read in Hansard the debates about the 1875 Act, we had people then making the same kind of arguments that are made today: about the need to protect business from extra costs; about the need to allow business to make profits; about the need to allow freedom of trade, even of substandard products. But what could be more central to the role of government than keeping people safe?
It is demonstrably clear that exercising the rhetoric of cutting so-called red tape has killed and continues to kill. Anyone using that language really should take a good hard look at themselves. Taking the US approach of waiting until a product kills and injures, then setting the injured consumer or their relatives against the enormous weight of multinational companies—or in pursuit of some fly-by-night trader who cannot possibly be located—in the hope of financial recompense through the slow lottery of the courts, years or decades later, when of course that will not restore their life or their health, is indefensible and ineffective. It is fit only for a society that does not care for its people.
Product regulation is not just a matter of life and death. It is also about keeping a basic quality of life and well-being, not just for the purchasers of products but for general society and our disastrously battered environment on this planet, where the boundaries for novel entities have already been exceeded, in addition to the now acutely obvious climate emergency and nature crisis. Product regulation is crucial in the quality of our everyday lives and health, in both obvious and more subtle ways. How much energy your TV or computer uses, how much noise your neighbour’s strimmer makes or how much pollution you breathe in as you walk down the pavement affect all of us, every minute of every day. With public health in the UK in such a terrible state, this is even more crucial.
Since Brexit, Europe has demonstrably continued to advance in health, well-being and the safety of its products—even if, as the European green parties regularly point out, still far too slowly—while the UK has been sliding further and further behind. I want to particularly note three briefings that I received before this debate from the Green Alliance, Friends of the Earth and the Institute for European Environmental Policy. Those organisations are, as those names suggest, particularly focused on environmental health. What we need to adopt, of course, is a one-health approach acknowledging that environmental health, animal health and human health are all intimately interrelated. In that context I have to note, as I acknowledge the Minister did in his introduction, that this is an environmental Bill. It therefore contains significant devolved elements which cover areas under the control of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has been listening closely to our debate and I expect that in later stages of the Bill we may well be working on these issues together.
However, it is probably already clear from my comments that the Bill is welcome from the Green Party perspective, if severely insufficient in its current form and approach. I foresee many a debate about “may” or “must” being in its clauses. Surely, the Labour Party will not be reversing the kinds of positions it took in debating such matters when they were on the Opposition Benches. I hope we are not going to see the kind of 180 degree U-turn that we saw from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, much as I am glad to see that the Conservative Party is now concerned about Henry VIII clauses.
I want to focus briefly on a couple of areas. Chemical regulation is a huge area of concern, with the science fast exposing how disastrously we have poisoned this planet. I am looking forward to a commitment from the Minister, either today or down the track, to either a new chemicals strategy or a new chemicals agency. I note that the Royal Society of Chemistry has been calling for this.
I also want to take a brief look at the advances being made in Europe, particularly the EU’s eco-design for sustainable products regulation, which entered into force on 18 July this year. This is part of a wider circular economy plan, an approach I hope to see the Government taking forward. It is focused not on a particular problem or product; it is a framework law that aims to drive forward improvements across a whole range of products and product categories by encouraging products that use less energy—so saving consumers money—last longer, can be easily repaired or recycled, contain more recycled content and have parts that can easily be disassembled and put to further use. It ensures that each product should have a digital product passport, so that producers have to collect and record the sustainability of their products. This means we can look at how to best use these products in the future. Do the Government plan to take a similar approach?
I am perhaps surprised that this debate has not focused more on another issue. Chemical substances in toys are an obvious area of grave concern to the health of our current and future generations. We need particularly to protect children from exposure to harmful endocrine-disrupting chemicals. I note that public awareness of PFAS and “forever chemicals” is growing fast; the Government are going to find themselves coming under considerable pressure in these areas very soon. At the moment, the Bill’s powers appear primarily to cover products that come under the Department for Business and Trade and the Office for Product Safety and Standards. Are the Government prepared to consider—I would be delighted to discuss this with the Minister—whether the Bill can be extended to cover the EU REACH restrictions and bans on other consumer products not falling into those categories? An obvious example here is formaldehyde in furniture, an area of growing health concern.
I have two final points to make. One is about Clause 11, which lists the regulations to be considered under the affirmative procedure but misses an opportunity to deal with something that, again, the now Government frequently lamented from these Benches: the impossibility in your Lordships’ House of dealing with statutory instruments with regulations that are patently inadequate but which we have no effective opportunity to stop. There is a chance to create further oversight in Clause 11, including perhaps a potential option for the House of Lords to disapprove draft instruments, sending them back for extra homework where significant concerns are raised. This, of course, is crucial, given that in the Bill’s current form there are essentially no real commitments.
Finally, I want to pick up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The noble Lord rightly highlighted how our trading standards enforcement has been absolutely sliced away by austerity. Your Lordships’ House can do wonders with this Bill, but without enforcement—if the Bill is not enforced—that is pointless. I hope that the Government will address the issue of austerity’s impact on local government, particularly trading standards, as a matter of urgency.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I declare my interests as set out in the register.
This has been a very interesting debate, not least because of the wonderful maiden contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster. It was a speech of great elegance and humour. I congratulate her and look forward to her future contributions.
I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for setting out the objectives and purposes of the legislation with commendable clarity. The Government set out their intention to update product safety legislation in the King’s Speech in July 2024. It is important to note, however, that the scope of the legislation is broader than just product safety. It encompasses, for example, environmental legislation, which will have consequences in relation to devolved competencies. I will come to these.
I understand that one of the aims of the legislation is to keep pace with advances such as AI. This is a very sensible move. Dealing with areas such as this will help business and so promote growth. To that extent, it is laudable. Along with other noble Lords, I welcome this legislation. Its general thrust is right, although I have specific concerns that I will come to.
Another aim of the legislation is to clarify the role of online marketplaces in relation to product safety. Their great growth makes this, again, a sensible and welcome development.
The legislation we are considering is, of course, framework legislation. Substantive content will arise only when the Secretary of State exercises the relevant powers. It can scarcely be otherwise. Detailed product safety and other such regulation should not be contained in primary legislation. It is true that, under the legislation, the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations to correspond with relevant EU legislation—or indeed to not correspond if this is the decided and desired course of action. That too seems commendable and sensible. To proceed in that way will help preserve regulatory stability across the UK and the EU.
I hope that this objective—or at least the option to be exercised in many cases—of the alignment of regulations between the UK and the EU will receive a wider welcome in your Lordships’ House, particularly when there is a danger of the deviation from safety laws within the UK. There may be occasions when alignment with the EU is not the correct approach, but that can be debated. It seems entirely reasonable that, as the EU updates its regulations, the UK needs powers to do the same and to follow or diverge, as the case arises.
The impact assessment of the Bill sets out the dangers of not acting. These include business costs, complexity, uncertainty and confusion. Consumer safety risks, businesses choosing not to supply the GB market and, as I have noted, UK internal market divergence are also possibilities and would not be desirable.
I welcome the general thrust of the legislation. There are certain points which I wish to explore and probe a bit further, if I may. The first relates to specific consumer safety issues which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I agree that it would be good to hear a timescale for dealing with the issues of consumer safety in relation to e-scooters and lithium-ion batteries. These are matters of great urgency which need action. The briefing that we received from the London Fire Brigade and others was very helpful in this regard.
I would also welcome comments from the Minister about the approach of the Government in relation to online marketplaces. Is it the intention to deal with this globally—to have consumer safety applying across both online marketplaces and the traditional retail market—or are we going to see two separate approaches to the issues? Will he indicate the Government’s thinking on this? With the great growth of online marketplaces, through institutions such as Temu and so on, action is needed. Once again, the briefings that noble Lords received from Which? magazine, Electrical Safety First and others have been very helpful in this regard.
I have a major concern relating to devolution. The Bill centralises decision-making in the hands of the Westminster Government. I appreciate that the UK Government are seeking legislative consent Motions from the devolved nations. It would be good to hear from the Minister the likely timescale for these legislative consent Motions to come forward. However, the matter does not stop there. This framework legislation represents not just product safety—which I appreciate is a reserved matter and therefore certainly within our competence—but matters such as environmental law, which is very much a devolved matter where the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament, the Senedd, and indeed Northern Ireland will rightly have a role.
Under the legislation, it is not clear what that role is to be or, indeed, if there is to be a role: it is not set out. Is consent from the devolved bodies to be required, as should be the case? There is no mention even of consultation. So I would appreciate it if the Minister could clear up a matter that will certainly be important going forward. The legislation is much wider than the narrow title of the Bill suggests. Indeed, there is considerable power within the scope of the Bill in relation to the marketing and use of products to ensure their efficiency and effectiveness, not just to mitigate safety risks.
With these important caveats, I welcome the general thrust of this legislation, but I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify these matters.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made from the Front Bench by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I do not like a Henry VIII Bill in this form. I was glad that we killed the Schools Bill in the last Parliament. I very much hope that we, on this side of the House, will be able to collaborate to make sure that either we are shown the draft regulations before we get to Committee or that we send the Bill to the other place with a suitably large number of amendments, so that if, when the regulations finally emerge, we find that they pong, we can ping them back.
This Bill sets out to protect consumers from dubious and dangerous goods. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, in welcoming the Bill from that point of view. In Committee, I want to explore how it could be extended to make sure that VAT is paid on those goods. That is both to pick up the £1 billion or £2 billion a year that we are failing to collect at the moment, and because that kind of attention and positive cash flow would really help reinforce the consumer safety purposes of this Bill.
In what follows, I will rely extensively on Richard Allen’s 20 years of battling to get HMRC to collect the VAT due on imports into this country—a battle that has yet to crowned with full success, though there have been some useful victories. Online retail is just mail order. It is the same business as Pryce Pryce-Jones invented in 1861 and the regulations for dealing with it really date in concept from that era. They have not been updated to address current practices. This has led to a series of past and current abuses.
The abuse of de minimis import tax exemptions is now a global concern. Companies like Shein and Temu have legitimately exploited these outdated exemptions and flooded Asia, Europe and America with low-value goods, assisted by generous Chinese export tax rebates and subsidised international postage rates, overseen by a secretive Universal Postal Union treaty. It appears to me that the business models of those two companies and others are entirely based on the tax that does not get paid. I suspect that, if we collected tax properly, those companies would not exist.
In April 2017, the National Audit Office published its report Investigation into Overseas Sellers Failing to Charge VAT on Online Sales. This highlighted abuse by Chinese retailers who ship goods into UK warehouses with misdeclared import values and then sell them on Amazon and eBay, while not accounting for VAT on the sales. HMRC’s response was ineffective. As can easily be seen by placing test purchases, those ignoring the UK’s obligation to register for VAT can sell goods to UK customers at a distance and send them to the UK in the certain knowledge that, if they are below £135 in declared—not necessarily actual—value, no VAT assessment will be made at the border and the goods will be delivered to the UK customer promptly. That effectively means that these goods can be sold VAT free, which hugely undercuts any legitimate UK business trying to compete. All the business that could be being done in the UK, with the VAT and employment taxes that would result, shifts to these large overseas enterprises.
Large shipments of goods have been sent to the UK individually packaged as consignments of less than £135 in value. Under the new bulk import reduced dataset systems, entire container loads of goods can be declared on a spreadsheet. Undervaluation is hard to detect, and bulk shipments of low-value consignments will not attract VAT or duty if each package is addressed to an individual in the UK and valued at less than £135. Large consignments of goods are thus split into hundreds of smaller consignments and addressed to fake individuals or one of the many hundreds of thousands of mysterious Chinese companies that have been set up at Companies House. Once the goods have cleared customs, these bulk consignments are broken down and the goods are sent to warehouses, from where they are sold on eBay, Amazon or elsewhere. Once the goods are in a distribution warehouse, it is virtually impossible for the customs authorities to determine who is the beneficial owner.
I will outline some simple solutions to these problems. First, make online marketplaces collect VAT on all sales, whether the sellers are established in the UK or not. In the case of those using online marketplaces, as opposed to selling direct, this would greatly simplify collection for the seller and tax authorities and remove the need to determine where the seller is established. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, correctly pointed out, in any event, under the Bill, we need to look at how business is conducted in online marketplaces to make sure that the products reaching our consumers are safe. It is not much extra to make sure that the tax has been paid in the correct way. As I said, this would generate a large flow of income that would put a broad smile on the Treasury’s face and make it happy to finance the enforcement effort that, as others have said, will be needed to make the Bill succeed.
Secondly, make any non-resident seller who applies for a UK company or VAT number appoint a VAT representative in the UK who is responsible for paying import tax debts should the seller abscond. Clause 2(2)(k) addresses exactly that for product quality questions: it asks for a UK representative who we can go after if something is wrong with the product, so that it gets put right. In Committee, I will certainly look to make sure that this representative is a person of substance who, faced with substantial fines for exploding batteries— I am glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is seated on a wheelchair with what looks like lead acid ones—can pay the substantial damages involved. These representatives need to be real people.
Thirdly, make customs brokers responsible for the correct value declaration of goods that they import for their clients, for the safety of those goods and for the payment of any VAT and duty. These two things run together: if you are in the business of importing goods, you will, under the Bill, have to take responsibility for their safety. We can run the VAT in alongside that.
Fourthly, legislate so that all imported goods held in UK warehouses are clearly marked with the name of the beneficial owner. We are asking for products to be properly marked in the Bill. Who is the beneficial owner? Who is the representative whom we can go after if the products are defective or if the VAT has not been paid? We need that sort of information to be clearly specified.
Fifthly, abolish the subsidy enjoyed by Chinese sellers, enabled by the Universal Postal Union treaty. I suspect that will be outside the scope of the Bill, however much I may smile at the Public Bill Office.
Lastly, increase the cost of unrealistically cheap imports, whether through increased duty, enforced partnership with a UK company, the extension of duty to more classes of goods or the application of fixed fees for clearance. Other countries faced with the same challenges have adopted measures like these. VAT has recently been imposed on all low-value imports by South Africa, and a similar measure is being considered in America. In India, Shein has been forced into partnership with an Indian company, ensuring that value is added, to the benefit of the Indian economy.
If we do this for the sake of tax, we will make it easier to ensure safety too. To come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, said, we will have a way of affording enforcement. In any event, part of the Bill should be an ability to charge for the certification work we do on product safety. This should not happen entirely at the cost of us and our Government; we ought to be able to put a charge on the products. Again, that would ride nicely alongside VAT.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his extremely kind words, especially about the Private Member’s Bill I have taken forward on lithium-ion safety. In this regard, I thank my noble friend Lord Foster for his years of work. Indeed, if he had been successful in the ballot and I had not, I think it would have been his Bill, which would have been fitting. On that basis, I recognise the work of Electrical Safety First, which has briefed many noble Lords, and its work on lithium-ion batteries.
Before I started, I was going to raise an issue with the noble Lord, Lord Frost—he is not in his place, but I can have a go at him anyway. I find it utterly incredible that, although we have moved to a Labour Government from the Conservative Government, there still seems to be this argument that convergence is a bad idea. In the area of standards, convergence is the best idea—it does not matter whether it is European or more international. The idea that convergence on standards is not excellent seems deranged. That is my personal view, obviously, from the Back Benches.
The great thing about a Private Member’s Bill is that, whether it becomes law or not, you get the areas of grievance talked about and hopefully prompt the Government into action. The Government have moved extremely fast in this area by bringing forward this Bill of their own. Also, the amount of discussion about lithium-ion does give the impression that this is one of the central tenets of the Bill, although it is of course going to be a great deal wider than that.
I focused on lithium-ion, but it is a very safe technology. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is sitting on lead acid batteries. I think her wheelchair would weigh about two tonnes if she were. She is actually sitting on lithium-ion batteries, which are extremely safe. However, there are of course situations in which they can be extremely dangerous—and not just the lithium-ion batteries in our e-bikes and their chargers, but any lithium-ion battery that we have in our homes.
Zurich and the British Metal Recycling Association have said that about 1,200 fires per year are caused by lithium-ion batteries in the waste stream—that is, waste trucks and disposal sites—because those batteries, while safe in people’s homes, tend to catch fire when they are crushed and put in water. While the Bill covers many of the areas covered in my Private Member’s Bill, it does not look at disposal. I say to the Minister that I am happy to shelve my Bill if I can talk to his officials about whether disposal could be added to this Bill.
There is a simple way to stop vast numbers of such fires, which are extremely dangerous, especially to the firefighters: to ensure that the people who sell such products online have a duty to make sure that the deliveries are equipped to take back batteries. Then, the massive numbers of batteries sitting around in people’s drawers would be safely taken back, rather than thrown into a truck in water and crushed, which is extremely unsafe and environmentally unsuitable. If we could encourage online marketplaces to take back batteries, as supermarkets do already, I could then shelve my Private Member’s Bill.
There is a second issue, of course: transport regulations. You can deliver as many batteries as you like, and that is not seen as hazardous, but if you take the same batteries away after they have been used, even a couple of days later, that is seen as hazardous waste. That also needs to be addressed.
The Minister is obviously going to have vast numbers of organisations, and his officials, looking at including as many areas as possible in the Bill. It is a Henry VIII Bill, but I can see why it needs to be so, because there are many areas it will have to look at. I have the opportunity now, in this House, to put forward one of the issues I would like to be covered: the scourge of bike theft, which had not occurred to me until I read in the Economist this week a particularly good article about bike thefts in the UK. Some 200,000 bikes were stolen last year, and that does not even include bikes stolen during burglaries. It is such a low priority that it seems to be almost impossible for the police to catch anybody who steals a bike. There is a solution. The article goes on to talk about work being done on Merseyside to stop people on bikes and find out whether they are stolen. An easy way to find out whether a bike is stolen is to look at its security marking. That would have a real impact on the number of bikes stolen, but also on the number of crimes committed by people on stolen bikes—snatching mobile phones and the like.
A simple solution in this Bill would be to make sure that any online platform has to include in the information given the security marking numbers of a bike. That would be an eminently suitable provision to include in the Bill. I would go further and say that retailers should be encouraged to provide bikes with markings in the first place. The article went on to say that the police have developed an app so that when bikes are recovered—you can do so on the online store—they can be returned to their owners, which is apparently so uncommon that it causes a great deal of surprise.
When I was a student in Newcastle, there was a shop on the Westgate Road called the Westgate Road Bazaar, which was fantastic because you knew you could get anything there and it was almost certainly stolen. Indeed, I know one young man who was done for his crime of passion: taking car alarms. In the days when you had to fit car alarms, he would steal them and sell them back to the garages, to be sold on. I digress, and although that is a humorous aside, the fact that bikes can be sold so easily on online platforms makes a mockery of the law, in a way, and is fuelling a massive trade in theft.
Therefore, I very much hope that I can talk to the Minister’s officials about the two points I have raised: the disposal of batteries, which could solve a lot of the problems caused by lithium-ion battery fires; and whether bikes could be included, because it would have a massive impact on crime in this country.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his analysis. It is a pleasure to congratulate him on his appointment and welcome him to the Government Front Bench. I have greatly enjoyed working with him on other enabling Bills, such as the CPTPP Bill, and find myself in agreement with him on many issues. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster, and congratulate her on her winning maiden speech and her extremely impressive parliamentary career. I look forward to her future contributions to this House.
This Bill can be read in two ways. First, it can be read as an enabling Bill, to enable regulation on product safety and consumer protection to be updated, to keep pace with new products hitting the marketplace and new platforms for the market, especially online retail. The Bill, as we have heard, will update product regulation to keep pace with market developments and new marketplaces, and provide, as we have also heard, a means of recognising new or updated EU product requirements, with the intention of preventing additional costs for business. Noble Lords across the Chamber have commented on this, and we have heard many examples of the scary risks from e-bikes, the safety mechanisms that do not work and the calls on the London Fire Brigade. This is all very illuminating and, where necessary, I would totally support the updating of safety and product regulation.
Secondly, in addition to the first way of reading the Bill, it can be seen, as other noble Lords have pointed out, as a Bill to rationalise the UK’s product regulation across the UK’s internal market and to keep it up to date with EU product regulation, which Northern Ireland has been obliged to accept. The King’s Speech guidance illuminates the second reading of this measure, although I am afraid that the Bill is less than forthright about it. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I have questions about that. Page 38 of the guidance says:
“As most product safety legislation falls within scope of the Windsor Framework, EU changes to product regulation only apply in Northern Ireland, resulting in divergence within the UK internal market as EU laws are updated. This Bill gives the Government specific powers to make changes to GB legislation to manage divergence and take a UK-wide approach, where it is in our interests to do so”.
The House of Lords Library briefing, for which I am most grateful, highlights this provision as follows:
“The Government has stated the Bill would give it specific powers to make changes to … GB … legislation to manage divergence within the UK internal market. … Under the bill’s provisions, the government would be able to amend GB legislation in order to … take a UK-wide approach”,
et cetera.
In the impact assessment for the Bill, section 4 explains that the Government’s preferred option to change the law on product framework will ensure the framework is
“agile in its response to emerging threats, new technologies and changes in EU law … This option will ensure that the Government can fully implement a framework for recognising existing EU requirements for a range of products”
and ensure powers
“to enable the Government to manage divergence pragmatically”.
This suggests that the Government will be empowered, in order to manage divergence, to introduce and impose EU goods and product law as they decide. It implies that the EU goods laws now imposed on Northern Ireland could or will be extended to the whole of the UK. Can the Minister clarify whether this is correct and what precisely the Government intend in order to take a UK-wide approach to the internal market, and under which powers particularly conferred in the Bill?
Are the Government planning to end the dual system either at one stroke or in a piecemeal way? This is a dual system in which we have an EU system for Northern Ireland products and UK arrangements which may diverge from inherited EU regulation. Will that be by imposing EU product laws on the whole UK manufacturing sector in order to promote the integrity of the internal market?
I now turn to specific questions on Clauses 1 and 2. Clause 1(2) gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations for
“marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom, which corresponds, or is similar, to a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of”
goods. The Henderson Chambers barristers, Prashant Popat KC and Noel Dilworth, in an analysis published on the web, for which I am grateful, say that Clause 1(2)
“empowers the Secretary of State to harmonise UK law with EU law in order to reduce or mitigate the environmental impact of products”.
Can the Minister confirm that he agrees with this analysis and that the UK Government can now decree that our producers must follow such EU legislation as they—the Government—decide, for the purpose, of course, of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products?
If so, can the Minister point me to specific pieces of EU legislation, which, to date, fall in this category—since, of course, 2018—that is, any existing EU regulations, and which UK goods and producers will be affected by and subject to it?
I am sorry for the list of questions, but I hope the Minister will bear with me. Is it supposed to be a dynamic alignment, as other noble Lords have suggested, so allowing the continued keeping up with EU laws on product safety? If so, what is the certainty that producers can have as to whether the rules will change, even when some product is already on the assembly line? Who will judge whether a product falls within the law—in fact, EU law—and who will operate the law?
I now move on to the powers given for product requirements in Clause 2, to require conditions to be met for products in the UK. I refer to Clause 2(7), which allows that
“product regulations may provide that a product requirement is to be treated as met if … a requirement of relevant EU law specified in product regulations is met, or … such a requirement is met and conditions specified in the regulations are also met”,
provided due regard has been taken of
“the social, environmental and economic impact of making the provision”.
Does this mean that, in addition to the assimilated or inherited EU law, the Government intend to allow or impose a replacement of UK product law with EU product regulation, and in practice, the shadowing of the EU’s level playing field laws and EU economic law for goods in a dynamic alignment?
If my reading is correct—I would like some confirmation on this—it suggests that the Government intend, under cover of the Bill, to bring in the Chequers agreement piecemeal by the backdoor, which was rejected by the House of Commons three times. Would the Minister agree with that analysis in general?
To conclude, I urge the Government to embark on their new term of office, for which I wish them very well, by being open and transparent with the people of this country, to rethink the Bill to allow only for standard updating procedure for product regulation and metrology where absolutely necessary, and to drop the enabling powers in the Bill which allow them to impose EU law and regulation alignment by the backdoor.
I conclude by proposing, as other noble Lords on this side have already outlined, that the UK recognises the best international standards, wherever they come from, and that it plays its part in helping to shape these standards for product regulation, as it has done so successfully in so many other areas. I note here international financial services regulation in particular. Indeed, I echo the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in saying that the UK is well-placed to chart its own course and to reflect the best international standards, without looking over its shoulder to enact EU regulation. Much of it, I fear, is unequal to keeping pace with the best—and the worst—new products as they hit the market and the best international standards.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Lawlor, with whose speech I find myself in full agreement. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for introducing the Bill today and congratulate him on his appointment. I much enjoyed the interesting and entertaining maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster. Your Lordships’ House will gain much from her well-informed contributions.
I was initially rather confused about the Bill’s Title and kept trying to read “metrology” as “meteorology”. As I now understand it, the Bill’s Explanatory Notes claim two distinct purposes: to ensure that the product safety and metrology regime established after we left the EU is better able to adapt to AI and better reflects the shift in what consumers buy and how they buy it. Your Lordships’ House last debated this subject when it approved the product safety and metrology regulations in May. The effect of those was to extend indefinitely the grace period given for businesses to conform to the new UKCA markings in place of the EU markings, and to permit the use of UKCA markings in cases where products have conformed with EU assessment procedures.
This Bill is completely different from the regulations that were debated at that time. It is sure to have a large impact across the UK consumer market. Products in scope of the Bill are used by every person in the country, covering nearly all manufactured products. The Government’s own estimates suggest that there are 220,000 UK businesses currently affected by product safety legislation, with an estimated market turnover of just under £280 billion. The “Policy background” section of the Explanatory Notes states:
“The Bill is intended to enable the UK to maintain high product standards … by allowing the UK Parliament the power to update relevant laws”.
I cannot see how the Bill achieves that. It is easy to see that it gives very considerable powers to the Secretary of State to do that, but that is not the same thing.
Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the Bill addresses the growing problem of unsafe products being marketed online. Noble Lords will have noted the briefings produced by Which? and the London Fire Brigade, and good points are made in both. In particular, the dangers of fires from lithium-ion batteries in consumer products, in e-bikes and, although outside the scope of this Bill, in grid-scale projects such as the controversial Sunnica solar farm at Newmarket need to be properly regulated. I support the London Fire Brigade’s wish for the word “safety” to be included in Clause 1(1)(b). I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas in asking that the draft regulations be made available to your Lordships as soon as possible.
I am as concerned about what is excluded from the Bill as about what is included. Can the Minister explain why the Bill excludes food and SPS-related products? I can understand why it excludes aircraft, military equipment, and medicines and medical devices, but the exclusion of such a wide range of products would appear to tie the Secretary of State’s hand. How could the Government negotiate the SPS changes necessary to enter into trade agreements? Can the Minister tell the House how this would affect the USTR’s negotiating mandate for a trade agreement with the UK?
The Government have set out clearly their intention to negotiate a veterinary and SPS agreement with the EU. Can the Minister explain whether the reason that food products are specifically excluded from the Bill is that the type of agreement that the Government intend to strike with Brussels is one that requires dynamic alignment with EU regulation? As the Minister knows, there are only two types of agreement that the EU will countenance, given that returning to the customs union or the single market have both been ruled out repeatedly since the Government took office. Those two types of agreement are exemplified by the agreements that the EU has with Switzerland and New Zealand. Of these two types, does the Minister agree that our only option is a New Zealand-style agreement, providing for mutual recognition of different regulatory regimes and equivalence of outcomes? Could we not negotiate a similar agreement to that applied to medicines and medical devices, where our regulator, the MHRA, unilaterally recognises approvals given by the EU, the US, the Japanese and certain other counterparts?
Does the Minister acknowledge that to enter into dynamic alignment with the EU on SPS and food products would provide very limited benefits in return for a considerable surrender of authority and sovereignty over our SPS regime? We would not be able to do anything differently from the EU, even where it is in our national interests to do so. However, food importers would still have to deal with the extensive bureaucratic form-filling.
Can the Minister also explain how the Bill will affect existing trade agreements, since after the passage of the Bill the Government will no longer be able to control the UK’s rules? Furthermore, if the EU changes its rules in a more restrictive direction, would the law of unintended consequences apply, in that the Secretary of State would have no powers to follow suit and make similar changes to the UK’s rules?
The Minister will be aware that the UK’s accession to the CPTPP will become effective before the end of the year. My noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Lansley already referred to that. The CPTPP agreement contains good chapters on SPS and on regulatory coherence. Regulatory practice should be based on sound science. This agreement assumes that all partners to the agreement can exercise sovereign powers over their own regimes. Article 2 of Chapter 24 states that the parties affirm the importance of
“each Party’s sovereign right to identify its regulatory priorities and establish and implement regulatory measures to address these priorities”.
If, under the Government’s plans, we are to lose authority over our own rules, does the Minister not agree that we would be open to sanctions brought against us by other CPTPP members and would be required to negotiate under the partnership’s dispute settlement process? Surely we would be at risk of losing the benefits that we would enjoy as a partner to the agreement.
Is this not also a problem for products that are covered by the Bill? Clause 2(7) seems to indicate that a product requirement will be “treated as met” if it conforms to EU law, whether or not the EU law may have diverged from its previous alignment with UK law. My noble friend Lady Lawlor also referred to this.
I hope the Minister will agree that it is essential that the Secretary of State must retain sovereign powers over all UK rules. That would enable him to be able to choose whether a particular EU rule is or is not in the UK’s interests. If the Secretary of State does not have that power, would it not have profoundly damaging effects on the UK’s trade policy? Would it not also damage the UK’s capacity to improve its regulatory system in the SPS area through taking advantage of technological advances in areas such as gene editing?
Clause 11 explains which powers can be exercised by the Secretary of State under regulations subject to the affirmative procedure and which shall be subject to the negative procedure. It seems fair enough that authority to enter premises should be made subject to the affirmative procedure. Authority to seize products is not subject to the affirmative procedure, but it is hard to understand how products can be seized without entry to premises where the products are held.
I look forward to working with other noble Lords in seeking to improve the Bill in its future stages and to hearing the Minister’s winding-up speech.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful both for the chance to contribute to today’s consideration of this important legislation and for the opportunity to follow so many well-informed and forensic contributions. As we have heard enumerated extremely well already, this Bill is broad in scope and application—as it needs to be to achieve its objectives. Against that background, and conscious that I am the 17th speaker today, I do not intend to detain your Lordships’ House for longer than it will take for me to focus on one or two specific elements of the Bill.
Before I do that, I commend and thank my noble friend the Minister for his excellent introductory speech to legislation that is complex and difficult to understand. He has taken to the Front Bench of your Lordships’ House as a duck does to water, and I commend him for that too. As other noble Lords have, I also commend, thank and congratulate my noble friend Lady Winterton of Doncaster, who made her maiden speech today. She made what I thought was a speech that can be made only by someone who has a flawless political touch.
For half of my noble friend’s 27 years in Parliament, in the House of Commons representing Doncaster, our careers as parliamentary politicians followed a similar path. We were both elected in 1997 and we were both given ministerial responsibilities in 2001, after our first term on the Back Benches. My noble friend went on to have—I think I have got this right—six additional jobs. In my case it was five, and that took us to 2010. At that point, our careers diverged; I retired from the House of Commons and was introduced to your Lordships’ House. My noble friend went on to hold, entirely appropriately for a parliamentary democracy, senior positions in the Government for a period of time and then senior parliamentary positions. I retired because I had this conviction that three terms in the House of Commons was the appropriate time to spend there and one should then move on. She is, in that respect, the living contradiction of my judgment.
In anticipation of having this opportunity to speak about her, I made some inquiries and did some research in the media that covers the Doncaster area, of which there is quite a lot. I can tell you that, whatever she says about why this is the case, it seems very clear that, in Doncaster, she is deeply respected, greatly admired and loved for who she is—there is no question of that. I can say, from the time we were together in the House of Commons, that she was deeply respected, she was universally admired across the House and she was loved. From the reaction of your Lordships to this one speech from my noble friend, it is clear that she is deeply respected and deeply admired—the love will come.
This Bill makes no mention of the UK single market act. In that sense, it is somewhat like “Hamlet” without the Prince. These two pieces of legislation may turn out to sit awkwardly together on the statute book, both purportedly governing UK internal trade. But, to introduce my first point, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that this Bill does seem to be adopting an approach slightly distinct from that of the UK SMA in respect of the devolved Governments. I do not plan to explore that topic in any great depth today as I am sure this will be examined very thoroughly in Committee; if my former colleagues in the Law Society of Scotland have anything to do with it, they will guarantee that is the case. But I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister.
First, I understand from the Explanatory Notes that a legislative consent Motion is being sought from the Scottish Parliament. Given that the Notes further make clear that this process will apply only to Clauses 1 to 4 and 8 to 11 of the Bill, I ask my noble friend whether the Government plan to detail the discussions they have had with the devolved Administrations in respect of the legislative consent process. If they do not have such intentions, I urge them to get them because, from the point of view of our joint politics, it would be much easier to deal with these matters in the Scottish context if that is done.
Secondly, Clauses 1 to 4 and 8 to 11 empower the Secretary of State to make regulations in areas of devolved competence, but there is no requirement for him to consult with, or obtain consent from, Scottish Ministers before such regulations apply to Scotland. To forestall any possibility of this fact becoming yet another matter of unnecessary controversy during the implementation process, can my noble friend outline the circumstances in which regulations would be made without such consent being sought and granted—and, if it is not possible for him to do that today, will he write about it?
On the question of alignment, in the reaction to those elements of the Bill which concern the EU regulations, there are those who seem to believe that they can glimpse what TS Eliot described as
“the skull beneath the skin”—
that, behind what they regard as a designedly prosaic Bill, the Bill seeks to smuggle measures on to the statute book that would all but reverse Brexit, establish us as little more than a satrap of the European Union and condemn us, unthinkingly, to eight new European regulations as they emerge from the infernal bowels of the European Commission.
In that spirit, the Daily Express greeted this Bill with the typically understated headline “The Great Brexit Betrayal”, while another somewhat fevered headline suggested that this measure reduces Britain to nothing more than an “EU district”. Perhaps they are overstating things a little. This Bill offers nothing so apocalyptic, even for those who would regard greater EU alignment as inherently undesirable. Clause 2(7), for instance, would give the Secretary of State the power to declare UK product regulations met where these fulfil the requirements of the relevant EU law—this has already been referred to by others. This is caveated a little by the succeeding Clause 2(8), which makes it clear that this is subject to prior regard being given to the social, environmental and economic impact of EU alignment.
I know that Clause 2(7) has been particularly controversial, but there are a few points to make. First, this is an enabling power. It does not oblige the Secretary of State to accept EU regulations but gives him or her, an elected British Minister accountable to a sovereign Parliament, the ability so to do where it is believed that this would be in the UK’s national interest. Secondly, as the background briefing notes to the King’s Speech make clear, harmonisation is to be pursued only when
“it is in our interests to do so”.
This legislation also gives the Government the power to end recognition of EU product regulations where it is in
“the interests of UK businesses and consumers”
to do so.
The notion that regulation is inherently undesirable is flawed, to say the least. I will take the specific example of the chemical sector, where the enactment of the powers in this Bill could make a substantial beneficial difference. The last Government decided to leave REACH, the EU’s registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation, to set up a parallel body. Since then, we have not adopted a single restriction on a harmful substance, compared with 10 new protections offered by EU regulation, including on harmful micro- plastics deliberately added to products. While REACH has regulated PFAs in the EU, not a single river or water body in England is in good chemical health.
As well as damaging wildlife and water bodies, these PFAs—so-called “forever chemicals”—have been found in high concentration in our drinking water, in pollution hotspots across the UK and even in our blood. Since we left REACH, the EU has initiated 23 risk assessments related to harmful substances while we have initiated just three. It may be that this is a function of a more vibrant, freebooting approach, or that we have superior data or a more effective methodology, but I fear it may just be that our duplicate body has simply proven less effective—which, in turn, imperils the safety of people in this country.
I have lost track of the number of Conservative Ministers I have seen in my 27 years in Parliament announcing their determination to kindle a bonfire of regulations, to take an axe to red tape or some similarly strenuous deregulatory measure. But the powers in this Bill that offer the chance for greater regulatory alignment will make trade with the EU easier across a variety of sectors, without any need for duplicate regulations. Indeed, Make UK, the manufacturers association, describes the Bill as “removing the uncertainty” created by the EU retained law Act, and giving Governments
“the ability to assess and implement EU product regulatory requirements into GB law for specific markets and categories”.
If I properly understood the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I agree with him when I say that few things damage trade law more than uncertainty and asymmetry. It is therefore unclear, at least to me, how the British Government being empowered either to adopt or end EU regulations according to a calculus of self-interest represents an irreversible slide into geopolitical irrelevance.
In case your Lordships have not got it, I welcome the legislation before the House today. I look forward to participating in the later stages of its passage and offer the Government my support in ensuring that it reaches the statute book.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this important debate on the Bill. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Leong, to his place on the Front Bench and congratulate him on his appointment to the Government. I am sure he will do an excellent job. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster. We were sparring partners in the other place and I am sure she will make a very strong contribution in this House.
The Bill appears beguilingly straightforward, benign and innocuous, but it contains some clauses that cause me a deal of concern and alarm, both for what is written in the Bill and—as my noble friend Lord Trenchard said—what is not written but omitted. I will concentrate my remarks on product regulation.
Naturally, we all support the imperative of responding to new product risks and opportunities, updating the law in respect of new and emerging business models in the supply chain, enhancing powers for market surveillance, working towards better product safety, including for products sold online, and addressing product recalls and traceability. The previous Government were committed to replacing and updating EU-derived regulations that were part of UK law, aiming to create a more coherent and effective product safety regime.
There is a consensus on the Government’s focus on innovation as a driver for the delivery of economic growth. That includes the safe development and supply of new technologies. As we know, a new modernised product safety regulatory framework has been needed for some time, as the Office for Product Safety and Standards pointed out in its 2018 report. New legislation was, of course, inevitable and probably advisable following the OPSS’s product safety review of March 2021, with the focus on updating the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. The previous Government legislated in secondary legislation that came into effect this month.
However, as noble Lords might expect, I have some reservations, particularly on Clauses 1(2) and 2(7), which contain powers to align UK laws with any EU environmental rules and a general power to provide that the EU standards shall apply respectively.
The language in Clause 2(7) is oddly technocratic but, at the same time, vague. It has significant ramifications in terms of a policy shift towards aligning with EU standards over time—dynamic alignment. Other noble Lords, such as my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lord Frost, mentioned this. The Bill also does not fully elucidate the details of what types of products are covered by its provisions—it references “nearly all manufactured products”—so will the Minister clarify this for the House? Will alignment with the EU regulatory regime include the EU’s 2023 safety regulations, due to come into force in the EU in December 2024, and the revised EU product liability directive, in the next few years? What steps will Ministers take to both consult with business and allow Parliament appropriate scrutiny and oversight of ministerial decisions? If the latter is not the case, will the Minister tell us whether the Government will bring forward primary legislation on product liability in the near future?
As Which? has rightly stated, this is an enabling Bill, a Henry VIII Bill, which allocates vast powers. The devil will of course be in the detail of the secondary legislation. I had a wry smile when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, reproaching my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for referencing the Henry VIII powers in the Bill. We were tripping over legal experts on the Cross Benches during the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, who pontificated and opined on that Bill’s traducing of parliamentary sovereignty by its Henry VIII powers. But I fear that the noble Lord is alone today and that his Cross-Bench noble friends who share his views are not present. The strange thing is that we now have a Labour Government, which might account for that.
The briefing paper from Which? rightly points out the lack of detail in the Bill on the duties and obligations of those supplying products in online marketplaces, for instance. I therefore invite the Minister seriously to consider the proposals outlined by Which? in the helpful briefing paper: an explicit set of provisions to detail key duties on online marketplaces and a commitment to publish, in good time before the duties come into force, any draft secondary legislation on how these duties will work in practice, and to consult key stakeholders on the design of those regulations.
Which? also made the very important point that a new parliamentary committee should be dedicated to scrutiny and to reviewing any proposed changes to product and metrology regulations, especially where the UK is opting to diverge from existing rules. I do not have a problem with defending the divergence of rules if it is in the long-term interest of UK businesses, looking outwards to global regulatory regimes—if it is defensible, of course.
Which? also proposes a commitment to ensure that, in the future, consumer and industry groups are given consultation rights over any significant rule changes that impact specific products and markets, in good time and before draft secondary legislation is published. I hope the Minister will address that in his speech.
As has been mentioned, in fairness, the Bill also contains provisions that allow the UK to end recognition of EU product regulations. I concede that, but the Minister might explain how such a decision might be triggered, what scrutiny Parliament will be able to exercise on that policy and what evidential basis will be required.
On the specific content of Clause 2(8), can the Minister explain the likely scenarios that would cause him or her to make reference to
“the social, environmental and economic impact”
of the Bill’s provisions and the rationale for this subsection, given that the Bill already complies with human rights provisions and environmental legislation? Dare I say that Clause 2(8) might just invite more litigation and judicial review? On that basis, it is perhaps unwise to place it in the Bill.
The Bill is opaque in many respects. It is a concern that the impact assessment prays in aid the enabling nature of the powers in this primary legislation and is therefore silent on the likely monetary costs of the Bill to business. Page 11 of the impact assessment specifically states:
“Impacts have therefore not been monetised and are discussed qualitatively”.
While the rationale for the Bill appears clear and unambiguous—that, at present, the UK lacks the power to end recognition or to recognise new and updated EU regulations in Great Britain—I am unconvinced of the corollary argument that, ipso facto, the UK will fall behind the EU and other jurisdictions and markets in its innovation, technological advances and competitiveness. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Foster, but I think it is important to take our time with the considered scrutiny of the Bill, because the devil will be in the detail—notwithstanding what he said about specific product issues, which are of course very important.
At the risk of being labelled deranged by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I refer noble Lords back to recent history and the ill-fated Chequers White Paper of 12 July 2018, the most consequential part of which considered the future economic partnership between post-Brexit UK and the European Union. These proposals were thrice rejected in the other place, and indeed by the EU in September 2018. The May Government proposed a common rulebook—I am sure we all remember that—for all goods, including agri-food, and a treaty commitment to harmonisation to provide frictionless trade. In addition, the PM promised binding commitments on state aid and competition, and non-regression clauses on level playing field issues, and the UK was de facto to remain in the customs union, which was then labelled the combined customs territory. Amazingly, senior civil servants briefed the EU that Chequers would give the UK no competitive advantage in business and commerce in the future, which seemed an odd position for the UK Government to take. There was no mandate, electorally or in Parliament, for what was effectively dynamic alignment —without a vote or a voice, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said. I say in passing that I agreed with the vast bulk of my noble friend’s very well-articulated remarks.
Finally, the Bill potentially undermines His Majesty’s Government’s manifesto commitment to remain outside the single market, opens up disputes over the reach of the European Court of Justice in its interpretation of legacy EU law, and traps entrepreneurs and innovators in the UK into a legal and regulatory framework that is inimical to British competitiveness, global ambitions and economic growth and prosperity. Let the Minister be assured that a number of us noble Lords will watch the progress of the Bill hawk-like and will fully hold him and his Government to account.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough— I think it was in Peterborough that I got caught in a ring road and went round and round without ever getting anywhere. It is also a pleasure to wind up this debate, but it was more of a pleasure to hear the excellent maiden speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton of Doncaster. While other colleagues were describing her huge and lengthy parliamentary CV, they failed to observe her last two jobs. The most recent was that of Deputy Speaker, and before that she was buried in the shady depths of the Whips’ Office. Neither of those afforded much opportunity for her to stand up on the green Benches and make speeches. It is good to have her back making speeches, and I am sure she will contribute fully to the work of your Lordships’ House.
Brexit is the present that keeps on giving. I naively hoped that the post-Brexit replumbing of the statute book was done, but no. As the Minister explained, the Bill is another piece of work that we need to do as a result of the Brexit process and, while we have managed thus far, it provides a welcome—from these Benches—and much-needed legislative mechanism to introduce changes to regulations. On these Benches, as I think noble Lords have understood, we will work positively with the Minister. I welcome him to his new role, and we thank him and his team for the engagement that they have already given us and that I am sure we will get in future.
Overall, we will be looking for ways to ensure that the Bill advocates for strong consumer safety and well-being. Consumer safety should be built into the Bill and should ensure that all future secondary legislation must be designed to maintain a high level of consumer protection and well-being and to require that products be safe. Future regulation should also cover product recall and other areas, such as disposal. In these regards, there is tremendous scope to strengthen the Bill.
There is more joy in heaven over a sinner who repents. While it might not be heaven on the Liberal Democrat Benches, there is some ironic joy when we hear the voices of some on the Conservative Benches complaining about Henry VIII legislation. During a debate on one of the many Bills, I warned them to be careful what they wished for; what they wished for is what they are now getting. As the Minister explained, this is a framework Bill so there is no subterfuge, but it is one with few or no guard-rails. As we go through, I think that will be important. I look forward to hearing what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has to say about this, because I suspect we may have to think through some areas around it.
Your Lordships’ House is familiar with, and a number of noble Lords have mentioned, the time-honoured complaint that secondary legislation is unamendable when it comes before us. In the absence of any details in the Bill, it is for this reason that colleagues are starting to raise issues, and many of these issues will come forward. They are anxious to pursue how the regulations will work on really important issues. An important subset has been the issue of lithium-ion batteries. It is not the only priority but is clearly one for some Members of your Lordships’ House.
I believe, as others have said, that the best way for the Minister to draw the sting of this debate is to show us what the proposed regulations will be. I think there will be a number of other areas, particularly around markets, where that strategy will be the best way to satisfy your Lordships’ House. Also, publishing the details of the consultation—which, in our meeting with him, the Minister told us would be coming forward—is very important and will draw some of the sting from the Conservative Front-Bench speech. More generally, there should be a commitment to publish that draft legislation and to give your Lordships an opportunity, once the Bill has passed, maybe in Committee or otherwise, to review that.
A real issue, raised by the noble Lord opposite and by my noble friend, is chemicals regulation. Chemicals regulation is one of the biggest bugbears facing British manufacturing, and one of the biggest hazards facing British consumers across the country. There is a roadblock thanks to the way in which REACH was to be ported across to this country with a new system—I will not bore the Minister on this issue; I have bored Parliament on several occasions on it. It is still a botch—the idea that data could be ported across from EU REACH into the British system was always wrong and there were warnings from the outset. That is why we have the stasis going on now. I would like the Minister to confirm that REACH is within the scope of the Bill, and if it is not we will table amendments to bring it into scope.
Liberal Democrats also believe that we should make future regulations that have regard to the sustainability of products, including the right to repair, reuse and safe disposal, which was mentioned by my noble friend—building in circular economy principles into future regulation. We will table amendments to enshrine that as part of the guardrails that I have talked about.
Next, the accompanying notes and ministerial communications have lauded how the Bill will respond to new and emerging business models. This is important and, as noble Lords heard from my noble friend Lord Foster and others, we will be probing the regulation of online marketplaces. Current product safety laws were developed before the evolution of online marketplaces. The Office for Product Safety and Standards thinks that the responsibilities on these online marketplaces are currently insufficient, and that the rules are unclear. We agree with that and will be seeking that clarity. We will seek an enforceable duty on online marketplaces to provide confidence for consumers. In addition, we will propose the extension of liability to online market- places for defective products, particularly those sold by third-party sellers. This needs to be supported by clearer definitions of the key terms, as some of my colleagues, including the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I think, mentioned.
The crucial issue of enforcement was also raised by my noble friend and it is clear that without an obligation to deliver resources to enforce them, these new regulations are essentially worthless. There can be no level playing field for bricks-and-mortar shops if these new rules are not properly enforced on the digital players in the economy.
Moving on, can the Minister please explain, as a number of your Lordships have asked, how this regulation will mesh with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act and with the Windsor Framework? The noble Lord, Lord Browne, and others pointed out that although product regulation is a reserved issue, the effects of the product being regulated are often not reserved. So can the Minister explain how the Bill will proceed, and how it will proceed if it does not receive legislative consent from one or other of the devolved authorities? Meanwhile, we have cross-border issues in the island of Ireland. This has been mentioned around the scope of the Windsor Framework. In some cases it has been mentioned as a menace, in some cases I think the Bill has the opportunity to solve some of those problems, and it will be good to know the Minister’s and the Government’s philosophy on that.
Part of the post-Brexit issue in dealing with the internal market was to create the common framework process. Nobody has talked about those common frame- works for a very long time. I would like the Minister to update your Lordships’ House, probably by letter, on where those common frameworks are, because this is an ideal topic for one of those frameworks, probably the environmental framework, to deal with. At the moment it is not clear to me whether those are completely moribund or whether there is a channel there to deal with it. If there is not, I think we will have to table something in Committee that has a way of bringing together the nations of the United Kingdom so that they can contribute to the process of the regulation that is going forward, rather than have it done to them all the time. That speaks to the spirit that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, was talking about just now.
I would like to use what remains of this speech to clarify two points. First, what is a product? This is not the start of a philosophical discussion. I was struck by one of the conversations I had with the Bill team—for which I was grateful—that the Bill is aimed at tangible products, such as an alarm clock, a vacuum cleaner, or a car, if it is in the scope of these regulations. Historically, the operationality of such things was self-contained. It had all the features that it had, and they were not mutable. That is no longer the case. Almost every product can be internet-enabled and can have its software updated, remotely, overnight, without me even knowing. So the properties of that product, which might have been legal, decent, honest and truthful at bedtime, can be positively dangerous by the morning unless the process of the software operating system updating is also part of the regulatory process. The Bill does not in any sense capture the spirit of that. We will certainly probe that in Committee.
My final point is distinctly Brexity—noble Lords would not expect otherwise. Interestingly, and unusually, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and I have a shared interest, in that both of us would like some clarity around how the Bill will be used, though we definitely come at it from opposite angles. He and other noble Lords raised the spectre of Clause 2. I will not quote Clause 2(7) again, but a number of my colleagues have said that this is starting to look like a change of tone by the Government. Although some noble Lords on the Conservative Benches might consider this to be a sinister plot, those of us on these Benches would consider it cause for hope, and a sign that some sense is beginning to emerge from the chaos that this Government have been left by their predecessor. Can the Minister tell us whether this is cause for hope? Should I be hopeful? When will hope come riding through the corridors of Parliament?
What most manufacturers want to know is how adhering to future UK regulation will affect their ability to export to probably one of their biggest markets. They do not want two different standards, and the failure of UKCA is a good example of why having two regulatory structures does not work. The previous Government recognised that and kept kicking it into the long grass, while pretending it still existed.
There is a real and present issue—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, who raised it at the last—in that the EU General Product Safety Regulations are coming down the line. This is a new instrument in the EU product safety legal framework which replaces the current general product safety directive and the food imitations product directive, and it comes into effect on 13 December 2024. This Bill will not be in place to deal with it, and there is a good deal of uncertainty and ignorance among our manufacturers about the very existence of the directive.
I know that the DBT has started to do some workshops, but there is a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done to explain to people exporting to the EU at the moment that they will have new regulations. These apply to non-food products and to all sales channels within the EU and exports to the EU; the aim is to ensure safety on their grounds. There will be new responsibilities for UK exporters, and these changes will be particularly impactful on SMEs and on businesses using online sales channels. It really is important that the DBT gives us a gap analysis as to what these new regulations bring that current UK regulations do not bring. Separate to this Bill but within the spirit of it, that would be an important communication for us to have. There are a number of issues around this directive, relating to producer responsibility, precautionary principles, internal risk analysis, product safety and traceability information, to name but a few. I know that Make UK is extremely concerned about the lack of activity around telling UK businesses what is going on.
On a more general basis, it would make a lot of sense for the UK Government to develop and create a monitoring capability so that divergence at EU level is communicated to British businesses. That would be to take the view that this Bill does not bring dynamic alignment and that there will always be changes going on. There is no sense that any alignment can be dynamic; it can be created, in that Governments can make alignment case by case, but there is no automation in this Bill. As far as international standards go, I do not think there is anything in this Bill that stops what the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, wanted to do.
This Bill has a very anodyne title—it perhaps wins the prize for one of the more boring titles. Some have concluded that it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I hope that, with the help of your Lordships during Committee, we can make sure that it is a sensible approach to helping UK consumers get the safety and well-being they require from products, and that UK manufacturers have a fair wind behind them to trade with the EU and help to deliver the growth that everybody in this House craves.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fox. He was highly eloquent—although I feel he got slightly stuck on the Peterborough ring road towards the end of his speech when talking about Europe.
There were phenomenal contributions from across the House, including, obviously, from my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, who gave a phenomenal maiden speech, but I was confused as it was filled with compassion, humility and personability. I do not see those as qualities at all relevant to being Chief Whip from my recollection, so I assume she filled her other roles with excellence. I welcome her to this House and look forward to working with her over the coming years.
The Bill is a very important evolution of our product safety processes. It continues much of the work undertaken by the previous Government to ensure that consumers can be safe in the knowledge that what they buy conforms to high standards and that shops on our high street do not have to compete unfairly with online providers through a derogation of standards. I congratulate the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for continuing the excellent work, if I may say so, of previous Ministers in the DBT. To follow on from that, the metrology part of this Bill has its roots in a sensible need, quite rightly, to update the legislation to ensure that we can have control over our measurements and standards following our departure from the European Union.
However, as we heard from a number of noble Lords, we have some significant concerns about how these measures will be implemented, as well as the risks contained within the Bill, which could easily lead to less protection for consumers, less choice and higher costs to businesses, and have the exact opposite effect from our desire to have greater freedoms to be an independent trading nation.
I have a few points. This has been a fascinating debate on what could have appeared to be a Bill with a rather anodyne title. I will add to the list of questions, some of which are overlapping and some of which follow on from the excellent speech given by my noble friend. I have not received very clear responses back on questions following the last few debates I have spoken in, so I would be grateful if we can get those, because these are technical points. We want to create good legislation and I think the whole House is agreed that this is an important Bill, but we have to do it correctly.
It is relevant that we are having a philosophical debate. I think the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the principles around the philosophy of this legislation. It is important; we are changing significantly the principle of responsibility and where it lies for online marketplaces. That is complicated. At the same time, we do not want to distort the new gig economy. Millions of people trade online. I should declare an interest that my sons spend a great deal of their time trading football shirts on various websites. We have to be very careful to ensure that we are not affecting or limiting the prospective future of the online economy because we are concerned about product standards in some respects. Having said that, we have to ensure that the responsibility is properly delineated and that there is a high degree of product safety. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the philosophy relating to some of the more intellectual concepts around the changes to where responsibility lies, and for him to give us some security that this is about product responsibility rather than necessarily trying to overregulate people’s activities when it comes to online marketplaces.
I would also like some clarity, if the Government can provide more to this House, on the costs of enforcement and how they will ensure that the fees levied will be incidental, or indeed affordable. I have a fear that we will see a whole raft of new regulators. It is clearly important that we have enforcement, but this has to be paid for. This could create an entire new web of regulatory activity, which can often be misguided and expensive.
I am very concerned, as I think are many Members of this House, both noble friends and noble Lords, about the range of criminal offences that will be created, with different tariffs. For some reason we love locking people up in this country and then seemingly releasing them soon after. It would probably be sensible to outline here and now what the real constraints are in this area. I do not think it is good enough, as we have repeated many times in this debate, simply to have that be defined at a later date.
I would like to see the consultation outcomes on product safety. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst mentioned this. It seems absolutely bizarre that we have not seen the outcomes of the consultation that was done a year ago. I am very aware that there was an election, but that should not have stopped officials doing the work to understand the responses. It is impossible for us to legitimately say that we can have a proper debate in this House if we have not seen the feedback from the consultation around product safety and how we need to go forward. I believe, from an informal discussion we had earlier this week, that there is a commitment to produce at least a summary of the findings before Committee, so I call on the Government to do that.
I also press the Government further for more work on battery safety. A number of noble Peers with great expertise have contributed to that part of the debate. It is essential that we deal with this urgently. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I would not like to confuse some of the comments about battery safety—not that he was confused in any way—with the importance of having proper legislation on consumer safety in general in this Bill.
I want to follow up on the points, well made, by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, about the effect of this legislation on the Windsor Framework. Other noble Lords have raised this issue too, and it is very relevant; we are dealing with complex, sensitive webs of legislative activity and it is essential that we really consider what the impact will be. It is not good enough to say—I fear that I predict this response from the Minister—that there will not be an effect. There clearly will be, because this is a complicated issue. It is very important that we have an open debate about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, and other noble Lords rightly raised the issue of the devolved nations. Have they consented? Where are we in the process of gaining legislative consent? How will this affect the internal market of the United Kingdom? Again, this is not straightforward. It is simply not good enough to say that we hope to get it at a later date, or that if we come back in a few months’ time, it will all be fine.
Then, there is disquiet about how these measures may be used—when they are eventually defined—to align our standards ever further with those of the EU. This is especially relevant in areas such as environmental protection. We know well that, in many instances, blindly following the EU will have negative impacts on our economy. Can the Minister please respond to these important questions? I am concerned that this has somehow been negated in the discussions we have had. It is very important to get the philosophical elements of this correct. An element of openness and transparency will be welcome; it will solve problems in the future if we have an open discussion now.
It is true that this is relatively technical legislation designed to play catch-up with a new modern digital economy. Unfortunately, however, the phrasing is very broad and the powers are ill-defined. Trying to ensure that the Government can evolve their regulatory frameworks as technology evolves is fair, but, at the same time, we need more detail. There is also a growing body of opinion that these plans do not go far enough in genuinely ensuring that consumers are protected, and that trust can be properly vested in the online marketplace industry.
Giving such broad powers to a Government who, by their own admission, do not have a clue as to what tomorrow holds is extremely dangerous and goes against the principles of good lawmaking. It is crucial that we have a proper debate now to ensure that we understand what we are doing and have thought clearly enough about how these marketplaces will operate and how consumer product safety can be properly engaged.
I am also extremely concerned that, if we rush this and simply use secondary legislation to bring in criminal offences, fines, costs and other regulatory structures, we will end up with a clunky, heavy-handed set of regulations that do not protect the consumer. They will end up checking boxes and denigrating out business base, reducing consumer choice.
Finally, it is clear that this House, and, indeed, the nation at large, need to be properly reassured that this Bill is not a simple attempt to realign us with every aspect of EU regulation, but that we have thought clearly about the ramifications of how the world has changed and how properly to police that to ensure consumer safety in a growing economy. I very much look forward to a far higher level of detail as we enter Committee, and I look forward to Minister’s response.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I would first like to thank all noble Lords for their very kind remarks; they are much appreciated. I also thank noble Lords for taking part in today’s debate, and for the contributions from all sides of the House. Today’s debate has been not only informative and wide-ranging but also illustrated the depth of expertise and experience present in your Lordships’ House.
I was particularly pleased to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Winterton. She brings much experience and wisdom, having served with distinction as Deputy Speaker in the other place and as a Minister in multiple government departments between 2001 and 2010. Freed as she now is from the necessary neutrality of a formal role, we welcome her warmly to the government Benches, where I suspect that, like her former boss, Lord Prescott, she will pull no punches. I look forward to hearing from her many more times in the future.
As we have heard, product safety failures can have devastating consequences. We are determined that our regulatory framework is agile and flexible in its response both to new threats and to complex supply chains. For innovation to flourish and potential for growth to be realised, it is essential that consumers can have confidence in the safety of the products they buy and in the businesses that they buy from.
I will try my very best to address as many of the issues and questions raised today as possible within my timeframe of 20 minutes. If I do not have the time, I will get my office to go through Hansard and provide written answers to noble Lords and have a copy placed in the Library. Finally, let me assure all noble Lords that I want to work constructively and proactively in the passage of this Bill, and I will have many more conversations and share information with noble Lords through Peers drop-in sessions—my office is always open, so feel free to contact me and my private office.
The noble Lords, Lord Frost, Lord Browne and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, raised concerns that this Bill is tantamount to the UK rejoining the EU through the backdoor. Let me be extremely clear: this Bill is not rejoining the EU by the backdoor. This Bill gives us the flexibility to ensure that product regulation, now and in the future, is tailored to the needs of the UK. There will be some instances where we will want to take a similar approach to the EU, and there will be others where it makes sense for the UK to diverge. Those decisions will be based on the best interests of the UK’s businesses and consumers, and any secondary legislation will be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny. As I said in my opening speech, we are taking back control, seeking closer, more mature trading partnerships with the EU and forging new trading relationships with the global world out there.
The noble Lords, Lord Foster, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Bourne, Lord Fox and Lord Johnson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised questions about devolution. The vast majority of product safety and metrology legislation is reserved, with some specific exceptions. We expect the overwhelming majority of secondary legislation brought forward under the main powers in Clauses 1 and 5 to be reserved. Given the technical nature of product regulation and metrology, it is possible—as many noble Lords have mentioned—that some elements of secondary legislation may touch on devolved aspects, such as regulating the environmental impact of certain products, as we consider safety impacts alongside.
Following meetings with my counterparts, I welcome their broad support for the policy intentions behind the Bill. However, we recognise that the devolved Governments have raised some concerns about the drafting and breadth of delegated power in the Bill. As outlined in our manifesto, this Government are committed to reset the UK Government’s relationship with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I have had positive meetings with my counterparts in the Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive and will be meeting with the Scottish Government this week. My department is engaging with all devolved Governments in an open and collaborative spirit, and we hope that we will gain legislative consent Motions from the devolved legislatures. I will keep the House informed of those discussions.
On the specific case of Northern Ireland, which has been raised by several noble Lords, in order to ensure dual access to both the UK internal market and the EU single market, Northern Ireland applies certain EU product regulations and metrology rules under the Windsor Framework. The Bill provides the Minister with the ability to make a sovereign choice and effectively manage upcoming regulatory divergence between the UK and EU, and therefore to ensure continuity across the UK internal market, where it is in our domestic interest to do so. As such, we expect that the Bill will have a positive impact on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
The noble Lords, Lord Foster, Lord Fox and Lord Johnson, raised the importance of ensuring that the enforcement authorities have adequate resources to fulfil their function. With this Bill we intend to improve enforcement capability, leading to more efficient and effective use of time through a better suite of notices and better data-sharing opportunities. The Office for Product Safety and Standards will continue to provide a range of support to enforcement authorities. This will include support on technical queries, access to product testing and an ongoing programme of training and continuous professional development. The Office for Product Safety and Standards will also produce guidelines for the application of any new powers so that enforcement authorities are equipped to use them efficiently.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and several other noble Lords raised an important issue relating to international standards. The Bill will enable us to continue to amend product regulations as well as allow the designation of international standards for products in scope. In line with WTO obligations, the UK recognises the benefits and supports the use of international standards, as well as regional standards, to break down trade barriers with our trading partners. The British Standards Institution regularly reviews UK standards, replacing domestic standards with appropriate international ones. This is also something that the UK pursues in its international agreements.
The noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst, Lord Foster, Lord Lucas, Lord Jackson and Lord Fox, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asked whether any draft regulations under the Bill would be produced. The Government are working through policy positions on a range of issues following the election, including addressing the sale of unsafe products via online marketplaces. Additionally, we are reviewing changes the EU is proposing to its registration regulations and considering the applications. Throughout, our response will depend on the outcome of our call for evidence and policy discussions with stakeholders.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, asked about the poor way we are approaching legislation. The review he referred to was issued by the previous Government. It was clear then that to make fundamental changes to product regulation requires primary legislation because the powers were not available to us, hence bidding for this Bill to ensure that we secure the powers to act in good time to address emerging risks.
The noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Sandhurst, asked about online marketplaces. It was right for us to bring forward this Bill to give us the powers we need to address sales of unsafe products by online marketplaces —an area on which the product safety review consulted. Consumer groups such as Which? have also been calling for us to take action. This Bill will allow us to take action now.
The noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst, Lord Foster and Lord Johnson, asked why we have not published a response to the product review consultation. We have bid for the necessary powers to make changes to our regulations and have introduced this Bill, which will deliver enabling powers to allow us to implement a lot of the policy proposals emanating from the product safety review to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, referred. That review received 126 responses covering regulatory changes. Action on online marketplace enforcement was supported by all respondents. The powers in the Bill are available powers and we have continued conversations with a wide range of stakeholders on the detail.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I appreciate that, but we have not actually got any detail at all, or even a summary, of what the responses are. We really do require that; it is normal.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I will ask my officials and come back to the noble Lord on that request.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked about lithium-ion batteries. I am pleased to advise that, while we have been in this debate, Minister Madders, my colleague in the other place, is in Paris at the OECD global awareness campaign, which this year focuses on lithium-ion batteries. The UK and the Office for Product Safety and Standards have been leading on this campaign. The noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Fox, raised additional points about disposal. Ministers are referring proposals to consult on reforms to UK battery regulations before setting out next steps.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, asked why the UK wished to be able to continue recognising the CE marking. This Bill will allow the Government to choose to recognise updates to EU product regulation to provide continued regulatory stability and avoid extra costs for business where this is in our interests. It will also allow us to end recognition of EU requirements where it is in the interest of business and consumers. We presently recognise current EU regulations for a range of products. Legislation passed in May 2024 to continue CE recognition for 21 product regulations is estimated to save UK businesses £640 million over a 10-year period, largely from avoiding duplicate compliance and labelling costs. Provisions in the Bill allowing us to continue or end recognition of EU requirements will enable us to provide the certainty that businesses need to plan for the future and innovate, supporting economic growth. The UK and EU share information on trade, including changes to the trade and co-operation agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, and several other noble Lords asked about the disposal of lithium-ion batteries. The Government are committed to cracking down on waste as we move towards a circular economy, where we keep the resources we use for longer and reduce waste. The existing product responsibility scheme for batteries and waste electronics makes producers responsible for the cost of end-of-life treatment. Under existing UK legislation it is already mandatory for all batteries placed on the market in the UK to be clearly marked with the crossed-out wheelie bin.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, asked why there have been no changes to legislation on product safety since our exit from the EU. I can reaffirm that this is real, hence bringing forward powers in this Bill to allow us to make changes before divergence happens and we fall further behind.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, asked why we cannot use existing powers. The new Bill powers are required to enable the Government to modernise and future-proof product regulation, ensuring that it is tailored to the needs of the UK. The powers in the retained EU law Act 2023 are limited, in that they can be used only to revoke and replace assimilated law and have other inbuilt restrictions—for example, secondary legislation that is made under REUL must be deregulatory. This means that we would not be able to use the powers to increase safety requirements to respond to new and emerging threats through further amendments and legislation which was not assimilated law before.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, also asked whether the Bill will make the UK a rule-taker or a rule-maker. We are definitely not a rule-taker. We are a rule-maker, and the Bill will provide powers to give the UK greater flexibility in setting and updating its own product-related rules, as well as enabling the UK to choose whether to recognise relevant EU products requirements. Any further changes made using these powers will be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Lord asked whether the Bill protects internal markets. The Bill will give us flexibility to ensure product regulation and metrology now and in the future. It is tailored to the needs of the UK as a whole. It will enable us to make changes to product regulation and metrology legislation that will benefit businesses and consumers.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, also asked about the Windsor Framework. In updating its regulation, the EU will be seeking to deal with many of the same challenges that the Bill will address: for example, online marketplaces and batteries. The Bill will enable a choice to be made as to whether it is in the interests of UK businesses and consumers for UK regulations to take the same or a similar approach, or indeed a different one.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked whether the Government will commit to a policy of alignment with EU chemical protections. This Government are committed to protecting human health and the environment from the risks posed by chemicals. We are currently considering the best approach to chemicals regulation in the UK separately to this Bill and will set out our priorities and next steps in due course. The noble Baroness also asked how the Bill will help the Government respond to emergencies.
Lord Fox (LD)
Am I to understand that, if there is to be separate consideration for chemicals regulation, it will not be in this Session because it was not in the King’s Speech? So all those businesses that are currently struggling with where we are now have at least a year, and probably 18 months, to wait before any sense of a Bill—never mind that Bill becoming law.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I am coming back to that in the later part of my winding speech.
National emergencies such as Covid-19 highlight the importance of ensuring that our product regulation framework allows for flexibility in times of national emergency. This enabling Bill will allow the Government, in response to an emergency, to temporarily disapply and modify product regulation while maintaining high safety standards, thereby providing a faster process by which critical products are able to reach the market in order to sustain an adequate supply of such products.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise, but that was not my question. My question was: will the Government make sure that, if emergency powers are used, both Houses of Parliament are kept informed prior to that happening?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I will get back to the noble Baroness in writing. I see the time flashing, so I might have to write to other noble Lords in response to their questions. Let me conclude.
I would like to thank everyone across this House for their contributions in today’s debate. I specifically thank my counterparts on the Opposition Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Johnson of Lainston and Lord Fox. This is not the first time that we have sat across from each other in such debates, albeit in different spots. I look back fondly on our debates during the passage of the CPTPP Act last year. I hope and expect that debates on this Bill will be as good-natured and as enlightening as those were.
I should like to stress my willingness to meet noble Lords to discuss further the detail of the Bill. I take the firm view that dialogue is essential to building public and parliamentary support.
To sum up, this Bill allows us to keep pace with new technologies, gives us the tools to stop dodgy suppliers placing dangerous goods on the market and allows us to make sovereign choices as to how we diverge or align with the EU and other trading partners. It gives enforcement bodies the tools they need to tackle modern problems facing the transit of goods coming across our borders, be they land, maritime or digital. Finally, it will allow us to update the legal and technological framework that underpins economy and trade. This Government will never compromise on safety. The Bill is essential to strengthening the rules and regulations needed to protect consumers, businesses and the public.