House of Commons

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

Thursday 14 November 2024

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the autumn Budget 2024 on farming communities.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

The Labour Government have committed £5 billion to the agricultural budget over the next two years—the biggest budget for sustainable food production and nature recovery in our history. It is good for British farming, it is good for the country, and it should be welcomed by the Opposition.

[John Lamont]

This week, the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, Martin Kennedy, said:

“The new UK Government’s first budget…hammered hard-working family farms and crofts with crippling tax bills”.

The Minister has accused the Conservatives of scare- mongering about Labour’s family farm tax. Is the National Farmers Union of Scotland also scaremongering?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I talk regularly to the National Farmers Union of Scotland. I respect it fully, but I genuinely say, as I have said on many occasions, that we need to look closely at the figures and look at the detail. We will find that the vast majority of farmers in this country will be fine.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

The Minister’s response to my hon. Friend’s question highlights his arrogance on this issue. He constantly keeps saying that we need to look at the detail, yet his Department and the Treasury disagree on how many farms will be impacted by as much as 40%. In fact, as he knows, the figures being repeatedly regurgitated by the Government consider only past claims for agricultural property relief, not those combined with business property relief, which is just as important. Why? Because the Treasury does not have the data. We need comprehensive detail on this policy to properly understand the impacts of his family farm tax. I ask this for a third time in this House: will he release a full impact assessment—yes or no?

[Daniel Zeichner]

We seem to be discussing this endlessly. The figures on agricultural property relief are absolutely clear. I have kept asking people to look at the detail, because what they will find—listen to the tax experts and the people who have actually looked at the policy in detail—is that fewer than 500 farms will be affected. That is the reassuring message that the Conservatives should be conveying to British farmers.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Britain’s farmers, who feed us and care for our environment, deserve better than the betrayal they received under the last Conservative Government, and better than the attacks in this Government’s recent Budget. In Cumbria alone some 1,400 family farmers, many of whom live on less than the minimum wage, will be hit by this tax, but the more immediate threat to farming is the Government’s rash decision to cut the basic payment by 76% next year. That will hit livestock farmers, upland farmers and dairy farmers, and destabilise the whole industry. Will the Minister think again?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The changes we have made this year are the biggest boost to sustainable farming that this country has seen—that is the agricultural transition. The Liberal Democrats have always been flaky on this issue, and they have never been able to make up their minds what they think about it. We are determined to tackle the extreme climate crisis globally; they seem to think it is not happening.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

2. What steps he plans to take to help tackle fly-tipping.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

7. What steps he plans to take to help tackle fly-tipping.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to help tackle fly-tipping in rural areas.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to help tackle fly-tipping.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

May I begin by wishing His Majesty the King a very happy birthday? I am sure the sentiment is echoed on both sides of the House.

Fly-tipping has increased after years of Conservative failure, leaving a plague of dumped rubbish across our streets, parks and cities and imposing huge costs on taxpayers and businesses. This new Labour Government will end our throwaway society and stop the avalanche of rubbish filling up our streets by increasing recycling rates, reducing waste and cracking down on waste crime.

[Rachel Taylor]

In 2022-23, North Warwickshire borough council recorded 912 incidents of fly-tipping and took 172 investigation actions, yet only one fixed penalty notice was issued. This meant that farmers often picked up the cost of removing the problem, and criminal gangs were allowed to get away scot-free. Does the Minister agree that more must be done by the council to prosecute incidents of fly-tipping?

[Mary Creagh]

I can tell my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that local authorities have the power to issue fixed penalty notices—on-the-spot fines—of up to £1,000, but one fixed penalty notice is completely inadequate given the scale of the problem she outlined. The low rates of fixed penalty notices and prosecutions mean that this is a consequence-free crime. We are on a mission to improve that, and I hope her council will work with us to improve its record.

[Sarah Coombes]

Sandwell Litter Watch does a great job of keeping our streets clean, but it and the council cannot overcome the selfish behaviour of fly-tippers, who dump rubbish all over the borough, from Yew Tree to Oldbury. Incidents of fly-tipping in Sandwell are now double the national average. Will the Minister set out further how the Government are working with councils to catch and punish these dreadful fly-tippers?

[Mary Creagh]

I pay tribute to Sandwell Litter Watch, and to Destination Barr Hill in my constituency, who get out and about every weekend to clean up other people’s mess. We will crack down on fly-tipping, establishing clean-up squads and forcing those who dump rubbish or vandalise our fields to join in the clean-up. The National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group has produced a guide on how local authorities can present robust prosecutions to support tougher sentences. The Government will also explore further options with the Ministry of Justice’s sentencing review.

[Chris Bloore]

I am afraid that I have to add to the litany of terrible statistics about fly-tipping in rural areas: there were over 1,500 incidents of rural fly-tipping in my constituency of Redditch, with only one fixed penalty notice given to an offender. Can the Minister tell us more about how she hopes to work with local authorities like mine to ensure that the people committing these crimes are brought to justice?

[Mary Creagh]

I understand that my hon. Friend’s council has just changed political colour, so I hope that the new Labour administration will take the problem a lot more seriously. I am aware that waste permit exemptions allow low-risk waste activities to be carried out under a registration scheme, and that that can be abused by criminals. Let us not be under any illusion: there is serious organised crime in this area. I am considering proposals to tighten the regime, and I am happy to speak to my hon. Friend’s council about how we tackle this together.

[Leigh Ingham]

Fly-tipping is a growing concern among residents of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages. Many constituents are increasingly frustrated with the persistent illegal dumping of waste. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how her Department is cleaning up the mess left by the last Government and how the proposed measures will directly address fly-tipping and improve the situation for my constituents?

[Mary Creagh]

I am aware of some serious incidents in my hon. Friend’s constituency, including one where a significant amount of rubbish was fly-tipped on a driveway near a school and pupils suffered bad health impacts. I am concerned that the carrier, broker and dealer regime that the last Government left is far too weak and not fit for purpose. I am actively considering how the regime can be reviewed, and I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to hear her input.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is nice to see the hon. Lady back in the House and elevated to a Government position—well done. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency has revealed that it has cleaned up some 306 illegal waste sites in the last two years, with taxpayers footing the bill of half a million pounds—equivalent to 15 nurses’ wages. What discussions has the Minister had with the Minister in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs back home in Northern Ireland about the cost associated with fly-tipping?

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I met his colleague from DAERA at an inter-ministerial group in September. I am aware of the concerns in rural areas about fly-tipping, which blights swathes of our countryside. I am working with the National Farmers Union and others through the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group to promote good practice, including on private land. We know from the national waste crime survey that 86% of landowners and farmers have been affected by this terrible crime.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

3. What steps he is taking to improve food security.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

The hon. Lady will know that there are many facets to food security, but the £5 billion budget settlement for the next two years sends an important message to food producers about the stability and continuity they can look forward to. Our work on supply chain fairness will add to that, and we will be making more announcements in the coming weeks and months.

[Ann Davies]

Today, the Chancellor is hailing the benefits of free trade in a plea to Donald Trump. However, any future trade deal with the United States will enable cheap food, such as hormone-treated beef, to flood our markets, which would be devastating for farmers and food security. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to rule out any trade deal that undermines our British farmers?

[Daniel Zeichner]

We have always been very clear that we will do nothing in trade deals that would undermine this country’s important standards.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Food security is national security, and underpinning it are farmers and farmland. Labour’s ill-judged and heartless family farm tax will put all of that in jeopardy: family farms lost; tenant farmers unable to continue farming; communities hollowed out; rural mental health damaged; and precious food-producing land lost to developers or investors. No farms, no food. No farmers, no food. Will the Government please now admit that they have got this catastrophically wrong? Will they do the right thing by reversing this farm tax to protect our country’s food security?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. Let me say once again that it is important to treat this subject carefully. We must look at the facts and listen to people who know about it. I was asked earlier by someone else whether this measure was wrong, but we should look at what Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and other tax experts have said. There are many ways in which this can be managed, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to join me in reassuring British farmers about their future.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

4. What progress the floods resilience taskforce has made on protecting at-risk communities from flooding.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

14. What progress the floods resilience taskforce has made on protecting at-risk communities from flooding.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing sympathy with the communities of the Valencia region and across Spain following the dreadful flooding.

This Government’s floods resilience taskforce marks a new approach by national, regional and local government, and by flood risk partners, to better co-ordinate flood preparedness. It met on 12 September, with 40 attendees from 27 organisations agreeing actions including sharing learning from recent floods. This Government will invest £2.4 billion over the next two years to improve flood resilience by maintaining, repairing and building flood defences. Yesterday, at the Association of Drainage Authorities conference, I announced that we will allocate a further £50 million to the internal drainage boards.

[Dr Gardner]

I also send my best wishes to the citizens of Valencia and the surrounding region.

As the Secretary of State knows very well, the village of Upper Tean is frequently affected by flooding and sewage discharges. After visiting the Environment Agency, it was suggested that the parish council should set up a flood action group to help to tackle the causes and prevent further impacts of flooding. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for flooding meet me to discuss the support they can offer to the village in setting up a flood action group?

[Emma Hardy]

I was delighted to hear that the village is proactively setting up a flood action group. Of course, I appreciate the wonderful work that my hon. Friend is doing to support the village. The Government fully support collaboration between risk management authorities, including local Environment Agency teams and local communities, and we are committed to hearing from people on the ground via the new taskforce. Of course, I would be happy to meet them.

[Andrew Pakes]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s answer. We talk a lot in this House about extreme weather and flooding, but we do not talk enough about the vital role that our internal drainage boards play in protecting and keeping safe our agricultural land and farming. I welcome the Government’s inclusion of the internal drainage boards on the taskforce, and I welcome the money that the Minister put into the system yesterday. That is in stark contrast with the first actions of the 2010 Conservative Government, who cut flood defences by a horrifying 27%.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the work of my internal drainage board and outline how she will work with it in future?

[Emma Hardy]

I was delighted to speak at the Association of Drainage Authorities conference yesterday, to champion its work and to announce that, after listening to it very carefully, we will provide £50 million over two years—[Interruption.] In answer to the chuntering, the first part has already been spent.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Many of my constituents who live south of Salisbury are concerned about the interaction between flood risk assessments and new house building. Will the Minister assure the House that her work is fully integrated with the Government’s house building plans so that people can be reassured that, when land is designated for building new homes, flood risk is properly taken into account so that house building is restricted if there are no mitigations in place?

[Emma Hardy]

The right hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of ensuring adequate flood protection when we build new homes. Yesterday, we announced a review of the flood funding formula. We will be looking at nature-based solutions and sustainable urban drainage systems, so I hope that offers him some reassurance.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the flood victims in Spain.

Flood victims in Tenbury Wells were concerned to see in the Budget Red Book that capital spending on flood defences is under review. Will the Minister tell the House whether the bid that she will be making to the spending review for flood defences will be higher or lower than it is currently?

[Emma Hardy]

The hon. Lady and I have met many times to discuss the issue of flooding. I can reassure her that we will be investing £2.4 billion over the next two years to improve flood resilience by maintaining, repairing and building flood defences.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

5. What steps he is taking to help tackle unlawful discharges of sewage into waterways by water companies.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

16. What steps his Department is taking to help prevent water pollution by utility companies.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)]

I welcome the new shadow Ministers to their place—as well, of course, the returning one. Under the previous Government, water companies got away with discharging record levels of sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas, leaving them in an appalling polluted state. That is why we are taking immediate action to place the water companies under special measures, with legislation going through Parliament right now that will ban the payment of unfair bonuses to water company executives. We have also launched a commission that will lead a root and branch review of the entire sector, so that we can clean up our waterways for good.

[Manuela Perteghella]

In my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, the River Avon and its tributaries have been heavily polluted by untreated sewage discharges. We know this because of a citizen science project, which sees residents testing for pollutants regularly along the rivers and brooks. Their efforts are supported by community initiatives such as SafeAvon and groups like Stratford Climate Action. Will the Government commit to and resource a national environmental monitoring strategy to better understand the overall health of water bodies, and will they commit to requiring water companies to monitor volumes as well as duration of storm overflows?

[Steve Reed]

The hon. Lady is quite right to be concerned about the state of the River Avon. We want to move towards a catchment-based approach to water, so we can look at all the inputs and be clear about how we can clean them up. Her point about monitoring will be considered by the commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe. I hope that she and other colleagues will make their submissions to Sir Jon for his review, which is due to conclude in 2025.

[Phil Brickell]

I wholeheartedly welcome the Water (Special Measures) Bill as a package of reforms to end the systemic dumping of sewage into our rivers, lakes and seas by water companies, while huge sums are being paid out by the same firms to shareholders. However, laws are only ever as good as their enforcement, and effective enforcement requires adequate resourcing. Will the Secretary of State consider how the enforcement agencies might be self-funding to a degree, with money raised from fines levied on polluting water firms reinvested into the likes of the Environment Agency?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will be reassured to know that precisely the points he raises will be brought into law in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which will soon be arriving in the Chamber, so that polluters will pay for further enforcement action. That way we have a virtuous circle to help clean up our waterways.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the National Farmers Union on the adequacy of Government support for farmers.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I have regular meetings with all the key stakeholders, and I speak to the National Farmers Union on a regular basis.

[Dr Mullan]

My local NFU representative, Gillian van der Meer, makes clear her concerns and those of many other local farmers about the impact of Labour’s family farm tax. I find it extraordinary that the Minister seems to think that, even if we accept his figures, it is okay that hundreds of farms will be affected. I appreciate that a U-turn can be difficult in the Westminster bubble, but I find the public are much more understanding and would welcome the Government realising that they have got this wrong. Does he agree that they have got this policy wrong and that it is time for a rethink?

[Daniel Zeichner]

What I would say is that I have had more meetings with Tom Bradshaw over the past few weeks than I have had for a long, long time, for reasons that are entirely obvious. I was grateful to him for congratulating the Government on getting a very good financial settlement for farmers when he addressed the egg and poultry industry conference on Monday in Newport, Wales. I was grateful that he recognised that.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

8. What steps he plans to take to support nature-friendly farming.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

I point the hon. Lady to the extraordinary transformation that is under way, with the huge amount of extra money going into the sustainable farm incentive and our environmental land management schemes this year. It is the biggest transformation on record.

[Ellie Chowns]

I recognise the very welcome shift towards nature-friendly farming, which offers environmental, social and economic benefits—not just nature protection, but good healthy food and good jobs—yet the farmer-led Nature Friendly Farming Network argues that the agriculture budget needs to be more than doubled to £6 billion a year. Will the Minister press his Treasury colleagues to put more money into nature-friendly farming to secure a sustainable future for UK farming?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for the transition that we are undertaking. In fact, I was speaking to Martin Lines from the Nature Friendly Farming Network only yesterday evening. He and many of his colleagues are delighted with the transition that we are making, but, as ever, the Greens’ grasp of economics is limited.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

9. What recent progress his Department has made on investigating crustacean die-offs along the north-east coast in 2021.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

An independent expert panel reviewed the 2021 crustacean die-off event and published its findings last year. It could not identify a clear single cause for the crustacean mortality. The Government are keeping the situation under review and a coastal health programme was recently established to improve coastal monitoring.

[Mr Brash]

The die-off on the north-east coast has devastated an industry that has served Hartlepool for generations. Fishermen, such as my constituent Stan Rennie, and their families want three things: support in the face of their livelihoods being decimated; a plan to repopulate and rebuild their industry; and, finally, answers to how this happened in the first place. Will the Minister meet me and fishermen from Hartlepool to discuss a way forward on this issue?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is a passionate defender of his community. I extend my sympathy to all those who find themselves under pressure when these kind of events happen and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

11. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that future international trade agreements support the farming sector.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

Supporting farmers is a priority of this Government. We have been clear that we will protect farmers from being undercut by low welfare and low standards in trade deals. We are also working to reset our relationship with our European friends to strengthen ties and tackle barriers, and helping boost trade to the EU through a UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary veterinary agreement.

[Bill Esterson]

Some farmers benefited from international trade agreements under the previous Government. Unfortunately, it was mostly Australian and New Zealand farmers, not British farmers, who benefited. Will my hon. Friend confirm that this Government will prioritise British farmers who want to export, not least those who want to export to the European Union, through a veterinary agreement with the EU?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that what happened to the British farming industry was one of the great betrayals of the previous Government. Those trade deals did no credit to our country, but we will take a different approach and develop a much more constructive relationship with our near neighbours. Therefore, the answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

There will be small point in protecting farmers in international trade agreements if Government policy is undermining those same farmers domestically. How many thousands of farmers will it take to clog up Parliament Square next Tuesday before the Government realise that their inheritance tax policy is very deeply flawed?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, I direct right the hon. Gentleman back to the figures from the Treasury, which show that the numbers affected are under 500. That is the answer to his question.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

13. What steps his Department is taking to help ensure that the independent commission on the water sector regulatory system strengthens regulation.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)]

The independent commission on the water sector was launched on 23 October and will be chaired by Sir Jon Cunliffe. It is the biggest review of the industry since privatisation and will report next summer. It will focus on boosting investability, speeding up the delivery of water infrastructure and cleaning up our waterways.

[Ms Billington]

Southern Water is responsible for blighting beaches with raw sewage along Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs, yet it plans on increasing household bills by 73% over the next five years, and the chief executive officers of Southern Water have received £4 million over the last five years in bonuses and salaries. Will the new independent commission do something about this egregious situation?

[Steve Reed]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on campaigning for her local water consumers. She is right to point to the wide failings across the system. We have charged Sir Jon Cunliffe with leading a commission that will look at how we can completely reset the sector—regulation, governance and how the sector operates—so that the levels of pollution and failure under the previous Government can never be repeated.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

In 2013, the previous Government introduced a rebate of £50 per household on the water bills of customers in the far south-west. With 3% of the country’s population paying to keep a third of our bathing beaches clean on lower-than-average salaries, will the Secretary of State please reconsider the decision to scrap that rebate for constituents such as mine, which was quietly announced just before the recess?

[Steve Reed]

It is important that support is targeted at the most vulnerable, so we will look at what more can be done through social tariffs to support families who are at risk of being unable to pay future water bills. It is right that we prioritise the poorest.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)]

As we have heard this morning, the public are rightly furious about the filthy, polluted state in which the previous Administration left our rivers, lakes and seas. That is why there is such strong support for the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which is working its way through Parliament. I urge all Members to make submissions to Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review, and to encourage their constituents to feed in to it. This is our chance to conduct a root-and-branch review of the entire sector to ensure that it is fit for the future and will properly serve both consumers and the environment for decades to come.

[Dr Cooper]

Research estimates that as many as 170 dolphins and other mammals are caught and killed every year off the Sussex coast, yet no bycatch data is recorded. Will the Secretary of State please outline how he is ensuring that supertrawlers operating in UK waters are fulfilling their legal duty to report marine mammal bycatch to the Marine Management Organisation?

[Steve Reed]

Vessels are, of course, already required to report marine mammal bycatch. We are looking at implementing remote electronic monitoring on larger vessels to gather better data about fishing activities. We are also working to improve our marine environment by ratifying the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement, enforcing fishing restrictions in marine protected areas, and ensuring that all catch limits are set sustainably.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I wish His Majesty the King a very happy birthday.

The Chancellor, the Secretary of State and the Food Minister claim that their family farm tax will affect only a quarter of farms, yet after informed questioning by the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association and Conservative Members, the Minister has now admitted that the Government need to check their figures. Should the cost of the family farm tax to farming families not have been checked before the Budget?

[Steve Reed]

The data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is crystal clear: three quarters of farmers will pay nothing as a result of the changes. Family farming will continue into future generations, as it should.

[Victoria Atkins]

The Secretary of State perhaps needs to ask his Food Minister why he said at the Agricultural Industries Confederation conference that the Government are checking the figures. Let me help the Secretary of State out. He can explain the veracity and accuracy of his figures next week, when thousands of farmers come to Westminster to rally against the family farm tax, the delinking of payments, the hike in national insurance and other tax hikes on working farms in the Budget. Will he come?

[Steve Reed]

It is very important that the Government listen to farmers, and of course we will do so, but I know that farmers are reasonable people. They will want to look at the facts and, like everybody else, if they drill into the HMRC data they will see that three quarters of them will end up paying no more under the new system than they do today.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

T4. Sewage spills are a scourge for my residents, and not just in the sea but in the street too. Raw sewage and used toilet roll flooded a street in Southwick recently. What are the Government’s plans to force the water companies to upgrade their infrastructure and bring an end to those foul, smelly spills that are blighting the lives of local residents?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is a strong campaigner in his constituency against the failings of the water company and the high levels of pollution resulting from the failures of the previous Government, so I know that he is backing the Water (Special Measures) Bill that is working its way through Parliament, and that he will support Sir Jon Cunliffe’s commission, as we seek to reset the sector by changing its regulation and governance so that it works better for consumers and the environment.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

T2. The puffins and other native seabirds in my constituency on the Isle of May were very grateful for the ban on sand eel fishing and trawling, but that ban is now subject to legal challenge. Will the Secretary of State commit to fighting that legal challenge?

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

The hon. Lady raises an important question. That is a delicate issue because it has been raised by the European Union, but we are absolutely determined to maintain our position.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

T5. I welcome the record allocation for agriculture in the Budget. However, the simple fact is that that agriculture budget is no good if it stays in the Whitehall coffers. Last year, there was a £300 million underspend in the agriculture budget, worth more than £1,400 on average for every single farm holding in the country. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to guarantee that every single penny of that budget gets to communities such as Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is extraordinary, given all the sound and fury from the Opposition, that they did not even spend the money that was available. This Government will ensure that every penny we have gets to farmers, because we are on the side of British farmers, rather than whipping them up in the kind of irresponsible way that the Conservative party has been doing.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

T3. Family farms across West Dorset fear closure as a result of the Government’s planned changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief, and I urge Ministers to rethink the policy. The Budget also included the announcement of a UK carbon border adjustment mechanism to be introduced on 1 January 2027. That will place a carbon price on goods imported to the UK, including fertiliser. A carbon tax on fertiliser will only increase the cost of production for farmers struggling to compete with cheap imports, and drive up costs for consumers. What assessment has been made of that?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The proposal for a carbon border adjustment mechanism was supported by the previous Government, and we have confirmed it. It is complicated in the way it will work, and it will not affect people before 2027-28. The Liberal Democrats have shown once again that when it comes to environmental issues, they cannot be trusted.

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

T7. Residents in Woodborough village have faced the devastation of flooding far too many times in recent years. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State therefore work with me, Woodborough flood action group and Woodborough parish council to bring forward a much-needed flood alleviation scheme for that village?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

Protecting communities from flooding is a top priority. That is why we have launched the flood resilience taskforce and are investing £2.4 billion over this year and the next to improve flood resilience. We have also announced another £50 million investment into the internal drainage boards. I commend my hon. Friend for his work with local flood action groups, and I am keen to hear how the matter progresses throughout this Parliament.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

T6. Last year, the River Lambourn suffered 266 sewage spills from storm overflows, causing irreversible harm to a rare chalk stream. Will the relevant Minister meet me urgently to discuss plans to address that in Newbury?

[Steve Reed]

I can certainly ensure that the relevant Minister meets the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will also feed his views into Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review, as Sir Jon will be considering catchment-wide approaches that will better protect chalk streams.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State update the House on progress in creating three new national forests, and, as it is my birthday, may I extend to him an invitation to visit Macclesfield forest in my constituency?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

I wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday, and I join him in celebrating the 75-year anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. That pioneering Labour Government created groundbreaking laws so that every citizen could have access to nature’s beauty. We will protect that access, and we will set up three new national forests—and who knows where they will be?

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

In our increasingly volatile world, I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that food security is of growing importance to our national resilience. I hope he will commit the new Government to continuing to publish the annual food security index, with the next update coming at next year’s farm to fork summit.

[Steve Reed]

It is a pleasure to take a question from the distinguished former Prime Minister. We are reviewing the data that we can publish, and we want to be as open and transparent as possible. I think that is good for the sector and good for scrutiny, but we will announce in due course precisely how it will operate.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), for coming back to me about the River Hipper scheme, which is of huge importance in my constituency. May I invite her to come to Chesterfield to meet people affected by the flood and see the Holymoorside scheme, which could make a real difference?

[Emma Hardy]

It is always a pleasure to work with my hon. Friend, and I know how passionately and well he campaigned for his community during the last floods, and how deeply the situation moved him. Of course I would be more than happy to continue to work with him.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State, and indeed the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the achievement of the Budget: in 23 years in this House, I have never seen such a degree of unity among farming organisations in their response to it. One point on which there seems to be no disagreement is that the removal of the ringfence around agricultural payments to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a bad move. Nobody asked for it. Why did the Government do it, and what do they expect to achieve with it?

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have announced the biggest Budget for sustainable farming—£5 billion over the next two years—in the history of our country, and that is to be welcomed by everybody in the sector and everybody who cares about it. This is a Government who believe in devolution. We believe that devolved Administrations should have the right to take decisions about their own countries. The consequentials mean that the appropriate level of funding will continue to go to those devolved Administrations, and our support for devolution means that the devolved Administrations will take their own decisions about the best way to spend it.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Chester zoo, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), does important and nationally leading conservation work. Zoos nationwide have faced regulatory uncertainty for nearly three years because of the previous Government’s delay in publishing new zoo standards. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out when the Department plans to publish the updated version of the standards of modern zoo practice, to drive improvements in animal welfare and provide certainty to those institutions?

[Mary Creagh]

I have visited Chester zoo and seen the wonderful work that it does in species conservation. I will endeavour to write to my hon. Friend to update him on the regulations.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

The Government have justified their inheritance tax changes for farmers on the basis that they are concerned about people gaining short-term tax advantage by buying agricultural land. May I therefore ask whether, instead of the sweeping changes that they made, the Government considered an approach that would limit the IHT exemption to those who could demonstrate that the family farm had been in family ownership for a certain number of years? If that approach was explored, why was it not pursued? If it was not explored, why not?

[Daniel Zeichner]

We have had a lot of debate about this issue, and I am perfectly happy to have discussions with hon. Members about the tax regime in general. One of the beneficial aspects of this policy may be to get the generational shift that farming in this country needs so much. There are many parts to this policy. It is a complicated policy, and in future we will have further discussions.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

On 2 and 3 November, a massive burst water main in my constituency left 8,000 homes without water for more than 12 hours. The response of the water company, South Staffs Water, was slow, ineffective and secretive. Will the Minister remind South Staffs Water, and all water companies, of their responsibilities to help residents and work with local stakeholders following an incident?

[Emma Hardy]

What a tireless champion my hon. Friend has been in campaigning on this issue. She is quite right to feel offended by the poor level of communication she has had from the water company, and I hope that it hears the message loud and clear that water companies need to work with, and communicate more effectively with, Members of Parliament in the areas that they represent.

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)]

This week, John McTernan, an adviser to Tony Blair, publicly stated that farming should be treated in the same way that Margaret Thatcher treated the miners, and that it was an industry the country could “do without”. As a farmer, I find this incorrect, offensive and deluded. Does the Minister agree?

[Steve Reed]

Yes.

The Solicitor General was asked—

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

1. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates for cases in relation to violence against women and girls.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates for cases in relation to violence against women and girls.

[The Solicitor General (Sarah Sackman)]

This Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls in the next decade. We are not only fixing the foundations of our economy, but rebuilding trust in our criminal justice system, with an additional £49 million in the Budget for the Crown Prosecution Service. This will mean additional specialists in rape and serious sexual offences, boosting investigators to tackle those awful offences.

[Sarah Coombes]

Last year, over 3,000 women in Sandwell were victims of domestic abuse. Getting cases through the justice system quicker is vital to breaking the cycle of abuse and protecting victims, so can the Minister set out further what the Government are doing to make sure the police and prosecutors work together to tackle domestic abuse?

[The Solicitor General]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very important point, and for the work she is doing in this area. For too long, victims of domestic abuse across the country have been let down, but this week, we have welcomed a new domestic abuse joint justice plan between police and prosecutors. That plan will see them working more closely together to support victims, in order to deliver swifter investigation and justice for all.

[Will Stone]

Prosecutions and convictions for domestic abuse plummeted over the last eight years under the previous Government. Additionally, the time taken to charge domestic abuse cases has increased dramatically. Given the alarming rise in delays, what measures is the Solicitor General implementing to expedite those processes and ensure timely justice for victims?

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend raises a powerful point. He is right that between 2016-17 and 2023-24 the number of domestic abuse flagged cases received from the police by the CPS dropped by nearly 36%. We are beginning to see a rebound in those figures, but much more needs to be done. We need a whole-system approach to fix the system, and our domestic abuse joint justice plan will ensure that the CPS and police work more closely together to address those delays from the very outset of a case.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I have been contacted by a constituent who had concerns about how they were treated in a rape case, and about the communication that came from the police and the CPS. What steps is the Solicitor General taking to ensure victims are properly informed all the way through?

[The Solicitor General]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I am sorry to hear about that specific case. I am of course happy to make contact directly with any local chief Crown prosecutors to address that case. More generally, victim transformation work is taking place across both police and CPS, such as investment in victim liaison officers to make sure that there is a single point of contact so that victims are supported right the way through the criminal justice process.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the shadow Solicitor General to the Front Bench.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker. It is an honour to stand at the Dispatch Box again, albeit on the other side of this great Chamber. I hope to work constructively with the hon. and learned Lady on this challenging and very intricate part of Government.

Violence against women and children is abhorrent and inexcusable. It crushes self-confidence and self-esteem in victims, wrecks families and ruins lives. As someone who was a family lawyer for 23 years before coming to this place, I welcome the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls within the next decade. To achieve that important goal, what action are the Government taking on prevention and early intervention, and when will the specialist rape courts be introduced?

[The Solicitor General]

I welcome the shadow Solicitor General to her place. She brings enormous experience, not only in legal matters but specifically in relation to violence against women and girls, and I look forward to working constructively with her in this area. I also take the opportunity to welcome the appointment of the new shadow Attorney General, and send my best wishes to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) as he departs his role.

In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, she is right that the commitment to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade is a cross-Government initiative. Prevention and early intervention are a core part of that; that is why when the VAWG mission board met earlier, there was a real focus on education—how we educate about consent and early intervention, so that we can prevent these cases from entering the criminal justice process.

[Helen Grant]

The Government have announced an extra £49 million in funding to support victims of crime and say that the funding will enable additional staff recruitment at the specialist rape and serious sexual offence unit of the Crown Prosecution Service. Can the Solicitor General confirm to the House the number of additional staff to be taken on? When will they be in place?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Lady is right to welcome the additional £49 million, which will be invested in those specialist rape and serious sexual violence units in every CPS area, but it is important that the CPS has discretion over how that money is spent and makes sure that resources are directed and targeted at areas where they are most needed, so that we can deliver for the victims of these most serious crimes.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

2. What steps she is taking to help ensure the effective prosecution of rural crime.

[The Solicitor General]

The Government are deeply committed to addressing the important issue of rural crime; that is why we are strengthening neighbourhood policing in rural areas and implementing stronger laws to prevent farm theft and fly-tipping. In addition, we are recommitted to their being a specialist Crown prosecutor in each CPS area who supports the police in charging and prosecuting rural crime.

[Olly Glover]

I thank the Solicitor General for her answer. The Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 had support from across the House in the previous Parliament. The statutory instrument to bring in its measures is with the Home Office but has yet to be brought forward. Property seized by the Thames Valley police rural crime taskforce across South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse since the start of 2023 is valued at more than £400,000, with an incalculable impact on farmers’ mental health, wellbeing and anxiety. To improve the rate of prosecutions for rural crime, will the Solicitor General urge her colleagues at the Home Office to bring that statutory instrument before the House?

[The Solicitor General]

I thank the hon. Member for raising an important point. I can confirm that we are committed to implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act and, with that, bringing about real benefits and impacts for farmers suffering from the theft and resale of high-value equipment, with all the stress and distress that that causes.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am pleased to see the Solicitor General, a good friend of mine, in her place.

A key part of rural crime, particularly in Newcastle-under-Lyme, is waste—waste crime has blighted the lives of my constituents for far too long. May I urge the Solicitor General to do all she can, working with colleagues across Government, to hold the rogue operators of landfill sites to account and make sure that they face the full force of the law?

[The Solicitor General]

In a previous life I was an environmental lawyer, so I know just what a scourge those waste offences can be. That is precisely why the work of specialist Crown prosecutors, who work closely with the police in charging and prosecuting such rural crime, will be so important.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What discussions she has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on ensuring the effective prosecution of covid-19 related fraud.

[The Solicitor General]

The Government are doing everything possible to recover the millions in public funds lost to covid-19-related fraud. The Crown Prosecution Service is working closely with investigators to pursue all those who dishonestly lined their pockets with Government money.

[Jack Abbott]

In 2021, the previous Health Secretary said in relation to covid-19 contracts that

“where a contract is not delivered against, we do not intend to pay taxpayers’ money”.—[Official Report, 23 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 758.]

Judging from the figures that highlight the enormous scale of covid-19-related fraud, that was little more than a promise made and a promise broken by the previous Government. I am pleased that our Government have made it a priority to recoup as much of that money as possible from scammers who profited at taxpayers’ expense. However, four and a half years on from the first lockdown, my constituents in Ipswich, many of whom sacrificed so much during the pandemic, will be wondering why it has taken this long, and a change of Government, to take the issue as seriously as it deserves. Can the Solicitor General tell the House whether that is down to the previous Government’s incompetence or lack of effort, or whether it is symptomatic of their more general recklessness?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One of us has to sit down, and it is not going to be me. That was a very long question; the hon. Gentleman could have shortened it. He might want to apply for an Adjournment debate on the subject, which is obviously very important.

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. In contrast to the previous Government, this Government are taking action on covid-related fraud. We have heard from the Chancellor that she will be appointing a covid corruption commissioner, who will review and assess all the PPE contracts that were entered into before any are written off. I think I speak on behalf of all our constituents in saying that where money was fraudulently obtained, we want our money back.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to support the Serious Fraud Office in tackling economic crime.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

6. What steps her Department is taking to support the Serious Fraud Office in tackling economic crime.

[The Solicitor General]

This Government are committed to cracking down on fraud. That is why we have confirmed an additional £9.3 million in funding to improve the performance of the Serious Fraud Office further, enhancing its case management and ensuring better systems for asset recovery.

[Joe Powell]

I welcome the additional money for the Serious Fraud Office. My hon. and learned Friend will know that Transparency International has assessed the UK as having reduced enforcement of foreign bribery measures for the first time, and the last bribery investigation to be publicly confirmed was in 2020. What steps are being taken to ensure that the SFO actively fulfils its role as the primary enforcement body for foreign bribery?

[The Solicitor General]

I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s proud track record in highlighting economic crime and his work in exposing dirty money. I met the director of the Serious Fraud Office yesterday in this House. We are working closely together to crack down on corruption, fraud, and bribery, and I assure my hon. Friend that the SFO is working incredibly hard in that area.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

In 2023-24, more than 16,000 crimes involving fraud were committed in Scotland. Since crime of that kind is often committed online and observes no borders, will the Solicitor General advise the Chamber on whether the UK and Scottish fraud offices are co-operating on that issue?

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is correct to say that so often these terrible crimes do not respect borders. Fraud that is specific to Scotland is investigated by Police Scotland and prosecuted by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which works closely with English-based agencies and the SFO where it is appropriate to do so. This Government are committed to strengthening the Union, and that extends to law enforcement in this area.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the shadow Solicitor General to her post—it is good to see her back—and I thank the Solicitor General for her kind words.

I equally warmly welcome the advent of a “failure to prevent” offence in relation to certain kinds of economic crime. The Solicitor General will agree that the purpose of that exercise is not to engender further prosecutions but to change behaviour. Will she therefore reassure the House that she will work with colleagues across Government to ensure that businesses receive all the advice they need about how to put in place the reasonable anti-fraud measures that will give them a defence under that new offence?

[The Solicitor General]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his question. Just this week guidance was published by the Home Office in conjunction with other organisational partners and the SFO in relation to preventing fraud, and that will of course entail working with business to ensure that it is operating as effectively as it can for those who are impacted by fraud, both individuals and businesses alike.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Not so long ago a TV programme—I think it was “Panorama”—showed that dirty money and bribery was moving from Latvia to Germany and Northern Ireland, and it clearly showed that international criminal gangs and paramilitary groups are working together. Has the Solicitor General had an opportunity to discuss how better to tackle those gangs, for instance by working better regionally, or by working together with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that we combat those groups?

[The Solicitor General]

I cannot comment on any specific cases, but I know from my discussions with the director of the SFO that it is alive to those cross-jurisdictional issues. That is part of the purpose of the additional investment that the Government have provided to the SFO to ensure that its processes, investigations, and case management are as effective and nimble as they can be, including in tackling those cross-jurisdictional issues.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I welcome the Solicitor General to her place, and I very much look forward to working with her. I echo the comments of others welcoming the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), to her place. The Solicitors Regulation Authority recently labelled the Legal Services Board’s damning report into the handling of the Axiom Ince fraud as merely an opinion. Can the Solicitor General clarify what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the regulator is properly regulated? What actions are being taken by her Department to prevent similar economic crimes to ensure that all constituents, including mine in North Cornwall—one of whom is in the Gallery today—can have confidence in our legal system?

[The Solicitor General]

I welcome the hon. Member to his place. He raises an incredibly important point. This Government in general are committed to raising standards and rebuilding trust in the justice system. That means regulators working effectively with investigators in the public interest. He will know that, in accordance with long-established practice, it would not be proper for me to comment on the specific case that he mentions, but I can assure him that we will be working to ensure that regulators are working effectively with investigators in the public interest.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

7. What steps she has taken with the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that the victims’ right to review scheme is operating effectively.

[The Solicitor General]

The victims’ right to review scheme is a vital mechanism for ensuring that victims have the right to request a review of certain prosecutor decisions, either not to start a prosecution or to stop a prosecution. We are continuing to work with our partners, including the CPS, so that the victims’ right to review scheme operates as effectively as possible to deliver for victims the justice they rightly deserve.

[Catherine Fookes]

In my short time in this place, I have been shocked and concerned by the rates of violence against women in my constituency of Monmouthshire. Many constituents have reached out to me for support. I am pleased that the Government are aiming to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade, but can the Solicitor General tell us what proportion of violence against women cases request reviews? How are victims supported through the process, because it is incredibly difficult to maximise their ability to exercise their right to review?

[The Solicitor General]

We are looking at the victim’s right to review scheme closely. It is informing the subject discussions that I hope to have later today with the Director of Public Prosecutions. We are also working closely with the Victims’ Commissioner, who is raising issues around how we might reform this process. I can assure my hon. Friend that the CPS is looking at this matter closely. One thing it is introducing is that where no evidence is offered for the most serious rape and serious sexual offences, that decision is reviewed by a deputy Crown prosecutor before it is taken. That oversight is already producing results.

[Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions she has had with regional mayors on rates of prosecution for street crime.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

9. What recent discussions she has had with regional mayors on rates of prosecution for street crime.

[The Solicitor General]

Council leaders and regional mayors play an important role in tackling the unprecedented challenges that this Government inherited. We are committed to working closely with local leaders to deliver the safer streets that our communities deserve. I have already met several deputy mayors, mayors and council leaders to discuss these important matters, and we will continue to do so in the months ahead.

[Dan Aldridge]

Shoplifting is a major concern for my constituents, businesses and retail workers in Weston-super-Mare, many of whom have contacted me for support. Shoplifting has increased massively, with more than 1,000 cases these past 12 months. That is a 31% annual increase. To reassure my constituents, can the Solicitor General outline what steps she is taking to prosecute those responsible for shoplifting?

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this important issue. Shoplifting is a scourge in many of our constituencies. That is why this Government are committed to introducing respect orders and beefing up legislation to tackle persistent antisocial behaviour. We are also working with the CPS to ensure that we clamp down on assaults against shopworkers, which will be part of a new stand-alone offence, and we are re-committing to prosecuting in these core areas.

[Harpreet Uppal]

The Solicitor General will be aware of concerns about knife and violent crime in many communities, including Huddersfield. In particular, there are serious concerns about how children and young people are being criminally exploited in wider county lines gangs. How is the Department working with regional mayors to improve prosecution rates for knife and violence- related offences, and to ensure that those at risk of offending receive targeted interventions?

[The Solicitor General]

As my hon. Friend states, knife crime is a scourge that particularly impacts on young people, too many of whom senselessly lose their lives or are injured every year. Mayors and councils will be essential partners in the mission to achieve safer streets. I have already met the deputy Mayor of West Yorkshire to discuss this matter. The prosecutorial piece is part of this Government’s review to crack down on the sale of offensive weapons. The Government are in a hurry. We have already implemented a ban on the possession of zombie-style knives and machetes, but of course there is a lot more that we can and should be doing.

Council Tax

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

10:34

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

(Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on the Government’s policy on council tax referendum thresholds in 2025-26.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

Since the 2012-13 financial year, local authorities, fire authorities, and police and crime commissioners have been required to determine whether the amount of council tax they plan to raise is excessive. The Secretary of State sets thresholds on excessiveness and knows the referendum principles for different classes of authority. Since 2016-17, those thresholds have also included a social care precept, providing higher thresholds for authorities with social care responsibilities.

Decisions on the council tax levels to set, or whether to hold a referendum to go beyond the referendum principles, sit with councils. But the Government have been clear that we expect the threshold to be maintained at the current level, set by the previous Government. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast of the last Government assumed that council tax would increase by a 3% core, plus an additional 2% for local authorities with adult social care responsibilities for the entirety of the forecast period. We will set out further details in the local government finance settlement in the new year.

Beyond that, we are determined to support local government and undo the mess that has been created over the past 14 years. That is why at the Budget we announced over £4 billion in new local government funding, including an additional £1.3 billion in the local government finance settlement. That, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, has been warmly welcomed by the sector.

[David Simmonds]

Council tax funds about £20.5 billion of expenditure in England on social care, which is 61% of all council funding. It is therefore of huge interest to our constituents. The Prime Minister and Ministers have repeatedly told the House that we need to wait for the spending review and the local government finance settlement to know what will happen with the referendum limit, including at the Dispatch Box yesterday when the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to wait. Shortly afterwards, the press were told that the 5% limit would remain in place.

Answers to parliamentary questions show that the Government are expecting spending power to increase by £3.7 billion, funded by grants of £1.3 billion. That demonstrates that the Chancellor’s Budget has opened up a £2.4 billion black hole in council finances. In addition to that, the County Councils Network has highlighted its concerns that although we have not yet had a formal statement in the House, there are proposals to change the way in which funding is allocated, further depriving local authorities in urban, suburban and rural areas of the funding that they need.

I would like to put two questions to the Minister. First, will he promise the House that funding allocations through the grant mechanism will follow the cost pressures on local authorities and not any other form of indexation or formula, to ensure that places facing the highest costs receive the funding that they need? Next, while nobody would want to see the referendum limits scrapped simply to bail out central Government, the announcement of the 5% constrains local authorities when it comes to their fundraising. Will the Minister tell the House whether it will be our high streets through increased business rates or whether significant cuts to other council services will be needed to fill the Government’s £2.4 billion black hole?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Let me take them in turn. The Government are committed to a fair funding settlement for local government. We will set out further details in the usual way in the upcoming local government finance settlement, which will be presented to Parliament.

On the £2.4 billion figure, I am afraid that we simply do not recognise it. I assume that the hon. Gentleman, in his calculations, failed to take account of the over £300 million raised from business rates and £300 million in additional new houses coming along. Yes, it is right that £1.8 billion will be raised through council tax in 2025-26, but, as I made clear, that is because the Government are clear that we are maintaining the previous Government’s policy on council tax, in line with the OBR forecast made in March 2024.

The question for the Opposition is: are they saying that the cap should be abolished, as the Conservative Local Government Association group’s “Rebuilding the Road to Victory” document called for all caps to be removed, or are they saying that the limit should be reduced, which would be contrary to the policy in place when the now Leader of the Opposition was the local government Minister?

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is worth remembering why a number of our local authorities are facing this decision and the tight financial situation: the funding crisis over the past 14 years, forcing a number of local authorities to make those difficult decisions. A number of our areas are facing major in-year cost pressures from things such as temporary accommodation and special educational needs and disabilities provision. Does the Minister agree that we need to accelerate the house building plan in order to get local authorities back on a level playing field, so that our local residents do not see that cost increase in their council tax bills?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. She is absolutely right; after 14 years of the previous Government’s record in office, local government is on its knees. We have a system on the verge of collapse. We had multiple years when in-year spending pressures were ignored. The headroom that we have provided through the Budget—more than £4 billion in new local government funding, which I referenced earlier—will allow us to start to turn that system around and to get ahead of some of the challenges we are facing, whether the pressures on adult social care, children’s services or homelessness costs as a result of temporary accommodation. That is why our house building programme—within my specific remit of responsibility—and, in particular, the increase in social and affordable housing supply that we are committed to, is so important.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned that people are simply paying more council tax for fewer services. That is quite clearly the result of Conservative tax cuts and their failure to tackle social care. As a former council leader, I know that the burden on councils has increased to such an extent that they are forced to make impossible choices. The burden and the costs that councils of all colours have to shoulder as a result of the Conservative Government’s policies must be reviewed. Will the Minister ensure that councils do not have to close libraries, cut bus routes and reduce road repairs in order to meet the growing demands of the most vulnerable members of our community? Despite the announcement in the Budget, will the Minister recognise the LGA analysis that councils face a £6.9 billion shortfall because of inflation, increased wage demands and demand pressures on local services?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Government certainly recognise the pressures on local authorities and the burdens placed on households as a result of 14 years in which local government was run down. We are determined to turn that situation around, as I have said, by providing the headroom that local authorities need to get ahead of some of the challenges that they have faced for many years. That is why the more than £4 billion in new local government funding announced at the Budget, including an additional £1.3 million in the local government finance settlement, has been so warmly welcomed. That brings the total real-terms increase in core spending to around 3.2%. We remain committed to the 5% referendum cap—we believe that is the right threshold. To protect the most vulnerable, we are also committed to the single-person discount and local council tax support schemes, under which, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, more than 8 million households do not pay a full council tax bill.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I really do not know how the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), can stand there and talk about cuts and shortfalls with a straight face. We know where responsibility lies—and on the Lib Dem Benches as well. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) will want that Yorkshire cup of tea. It will come very quickly if he carries on. I call Clive Betts—another Yorkshireman.

[Mr Betts]

Let me take my hon. Friend on a trip down memory lane. When I first became a councillor—only 48 years ago—councils had the freedom to raise rates for domestic and non-domestic property. Should we not, at some point, start a conversation with councils and the wider public about whether thresholds at all are appropriate? Councils in this country have less freedom to raise local taxation than virtually any other councils in western Europe. Council tax itself is regressive, both between individuals and between different local authorities. Can we not start that conversation at some point?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I will relay it to the Local Government Minister. On the general principle, we are determined to rebuild local government from the ground up. That is why we are providing multi-year funding settlements to councils and removing a number of ringfences, and are committed, as I said, to fair funding. On his general point about the Opposition, I completely agree. It reminds me of a phrase my nan used to use: “More front than Harrods,” she used to say. That is what Opposition Members have.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Will the Minister rule out additional council tax bands being among any changes that the Government make?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are not talking about council tax bands in this urgent question; we are talking about the thresholds that remain in place. We are committed to those thresholds. As I am sure you would expect, Mr Speaker, we will set out more details about the local government finance settlement at the appropriate point next year, in the usual way.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Areas like Hull city council were savaged by the previous Government when it came to funding—absolutely savaged, to the point where they were almost on their knees. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing for areas of high deprivation like Hull?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The damage done to local government over the 14 years in which the Conservatives were in office is profound. We have inherited, as I said, a system on the verge of collapse. We are absolutely committed, as part of rebuilding that system from the ground up, to a fair funding settlement. As I say, the Minister for Local Government will announce more details in the upcoming local government finance settlement in the new year.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Local authorities across the country will welcome multi-year settlements, so they can plan for the future. However, does the Minister have any plans whatever for a revaluation of properties, given that properties were originally valued back in 1992, when council tax began? The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and I produced a Select Committee report on what could be done to ensure that councils need not be strictly neutral in terms of finance, and could revalue properties to bring valuations up to date.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to discuss the local government finance settlement ahead of it being formally presented to the House. I am afraid I cannot do that, but the Government have heard his point, and I will ensure that it is passed on to the Local Government Minister.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

As a councillor, I saw 14 years of austerity and cuts to local government, and a 93% cut equivalent for my council in Medway. The opposition, the Medway Conservative group, recently stated that it would not only scrap the recent council tax cap, but introduce a local income tax on residents. Does the Minister agree that there needs to be consistency on this issue, whereas the Opposition’s approach is to say, in one case, “Scrap the cap,” and in another, “Keep it”?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we still have not had an answer: we do not know the Opposition’s position on thresholds. [Interruption.] We are in government, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) chunters from a sedentary position, and we have confirmed that when it comes to thresholds, we intend to maintain the position as it was under the previous Government, and as baked into the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast for the spending period. The Opposition really do have to answer this question: are they saying that the thresholds should be removed or increased, or are they saying that they should be reduced and core services cut?

[Mr Speaker]

Unfortunately, it is not for the Opposition to answer the questions—they are in opposition.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

The Chancellor and the International Monetary Fund are known to favour ending council tax and replacing it with a wider property tax. The Welsh Labour Government tried to revalue all the properties in Wales for council tax purposes. Can the Government rule out doing either of those things?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am not going to get into speculating about more fundamental reform of the council tax system. As I have in a number of my responses to this urgent question, the Government will set out their position on the thresholds, and on other matters in respect of the local government finance settlement, at the appropriate point early in the new year.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

York is the lowest-funded unitary authority in the country, but has one of the highest costs of living. That puts real pressure on it. We are also among the poorest-funded for health, fire and police services. When the Minister looks at the funding formula for local government, will he look at the presumptions made, to ensure more equity in the way it is put together?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have said repeatedly— I commit to it again—we are determined to ensure that there is a fair funding settlement for local government, and as I have said, more details will be forthcoming in the settlement early next year.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Labour used to say that it would freeze council tax. Can the Minister now confirm that its policy is actually to put council tax up because of the flawed, broken promise on national insurance?

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, that is not the case. We are maintaining the policy of the previous Government, which, as per the OBR forecast, estimated that £1.8 billion will be raised through council tax. The position of the Government is that it will maintain the thresholds. If the hon. Gentleman thinks differently, he should tell House what his position is on thresholds: should they be reduced or increased?

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased about the support for first and second-tier councils and the commitment to fair funding, which will make a real difference in, for instance, Cornwall. However, in unitary authorities such as ours, where a great many services have been shared, larger town councils have had to step up and take the strain, but have not had the grants and other measures that have been available to those first and second-tier councils. Could the appropriate Minister meet me to discuss the position of larger town councils in Cornwall?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am more than happy to commit the Local Government Minister to a meeting with my hon. Friend.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

During Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Government accepted that they were giving councils a maximum of £600 million, but the Local Government Association has said that there is £2.4 billion worth of pressure. Does the Minister accept that councils will have to increase their tax by about £1.8 billion to fill the gap between what the Government are offering them and what they need to provide local services?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I have made clear, we do not recognise the £2.4 billion figure. It fails to take into account increases that I have already mentioned, such as the £300 million increase in business rates income and the £300 million increase in income from new, additional houses. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we expect council tax to raise £1.8 billion in 2025-26, but that is in line with the previous Government’s spending plans and baked into the OBR forecast as of March 2024.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

As a former deputy council leader, I am somewhat amazed by the collective amnesia of Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) spoke of what “constrains” local government spending power. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is 60% cuts, such as those that Southampton city council has suffered for 14 years, that have really reduced that spending power, and does he agree that rather than faux outrage, what we need is an apology?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We deserve an apology, but I doubt that we will get one. Before 2010, it was vanishingly rare for councils to fall into serious financial difficulty. Since then, nine councils have been affected in just 14 years. There is a pattern here. For too long, the Conservative Government not only failed to carry out their duty to local government, but hollowed out frontline services and crashed the economy. We are turning that around with the support that we are providing to local government in the Budget. We will set out more details in the local government settlement early next year, as I have mentioned.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the Minister will know, although we do not have council tax per se in Northern Ireland, the pressures on our family finances are on a par with those on the UK mainland. The Government need to be clear about just how much further the finances of average families will be stretched, because this is a very worrying trend. What extra help can families, especially disabled families, expect to receive this year?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which relates to an earlier one. I think that, in the urgent question, the Opposition failed to account for the various other sources of support that we are providing for families. We are continuing the household support fund—that is £1 billion. There is a £1 billion uplift for special educational needs. There is UK shared prosperity funding of £900 million—the list goes on, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss the specific conditions in Northern Ireland further, I am more than happy to pass on that request to the Local Government Minister.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association; Opposition Front Benchers might want to reflect on that.

My hon. Friend mentioned front; I could talk about the Opposition’s brass neck in talking about concerns about the pressures that local councils face. Does he agree that 14 years of Conservative austerity, initially with the Liberal Democrats, devastated the ability of many councils, including Luton council, to provide much- needed services to families in our constituencies?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have been a local councillor, as have many Members of this House. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) has been a council leader, so he will know what has happened to the system over the past 14 years. The Opposition continue to claim that there is a multibillion-pound black hole in local council budgets. When asked how they would fix it, however, they said, “It’s not for us to do; we’re in opposition. It’s for the Government.” It is a classic policy of having no plan to fix the mess. They have provided no clarity on their position on thresholds, and failed to take responsibility for what they did over 14 years in government.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

My Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley had to apply for a capitalisation order three years ago and make 15% of our staff redundant. Despite that, it still overspent its budget every month for over two years, and is currently overspending on the safety valve agreement made with the previous Government. In addition, the Conservative leader of the council, in responding to a question from me last year, accepted that she was part of the LGA Conservative group executive that published a manifesto last year asking their own Government to remove caps on council tax. Given that, does my hon. Friend agree that it is rank hypocrisy for the Conservative party to complain now about black holes in council finances?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I absolutely do, and the Government are determined to extract from the Opposition some clarity on their position on thresholds. Do they agree with the LGA Conservative group, which has called for the caps on council tax to be removed? Do they want those caps to be reduced? We are still none the wiser. Hopefully, we can find out in the weeks and months to come.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

As a member of a council for more than 30 years—like other Members of this House, I am still one—I have to say that, in the last few years, I have not met a single councillor from any political party across the local government family who does not believe that local government finance is in its worst state for decades. The latest LGA figures indicate that in Labour authorities, council tax is £276 lower than in Conservative authorities. Does the Minister agree that this shows that Labour councils, the Labour party and the Labour Government provide better value for money?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour councils charge less on average than Tory councils, and the councils with the lowest rates of council tax are all Labour. Council tax bills in Labour councils are on average £345 less than in Tory councils. When it comes to local government financing and council tax pressures, people are right to vote Labour. It will ensure that their council tax is lower than if they were under a Conservative local authority.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I am a former local government leader. Does the Minister agree that we should thank local authority leaders, especially Labour leaders such as Pete Marland at Milton Keynes city council, for keeping services during 14 years of austerity? Milton Keynes city council has kept weekly bin collections, kept children’s centres open and reduced rough sleeping, while keeping council tax lower than in its neighbouring Tory authorities. Does the Minister agree that instead of using local authority leaders to make cheap political points, the Conservative party should thank them and apologise for 14 years of austerity?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I extend the Government’s appreciation to all local government leaders—I mean that in a cross-party spirit—for what they have done to keep services going despite the pressures that they have faced over the past 14 years, when the previous Government ran down local government. We should thank local government leaders, and this Government do. We want to consult them on how we rebuild the system after 14 years of pressure, and we would be more than happy to work across the Chamber and have a mature, cross-party conversation about we fix this mess. That will not happen if the political game-playing from the Opposition continues.

National Insurance Contributions: Healthcare

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

10:59

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the impact of changes to employer national insurance contributions on primary care providers, hospices and care homes.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for asking this important question. It gives me the opportunity to say to GPs, dentists, hospices and every part of the health and care system that will be affected by changes to employer national insurance contributions that this Government understand the pressures they face and take their representations seriously. The Chancellor took into account the impact of changes to national insurance when she allocated an extra £26 billion to the Department of Health and Social Care. There are well-established processes for agreeing funding allocations across the system, and we are going through those processes now with this issue in mind.

This Government inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, broken public services and a stagnant economy. Upon taking office we were told that the deficit the previous Government recklessly ran up in my Department alone would mean delivering 20,000 fewer appointments a week instead of the 40,000 more we promised. The Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were not prepared to see further decline in our NHS. That is why we put in an extra £1.8 billion to stop the NHS going into reverse this year.

We built on that at the Budget, delivering the significant investment that the NHS needs to get back on its feet, backing staff with investment in modern technology, new scanners and new surgical hubs, and rebuilding our crumbling primary and secondary care estate. Alongside that, we delivered a real-terms increase in core local government spending power of around 3.2%, which will help to address the range of pressures facing the adult social care sector, including £600 million in new grant funding for social care. We are now working through exactly how that money will be allocated, as per normal processes. As the Secretary of State set out yesterday, we will ensure that every pound is invested wisely to deliver the Government’s priorities and provide value to taxpayers.

The Department will set out further details on the allocation of funding in due course, including through NHS planning guidance and the usual consultations, including on the general practice contract. As part of these processes, we will consider the impact of changes announced to employer national insurance contributions in a fair and open way over the next five months, before the changes come into force in April 2025.

[Dr Evans]

I draw the House’s attention to my declaration of interests.

Many in the health sector will have been pleased to hear the announcement of the extra funding for the NHS, only for their joy to be struck down by the realisation that a manifesto promise not to raise national insurance contributions had been broken. That was compounded further by the discovery that a raft of frontline care providers—care homes, hospices, care charities, pharmacies and GPs, to name but a few—will not be exempt from the NI rise, leaving them with crippling staff bills and the threat of closures and redundancies. The hospice sector expects the cost to be £30 million—closures and redundancies. The initial assessment of the cost to GPs is £260 million—closures and redundancies, at the expense of 2.2 million appointments. For the care sector, the changes will cost £2.4 billion, dwarfing the £600 million in social care support that was announced. Does the Minister accept that it is inevitable that council tax will have to rise to support the increase in NICs?

For the first time, the National Pharmacy Association has announced collective action. Its chair said:

“The sense of anger among pharmacy owners has been intensified exponentially by the Budget, with its hike in national insurance employers’ contributions and the unfunded national living wage increase, which has tipped even more pharmacies to the brink.”

Will the Minister clarify who is exempt from NI? Will the Government admit that they got it wrong and make a change? The Prime Minister, Health Secretary and Chancellor have all said that allocations will be made “in the usual way”. Will the Minister clarify what the usual way is? Will mitigations be put in black and white to the House and the public? Is this part of the £20 billion, or new funding?

More importantly, will the Minister lay out a concrete timetable for hospices, care homes, GPs, pharmacists and all other allied health professionals, who are making decisions now? This seems to be another example of a big headline from the Labour party but no detail.

[Karin Smyth]

Well, really. I am quite dumbfounded by the hon. Gentleman’s response. I respect him for his professional practice, and he knows the state of the NHS that we inherited from the previous Government, as reported in Lord Darzi’s report. He talks about joy, but there was no joy when we inherited the mess they left back in July. He talks about people being tipped to the brink, and they absolutely were, as Lord Darzi made clear.

As I said, we will go through the allocation of additional funding in the normal process, which will be faster than under the previous Government because we are committed to giving the sector much more certainty. The normal process, as the hon. Gentleman should know from his time in government, is to go through the mandate and the planning guidance and to talk to the sector about the allocations due next April, as I said in my opening statement.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Opposition’s new interest in social care? Does she further agree that the problems that social care faces owe more to the previous Government’s failure to do anything with Andrew Dilnot’s 2011 report than they do to anything that is happening now with national insurance?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. When I joined this House in 2015, I remember that the first act of the new, non-coalition Conservative Government was to take the legs from underneath that social care commitment by postponing the Care Act 2014. They cynically said at the time that they would bring it forward by 2020, which they thought would coincide with the next general election. We all saw how that went.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

The increase in employer national insurance contributions will erode the very investment in the NHS that the Budget sought to prioritise. Katie, a GP from Lindfield in Mid Sussex, wrote to me saying that the NICs increases

“serve to directly undermine access and patient care.”

The Government have promised to recruit more GPs, but hiking national insurance puts that pledge in jeopardy. Surgeries are set to see eye-watering increases in staff costs, equivalent to 26,786 appointments in West Sussex alone. GPs will have no choice but to cut services and staff numbers, and patients will pay the price.

Does the Minister agree that stronger primary care, with faster appointments and fewer people having to go to hospital, is better for both the NHS and patients? If so, will she protect services and press the Chancellor to end this GP penalty?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about the importance of GPs and primary care to the wider sector. Immediately after taking office this summer, we freed up the system to employ 1,000 extra GPs through the additional roles reimbursement scheme—which the previous Government refused to implement—because we recognised the need for that extra capacity. We will be talking to general practice as part of the contract reforms over the next few months, following the normal process, to determine allocations for next year.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

If this Government’s ambition, stemming from Lord Darzi’s report, is to be realised, significant investment is required not only in primary care but in third sector organisations. However, these organisations are concerned about the increased cost pressures on their services. Will the Minister ensure that there is sufficient support within the trickle-down approach, which the Department will now have to apply, to maintain current service levels and facilitate the urgently needed transition across health services?

[Karin Smyth]

I respect my hon. Friend’s expertise in this area. She is right, and we understand that the pressures are real, which is why we have committed to supporting the NHS and the social care system with the additional funding that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care secured as part of the Budget settlement.

We are also working closely with the NHS, in a new relationship, to understand its needs. That is a dynamic conversation, because we want to understand what is happening in local systems as we continue to invest in them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We all know that a lot of the debate on assisted dying revolves around the lack of hospice places to help people pass in the best way possible. Similarly, much of the debate on the NHS is about the lack of care home spaces. Leaving aside the cross-party name-calling, may I beg the Minister to consider exempting hospices and care homes from this national insurance increase?

[Karin Smyth]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. As I have said, we will continue our conversations with all affected providers in the normal way.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the support that we will put in place for general practice and, in particular, the community health hubs that were recently announced, will be crucial to the improvement in the health service that we urgently need?

[Karin Smyth]

I respect my hon. Friend’s expertise and service to the national health service. He will understand the need to make the shift into neighbourhood health services. We have been clear that we will ensure the NHS spends all its allocations in the most effective way to enable that shift, as part of our 10-year plan.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

A trustee of the Hamelin Trust, a not-for-profit provider of care and support across Essex, has contacted me because he is concerned about the £92,650 rise in national insurance that Hamelin will have to pay because of the measures introduced by the Government. He said:

“This will affect what they can do to support our communities and subsequently put more pressure on the NHS and local authorities. The impact on disabled people and older adults who rely on regular, consistent, high-quality care will be profound.”

I do not believe that the Government intended to hammer the disabled or older people who need care, so will the Minister prove me right and look at the policy again?

[Karin Smyth]

The right hon. Gentleman was part of the last Government—I am pleased to note that he is talking to his new constituents. The £22 billion black hole and the report from Lord Darzi indicate the fragility of the system we have inherited. We are ensuring that vulnerable groups are supported through the allocations provided to both the Department for Health and Social Care and the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

When Labour came into government in July, every element of our health service was in crisis. Since, then, we have announced record investment in our national health service, but I am yet to hear whether the Conservative party supports that record investment. Does the Minister agree that the Government are listening to health professionals, taking tough decisions and not simply playing politics?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have still not heard from the Opposition whether they agree with the extra investment that has gone into the sector or with Lord Darzi’s report that diagnosed their legacy, including why they left that legacy and the serious issues we now have to address.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Shooting Star children’s hospice in Hampton serves children with life-limiting conditions and supports their families not just in my constituency but across south-west London and Surrey. With the national insurance hike, it faces a bill of £200,000, on top of all the inflationary costs that it has had to absorb. It is also waiting for confirmation as to whether the children’s hospice grant, which this year provided it with £1.8 million, will continue beyond April 2025. Will the Minister commit to making hospices exempt from the NI rise, not just for nursing staff but for all staff, and when will she be able to give Shooting Star and other children’s hospices confirmation on whether the children’s hospice grant will continue? They need to plan now.

[Karin Smyth]

I commend the hon. Lady for raising the great work done by hospices. We understand the pressures and the precarious situation that many have been left in after 14 years of the last Government. We are willing and keen to talk to representatives from all types of hospice, and others. We are going through the process of the allocations and we will be able to get back to them as soon as possible.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

Hundreds of my constituents in Leeds South West and Morley are stuck on record long waiting lists, thanks to the Conservative party. It is essential that we get those waiting lists down, because they have profound effects on our economy and on the health of those waiting. Will the Minister confirm that the measures that we set out in the Budget will provide the additional appointments needed to get those waiting lists down?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As I said in my response to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), we faced a situation where we were told that we would have to reduce appointments by 20,000 a week. We have taken serious steps, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fought hard for our Budget allocation so that we can have 40,000 extra appointments as promised in our manifesto, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the British public. We are determined that we will bring change to the system and tackle the waiting lists.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Increased taxes for hospices, care homes, GPs and pharmacies. Is that a deliberate decision by the Labour Government or just a cock-up?

[Karin Smyth]

We understand the precarious situation that hospices are in—the precarious situation that they found themselves in before we came to power— and we are committed to talking to them and other affected providers. We will be going through the normal process of allocations in the next few months.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents continue to wait on record-long waiting lists. Does the Minister agree that, before the Opposition throw stones, we should remind the House that their spending plans would have cut £15 billion from the NHS, which would have completely shattered an already broken NHS?

[Karin Smyth]

Those Conservative Members who have held on to their seats—I have been in that situation as well—know that the public, staff and patients understand exactly what state they left the NHS in. That is why they had such a disastrous election result. We are determined to change the NHS and to make it fit for the 21st century. Part of what we have done in this Budget through that extra allocation, our conversations with those in the health and social care system and our 10-year plan will do just that.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

While Scotland’s public sector is facing a £500 million bill for the Chancellor’s reckless national insurance hike, Scotland’s charities, including hospices, face a £75 million price tag under these changes. The Budget simply cannot be balanced on the back of Scotland’s charities and hospices. This is a disgraceful decision for which the Labour Government are rightly being hounded. There is still time for them to do the right thing and cover these costs—I agree with what the Father of the House said. Will the Minister tell us whether they will do so?

[Karin Smyth]

The SNP has been in charge in Scotland for something like 20 years now—I forget exactly how long, but it seems like a very long time. Again, the Scottish people gave us an excellent result at the general election, and I am delighted to have so many Scottish colleagues here with me now. However, the SNP has the opportunity to make decisions in Scotland around health and social care as well, so I suggest that they do a better job.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is disappointing to put it mildly that the Opposition spokesperson was unable to mention the record funding committed in the Budget.

[Dr Luke Evans]

It was in my opening line—

[Mr Speaker]

Order! The shadow Minister has been granted an urgent question. He asks the questions; he does not answer them from the Front Bench.

[Karl Turner]

Does the Minister agree that it is also disappointing that the Opposition ignore the fact that they completely disregarded and ignored social care when they were in office?

[Mr Speaker]

The Government have no responsibility for that.

[Karin Smyth]

Well, I do agree with my hon. Friend. As I have said, when I became a Member of Parliament in 2015, I remember very clearly the absolute shock that I felt when the Conservatives immediately announced that they were not going to meet the commitment that they had made to implement the Care Act 2014 at that time, and we are still playing catch-up on that issue.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Doctors from Duns, Galashiels, Selkirk, Kelso and across the Scottish Borders have contacted me about the impact that this national insurance hike will have on their practices. They tell me that the decision will be a huge retrograde step for primary care, will have a huge financial impact on their practices, and will undermine access to primary and patient care. Why have the Labour Government made this choice to hammer local doctors?

[Karin Smyth]

As I have said, we have made a commitment to general practice and primary care by releasing extra GPs into the system. We recognise the situation in which GPs find themselves. I know this because I worked with GP practices in my previous career. We need those practices to be the foundation of our neighbourhood services, which is why we will talk in the normal process about the allocations over the next few months as part of the contract.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

If we are to reform the NHS, we need to move resources over time into primary care. The reality is that GPs see at first instance 90% of patients, but receive only 8% of NHS funding. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, in the settlement that is agreed with NHS providers, particular attention is given to supporting GPs?

On the social care sector, when we help the hospices and social care providers, which are charities and small organisations in particular, can perhaps do so without subsidising some of the hedge funds that are now investing heavily in social care? We do not want to add to their profits while supporting the small charities involved.

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend has led fantastic work in previous Parliaments on the health and social care system, which he understands very well. He makes an excellent point about ensuring that additional funding goes where we want it to, which is towards supporting our constituents, particularly with social care. We have all seen the situation over the last decade over so. Improving that is critical to the urgent and emergency care system, and to the dignity of those people who need the service. We will continue to talk to them, and to local systems, about the impact of any changes.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I hear what the Minister says about the Government wanting to stop the NHS going into reverse, but that is exactly what risks happening to GP practices in my constituency. I met with one on Friday that told me that, as a consequence of having to find extra funds for national insurance contributions, it will no longer be able to make permanent a temporary support post, or proceed with the recruitment of the extra GP that it wanted to take on. There is a contradiction at the heart of the rules: GPs are treated as private contractors, but if they were private contractors, they would be eligible for employment allowance. Because their work is entirely in the public sector, they cannot get it. Surely something has to give.

[Karin Smyth]

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to go into my previous career working with GPs and their employment and contractual status, but I will not do that now, Mr Speaker, as you would rightly curtail me. GPs have a complicated contractual status that has been long in the process. We understand the precariousness of primary care. GPs are crucial to our plans for developing the health service, and we will discuss with them, in the normal process, the allocations for the following year.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Last month’s Budget finally gave my constituents hope that there will be an NHS that works for them. Will my hon. Friend assure me that this Government will avoid the sticking-plaster, piecemeal approach of the last Government, and bring forward a long-term plan to fix the NHS for the future?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend is right: getting away from short-term fixes and sticking plasters is exactly what we are attempting to do. That is why we put in the extra security of extra GPs over the summer, committed to extra funding in the Budget, and launched our 10-year plan. I encourage all hon. Members and their constituents to submit their views to that exercise at change.nhs.uk.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Dr Aleksandra Fox of the Ash surgery in my constituency is one of a number of GPs who have pointed out to me the deleterious effects of an ill-thought-through Budget. In addition, charities such as Shooting Star and Demelza children’s hospices are facing problems now. They cannot wait for discussions through the normal channels while this cock-up is put right. When will something be done about it, please?

[Karin Smyth]

The right hon. Gentleman says that it is an ill-thought-through Budget. I do not know whether he agrees or disagrees with the extra funding that the Government have committed to the NHS after the disaster of the last 14 years.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

This morning, we learned that the Scottish Government have wasted £28 million of taxpayers’ money on the flawed, ill-conceived National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, which did not command the support of almost any of the stakeholders needed to pass it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the additional funding for the NHS that has been committed to in our Labour Budget should be used to come up with a proper plan for social care across the UK that does not follow the flawed approach in Scotland?

[Karin Smyth]

I am so pleased to see my hon. Friend in her place. As I said to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), the SNP has been in charge of Scotland for a very long time. We have certainly missed having a Scottish Labour voice in this place. She makes an excellent point and shines some sunlight in this place on the actions that have been taken up in Holyrood.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Julia’s House hospice does amazing work across Wiltshire and Dorset, but its chief executive Martin Edwards came to Parliament on Tuesday to tell me that the additional national insurance contributions will cost the hospice £250,000 a year. For that hospice, and Naomi House, which does similar good work, the changes are a significant concern. I know that the people of Wiltshire and Dorset will do as much as they can to raise additional funds, but will the Minister reflect on that unexpected gap and offer some reassurance?

[Karin Smyth]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that his hospice, and the hospices in many of our constituencies, do great work. We are aware of the precarious situation that they have been in for a number of years, and we want to ensure that they are fully part of end of life care. He will know from his time in the Treasury that there are complicated processes, both in the Treasury and in the Department of Health and Social Care. When I talk about the normal processes for allocating money, I think he understands that well. We are mindful of hospices’ concerns, and we will continue to talk with them.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Between 2013 and 2023, during the Conservatives’ time in government, the number of general practices fell from 8,044 to 6,419. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a bit rich for the Conservatives to pretend now that they care so much about general practice, given that 1,600 practices closed on their watch?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend brings a great deal of expertise to the House from her work in social care, so she knows and understands the precarious nature of the sector, which we cannot stress enough. I do not know whether the Conservatives have actually read the report by Lord Darzi, but that report and its appendices give a really clear idea and diagnosis of the state in which the NHS and social care system was left. It will take a long time to rebuild it, and the sustainability of general practice and primary care is particularly problematic. That is why we took those actions in the summer, and why we will continue to support them and build up a neighbourhood health service.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Minister will understand that GPs are private contractors to the health service, as are pharmacists, hospices and many wonderful charities. The Government have decided to ensure that the public sector is protected from the national insurance increase. All that the Minister—or her Secretary of State—needs to do is agree that all the suppliers to the national health service are also protected, which would safeguard their position. Otherwise, care homes will close down, pharmacies will close down, and hospices will not be able to provide their services. My constituency has the wonderful St Luke’s hospice, which does brilliant work—I helped to found it back in the 1980s—and which has told me that it will have to reduce services drastically as a result of the changes. Whenever nurses and other medical practitioners get a pay rise, those suppliers have had to cope without being given the money to fund that pay rise. They need to be protected from that as well.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for supporting his local hospice. He is an experienced parliamentarian; he knows that this is not simple and that the provider landscape is complicated. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), large private equity companies own many social care providers. We want to ensure that any additional funding from the Budget goes exactly where it needs to be: supporting patients—our constituents—where they live and need care. That is why, over the next few months, we will continue to talk to providers in the usual way about the allocation of those funds.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Since the Budget, I have been contacted by GPs, care providers and charities in my constituency, all expressing concern about the impact of the rise in employer NICs on their ability to serve the most vulnerable in our community. Will the Minister reconsider the change by finding a way to exempt the charitable sector in the same way as the public sector? I have written to Ministers and tabled early-day motions on this issue. Will she take this opportunity to assure the charitable sector that it will not be impacted by the measure?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Lady tempts me to make specific commitments, which I am not prepared to do, as I am sure she understands. She is right that people are expressing concerns about some of these decisions. That is because they are in such a precarious situation as a result of what we have inherited from the past 14 years. As the Prime Minister and the rest of the Government have been clear throughout the election and afterwards, we have a 10-year plan because it will take a long time to fix the foundations and build up the sector to make it more resilient and sustain it for the future. We want to fix those foundations, and we will talk closely with everyone affected over the coming months, but this will take a long time. Those providers are precarious because of the mess that we inherited.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Earlier this week, I received a letter from the Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire air ambulance, a charitable healthcare provider. The national insurance changes will add £70,000 a year to its costs, and if it is forced to close, lives will be lost. May I urge the Minister—I know she will want to protect this service—to do all she can to ensure that that air ambulance and others across the country are not hit by this tax?

[Karin Smyth]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that since we were elected, the Government have already taken action to secure extra investment in the health and social care system, and we are committed to building a thriving health and social care system for the rest of the 21st century.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

A rural pharmacy—one of the few remaining in my constituency—derives 90% of its turnover from providing NHS services. Will the Minister consider giving pharmacists for whom NHS services account for such a large proportion of their work an exemption from the NICs rises? What assessment have the Government made of the impact on the continuing delivery of programmes such as Pharmacy First if pharmacists have to shut their doors?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about pharmacies. We absolutely understand their importance, both in urban constituencies such as mine and in rural areas. I remember from when I became an MP in 2015 the changes that the previous Government made to the pharmacy contract, and I am aware of the precarious situation that pharmacists have been in. We will continue to talk to them as part of the normal process, but we understand how important they are to building a neighbourhood service and to the future of the NHS.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Acorns children’s hospice, St Richard’s hospice and GPs, care homes and pharmacies across West Worcestershire have all been in touch with concerns about the extra cost burden that the Government have imposed on them. Can the Minister explain how it fits in with her strategic plans to slap extra cost on the community sector while rebating the NHS trust sector?

[Karin Smyth]

I am sure that all those hospices, which do great work, were also in touch with the hon. Lady when she was part of the previous Government. She will know from her time on the Treasury Committee that following the Budget, we go through the planning guidance and have conversations with all core contracted sectors. That is part of the normal process. We are absolutely committed to building back the foundations of the NHS and social care system, making it fit for the 21st century and creating a 10-year plan to which we want everyone to contribute. Community and neighbourhood systems are a fundamental part of that.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

GPs, pharmacies and social care homes from across Ceredigion Preseli have contacted me to express their concerns about the impact of the policy changes surrounding employer national insurance contributions. It is essential that they are supported with the cost that comes from this policy. The Minister has suggested that there might be additional support for some of them through the usual systems. Will she clarify whether that will mean funding being found from the Department’s budget, or whether there will be additional new money from the Treasury? That would have certain ramifications for the Welsh Government and whether they get additional Barnett formula funding.

[Karin Smyth]

I understand the concerns of the providers that have come to the hon. Gentleman, and he is right to raise them in this place. As he knows, health and social care is devolved to the Welsh Government, and there has been much benefit already from the Barnett consequentials of the Budget. We will continue to talk to the devolved regions—in, may I say, a much more co-operative way than the previous Government did—to ensure that we have a good system across the entire United Kingdom.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

In a tweet to the Health Secretary, Caroline Rayment, who is the clinical lead for the Wharfedale and Silsden community partnership, said,

“you came to our practice in June and told us you wanted to support the family Dr. Costs for the NMW and NI will come to approx £50k—we are a small practice of 7000 patients—how is this helping us?”

Can the Minister answer Caroline’s question?

[Karin Smyth]

I am not abreast of all the Health Secretary’s tweets and the responses to them, but Caroline makes a point that has been made by many people in the Chamber today, as well as a number of providers. As I said in my opening statement, we understand the precarious situation that those providers have been put in because of the failures of the past 14 years and the £22 billion black hole that the Government have inherited. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) said, general practice has been put in a precarious situation over the past 14 years, with thousands of practices going bust and giving back their contracts. That is a situation that we promised the British public we would change, and we will do so.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

In Suffolk, the national insurance increase creates £11 million of additional pressures on adult social care alone. I do not think the Minister understands that she is not just engaged in some party political knockabout with Conservative Members; GPs, hospices, care homes and pharmacies are watching this debate and are looking to the Minister for answers. They know that this problem was caused by the Government’s tax rise, which is being implemented without a plan for them, so can she tell them when a solution is going to be brought forward by the Government? When are they going to get reassurance about their future?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Gentleman may or may not think that this is political knockabout, but I was very clear in my opening statement that we understand the pressures that the sector is under. We understand the mess that we inherited, and we are fixing it. We are working with social care, GPs, providers and hospices that are affected by any changes in the Budget, and we will continue to talk to them in the usual way. We are committed to doing this faster than the last Government did it. Under the last Government, planning guidance and commitments to the NHS were always running late—they were always playing catch-up. We are committed to making sure that the sector is much more sustainable, so that it can do the important job we are asking it to do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As Members know, I am the last person —when I am called, the debate is almost over.

Will the Minister confirm whether consideration has been given to the fact that the rise in national insurance contributions will not affect the NHS as a whole, as the block grant for us in Northern Ireland will cover it? However, GP practices in my constituency of Strangford will suffer, and unlike high street businesses or manufacturing, they cannot increase prices to cover that impending rise, leaving practices with no option other than to reduce hours in order to stay solvent. Does the Minister agree that this is the last thing already overstretched GP practices need, and will she commit to take this issue back to the Treasury for reconsideration as it relates to healthcare businesses such as GPs, dentists and pharmacies?

[Karin Smyth]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, health and social care is a devolved issue. We will continue to work closely with all the devolved areas, because we think that that is important, unlike the last Labour Government—the last Conservative Government. [Laughter.] I slipped there—I almost got through.

We absolutely understand the precarious nature of general practice and, in particular, I understand the really serious issues around health and social care in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman knows that, and he makes a good case for the sector. We want to ensure that it supports people in Northern Ireland with the good primary and community care they deserve.

Business of the House

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

11:38

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House present the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

The business for the week commencing 18 November includes:

Monday 18 November—Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill.

Tuesday 19 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, followed by a general debate on the infected blood inquiry.

Wednesday 20 November—Second Reading of the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill.

Thursday 21 November—Debate on a motion on strategic lawsuits against public participation and freedom of speech, followed by a debate on a motion on International Men’s Day. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 22 November—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 25 November will include:

Monday 25 November—If necessary, consideration of Lords message, followed by Second Reading of the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill.

Tuesday 26 November—Second Reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

Wednesday 27 November—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Thursday 28 November—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 29 November—Private Members’ Bills.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

[Jesse Norman]

Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing a very happy birthday today to His Majesty the King.

The last few days in global politics have been extraordinary, featuring one of the most incredible comebacks of modern times. It was wildly hard to predict, many people have panicked at the possible consequences, and some are still in a state of denial—but even so, I must say that I am delighted to have been appointed as shadow Leader of the House of Commons.

I pay tribute to my immediate predecessors: the Luke Skywalker of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and the great Obi-Wan Jedi sabre-wielding master—or mistress—of the Despatch Box herself, the former Member for Portsmouth North, Penny Mordaunt. As it was with the Galactic Empire, so it is with the Labour party. Recent events have reminded us of the truth of the ancient saying: power reveals.

So it is with this new Government. What have their first chaotic few months in office revealed? First, we know that they like to say one thing and do another. They talk about supporting working people, but the rise in national insurance will hit all working people. They talk about growth, but have imposed the largest tax rise for a generation, pushing up both interest rates and inflation. Only last week, we saw a reported 64% rise in companies filing for insolvency compared with the same week last year—and that is before all the red tape of the new Employment Rights Bill, which will make it harder than ever to give somebody a job and grow a business.

Madam Deputy Speaker, there is so much sheer incompetence here. To take one example, the Government have raised employer national insurance, lowered the income threshold and increased the minimum wage, all at the same time. No one seems to have noticed that the combined effect of those measures is to raise the cost of hiring an entry-level employee not by 2% but by something closer to 12%. That is a terrible blow, especially to the retail and hospitality sector. I ask the Leader of the House: was that deliberate or just a mistake? Will she ask the Treasury to publish an assessment of the total impact of those three measures before any legislation comes to this House?

Secondly, we know that the Government are willing—even keen—to play the politics of division. They have favoured public sector workers over private sector ones. They have driven away entrepreneurs and business creators. As we have heard this morning, they have been punitive on rural areas. The rise in national insurance puts huge pressure on already struggling rural GPs, care homes, dentists, pharmacists and hospices. Mental health and disability charities have already expressed their deep concern. We heard from the Dispatch Box just now that the Government hear the concerns, but if they did understand them, why have they not done anything so far? Why did they not address those concerns in advance?

Meanwhile, the agricultural tax changes will afflict vastly more farming families than the Treasury estimates—families who work all hours, whatever the season, on very low margins. I can see the embarrassment written all over the faces of Government Members, many of whom represent rural areas for the first—and very likely now the last—time.

Thirdly, we know that the Government seem to have zero appetite to take on vested interests or reform our hugely pressured public services. They have shovelled out cash to their union friends, who have been delighted to stick to their fax machines and similarly ancient working practices. What have the Government got in return for all those millions? No commitments to make any efficiencies whatever. Nor do the Government seem much interested in legislation. They have not presented many Bills and the Bills so far have often included not carefully drafted law, but simply a vague and sweeping arrogation of new powers. This is what Governments do when they do not know what to do.

The Government are even hiding behind the very early presentation of a private Member’s Bill on assisted dying—one of the most sensitive and complex issues that we face. The Prime Minister himself promised Esther Rantzen in March that he would make time to debate these issues, but yesterday he refused the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) to give the Bill more time on Report. Will the Leader of the House now give that commitment?

The astonishing fact is that after 14 years in opposition, the Labour party came into office with almost no real plans. Instead, we have a Government who have already lost their way—a Government with no real sense of urgency, and no positive flavour or theme of any kind. I ask the Leader of the House this: we know what and who this Government are against, but what is this Government for?

[Lucy Powell]

I also wish His Majesty the King a very happy birthday.

This is Islamophobia awareness month—a chance for us all to come together to tackle all forms of religious and racial hatred. It is also transgender awareness week, which started yesterday, celebrating our trans heroes. It is a chance to remind ourselves that the trans community is one of the most abused, suffers high levels of mental health problems, and is more likely to be homeless or ostracised.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) on his big promotion to the shadow Cabinet. As I said last week, the Leader of the Opposition does indeed love a tryer, and the right hon. Gentleman’s many talents are at long last being recognised. I also warmly welcome the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) to his place in what I think is his first ever contribution to Business questions in his quite long parliamentary career. I have to say that there has been a slight upgrade in the jokes in comparison with those of some of his predecessors.

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is a biographer of Edmund Burke, who is seen as a founder of modern Conservatism and modern politics. As such I am very much looking forward to working with him on the Modernisation Committee and the agenda of modernising this Parliament. I cannot promise him that all our dealings will be quite that highbrow, because I am afraid his responsibilities bring other things with them, and he might find himself getting bogged down with the state of the toilets or complaints about the wi-fi, but I look forward to working with him.

May I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill? Many colleagues have asked me about the process, and whether there will be sufficient time for further debate and scrutiny of this important Bill, so perhaps I may take this opportunity to explain further some of the issues around it. I know that people care deeply about this issue, and there are strongly held views on both sides. As such, it is a matter for Members to consider personally and freely. I know from the last debate on this issue held in the House that it can be the best of moments for Parliament, with considered, thoughtful and respectful debate. It is not a Government Bill. Similar issues such as legalising abortion and homosexuality have come about via private Member’s Bills in the past, and I believe that is the appropriate way to consider matters of conscience, with a free vote and a neutral Government position.

As the Bill will be the first item of business on 29 November, it is highly likely that the debate on Second Reading will last for the full five hours. That is comparable to proceedings on any other Bill—perhaps longer—and I am sure the House would want that to be the case. Should the House agree to its Second Reading, the Bill would then be considered in Committee, probably for several weeks. The whole House will also have further opportunities to debate and vote on those matters on Report and again on Third Reading, which will not be until April at the earliest.

The Government have a duty to ensure that any Bill that passes through Parliament is effective and can be enforced. That is why if any Bill is to be supported by the House, we would expect to work with the promoting Member to ensure that it is workable. This is a matter for the House to decide, and the Government will implement the will of the House, whatever it so chooses. I hope that will help Members when considering these issues.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about a number of Budget measures, but I am afraid the cat really was let out of the bag this week, because we finally learned that the Conservative party supports all the benefits that the Budget brings, but does not support any of the measures that will pay for them. We are now seeing a return to the magic money tree economics pursued by his predecessor Liz Truss.

We have had to make difficult choices to balance the books, so that there is no return to austerity and so that we can invest in the economy and renew our public services for the long run. I am afraid that the shadow Leader of the House is scaremongering with a number of the issues that he raises. He will know that more than half of employers will see no change at all or will pay no additional national insurance from this package. He failed to mention the important changes we are making to business rates, which will support many high street businesses. He might want to include that in his future calculations. Charities, GPs and other healthcare providers, as has just been said at the Dispatch Box by my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care, have been put in an incredibly precarious position after 14 years of chronic under-investment and mismanagement by the Conservatives. We will do what we can, and further announcements will be made about the distribution of health funding.

I put on record that the NHS has received its single biggest increase in spending power for many years. Is that something that the shadow Leader of the House supports or rejects? I am not clear what his party’s position on the Budget is any more. We have had to make tough choices because of the poisoned chalice and inheritance left by his party. That was once described as a “struggling” economy and “anaemic” growth. Those are not my words, but his.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

Many people who have permanent and often worsening medical conditions are rejected when they apply for a blue badge with their local authority. The blue badge scheme helps people who have medical issues—physical or mental—with access to car parking that is closer to their destination. I am aware of a constituent who has dementia and other medical conditions whose application for a blue badge has been rejected by my local council. As such, may I request that we have a debate in Government time on the blue badge scheme in England and how local authorities implement the scheme for residents?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question, which gets raised many times in these sessions. He is right that it is for local councils to decide whether individuals are eligible for a badge, but I will certainly make sure that the Department for Transport has heard his question today. I think it would make a very good topic for an Adjournment debate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I also welcome the new shadow Leader of the House to his position. I look forward to working with him on the Modernisation Committee, and I join him in wishing happy birthday to His Majesty King Charles. I join the Leader of the House in welcoming Transgender Awareness Week.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the announcement of the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill and its goal to use the profits from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. My hon. Friends the Members for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) met a delegation of Ukrainian MPs this week, and they learned at first hand how invaluable this £2.26 billion would be as Ukraine works to repel Putin’s illegal invasion. While that is a positive step, we must also keep an eye on how we support Ukraine at home.

In the UK, we are proud of our support to Ukrainian nationals and, in particular, the Homes for Ukraine scheme. However, some of the relationships between Ukrainians and their British host families have broken down, leaving already struggling local councils to pick up the pieces. To help our ally Ukraine, we must ensure that our councils also have the support they need. Will the Leader of the House seek assurance that this support will be provided to avoid overwhelming local councils and to reinforce Britain’s capacity as a safe haven for Ukrainians?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Member for that important question. We are pleased that we will see Second Reading of the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill next week. That important measure will continue our ongoing support to Ukraine, which is unshakeable and long-term. She is right to raise that continued support.

Homes for Ukraine has been one of the best schemes that the country has embarked on. Many families across the country have taken part in it and found great value and purpose in providing homes for Ukrainians. The Government will continue to support councils and others to ensure that that scheme can continue in the long term, for however long it takes, to support Ukrainians while the war is ongoing.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I have received a number of emails about the winter fuel allowance and access to pension credit, so I have joined forces with accredited organisations to help people access and sign up to pension credit. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is vital that we get as many people as possible signed up to pension credit?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for doing that important work. It is vital that we raise awareness of pension credit and all the support it can bring to those who are eligible not only through the winter fuel allowance but in several other areas. It can make many eligible pensioners thousands of pounds a year better off. I fully support her endeavours. That is something that the Government have been doing nationally as well.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for announcing the first Backbench Business of the Session for next week. For the following week, we have offered a debate on the international status of Taiwan—we hope that will take place—and a debate on freedom of religion in Pakistan. Of course, this afternoon in Westminster Hall we have our first allocated debate, on respiratory health, and who better to lead that than the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)?

The Leader of the House mentioned tackling Islamophobia and Islamophobia Awareness Month. We had an application on that and have offered its sponsor a debate next week, but we are yet to hear whether they wish to take that up.

We are developing a queue of debates for the Chamber and Westminster Hall. I urge the Leader of the House to announce business for Westminster Hall when she announces business in future so that we can up its status.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Bob Blackman]

Just wait a minute. [Laughter.]

This morning, Historic England released a report saying that 599 buildings in London are in danger. That does not cover the rest of the country, but it includes this place. I know that there is a long-term plan to look at what we will do about this place, but will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made by the appropriate Minister on the progress made and how we can bring forward the decision to be made about the place in which we work?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Member for that. Judging by the themes of the early Backbench Business debates that he has granted for the Chamber and in Westminster Hall, it seems as if the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was at the front of the queue many times! I am sure that will continue, but I encourage other Members to apply for Backbench Business debates too, as they are a really good way of raising important topics on the Floor of the House.

On restoration and renewal, the hon. Gentleman will know that some of that falls on my shoulders and those of my colleagues, including the new shadow Leader of the House, who I am sure will bring much to the table. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that further information will come to the House in the new year, and it will be for the House to decide on the way forward, based on those business plans.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

As it is his birthday today, I call Tim Roca.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you have to use every trick you can, don’t you? [Laughter.]

In my constituency, many residents are worried about plans for flood alleviation works at Poynton pool, a much-loved beauty spot where local campaigners—the friends of Poynton pool—have raised real issues about the cost and the flawed nature of the underlying rationale. Will my right hon. Friend please make time to debate how we ensure that communities are properly listened to and that local authorities and the Environment Agency take local views on board?

[Lucy Powell]

I wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday as well. I am sure he was already aware that he shared his birthday with His Majesty the King, but his is of course a much more important occasion—for this House today, anyway. I thank him for again raising that important matter for his constituents. He has already become an important Member of this place and is continuing to raise issues that affect Macclesfield, and particularly Poynton pool. He will know that community engagement is really important in these matters. I encourage him to raise that further in an Adjournment debate.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I have long campaigned for the Borders railway to be extended from Tweedbank to Hawick, Newcastleton and on to Carlisle. The last Conservative Government, with the SNP Administration in Edinburgh, committed through the Borderlands growth deal to fund the feasibility study to look at that extension. Shockingly, the new Labour Transport Secretary has put this under review. Can the Government make a statement to clarify whether they support this important cross-border transport link?

[Lucy Powell]

This Government are committed to upgrading our woeful rail infrastructure, which has suffered 14 years of neglect and under-investment from the hon. Gentleman’s party. I am afraid that many of the plans, like the one he described, were works of fiction. They were agreed to in theory, but there was no budget line at all given to them in the books. That is why we are fixing the foundations and ensuring that every single commitment we make—

[John Lamont]

The money was there.

[Lucy Powell]

The money absolutely was not there in this case. We are ensuring that we can take forward all these rail plans with confidence.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I wish to ask the Leader of the House about a local issue that I came across recently. I met a young couple who were being evicted from their house through no fault of their own. I appreciate that the Government are taking urgent action to tackle the problem. On the very same street there are a whole series of other housing problems. May we have a general debate on housing, so that we can discuss the range of issues that many residents face, particularly the shortage of housing and the importance of building more council houses and other affordable homes to buy and rent?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. He will know that the much enhanced and strengthened Renters (Reform) Bill, which is making its way through the House, will prevent no-fault evictions such as the one he described. I am really pleased that this Government are taking that forward. I saw the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee nodding along sagely at the suggestion of a broader debate on housing, which the hon. Gentleman may want to apply for.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for the clarity and diligence she showed when dealing with the end of life debate that we will have later this month. She will be aware that there are profound concerns about the length of time for Second Reading, notwithstanding her point, simply because of the number of Members who will wish to participate—I anticipate a very large number indeed. We may see speeches reduced to two or three minutes, which really is not appropriate for a subject of this kind.

The right hon. Lady will also be aware that “Erskine May” is clear that, when nominating Public Bill Committees,

“in the case of bills which divide the House on cross-party lines”,

it is vital that the Committee of Selection should “have regard” to the composition of the House. In those terms, will she—either now or subsequently if she needs to refer to Erskine May—make absolutely sure that, as the Bill goes through the House, that balance will be retained, so that we get the best possible legislation? Nothing is more important that legislating to make lawful the entitlement to take life.

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I took some time in my opening remarks to explain these matters, and I recognise and understand people’s concerns. As I said, a Second Reading debate lasting five hours would be longer than that of many substantial Bills. The Second Reading debate on the Online Safety Bill, which was huge and long anticipated for five years, was reduced to just over two hours, because of earlier statements and so on. Five hours is a good amount of time for Second Reading, notwithstanding the points that he raised.

On Committee selection, the right hon. Gentleman is right that, should the Bill pass Second Reading, it will be for the sponsoring Member to put forward names for that Committee. He is right that the guidance on nominating those Members states that that must reflect the party balance in the House, and it should also reflect the balance of views on the Bill. As I said, the Bill would then return to the full House for remaining stages, including Report and Third Reading, which would all have time for debate and a vote.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the news yesterday that 115 post offices could close. That would have a massive impact on our high streets, which are already struggling. The Kennington Park branch in my constituency is one of those facing possible closure, in addition to the Brixton and Vauxhall Bridge branches which border my constituency. Our post offices are a cornerstone for many of our residents, a number of whom cannot use online services. The dedicated staff who work in our post offices know those constituents. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate in Government time on ensuring that, if post offices close, we have a full equality impact assessment and that the Post Office considers its decisions?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government inherited a Post Office that was simply not fit for purpose, following a lot of disinterest from the previous Government. The Post Office does need serious culture change. I assure her that, as I understand it, no decision has been taken on the future of Crown post offices, but I know from my own constituency, where recently the Spring Gardens Crown post office in Manchester was closed, what a big issue this is for local communities. I encourage every constituency MP, like her, to raise these matters here and directly with Ministers.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The previous Government identified the A75 road as of crucial importance to the UK as a whole, so despite the fact that transport is a devolved matter, money was earmarked for improvements. I have been trying, without success, to find out what is happening to that money. I was astonished to find that a Labour MSP was able to tweet details about the road—he apparently knows more about it than anyone in this House. May we have a statement from the Government explaining what is happening with the A75 and the money that was clearly earmarked for it?

[Lucy Powell]

As the hon. Gentleman says, these issues are devolved and we allocate the money as part of other consequentials to the Scottish Government to consider those matters, but I will ensure that the issue he raises is noticed by the Minister. I will ask for a full reply about that road to be given to him.

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

In my constituency, many constituents have expressed concern over Gloucestershire constabulary’s decision to suspend new firearms licensing applications due to unexpected resourcing issues. It further says that there will be a minimum 24-month wait for applications currently in process. That has put many local businesses, including farmers and shooting clubs, in a difficult position, with many unable to continue their operations when their current licences expire. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on how the Government can support those businesses, in particular those that rely on firearms licences, during this period of disruption?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important question. He will be aware that resources allocated to firearms licensing units are a matter for the relevant chief officer. However, we would expect forces to process these applications very quickly and efficiently so that resources can get to where they are needed. The next Home Office questions are the week after next, so he might want to raise the matter with the Home Secretary then.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Hundreds of farmers in my rural constituency are facing a mental health crisis. They are not sure whether their farms and their life’s work will be passed on to the next generation, or whether they will even be farmed in five years’ time. I constructively relayed some of those concerns to the farming Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), earlier this week. Will the Leader of the House today commit to a debate in Government time on the proposed changes to the agricultural property relief and inheritance tax rules to give our farmers the reassurance they so desperately need?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which gives me an opportunity to further clarify some of the points that he and others have raised. The Government figures are based on actual claims, not other people’s analysis. They show that three quarters of farmers would be unaffected by the changes and that only around 500 claims from the wealthiest estates would be affected each year. There are a number of mitigations available, in relation to how long that could be paid back and so on. The Government support our rural communities. We support our farmers. We are really proud to have returned a record number of Labour MPs representing rural communities. [Interruption.] Opposition Members chunter from the Back Benches, but that is why we had a debate earlier this week on these issues. There have been other opportunities in this House to raise them. I am sure he will have further such opportunities.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

This week I attended the funeral of Margaret Jones, who, among her many other achievements, became the first mayor of Thurrock in 1974. I am sure that colleagues across the House will join me in expressing gratitude for more than half a century of dedicated public service. When I asked those closest to Margaret how she would have liked to be remembered, one said, “As a committed socialist who always knew her red from her blue even in her darkest days, and as a dedicated supporter of children and young people.” Will the Leader of the House allow time for us to discuss this Labour Government’s plans to improve the lives of children and young people, as a fitting tribute to that formidable woman?

[Lucy Powell]

What a lovely tribute to Margaret, a councillor in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I am sure that an Adjournment debate on the topics that she has raised would also be a fitting tribute.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Following the Post Office’s announcement of its transformation programme, Poulton-le-Fylde’s central post office is threatened with closure. A petition that we started just last night has already received 1,600 signatures in less than 24 hours, which shows the strength of feeling in the community and its support for that vital service. May I echo the call from the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for a proper debate on both the importance of post offices and the transformation programme itself, so that Members can raise their concerns about the impact on their local communities in a constructive and cross-party manner, as I will happily do with the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green?

[Lucy Powell]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise this issue. As I said earlier, Crown post offices provide a vital lifeline for many communities and local economies. They process big parcel orders and provide a range of other services, and they are also a key part of our ambition to have financial hubs in every community. It is right for constituency Members to come together to raise such issues, and the hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated that kind of cross-party support. It was exactly the sort of demonstration that should be brought to the Backbench Business Committee, and I am sure its Chairman has heard that call today.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

The green belt was designed precisely to stop soulless urban sprawl overtaking villages and towns such as Borehamwood, Potters Bar, Cuffley, Bushey and other places in my constituency, yet the targets imposed on those areas by the Labour Government render its protections meaningless. Will the Leader of the House find time for us to discuss protection of the green belt before Labour’s policies do to the countryside exactly what socialist policies did up and down the country in the 1960s and 1970s?

[Lucy Powell]

I am sorry, but I will take no lectures from the right hon. Gentleman on dealing with the housing crisis that we inherited from the Government in which he was Deputy Prime Minister. This Government are unashamedly pro-house building to deal with the crisis, but this is not a developer free-for-all; we will be protecting the green belt and prioritising brownfield and grey belt development. Moreover, all our ambitious plans, on which we are working at pace, will be locally led.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

My constituent Laura Potter was recently involved in a serious road traffic accident involving an illegal e-scooter. The car was written off and my constituent was extremely upset by the prospect of the police being unable to do anything about it. May we have a debate in Government time on the illegal use of e-scooters?

[Lucy Powell]

I am very sorry to hear about what happened in my hon. Friend’s constituency. This topic comes up regularly in business questions. We will soon be updating the strategic framework for road safety—the first time that has been done in more than a decade—and I will ensure that the Transport Secretary comes to the House to update us first on these matters, but in the meantime my hon. Friend may want to apply for a fuller debate.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Members may be surprised to hear that marriage between first cousins remains legal in the UK, despite the genetic issues and concerns about women’s rights. Norway banned the practice recently, Sweden is considering doing the same, and various states in America have banned it as well. I received a very good answer to my written parliamentary question on this subject, and I should like the Leader of the House to pass on my thanks to the Minister responsible for it. I am keen to build on work that I did in the last Parliament to ban hymenoplasty and so-called virginity testing—work that the last Government incorporated in the Health and Care Act 2022—but will the Leader of the House speak to the relevant Department to find out whether time can be made for an debate on this important issue?

[Lucy Powell]

These do sound like important issues. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has raised them in the past, and I am sure he will continue to. It is nice to receive some good feedback about a written parliamentary question, which is not exactly the norm during business questions. I do not think that, in the short term, we have any legislative vehicles for what he described, but I am sure that the issues would be a very good topic for a Westminster Hall debate, or possibly even a Backbench Business debate.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Rochdale’s “Giving Back” Christmas toy appeal has begun accepting donations. It ensures that children from disadvantaged backgrounds have a present to open on Christmas Day. It is run by Rochdale council staff, and last year it supported 2,000 children. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the appeal’s founder, Helen Walton? More importantly, given that nearly 50% of children in Rochdale now live in relative poverty, thanks to the actions of the Conservative party over the last 14 years, does she agree that the Government’s child poverty strategy will be the best way to tackle the national shame of children going without, not just at Christmas but all year round?

[Lucy Powell]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking all the Rochdale council staff and Helen Walton for their work on what sounds like an extremely good campaign. He is right: it is a shame on our country that so many children still live in poverty, without presents at Christmas and, in many cases, without food on the table most evenings. That is why we formed the child poverty taskforce. We are determined to reduce these inequalities and ensure that the scourge of child poverty is eradicated.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

In July, the Home Secretary made claims to the House about her asylum policies that appear to be untrue. The impact assessment that she published at the time was contradicted in a letter sent to me by her permanent secretary, which appeared to reveal double counting of migrants, enabling the Home Secretary to inflate the statistics that she was citing. I have raised this in Westminster Hall with the Minister with responsibility for migration, and with the Home Secretary here in the House. I have written to the Home Secretary, but have received no reply. I have submitted a written parliamentary question asking when she will reply, and I have been fobbed off. Will the Leader of the House tell the Home Secretary to come to the House and make a statement? This is really, really important.

[Lucy Powell]

I am sorry to hear of the hon. Gentleman’s frustrating experiences. If he wants to send me details of the questions that he was asking—I do not know the figures, because he did not mention them—I will certainly ensure that he receives that reply, but I am sure that the Home Secretary will continue to update the House regularly on the action we are taking to tackle illegal migration and the huge backlog that was left by his party.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

On Sunday, in Abergavenny in my constituency, we were was rocked by a huge fire that destroyed a heritage building. Two high street businesses were destroyed, Magic Cottage charity shop and Cable News, and several other businesses remain closed because of the impact. I am sure that the House will want to join me in sending best wishes to all those affected, and to salute Paul Cable, whose early reporting of the fire meant that no one was hurt. I want to extend my thanks to the brave and dedicated staff of South Wales fire and rescue service, and also to Gwent police. Will the Leader of the House find Government time for us to debate the importance of our police and fire services in keeping our constituents safe?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend raises an issue of grave importance to her constituency, and I am pleased to join her in thanking Paul Cable, Gwent police and South Wales fire and rescue service for the tremendous job that they did in preventing the fire from being a bigger tragedy than it was. Our firefighters operate in challenging and high-risk environments, and the Government absolutely value the work that they do.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Over the weekend, my fantastic local football club, Silsden, progressed to the third round of the FA vase after beating Ramsbottom, thanks to two first-half goals from Casey Stewart. We all know that local sports clubs play a fantastic role in bringing fans and residents together. Could we have a debate in Government time on the importance of grassroots sports clubs and the positive benefits that they offer our young people?

[Lucy Powell]

I am delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating his local football club on what sounds like a fantastic result. He will be aware that we have brought to the House of Lords the strengthened Football Governance Bill, which will find its way to this House. It is particularly important to ensure that grassroots football gets the financial support that it needs to be sustainable, so that clubs like his can continue to thrive.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

The 93 leaseholders at No. 1 London Road in Newcastle-under-Lyme have been pushed to breaking point by the most disgraceful rise in buildings insurance costs in the wake of the Grenfell disaster. May I please ask the Leader of the House for a debate on how we can protect my constituents from the vulture-like behaviour of those insurance companies?

[Lucy Powell]

This is a huge issue in my constituency as well, and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. Leaseholders really are the poor relations when it comes to housing tenure. They face increasing costs from insurance, but also from managing agents, building safety mediation and so on, making their homes unaffordable and, in some cases, unsellable. That is why we are bringing forward the leasehold reform draft legislation next year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure and a privilege to ask the Leader of the House a question. I would like to turn the House’s attention to the Netherlands. Since the 7 October attack on Israel, the wave of antisemitic attacks and abuse has increased worldwide, including in our continent of Europe. The violent attacks on Jewish individuals in Amsterdam, and the recent arrests in Antwerp for a planned “Jew hunt”, signify the spread of hateful terms such as “jodenjacht” on social media. Israel’s National Security Council has advised its citizens to exercise caution in countries such as Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands. What would the Government do if such attacks took place against our Jewish community in Britain? Will she ask Ministers in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to raise this issue with their counterparts in Belgium and the Netherlands?

[Lucy Powell]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I was utterly horrified by the antisemitic attacks on Israeli citizens in Amsterdam recently, and our thoughts are with all those affected by those awful events. I condemn abhorrent acts of violence wherever they occur, including in this country and Amsterdam. The Government take antisemitism very seriously and have a zero-tolerance approach to it. I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman has been so successful in the early draws for Backbench Business debates, because he is a stalwart of this place and deserves to be at the front of the queue for many more debates to come.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) in congratulating Newcastle and Stafford college, which has just secured its second “outstanding” Ofsted rating? As a proud graduate of a tertiary college, I know the importance of such institutions in providing the good jobs of the future—though I doubt that Nelson and Colne college expected my good job of the future to be the one I am doing now. Could we please have a debate about the importance of tertiary education around the UK?

[Lucy Powell]

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Newcastle and Stafford college. Getting an “outstanding” rating twice in a row is some achievement for a further education college, and she should be very proud to represent it. We have inherited a really terrible situation in further education. I was pleased that the recent budget invested an extra £300 million as a down payment, but it will take us some time to get further education back in a fit state.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

Last week marked another significant milestone for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, as Mayor Ros Jones announced that a preferred bid to reopen and operate Doncaster Sheffield airport had been identified; the aim is to reinstate passenger flights by spring 2026. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all those involved in reaching this crucial stage, and will she support my request to the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority to prioritise the approval of the necessary airspace as soon as it is required?

[Lucy Powell]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this issue for a second time in business questions; it is testament to his doughty campaigning to reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport and get planes flying again. I congratulate him and all involved on the agreement that has been reached. I will certainly make sure that Ministers do all they can to make sure that this comes to fruition as soon as possible.

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Caroline Gore, a 44-year-old mother, was tragically killed by her abuser less than four weeks after he avoided jail for breaching a restraining order. Although I welcome this Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls, does the Leader of the House agree that a minimum jail term for breaches would help protect women? Would she welcome a debate on strengthening the law?

[Lucy Powell]

I am really sorry to hear of the case that my hon. Friend raises. In doing so, she reminds us once again that we have to reduce violence against women and girls as a priority. It is one of the lead missions for this Government, and new measures will come forward on these matters early next year. There is a sentencing review under way, and I encourage her to contribute.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

Following the question asked by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), the Standing Orders set out the role of the sponsoring Member in nominating Members to sit on the Committee considering a private Member’s Bill, but they do not recuse the Committee of Selection, which is dominated by Government Whips, from a duty to ensure that the strength of opinion expressed in any Division at Second Reading is properly reflected. Will the Leader of the House reassure us about the principles that guide the composition of Public Bill Committees?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I answered some of it earlier, but she is absolutely right: should the House support a private Member’s Bill at Second Reading—let us say, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill, which will be debated at the end of November—it would be for the sponsoring Member to choose the members of the Committee. The guidance is absolutely clear that the nomination of members must reflect the party balance in the House and a balance of the views expressed on Second Reading. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) is very keen indeed to follow the guidance and ensure that there is a balanced Committee. By the way, that Committee is likely to consider the issues for several weeks. Following Second Reading, it will be many months until this House further considers the matter on Report and Third Reading.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

After 19 years of service with Lancashire police, my constituent John was forced to end his service due to injuries sustained on operational duty. It is only right that workers who have been injured on duty and had their careers cut short are recognised for their invaluable contribution to our communities. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on the need to introduce a medal for seriously injured and medically retired emergency service personnel, to ensure that they receive the recognition and gratitude they deserve?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the invaluable contribution of our police officers and the important role that they play in keeping our communities safe; it is right that they receive recognition for their work. He will know that medals are awarded by the Government on behalf of His Majesty the King and on the basis of the relevant criteria, and I encourage my hon. Friend to nominate his constituent for his service and to continue taking up these issues.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

Thousands of people in my constituency will benefit hugely from the Government’s decision in the Budget to increase the national living wage—a measure that the Leader of the Opposition has previously made it clear that she is against. Can we have a debate about the importance of putting more money in the hands of working people and the impact that will have on economic growth?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government have made a clear choice to support working people in this country—not just by increasing the national living wage to £12.21, but through a range of other measures in the Budget—and support our public services. I am not quite sure any more what the Conservatives’ view of the Budget is. They seem to want all the benefits, all the investment and all the money that the Budget will raise, but they do not want to say where they think that money should come from; they are against all the tax-raising measures to get us there. There will be debate on the Finance Bill in due course, when I am sure we can discuss these matters further still.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating my constituent Michelle Bramble on her well-deserved win at the Local Government Chronicle awards for her excellent work in equality, diversity and inclusion over many years, and her valuable experience in Gravesham? Will she schedule a debate on the importance of EDI champions and their work in our local communities to foster inclusive environments for all our constituents?

[Lucy Powell]

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Michelle Bramble on all the work that she has done in her constituency. We often get questions about the importance of diversity and the important role that community champions play, and I am sure that would be a good topic for a Westminster Hall debate.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Next week is UK Parliament Week. I recently had the privilege of visiting Beaconhill primary school in Cramlington in my constituency. It was fantastic to meet the leadership team and hear about their incredible work to ensure that every child gets to share in opportunity. I also met Oliver and Melody and the school council, who spoke about how the antisocial behaviour of a few has left the local park strewn with litter and unable to be enjoyed by local children. May we have a debate in Government time on tackling antisocial behaviour, to ensure that our public spaces can be enjoyed by everyone?

[Lucy Powell]

I join my hon. Friend in recognising the forthcoming Youth Parliament and UK Parliament Week; I am sure we will discuss that on many more occasions. She is absolutely right to raise the issue of antisocial behaviour, which is a blight on our community. That is why, through our forthcoming crime and policing Bill, we will introduce new powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, shoplifting and off-road bikes, and put our neighbourhood police back in our communities, where they need to be.

[Satvir Kaur (Southampton Test) (Lab)]

Residents of Compass Point in my constituency are living in squalor. Water from the roof is being directed to the basement, causing regular flooding; loose pipework and wires are making the site unsafe; and raw sewage is seeping into the children’s play area. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is wholly unacceptable and that more needs to be done to hold to account freeholders such as BMR, their subcontractors, and lettings agents such as Leaders? Will she join me in requesting that they act swiftly and without delay to resolve the many, many issues that have been raised but not responded to?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is right to raise these issues. As she points out, permitted development rights, which exploded under the previous Government, have given rise to quite a lot of poor-quality housing that is not fit for purpose. We are keeping the issue of permitted development rights under review, but we are strengthening the rights of renters with our Renters’ Rights Bill, and the rights of leaseholders with our leasehold reform Bill, which will both be concluding soon.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

I fully support the Government’s plan to reduce Britain’s reliance on overseas workers by focusing the new body Skills England on those sectors most in need, such as construction, engineering and healthcare—something the Conservative party failed so spectacularly to deliver while it was in government. Many businesses in my constituency want to see that happen as soon as possible, but it will require a cross-Government approach. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary on how she will oversee it?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is right that these are issues for the Department for Education, working with the Home Secretary. He will be aware that the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill, which will establish Skills England, is going through the Lords at the moment. We have put extra money into further education, we are clamping down on illegal migration, and we are ensuring that the Migration Advisory Committee identifies current and future skills gaps and guides our approach to these matters.

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Garswood and Earlestown stations in my constituency are two of 21 in the Liverpool city region that are not accessible to all passengers. This is something that local residents, councillors and the council have campaigned on for many years, along with previous MPs, and metro mayor Steve Rotheram is supportive of calls to fix the situation. Does the Leader of the House agree that, in this day and age, it is simply unacceptable for rail stations not to be accessible to all passengers? Can she advise me how and where I might raise the issue so that we can get the necessary improvements made quickly?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. It is shocking that, in this day and age, much of our transport infrastructure—in particular our railway infrastructure—remains inaccessible for those with disabilities and other needs. He will be aware that the Transport Secretary made a statement earlier this week about a review of Access for All and work that she is doing in that area, and I know that she is keen to keep the House updated regularly as that work goes forward.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

The UK’s industrial strategy relies on closing the skills gap, but women and ethnic minorities remain significantly under-represented in science, technology, engineering and maths education and careers. Dudley College of Technology in my constituency is leading the way in providing technical skills and innovation training. Will the Leader of the House grant time for a debate on improving access and inclusion in STEM, to ensure that our workforce reflects the diversity we will need for our future economic success?

[Lucy Powell]

What an important topic, which is very close to my heart as a woman STEM graduate. It is shocking that so many years after I graduated—well, maybe only a few—we still face such a disparity in the number of women and girls, and the number of men, studying STEM subjects and pursuing the careers that come thereafter. My hon. Friend might want to raise these important matters with the Science Secretary in questions next week.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I want to get the remaining 20 colleagues in, so please keep your questions short—and, Leader of the House, keep your answers short too.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Bournemouth East has had a fantastic few weeks. We have just seen ground broken on a new building at the Royal Bournemouth hospital, Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal has been installed as the chancellor of Health Sciences University, and perhaps best of all, we have seen Bournemouth football club beat the Prime Minister’s favourite club, Arsenal, and the Leader of the House’s favourite club, Manchester City. Will the Leader of the House join me and the people of Bournemouth in congratulating everyone involved in making our town an even better place?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I think I should put it on the record that I am from a family of Gooners.

[Lucy Powell]

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend was doing really well until he reminded me that Bournemouth beat Manchester City recently, so I am not sure I will be visiting all that soon, but he makes a very good plea for his constituency.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

My constituent Joe Abbess was just 17 when he tragically drowned just along the coast in an area that was designated as a safe swimming zone. In a separate incident, 12-year-old Sunnah Khan died in the same area on the same day. Currents and riptides claim the lives of hundreds of people every year. Will the Leader of the House make time for us to debate how best to promote water safety through the education system, and avoid these kinds of deaths?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that drowning is among the leading causes of accidental death in this country, which might surprise many. This would be an excellent topic for an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate, should he want to apply for one.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

Over the past month, my office has been inundated with reports from specific areas of the Livingston constituency regarding the inappropriate use of fireworks, which is causing misery to many communities. I pay tribute to Police Scotland, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and West Lothian council for doing whatever they can to mitigate this problem. However, I do not want to see it happen again in 2025. Will the Leader of the House grant Government time for us to debate the inappropriate use of fireworks and the things we can do to tackle this challenge?

[Lucy Powell]

Fireworks are a big issue that is raised with every Member of Parliament, and I think many people will be asking about this today and in future weeks. We will soon launch a renewed firework safety campaign. My hon. Friend might want to apply for a Backbench Business debate, as I know it would be very well attended.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

In 2017, a fire at Newgrange care home tragically caused the deaths of two elderly residents—Ivy Spriggs and Daphne Holloway. Legislation currently going through the House states that new care homes should have sprinkler systems, but it does not recognise the need for this to be applied retrospectively, for which Daphne’s daughter, Claire, has continued to campaign. Will this issue be considered in our upcoming debate on fire safety? Additionally, although I appreciate that care homes fall below the 18-metre height restriction, could they be included on the higher-risk register?

[Lucy Powell]

I send my condolences to the families of Ivy Spriggs and Daphne Holloway. I am very sorry to hear about what happened. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there will soon be another debate on issues raised by the Grenfell report. Although care homes fall outside the current requirements, he would be right to raise these important matters in that debate.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Allotment holders in Wymondham were saddened to hear that they have only one year left on their plots before Anglian Water ends their lease early. Can we have a debate in Government time on the need for water companies to live up to their corporate responsibility and, in Wymondham’s case, help allotmenteers move to a new site?

[Lucy Powell]

I hope Anglian Water has heard my hon. Friend’s comments. If not, I will raise his comments directly with Anglian Water, because this needs to be resolved swiftly. I am sure the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will want to help, too.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I was shocked to learn that only 29% of adult social care workers are recorded as having received dementia training. With a diagnosis rate of 69% in Wolverhampton North East, and with many still undiagnosed, will the Government make time for a debate on making dementia training mandatory for all adult social care staff to ensure they are equipped to provide compassionate and informed care?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Those working in adult social care have, for too long, been seen as Cinderella care workers and have not been given the support, status and training they need to carry out their work. That is why this Government are bringing forward a range of measures to upskill those working in adult social care to ensure they have the status and training they need.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

My constituency is well served by The Yorkshire Post and the Yorkshire Evening Post, but we have lost hyper-local publications such as the Morley Observer, which ceased in 2019. In their place, local enthusiasts and journalists have popped up with new platforms such as the West Leeds Dispatch, which covers Farnley and Wortley in my constituency. Although these publications provide excellent local journalism, they struggle for viability and they struggle to produce content. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the importance of supporting the survival of hyper-local journalism?

[Lucy Powell]

I agree that local and hyper-local journalism is vital to combating misinformation and disinformation, which are spreading quickly in many of our communities. That is why the Culture Secretary recently announced the Government’s intention to develop a local media strategy. My hon. Friend may want to raise this directly with her at questions next week.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

The Post Office provides an essential service for residents and businesses in our town centres. However, in Basingstoke the franchise branch located in WHSmith is set to close next year, and there are currently no clear plans for a replacement post office in the town centre. Given the Government’s commitment to establishing local banking hubs, which are vital for maintaining access to financial services, may I echo the calls of hon. Members on both sides of the House for time to debate this essential service?

[Lucy Powell]

It is clear for all to see that there are serious questions for the Post Office to answer about how it runs its business, as serious change is needed. I am sorry to hear about the franchise branch in Basingstoke, because local post offices are critical to their communities and to supporting banking hubs. I will support every effort to secure a debate on this matter.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

Aylesbury Wombles is a fantastic litter-picking charity that works hard to make Aylesbury a greener, cleaner and better place to live. In September alone, it collected 5,749 plastic bottles. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Richard Walker, Abigail Walker and all the Aylesbury Wombles on their remarkable work, and in welcoming their campaign for a deposit return scheme to reduce plastic waste?

[Lucy Powell]

I am delighted to thank the Aylesbury Wombles for all their litter-picking. It is not glamorous, but it is an important job that needs doing. The previous Government failed to do what they promised on litter-picking, and they bottled it on a number of issues, including the deposit return scheme that this Government will be bringing forward.

[Lucy Rigby (Northampton North) (Lab)]

At our remembrance services in Northampton on Sunday, we honoured the lives of all those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. I welcome the Government’s introduction of the new digital veteran card this week, as it will better support our armed forces community. Will the Leader of the House consider making time for a debate on our housing plans, and specifically on how we can improve access to housing for current and former service personnel?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Prime Minister has pledged, under the homes for heroes scheme, to exempt veterans and serving personnel from rules that require a connection to a local area. She might want to raise some of these issues on Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill next week.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

In Norfolk, we are fortunate to have some of the most fertile agricultural land in the country. As a rural Labour MP, I am proud of the work my local farmers do to produce high-quality food for the whole country. However, this land is highly prized, and while I wholeheartedly support the Government’s mission to cut carbon emissions, we must not let food security come second to energy security by allowing our best land to be covered in solar farms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should have a debate on the importance of protecting the most valuable agricultural land when planning applications for solar farms are considered?

[Nick Timothy]

Hear, hear!

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend can hear the agreement, which suggests this might be a topic that has cross-party support. This Government take food security incredibly seriously because it is an issue of national security. We are committed to increasing solar energy as part of our mission to become a clean energy superpower by 2030, but we must strike a balance. That is why it is so important that we hear from local MPs about these decisions.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

Many farmers in my constituency, including those around villages such as Wouldham, Burham and Eccles, have been blighted by fly-tipping and other environmental crimes. Will the Leader of the House guarantee Government time to debate the increasing scourge of environmental crime, particularly fly-tipping?

[Lucy Powell]

Fly-tipping is regularly raised in this place, and we all know what a significant problem it can cause. I suggest that my hon. Friend applies for a Westminster Hall debate, which I am sure would be well attended.

[Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

My constituents in Glasgow North East will be delighted by the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget that the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance will be increased to £196 a week. That will enable many more family carers to earn and receive that important financial assistance, which recognises the incredible work they do to support their loved ones. However, many of my constituents still worry about the cliff edge that exists and about how the increase in the minimum wage might affect their entitlement to this support. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising the work done by family carers, and give thought to holding a debate in Government time to recognise the role of carers in our society? Crucially, will she consider raising the concerns I mentioned with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?

[Lucy Powell]

What an important topic to raise! My hon. Friend is right that many issues remain, but I was delighted that this Government announced the biggest ever cash increase in the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance. It was the first time it has been increased for many decades. That sits alongside the extra support we are providing for social care, children’s social care and a new pilot scheme on kinship allowance. I will ensure that the Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s calls today.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

I welcome the announcement this week of the Government’s commitment to developing a national youth strategy, and youth organisations in my constituency look forward to contributing to it. However, given the 73% reduction in spending on youth services under the previous Government and reports by the Children’s Society that our young people are now some of the most unhappy in Europe, will she allow time for a debate on the current state of youth services and youth work, and the chronic decline in the wellbeing of our young people?

[Lucy Powell]

I am glad that my hon. Friend supports the action the Government are taking on a national youth service and a youth strategy. As my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport came to the House to make a statement on that earlier this week and she is keen to keep the House informed, because we have seen youth services totally hollowed out over the past 14 years and it is vital that we get those services back into our communities.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I met members of an endometriosis support group that was set up recently by Derby County Community Trust. I heard from women who had not been taken seriously and who had had their pain dismissed, taken significant time out of education and work, and faced appallingly long waits for surgery. I also met some of their mums, who suffered exactly the same thing 25 years ago. Can we have a statement from the Government on how we will prevent the next generation—their daughters—from suffering the same thing?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising those issues, which will be very familiar to many hon. Members from their casework and those they meet. Women’s health still does not have parity of esteem in our health service. That is why the Government are taking forward the women’s health strategy for England. I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care comes to the House to update us on that.

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

Over recent years, we have seen deeply troubling reports about desperate families being forced to steal baby formula to feed their children. Following the Competition and Markets Authority’s report on the high prices of baby formula and a lack of competition in the UK market, can we have a debate in Government time on how we can make that vital product more affordable, including by reforming the Healthy Start payment that we know many low-income parents, including those in Altrincham and Sale West, rely on to be able to buy baby formula?

[Lucy Powell]

The infant formula crisis is heartbreaking. We do not want to see mums having to shoplift to feed their babies, but all too often that is happening. The CMA recently published a report about price inflation and the lack of competition in this space, and there will be a final report in February. I hear what my hon. Friend says about support in the early years and I will ensure that he gets a reply.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

Earlier this month, a BBC investigation uncovered a range of issues with the Dart charge, the toll paid to use the Dartford crossing, consistent with the significant problems I have been raising with National Highways, including accounts falling unexpectedly dormant, fines for cars not using the crossing and cases being referred to enforcement agencies. Will the Leader of the House advise me whether she can find time for a debate in the House on the administration of the Dart charge?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend continues to raise issues about the Dartford crossing, and he is making a name for himself in so doing. If he wants to apply for a Backbench Business debate on these matters, I am sure it would get wide support from MPs from that area.

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

I recently had the privilege of visiting the Holme Valley mountain rescue team, which will be celebrating its 60th anniversary next year. Its mission, “We are here for everyone”, underscores its extensive contributions, from rescuing individuals on the moors, to tackling moor fires and aiding the police in rural searches. With 60 dedicated volunteers and 53 call-outs so far this year, will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the mountain rescue team for its hard and dedicated work? Additionally, can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of mountain rescue teams in this country?

[Lucy Powell]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Holme Valley mountain rescue team on its work, which he so clearly outlined. I encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate to raise some of those important topics.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

It was fireworks night last week, and many people in my constituency celebrated and had a nice time enjoying that traditional event. However, many constituents have written to me about the impact of fireworks on their pets, which can be extremely distressing. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), I have concerns about how fireworks affect my constituents’ most beloved animals. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has written a note called “Kind Sparks”, which talks about measures we can take. I add my voice to others in calling on the Leader of the House to arrange a debate so that we can discuss how to reduce the impact and the distress that fireworks cause to pets, animals and wildlife.

[Lucy Powell]

At this time of year, we get a lot of questions about fireworks, and particularly their impact on pets and livestock, which my hon. Friend raised so well. Given that three or four hon. Members have raised the issue, I encourage them to club together and apply for a debate.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

The House will be aware of the appalling case of John Smyth, who subjected dozens of boys and young men to unimaginable abuse over decades. While the Archbishop of Canterbury has resigned over the matter, is it not time that the Church of England becomes more accountable and transparent? Will the Leader of the House raise with colleagues in the Cabinet Office how the Church of England can designate bishops, dioceses, cathedrals and national Church institutions as public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act?

[Lucy Powell]

I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending our thoughts to the victims of the late John Smyth and the awful crimes he perpetrated for so many years. My hon. Friend will be aware that these are matters for the Church of England, which is being held accountable for them publicly and in other ways. Safeguarding is absolutely paramount. My colleagues from the Cabinet Office are on the Front Bench with me and will have heard my hon. Friend’s very important question.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We got nearly 60 Back Benchers in, so thank you so much for keeping the questions short and thank you to the Leader of the House as well.

Points of Order

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

12:58

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I crave your indulgence. As you rightly point out, nearly 60 colleagues asked for debates or statements. I gently remind colleagues that forms for Backbench Business debates are available in the Vote Office, on the website and on MemberHub. If any colleague wishes to have any advice, the Backbench Business Committee is here to help.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee will know that that was not a real or appropriate point of order, but I appreciate his desire to ensure that Back Benchers can raise local issues in all the sections of the estate, so I am grateful to him.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a member of the Procedure Committee, I was concerned about media reports overnight and this morning that the Chancellor will, this evening, make a major announcement about public sector pensions. Given recent communications from the Chair, including by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will you advise me on how the Chancellor’s statement could be made to this House first?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his intention to raise this point of order. Mr Speaker has not received notice of the Government’s intention to make a statement on this subject today. I would add that Mr Speaker has repeatedly made it clear that Ministers must make important policy statements to this House first, in accordance with the Government’s own ministerial code. No doubt those messages have now been heard.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords]

2nd reading
Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

12:59

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am pleased to open the debate on this important but straightforward piece of legislation. I should start by welcoming the shadow Paymaster General to his role. I have no doubt that we will have some great, robust debates over the Dispatch Boxes. I will just say to him, now that he is in the shadow role, that I very much hope we can continue the cross-party work that his predecessor and I were pursuing on infected blood compensation. That cross-party working has been extremely important.

Members will of course be aware—we debated this on Tuesday—that this Government are pursuing reform of the House of Lords. I should be clear with the House that this Bill is distinct from those reforms. It does not seek to make fundamental changes; its simple effect is to extend, by five years, the arrangements for the appointment of Lords Spiritual contained in the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015. And like the 2015 Act, this Bill has been introduced at the request of the Church of England.

I think it may be helpful to give the House a little background as to how we arrived here. There are 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords, and, before 2015, the process for how and when they sit in the other place was determined solely by the Bishoprics Act 1878. Five seats are automatically allocated to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York, followed by the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester. The remainder were filled on the basis of seniority—in other words, length of tenure.

In 2014, the General Synod of the Church of England passed legislation to allow women to become bishops for the first time. However, because of the rules of seniority, we would have had to wait many years before those first female bishops could have been eligible to receive their writs of summons and become Lords Spiritual. That would have created a situation whereby women were prominently involved in Church leadership but were unrepresented in the House of Lords.

To address that, at the Church’s request, both Houses passed legislation in 2015 to fast-track female bishops into the House of Lords. The effect of that legislation is that if there is a female diocesan bishop available when a Lords Spiritual seat becomes vacant, she will be appointed to the seat ahead of a male bishop irrespective of seniority.

Since enacted, the 2015 Act has had a clear effect. We have seen six female bishops sit in the other place earlier than they otherwise would have done. The Bishop of Gloucester was appointed to the House as the first female bishop on 7 September 2015. Since that first appointment, the Lords Spiritual have welcomed six more women to sit on their Benches.

The value of the legislation is about to be seen in action again. Following the recent retirement of the Bishop of Worcester, Debbie Sellin, the Bishop of Peterborough, will soon replace him in the Lords under the provisions of the 2015 Act. And then, the recently appointed Bishop of Coventry, Sophie Jelley, will be first in line for appointment to the House of Lords upon any future retirements.

Madam Deputy Speaker, as you can see, there has been progress, but there remain only a handful of female bishops on the Lords Spiritual Benches today. The issue is that that 2015 Act will expire in May 2025. What the five-year extension contained in this Bill does is to allow more time for the positive effects of that 2015 piece of legislation to operate.

The Bill means that if any of the Lords Spiritual seats that are not automatically allocated become vacant between now and 2030, they will continue to be filled by the most senior eligible female bishop—if there are any available at that point.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am enjoying immensely my right hon. Friend’s very detailed explanation of how we got here. May I ask him what conversations he has had with the Church about the steps that it can take to increase the diversity of potential bishops and to ensure that, ultimately, there is a wider pool of people to appoint to the House of Lords.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. As he would imagine, I certainly have had discussions with the Church of England, and not just prior to the introduction of this Bill, but prior to the wider reform of the Lords in which the Government are engaged. Those conversations are hugely important, as is diversity. This legislation will extend the diversity—having women bishops in the House of Lords—that we have seen since the 2015 Act reached the statute book.

The Government’s view is that five years is an appropriate length of time to extend these provisions to consolidate the positive effect that there has been so far. I hope that this very narrowly focused and simple Bill, which will extend an Act that has achieved such positive change over the past nine years, will gain support from all parts of the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

13:06

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I thank the Paymaster General for his clear introduction of this legislation and for the praise that he gave to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). I very much want to continue the work that my right hon. Friend did on the infected blood scandal with the Paymaster General, and I look forward to doing so.

May I also thank the right hon. Member for extending a warm welcome to me? I was a special adviser in the House of Lords in the months after the 2015 Act was passed and saw at first hand the introduction of the first female bishops. As Paymaster General, the right hon. Member has an important role. He will remember that Viscount Addison did it back in the 1940s, and became the first Labour Knight of the Garter, which I am sure the right hon. Member may be looking forward to in the future.

This is a straightforward Bill, limited in its scope, with the simple purpose of extending the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 by another five years. Introduced by the coalition Government, the 2015 Act complemented the legislation that had been brought in the previous year to allow women to become bishops in the first place. The intention was to ensure that those women had a fair chance of sitting alongside their male counterparts as one of the 26 Lords Spiritual. Overall, the Act seems to have been successful in doing so. The original legislation suspended the rules that automatically elevated the most senior diocesan bishop to the House of Lords, and instead elevated a female diocesan bishop, if one was available. This has meant that there are now six women bishops in the House of Lords, all of whom have made valuable contributions in the other place.

The extension of the Bill is even shorter. It simply extends the sunset clause that was agreed in 2015, and maintains the suspension in rules so that female bishops will join the Lords Spiritual slightly sooner than they would otherwise have done. Let me express the Opposition’s support for this simple piece of legislation.

When we first introduced this legislation, it was agreed that a 10-year span would give sufficient time to assess its effectiveness. And because we are here today, I believe that we can probably agree that that timeframe was fine. I would like to ask the Paymaster General when he expects this legislation to no longer be necessary. I predict that he might say 2030, as that is the date set for the sunset of this legislation. Can he confirm why it is this timeframe that has been selected? As I previously mentioned, there are six women bishops in the House of Lords, and I am glad that the legislation has supported them in contributing so meaningfully to Parliament, but can he tell the House whether he expects to see another five-year extension in a few years’ time?

11:24

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Let me start by saying how pleased I am to be speaking in support of the Bill on Second Reading. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his opening remarks. In 2014, the Church of England made it possible for women to become bishops. The usual process of appointing bishops to the other place meant that it would have taken many years for women bishops to enter the Lords. That is why the 2015 Act was brought in: to speed up the representation of women among the Lords Spiritual.

As we debate today’s short and narrow bill, I want to pay tribute to some of the women bishops who have made history. The Church of England’s first woman bishop, Libby Lane, took her place as the Bishop of Stockport in 2015.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

Hear, hear.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Indeed. Now the Bishop of Derby, Libby Lane is known for her dignified and thoughtful leadership, and her advocacy for children and young people. The first female Lord Spiritual was Rachel Treweek, who entered the Lords in 2015. During her tenure, she campaigned tirelessly for prison reform, especially on how prison affects women and families. She has called for more race, class, gender and age diversity in the Church, and has pushed for a humane response to refugees. She has also looked at ways in which we can improve children’s sense of self-worth, value and confidence.

I also pay tribute to the Lord Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer who is deeply engaged with the community she serves. She has promoted the living wage and spoken up for our beloved national health service and for the most vulnerable in society, including the elderly and those facing persecution.

The 2015 Act sped up the entry of six women bishops to the other place. We now have 25 Lords Spiritual, seven of whom are women. I hope that I am making the value of those women bishops’ contributions in the Lords clear. They enrich debate and provide much-needed representation. The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford, Guli Francis-Dehqani, came to Britain as a refugee after her family fled persecution during the Iranian revolution. In the other place, she has carefully and intelligently worked hard to scrutinise policy on issues including housing, immigration and criminal justice. Like so many of her colleagues, she truly listens to the views of others, speaking with grassroots knowledge—most importantly about the region under her care.

The progress that we have seen in making the Lords Spiritual more diverse should be celebrated, but we know, and the Church knows, that another push is needed to make the Lords Spiritual representative and to bring them more up to date. That is particularly the case for women bishops from black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds, who make such an important contribution and are currently underrepresented in the other place, and more broadly in the Church.

[Adam Jogee]

On that point, I acknowledge the history-making nature of my hon. Friend’s appointment as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, which I hope demonstrates our commitment to diversity and representation.

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank my hon. Friend. It is truly an honour and a privilege to serve in that position.

I want to acknowledge the trailblazing Bishop of Dover, Rose Hudson-Wilkin, the first black woman to become a Church of England bishop. She was the chaplain to her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and for nine years she was the chaplain to the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow—the first woman to carry out that role. Her presence as a leader in the Church is a call to young women from diverse backgrounds not to shy away from the work that they want to do. But the Bishop of Dover is not yet one of many. There is more work to do. That is why the Bill will help. It is a narrow Bill, extending the existing provisions for five years, which should get us closer to the Lords Spiritual better representing the make-up of our country. That is why I support the Bill, and I hope that Members across the House will do the same.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

13:14

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats support the extension of this legislation and its ambition to make our second Chamber more equal and representative. If passed, the Bill will extend the timeframe for the process of accelerating women bishops to the other Chamber, meaning that when a vacancy arises among the 21 bishops appointed by seniority, it will be filled by the most senior eligible female bishop, with the goal of reaching gender parity as soon as possible. We are glad of the intention behind the Bill to address the current stark gender imbalance among our Lords Spiritual. We support that aim and welcome steps to ensure that Parliament better reflects the country it serves.

Fundamentally, however, we want to see complete reform of the House of Lords, strengthening the authority of our second Chamber with a democratic mandate. Parliament should be a body that represents and reflects the diversity and richness of the people and cultures that make up this country, and we must do all we can to make that happen across both Houses.

The Bill aims to ensure significant female representation among the Lords Spiritual by extending the arrangements of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act by an additional five years, so that its powers continue until 2030. Without it, the position would return to the status quo ante whereby bishops became Members of the House of Lords according to their time in office. Given that the legislation allowing women to become bishops was enacted relatively recently, in 2014, it is vital that the provisions of the 2015 Act are extended in order to continue to address the historical inequality and accelerate the move towards gender parity in our upper Chamber. The extension of the Act is a positive step to ensure that bishops in the Lords are more representative of the country as a whole as well as their congregations, and the Bill, in supporting a move towards gender parity, is a significant step in moving towards a more representative Parliament.

Although we support the legislation and welcome all moves towards creating a more balanced Parliament, we must question why the latest legislation has been unsuccessful in reaching the goal of gender parity for bishops in the upper Chamber over the past decade. What further measures need to be taken to increase accessible routes to create a more equal Parliament? I ask the Minister why the legislation continues to be restricted with a time limit, and what conversations he has had with the Church of England regarding that. Does he believe that five additional years is sufficient time to reach equal representation, given the progress achieved by the original piece of legislation?

The 2015 Act allowed just six women bishops to take up seats in the House of Lords, although I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for her excellent speech, which really highlighted the successes of the women who have been able to take up those roles. We must question why the latest legislation was unsuccessful, and what other steps we should take in order to reach the goal of gender parity.

[Adam Jogee]

I acknowledge the temperate and sensible approach that the hon. Lady takes to these matters. Does she share my query about where all those who have shown an interest this week in the presence of bishops in the House of Lords happen to be this afternoon?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. There was a great flurry of interest when I was stood here on Tuesday, making many of these points about the make-up of the House of Lords. I agree with him that it is extremely strange that the people who spent such a long time discussing these issues on Tuesday afternoon did not want to take the opportunity to discuss them further today.

[Adam Jogee]

With no time limits.

[Sarah Olney]

I am sure that it is our collective loss that they did not take up the opportunity.

It is vital that we go further in moving towards equality in all aspects of public and political life. Broader reform of the House of Lords is an essential step in achieving that. I was glad that the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill moved through this Chamber earlier this week, if perhaps not with the speed that we might have hoped. With not a single current hereditary peer being a woman, that legislation is an important step in addressing the gender imbalance of the other place, and we support it.

This new Parliament has seen a series of firsts: the first time the proportion of women elected to the House of Commons has surpassed 40%, the first time this country has had a female Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the first time we have had a black woman leading one of the main political parties in this country. While I am glad to support today’s legislation, which will accelerate the move towards gender parity in our Lords Spiritual, it is vital that we continue to take steps to build a more equal and representative Parliament at all levels. In our recent general election, only 37% of candidates put forward by major parties were women.

We are grateful to organisations such as 50:50 Parliament and Centenary Action for their tireless work supporting more women into politics at all levels. Diverse Governments are more resilient and make better decisions. It is essential that our elected bodies are drawn from the widest possible pool of talent and experience, and that Parliament better reflects the country it serves.

More broadly, we are supportive of wider political reform, including of our upper Chamber. We believe that there are critical steps that the Government must take to strengthen democratic rights and encourage broader participation in politics. We will continue to urge the new Government to be bolder in modernising our upper Chamber, including by introducing the promised retirement age, implementing the findings of the Burns report and giving the Lords the proper legitimacy that our second Chamber should have through a democratic mandate. Political engagement is an historic low. Voter participation in our recent general election was the lowest since 2001—fewer than 60% of eligible voters cast their ballot. It is vital that we do all we can to restore public trust in Government, and broadening equal representation across both Chambers is a crucial step in doing that.

We look to the Government to support our pledges to modernise our electoral system, including by investing in electoral procedures to ensure that the electoral register is accurate and up to date. We will continue to call on the Government to scrap the Conservative party’s voter ID scheme, and to expand political and democratic engagement by extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds.

In this year’s general election, the highest ever proportion of women were elected to Parliament, and women now make up more than 40% of the House of Commons for the first time. It is important that both Houses of Parliament represent and reflect the diversity and richness of the people and cultures that make up our country. This legislation is important in moving towards more representative politics. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for significant reform of the House of Lords for decades. Although we are proud to support the Bill, and grateful that it will improve the gender balance in the other place, ultimately we would like our second Chamber to be given a proper democratic mandate, and we will continue to push the Government to introduce bolder and broader parliamentary reforms.

13:21

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

My speech will be very brief. I welcome the progress made by the House earlier this week in voting to pass the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill in Committee and on Third Reading. I also welcome the Government’s recognition of the importance of consecrating more female bishops and reflecting that composition in the other Chamber.

On a more local point, Stockport is famous for many things, one of which is the fact that the Church of England’s first woman bishop was the Right Reverend Libby Lane, who served as the Bishop of Stockport between 2015 and 2019. She was mentioned by the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova). Stockport is known for many groundbreaking things, and that is just one of them. The Right Reverend Libby Lane now serves as the Bishop of Derby, and I want to place on the record my gratitude to her for all her work in Stockport and the various other places she has served. She was introduced to the House of Lords as a Lord Spiritual in July 2019, and she continues to do excellent and important work in the other place.

I usually do not speak in debates of this nature, but I recently met the Bishop of Manchester, the Right Reverend David Walker, at All Saints’ parish church in my constituency. We discussed many issues, including the contribution of the Church, not just in Stockport but across Greater Manchester and the north-west. He made me aware of the importance of this legislation and of the impact it will have, and I want to place in Hansard my thanks to him for highlighting that to me.

I thank everyone not just in the Church of England, but in all churches across my Stockport constituency and Greater Manchester, for all they do to provide not just spiritual guidance but all sorts of other things, such as food banks and support with a number of other issues.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now come to a maiden speech. I call Anna Gelderd.

13:23

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

Meur ras—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I begin by wishing His Majesty the King a very happy birthday—a sentiment that I am sure is shared on both sides of the House?

Standing here in this House, I am more aware than ever of the incredible privilege that it is to be here on behalf of South East Cornwall, a place that I love and am proud to call my home. I do not stand here alone; rather, I stand with those who came before me, inspired me or supported me. I am especially proud to be the first Labour MP to represent the area, a wonderful community filled with history, resilience and a deep local pride.

It is a love for the area and a steely determination to fight for its best interests that unites my predecessors and me. I pay tribute to Sheryll Murray for her work to champion public and rescue services and the local fishing industry, and to Colin Breed, who served before her.

I intend to represent our community by extending a hand to bridge political divides, and by serving with the determination and humility that I have seen illuminating the paths of all those I most admire in public service.

Today’s debate offers me the opportunity to mention in particular some of those women who taught me that I, too, could stand, including our late friend Jo Cox, and the formidable Harriet Harman, both of whom I have had the honour of working with.

South East Cornwall is a stunningly beautiful rural constituency, defined by the natural boundaries of the River Fowey in the west and the River Tamar in the East, ancient moorland to the north, and beautiful Cornish coastlines to the south, including the unique Rame peninsula, perfect for sea swimming, surfing and sailing. It is a place alive with history, from Restormel castle in Lostwithiel, to the historic harbour at Polperro, whose winding lanes whisper of a history of pirates and smugglers.

Our economy is a story of resilience, woven from the threads of small businesses, including in the market gardens of the Tamar valley, tourism, farming and an inshore fishing fleet that deserves more recognition and support. The market town of Liskeard, at the geographical heart of the area, provides important places for people to meet and form new enterprises, such as Wildanet. Most importantly, it is the perfect place to find a Barnecutts pasty—and, unlike other Members of this House, I do know how to eat a pasty properly.

We look both to the west across Cornwall, and to the east beyond the Tamar, for many crucial jobs. The dockyard in Devonport is particularly important to the towns of Saltash and Torpoint, where many local residents are employed. Torpoint is also home to HMS Raleigh, which provides exceptional naval training and serves as a deep source of local pride.

South East Cornwall has a proud cultural heritage, celebrated in long-standing community traditions such as the Gorsedh—held in Callington for the first time in 40 years—the Black Prince parade and the Saltash May fair. That heritage is expressed through the arts at Sterts theatre and arts centre, Calstock Arts, and Maker Heights.

Communities there are tight-knit, but they are often kept apart geographically by both distance and the lack of transport connections. But don’t get me started on transport problems in Cornwall, Madam Deputy Speaker —you can expect to hear from me again on that topic.

There are incredible people across the constituency who go the extra mile, with a community spirit found at Saltash Pride, in those working at food banks or in care homes, and at the Core, where I held my first surgery. It is a place rich in so many ways, but there are real challenges: above average rates of child poverty, fragile seasonal employment and house prices that are out of reach for many.

In my previous work, I have seen some of the big problems we face at home and abroad: the trap of extreme poverty that is so difficult to escape, the threat of instability and conflict, and the challenges posed by climate change. I have also seen the resolve and determination of people to overcome those same challenges, and I have been struck by how the hardest of situations sometimes bring out the very best of us. That spirit can be found in organisations such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which I was so proud to work for, or at local events such as Liskeard Unlocked, which celebrated the town’s shared values of freedom, safety and solidarity with its twinned Ukrainian town of Kopychyntsi.

I know that caring for my mother throughout her prolonged and painful death from cancer—something that too many families face—has led me to this place. Without that experience, I would simply not be here. She told me to find solace in purpose, and I have. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] My family gave me a bedrock of certainty that anyone, anywhere, can make a positive difference. My grandad, injured in an industrial accident, would have me sit next to him on his green leather sofa after school to watch Prime Minister’s questions. I have no doubt that he would be shocked but proud that I stand now by these green leather Benches, which felt so very far away from our lives and experiences. Clearly, children’s earliest experiences are so formative, and early education is so pivotal—just look at the trouble that early experience has got me into now. I do not want where you are born to limit where you are going, or what you can do to be determined by who you know. Breaking down the barriers to opportunity is not a campaign slogan for me; it is a guiding principle, and what I intend to deliver for my community.

The beauty of our landscapes in our special corner of Cornwall is not just a backdrop to our lives; it is the backbone of our economy and integral to our identity and wellbeing. I am committed to supporting our farmers and our fishing industry—the lifeblood of our community. They provide our food security, and they have a critically important relationship with the landscape. I am committed to improving our transport links, which currently hamper growth and divide communities, and to securing better access to healthcare services and provision for special educational needs and disabilities in the constituency. I am also committed to preserving the rugged, distinct natural environment that so defines our region and brings huge economic value to our vital tourist industry.

Cornwall helped to power Britain’s first industrial revolution, and it now stands ready to lead the new green industrial revolution, harnessing new technologies and the aspirations of our young people to create a sustainable future. South East Cornwall is both a gateway to Cornwall and a bridge to the rest of the UK, as embodied by the Tamar bridge. I intend also to be a bridge for our community, and to work tirelessly to connect Cornwall with the resources, opportunities and support that it deserves, so I stand here, ultimately, with gratitude for the incredible people of South East Cornwall. I see generosity and determination that inspire me daily. That is why I am here, and it is why I am honoured to be working to connect our past and our present, and to help build our future together.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall gave a very authentic, powerful speech. She should be proud, as her mother and grandfather would be. We now come to the Front Benchers.

13:32

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) made an incredibly moving speech. I remember her predecessor well; we served on the 1922 committee together. I thought her mention of the RNLI was particularly poignant. As a former transport Minister, I remember that the her predecessor and other hon. Members brought up the Tamar bridge regularly, and I am sure it is an issue that she will take forward. I was delighted to hear her mention pasties, a traditional food. I have my own pie and mash campaign at the moment, so perhaps we could work together on the protection of local foodstuffs.

The speeches from the hon. Members for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), mentioning some of the female bishops who have been trailblazers, were superb. I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) about the former Prime Minister, who was our first British Asian Prime Minister, and about the Leader of the Opposition, who is the first black female leader of a major UK political party. I think we would like to say, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), that it is “not a big deal”, but that is the way things have worked out.

I caution the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), who is famous already for his slightly cheeky contributions in the Chamber, to be careful what he wishes for when he suggests he would like more Opposition Members to speak in debates about bishops.

13:33

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)]

I begin by congratulating the shadow Paymaster General on his appointment to his role. It is a pleasure to close the debate on this focused but most important piece of legislation. I have very much enjoyed listening to the thoughtful contributions made by colleagues from all parts of the House, and I will do my best to respond to them in the time available.

As the Paymaster General said in his opening speech, this is a straightforward but important Bill requested by the Church. It simply extends for a further five years the arrangements agreed by this House in 2015. Significant progress has been made since then in addressing the gender imbalance on the Benches of the Lords Spiritual, but I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that a short extension is reasonable and proportionate to ensure that progress continues.

Members have made important and interesting contributions to the debate. I put on record my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd), who told an incredibly powerful story about her grandfather and her mother. Her personal story will have touched the lives of many today, and I share her ethos of breaking down barriers. She made some important points in her speech, and I believe her constituents appreciate their hard-working Member of Parliament. As a graduate of the women-only Murray Edwards College, Cambridge, she joins the ranks of the many notable and brilliant women making their mark on public life. She has spoken about the influence that Jo Cox and Harriet Harman—inspirational women—had on her.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) speaks with great passion and knowledge. His constituency has played an important role in our story, because the Right Rev. Libby Lane, who was made Bishop of Stockport in 2015, was the first ever female bishop. Her consecration reminds us of the need for pioneers and trailblazers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) has become the 43rd Second Church Estates Commissioner. I met her this week to discuss the Bill, and I know she will use all her political and personal skills to provide a bridge between Parliament and the established Church at a difficult time for the Anglican communion. She will be brilliant in that role. She spoke powerfully about female bishops, and particularly about the importance of diversity and under-represented groups. The Church is looking at that, and I know that she will be a champion of those issues. The shadow Paymaster General rightly asked why the five-year timeframe had been selected. We believe that five years is an appropriate time, and we will review the arrangements in collaboration with the Church of England closer to 2030.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) has been a champion of diversity in the other place. She rightly asked whether we will be making wider progress. This Bill is narrow, and it is not part of the Government’s wider House of Lords reform agenda. It was requested by the Church of England, so that it can extend arrangements put in place by the 2015 Act. As she knows, that Act is due to expire in May next year, so it is important that we introduce the Bill now. As the first step in a wider reform, the Government have introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which I know the hon. Lady has spoken favourably about. That focused Bill will deliver the Government’s manifesto commitment to bring about immediate reform by removing the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

The Government are committed to other reforms of the House of Lords, as the hon. Lady rightly mentioned, including the introduction of a mandatory retirement age and a participation requirement, and changes to the appointments process, as well as a strengthening the circumstances in which disgraced Members can be removed. There is also a long-term commitment to replacing the other place with an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Given the nature and potential scale of these reforms, the Government will engage and consult on the proposals, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them.

As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General noted when he opened the debate, this year marks the 10th anniversary of the ability to appoint women bishops in the Church of England. It is also another important anniversary: it is 30 years since the first women were ordained as Church of England priests; 32 women were ordained at Bristol cathedral in 1994. Over the past 30 years, the Church has made significant progress in valuing the leadership role that women can play in the life of the Church. This Bill simply extends existing provisions to ensure that progress can continue.

[Marsha De Cordova]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her speech; she is setting out exactly why this small piece of legislation is so important. I also thank her for acknowledging that for 30 years, we have seen women being ordained. Does she agree that celebrating the progress that women have made, not only in this place but in the Church, is crucial? I am very grateful to the Government for bringing forward the Bill, so that we can get it through.

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the importance of female representation, particularly in the Church. The long history of women’s progress in this country teaches us one thing: it cannot be left to chance. That is why it is so important that we pass this Bill. Women must organise and keep up the pressure, and institutions must change. Our Parliament must also change; between 1918 and 2024, only 693 women have been elected as Members of this House. The hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned female representation in Parliament. As of July 2024, there are 263 women in this House, the highest ever number. Female representation is at an all-time high of 40%, yet even now, we still need progress to be truly reflective of our society.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I am really pleased to hear the Minister setting out exactly what a representative Chamber should look like. I was especially pleased to hear her comments to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), about the broader reforms to the other place that we are proposing. I was proud to be here on Tuesday night during the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill’s Third Reading to talk about the amendments, and I was so proud to vote in favour of removing the 92 hereditary peers in the other place. My hon. Friend has made a commitment to reforming the other place. Do we have any timescales in mind, and can we make the commitment to the public and to this House that those reforms will come forward in the first term of a Labour Government?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and for the part he played on Tuesday in making sure we could get that important Bill through. As he knows, it is an important step—the first step that we are taking towards reform of the House of Lords. I hope he recognises that as a Government, we are taking this very seriously. We are making sure that we deliver the Government’s manifesto commitment to look at immediate reform, and particularly to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. I hope he can contribute again at a later stage when we progress those reforms.

As I have mentioned, this Bill is narrow. It amends an Act that was passed in 2015. We need to improve female representation, particularly when it comes to bishops in the House of Lords. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea mentioned, the contributions already made by female bishops show the significant changes they can make, particularly through the diversity that they bring. If we do not make those improvements, we will revert back to the way we were when it comes to representation in the House of Lords.

[Navendu Mishra]

The Minister is making an excellent speech. Can I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova)? She welcomed the fact that there were more women bishops in the Church of England, but also made a point about having women bishops of colour. I understand that there are several women bishops of colour in the Church of England now, but it is very important that more is done to make sure that people from under-represented segments and demographics are represented in the highest structures of the Church of England. Will the Minister join me in thanking our hon. Friend the Member for Battersea for making that point?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. Racial diversity, as well as the wider representation of disabled people, are matters that I raised during a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea in her new role, and with representatives of the Church of England. As my hon. Friend may know, it is for the Church to determine how bishops are appointed, and its representatives have mentioned that they are committed to increasing diversity among bishops. The Church is reviewing the pipeline for senior roles to encourage the greatest possible participation of under-represented groups.

[Marsha De Cordova]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and all the interventions in this debate have been incredible. As she says, representation is something that the Church of England is now taking seriously. It led the way in setting up its racial justice taskforce, and it now has its racial justice commission that is working on this area. Representation is important, not just at the top of the Church but all the way down to the parish and diocese levels. We need greater representation, not just of women but of those from black and ethnic minority communities, as well as disabled people. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that the Church has got to get this right.

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. That is why I am delighted that she is in the role that she now holds—I know that she will champion this issue really well. Representation at all levels is important, and I will be looking to see what the Church of England does to strengthen its diversity in that area.

This Bill is about the role of a number of Lords Spiritual. It simply aims to extend the provisions of the 2015 Act to ensure that more female bishops enter into the House of Lords.

[Mr Holden]

Reflecting some of the comments that the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) has made, would it not be great to see some more Cross-Bench peers in the House of Lords drawn from the retired bishops, particularly the female bishops? Perhaps they could go through the appointments process for people who have contributed to public life.

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank the hon. Member for that helpful suggestion, which could be examined at the next stage. I know that he did a lot of work in this area, particularly as an adviser when this policy was being taken forward in the House of Lords, so I welcome his insight into this area.

The contributions to this debate have been extremely powerful. I know that there have been lengthy conversations about this Bill in the other place.

[Navendu Mishra]

I am very grateful to the Minister for allowing me a second intervention. She has made comments about the first woman bishop, the Bishop of Stockport. In her role as a Minister of the Crown, will she officially congratulate the Right Rev. Libby Lane, who serves in the other Chamber, and mark the point I am making about the wonderful constituency of Stockport?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point—he is a trailblazer for his constituency of Stockport, and is very passionate about the first female bishop, who I believe is a trailblazer and a role model to many women up and down the country.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I will take the opportunity to try to be a trailblazer for my constituency of Harlow, where we have some fantastic women representatives in the Church. I particularly pay tribute to the Rev. Jokey Poyntz, who during the terrible pandemic did so much to support residents in my constituency by delivering food parcels, and who continues to champion my community.

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank my hon. Friend for championing the women in his constituency. On that note, I would like to champion the females who work hard in my constituency to ensure that it is well represented. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea and others have said, diversity is important across the community. If we do not ensure that the House of Lords bishops look like us, how will we ensure that we can advocate effectively for constituents?

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. As many colleagues are interested in this debate, may I encourage interventions to be relevant to the debate that is taking place?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz).

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Minister, who is doing a fantastic job of ensuring, through the Bill, that women are represented at every level; in the 21st century, we should not be talking about firsts for women.

In the spirit of colleagues who have intervened already, may I ask my hon. Friend to recognise the brilliant role played by the first black woman to be Speaker’s Chaplain here in the House of Commons? The Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin then rose to be Bishop of Dover; I am thinking also of the Reverend Tricia Hillas, who also served as Speaker’s Chaplain. Parliament is seen as an important place for the representation of women and I very much support the Minister in ensuring that the Bill makes progress.

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising those two trailblazers, who are an inspiration to me and many other women.

I conclude by saying that we should never take our foot off the gas and never rest on our laurels. This is a time to ensure that we in Parliament do what we can to improve female representation.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I will not at the moment.

As I have mentioned on many occasions, this is a simple Bill to extend provisions and ensure that progress continues to be reflected on the Benches of the Lords Spiritual. We have a long way to go in improving female representation, but this country teaches us one thing: this cannot be left to chance. I urge everyone to support the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords]: (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(3)Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Question agreed to.

Aircraft Noise: Local Communities

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anna McMorrin.)

13:52

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to finally begin the Adjournment debate. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this important and timely debate.

As the MP for a very vocal airport community, I welcome the Minister to his role and reassure him that he will be hearing from me a great deal over the coming Parliament. This topic is close to my constituents’ hearts. Every morning, at 4.30 am, they hear jet engines above their heads; every year, a Heathrow airport executive threatens to bring back the third runway; and every decade, a new proposal to change the flight paths is put forward.

My constituents are not alone. In the UK, more than 23% of the British population live between two and 10 miles from an airport. Although they accept that aircraft noise is a fact of life, they should not be asked to tolerate constant attempts to increase the number of flights above their homes. In the opening months of this new Parliament, Labour has a chance to step away from the damaging policies of the past and build a new relationship with airport communities—a relationship in which the needs of local people and our environment are genuinely balanced against the demands of the aviation industry.

To begin rebalancing the relationship, I urge the Department for Transport to consider three requests: first, to acknowledge the health impacts of night flights on airport communities and work to ban them above heavily populated areas; secondly, to accept that the expansion of Heathrow airport would fly in the face of Britain’s climate targets and have an unacceptable impact on my constituents in Richmond Park and elsewhere across London and the south-east; and thirdly, to recognise that any proposals to change flight paths above London and the south-east should be accompanied by a proposal for a “do minimum” approach, ensuring that people do not have to accept change merely for the sake of change.

I turn first to night flights, which are the most intrusive form of aircraft noise. There is clear evidence that they harm the physical health of residents who live under flight paths. Long-term exposure to nocturnal aircraft noise is strongly linked to sleep disorders and broader health impacts.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that point and for securing this incredibly important debate. Like her constituents, the residents of Twickenham, Teddington, Whitton and the Hamptons are very concerned about the impact of aircraft noise above them. Does she agree that, given that the Civil Aviation Authority itself has acknowledged evidence that long-term aircraft noise has a harmful effect on children’s memory, sustained attention, reading comprehension and reading ability, for the sake of their health we need strict restrictions on night flights across our constituencies and all of west London? Frankly, at the moment these massive jet engines are flouting the rules overnight on a regular basis.

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is right. She speaks passionately on behalf of her constituents in Twickenham, who I know are blighted by these issues just as much as my constituents in Richmond Park. She is right about the health impacts of long-term exposure to nocturnal aircraft noise, which is strongly linked to sleep disorders and broader health impacts.

For each additional 10 dB of night-time aircraft noise that communities are exposed to, there is an increase of between 14% and 69% in residents’ risk of high blood pressure, increasing the risk of strokes and heart attacks. Other researchers have found links between long-term exposure to aircraft noise and an increased risk of obesity, depression and cardiovascular issues.

The human cost of these flights is substantial, but when I have raised this issue in the House, Ministers have fallen back on a study by York Aviation that argued that night flights add billions to our economy. That study has been repeatedly challenged on both its outcomes and methodology, and I urge the Minister to instruct his officials to examine the wider body of evidence.

Researchers at the transport research service and consultancy CE Delft found that a ban on night flights would harm the national economy only if the passengers who currently arrive on scheduled flights before 6 am were not transferred to other flights. In addition, the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise has pointed out that estimates of the value of night flights often massage definitions of night-time jobs, which inflate key figures. In the light of that, I urge the Government to commit to commissioning a full independent analysis on the impact of night flights on our economy, residents’ physical health and local people’s mental wellbeing, to inform a potential ban on night flights at Heathrow.

While night flights are a constant concern to my residents, the spectre of the third runway continues to hang over south-west London. Hansard shows that the third runway has been mentioned no fewer than 115 times in this House, and has been the topic of three debates, two early-day motions and countless open letters. Despite the efforts of dozens of MPs, the last Government resolutely refused to abandon the project. They said that we should ignore the 210 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that it would generate every year, the £100 billion it would cost to clean up the damage that the runway would do to our environment, and the impact it would have on air quality in our communities.

[Munira Wilson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no way that this Government can meet their net zero and climate commitments if they give the green light to a third runway at Heathrow, as has been widely reported? Indeed, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has been on record in the past as having been very against a third runway at Heathrow. He should be fighting the corner of the environment and our planet, and the health and wellbeing of our constituents, by standing up to the Department for Transport’s giving any green light to a third runway at Heathrow.

[Sarah Olney]

Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the past week the Prime Minister gave new impetus to the achievement of our net zero targets, and it is essential that we have another look at the damage that a third runway would cause at Heathrow. We must seriously re-examine the case for proceeding and, as my hon. Friend says, also look at the impact it would have on our communities.

A meta-analysis of 70 studies published between 2000 and 2020 has shown that researchers consistently find elevated levels of ultra-fine particulate matter in airport communities. Constant exposure to those particulates can lead to decreased lung function, oxidative DNA damage, and premature death. Allowing the third runway and the 260,000 flights that it will add to London’s skies is not only an annoyance to residents; it is a risk to their health.

The third runway would have further far-reaching consequences other than simply tainting the air that my constituents breathe. At COP29 this week, the Prime Minister vowed to cut UK emissions by 81% before 2035, but his own Chancellor has refused to take the third runway off the table. I know from reading the 115 references to the third runway in Hansard that Ministers from both main parties are happy to avoid answering questions from Opposition MPs. For that reason I urge the Minister to consider the words of his colleague, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who said:

“I raise the issue of the Heathrow third runway gingerly, but if we are so serious about this climate emergency, I do not see how we cannot look at all the things that the Government and the private sector are doing and ask whether they make sense in a net zero world.”—[Official Report, 24 June 2019; Vol. 662 , c. 522.]

In the last Division on the third runway, seven members of the current Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, opposed expansion. I urge the Minister to work across Departments to ensure that Government policy reflects their commitments to our local communities and our planet before any decision on the third runway is made.

Finally, night flights and the third runway have been constant sources of concern to my residents over the past decade, but they must now contend with the Government’s new proposals for airspace modernisation. Although I understand that the proposals are intended to improve efficiency at the airport and bring aviation in London into the 21st century, I ask for caution. Last year, the London Assembly passed a motion calling on the airport to recognise the damage that its proposals would have on Richmond Park’s wildlife and ecology. The motion highlighted that redirecting 60,000 planes over London’s largest nature reserve flies in the face of decades of conservation efforts. Indeed, the noise from long-haul flights and the additional pollution from fuel dumping could change that fragile ecosystem for years to come.

At the same time, airspace modernisation would lay the groundwork for an increase in the number of aircraft movements at Heathrow, and expose new communities across south-west London to aircraft noise directly above their homes for the first time. The proposed UK airspace design service will of course help to guide the development of those new flight paths, but it is essential that the public are given a genuine chance to choose between the proposals. When the proposed flight path systems are put to public consultation next year, I urge the Minister to ensure that residents can choose a “do minimum” option. New guidance systems can be integrated, and small amendments to current systems made, but ultimately there should be an option to maintain the path in a roughly similar location. We should not ask communities simply to accept change for the sake of change. They deserve a real choice over the future of their skies, rather than a forced decision between bad options.

London is one of the most overflown capital cities in the western world. Hundreds of thousands of Londoners across the city experience the negative impacts of aircraft noise, yet the Government tiptoe around real measures that would improve residents’ lives. By banning night flights, abandoning the third runway, and giving our constituents a genuine choice over the positioning of flight paths, Ministers would demonstrate to London’s airport communities that we are being heard. The previous Government’s policy on the aviation sector was marked by an inability to stand up for the rights of communities in the face of Heathrow and other airports. The Minister now has a chance to be better than his predecessors, to put people before profit, and to consider what is really best for the capital and airport communities across the UK.

14:04

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this debate about the impact of aircraft noise on local communities, and I thank her for her speech. Aviation noise presents a sensitive issue. I grew up under the flight path to Manchester airport, and I remember the BAC one-elevens, the Tridents and Concorde. As a school child I saw the space shuttle do a low pass on a jumbo jet, which inspired me for the rest of my life. Thank God we do not have those planes any more, given the smell that they emitted. However, we need to strike a fair balance between the impact of aviation on the local environment and communities, and the economic benefits that flights bring. That is the challenge for aviation noise policy.

The hon. Lady spoke passionately about the impact of aviation on noise levels, and I recognise that noise from aircraft, particularly at night, impacts on the local community and, as she said, can impact on people’s physical and mental wellbeing. Major airports with more than 50,000 movements per year are obliged under the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 to produce noise action plans. Noise action plans act as a driver for aircraft noise management and for the mitigation that is required around airports. I am pleased to report that all major airports within scope of the regulations have now produced their noise action plans for 2024 to 2028. With the exception of the noise action plan for Manchester airport in my constituency, which was submitted later, I can confirm that those noise action plans have now been adopted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The Heathrow airport noise action plan has been published, following consultation with local stakeholders, as the hon. Lady rightly said. It is supplemented by a commitment to commission and support research, and a focus on improving the way that the airport communicates and engages with local communities. Heathrow sees that last element as pivotal in helping it to understand and address key priorities for local people. Heathrow also has a sustainability plan that covers a wide range of issues related to noise management. The airport has set a clear objective to reduce by 2030 the number of people who are sleep-disturbed and highly annoyed, compared with its baseline of 2019. The airport has been working to develop, test and finalise a new package of noise insulation, vortex protection and home relocation support, known as the quieter neighbourhood support scheme. Heathrow’s residential insulation scheme covers 100% of insulation costs up to £34,000 for homes most affected by noise.

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting the various packages that are available for people affected by noise. As he will appreciate, a number of my constituents are in that position, yet many are finding that some of those packages are insufficient and difficult to access. Will he meet me to discuss some of those individual cases?

[Mike Kane]

I am happy to meet all individual Members who want to improve the quality of people’s lives around our ports and airports.

Heathrow uses a differential charging structure for aircraft operating at the airport. The structure encourages the use of best-in-class aircraft, imposing higher charges for noisier aircraft and lower charges for quieter ones. Heathrow encourages the use of quieter planes by adjusting the differential in night and post-midnight charges for unscheduled operations, with the aim of reducing those operations after 11.30 pm.

The Government, too, are committed to research into aviation noise, and two studies are under way. One study that has been commissioned is on the effects of aviation noise on sleep disturbance and annoyance and how they vary at different times at night. The study is a collaboration between St George’s University London, the National Centre for Social Research, Noise Consultants Ltd and the University of Pennsylvania, and is the first study of aviation noise effects on sleep disturbance in the UK for 30 years. The first stage of the aviation night noise effects—“Annie”—study involved a cross-sectional survey of 4,000 people who live near eight UK airports to assess the association between aircraft noise exposure at night and subjective assessments of sleep quality and annoyance. That stage of the study is currently going through peer review, and we expect to publish it next year. The second stage involves an observational study of individuals recruited from the survey to assess the association between aircraft noise exposure and objective sleep quality. That involves assessments of sleep disturbance and sound level measurements in participants’ bedrooms. That stage of the study is currently in the field.

Taken together, these pieces of evidence will be used to inform future policies for managing night-time aviation noise exposure and to assist with the management and mitigation of health impacts on local communities. They will also support any wider assessment of the costs and benefits of night flying. Our priority remains to deliver a high-quality, robust evidence base, and we are taking all the necessary steps to deliver that. We are now working on the basis that we will publish the full evidence base from the “Annie” study in autumn 2026.

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I am pleased to hear that there will be a proper study of the impact of aviation noise on sleep disruption, and I very much look forward to that publication. He may have missed the early part of my speech, where I asked for a much more robust study of the economic benefits of night flights. Will he comment further on that?

[Mike Kane]

I will come to that, and I look forward to meeting the hon. Member, because I would like to have a safe cycle ride around Richmond Park one of these days. I will be raising that with the constituency MP, and I think it could help with climate mitigation and climate change. I look forward to her views on that.

As I have acknowledged, noise from aircraft, particularly at night, impacts on local communities. At the same time, night flights are also a vital part of global aviation and provide significant economic benefit, not just to the capital city but, as we know, to the whole of the UK. The whole UK relies on Heathrow as our only hub airport to keep the flow of people, goods and services moving, supporting thousands of jobs as a result. With that in mind, for several decades the Government have set out noise controls, including restrictions on night operations at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

The House can imagine my surprise, on becoming the new Minister, to realise that I had direct powers over the south-east three, and no powers over the rest of the nation. That will hopefully change in the years to come. Those airports are designated for noise purposes under the Civil Aviation Act 1982. That control reflects the need to balance the impacts on communities with the benefits to the UK economy. We also know that Heathrow is one of our major hub airports for cargo and freight to keep this country fuelled, supplied and fed. At other airports, the noise controls are set by local ordinance and local competent planning authorities.

The current night-flight regime limits the number of flights for the purpose of noise management. The night-flight restrictions significantly reduce the number of flights that could otherwise operate within the night quota period between 11.30 pm and 6 am. Earlier this year, the Department for Transport consulted on proposals for the next night-flight regime at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports, which will commence in October 2025, a year or so from now. The consultation proposes that movements and quota limits for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted would remain the same as now for a three-year period covering October 2025 to October 2028. That is while we await evidence that could support change in the future. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park for her response to the consultation, and I hope soon to be in a position to announce a decision on the next night-flight regime.

At Heathrow, the number of movements permitted in the night quota period has not changed for many years. During that time, aircraft have become quieter, as I said at the start of the speech, and the overall noise footprint of the airport has shrunk. Progress has been made. At Heathrow, for example, between 2006 and 2019, there was a reduction of 21% in the number of households exposed to aircraft noise within the London 55 dB noise contour area. The noise footprint of new-generation aircrafts, such as the Airbus A350 and the Boeing 737 MAX, is typically 50% smaller on departure and 30% smaller on arrival than the aircraft they are replacing. I talk with manufacturers all the time about the future of flight and how we can carry on reducing the noise footprint of these vehicles. Overall, noise from aircraft movements is expected to continue to fall in the future compared with today’s levels.

I will briefly touch on airspace modernisation, which is a key plank of our manifesto. It is one of our key commitments, along with sustainable aviation fuel. We have an analogue system in our skies in the UK in a digital age. The system was designed closer to the time that Yuri Gagarin went into space than today. A pilot who travelled through time, coming in the TARDIS back to the future, would still be flying the same flight paths that they would recognise from more than 60, 70 or 80 years ago. That has to change if we are to maximise the benefits to aviation and growth and the carbon reduction we could bring, if we just got the flights not to circle over the hon. Member’s constituency, but to fly in a straight line point-to-point.

[Munira Wilson]

I heard the Minister from a sedentary position call my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) a luddite when she made her point about airspace modernisation.

[Sarah Olney]

A luddite?

[Munira Wilson]

Yes, I am afraid so. The Minister is making the point that we need modernisation. I say to him respectfully that I, my hon. Friend and our constituents recognise the need for innovation and to move with technology as it changes. Of course we want to reduce carbon emissions, and we support a better Heathrow—not a bigger Heathrow—as we understand its importance to the economy, but on airspace modernisation we could still achieve some of the benefits by adopting a “do minimum” approach, gaining benefits from modernisation while not coming up with lots of new flight paths and really intensifying noise over certain areas that might not be overflown at the moment. We have seen how in other countries airspace modernisation has led to noise sewers. Will he offer reassurance to the residents of Teddington, Twickenham, the Hamptons and St Margarets that those places will not end up becoming noise sewers? Will he please commit to a “do minimum” approach and transparency on the process?

[Mike Kane]

Not for a moment did I suggest that the hon. Members would throw their sabots—as in sabotage—into the mill to grind it up. I do expect co-operation on this. I think that we can make life better for all people, and a rising tide floats all boats. The process will be open and transparent. I have already announced the setting up of the UK airspace design service, which will go out for consultation. I expect Members to be fully involved in shaping its work over the next few years.

As we look to decarbonise our skies and improve them in the ways I just mentioned, there is so much to be gained. We can move on Scottish airspace and northern England airspace. We are already moving on south-west airspace. The south-east will be the hard bit to crack, and that is why the service will focus on that. I hope that we can work together to get that done, hopefully in this Parliament; if not, hopefully early in the next one.

The Government recognise the impact that aviation noise can have on local communities. At the same time, we live in a fully interconnected global world, and the aviation sector has material value for the UK economy. The Government continue to strive for the correct balance between the impacts of aviation on the local community and the economic benefits that flight brings.

Question put and agreed to.

14:17

House adjourned.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 14th November 2024 Westminster Hall

Thursday 14 November 2024

[Andrew Rosindell in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Thursday 14th November 2024 Westminster Hall

Respiratory Health

Thursday 14th November 2024 Westminster Hall

09:44

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered respiratory health.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Rosindell. I look forward to hon. Members’ contributions to this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I was before the Committee a week ago on Tuesday with three requests, and I was well looked after. This is the first of my three debates; the second is on 28 November in the main Chamber, and I am waiting to hear when the third will be. I hope to get more in after that—I will keep at it.

I declare an interest: I chair the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health, and it is an issue that has affected my family. I became very aware of respiratory health because of how it affected my son. Did I understand it all? Probably not, but I understood it better from interacting with him. He is now 34 years old and married with two children, but he still has issues with his respiratory health.

I am delighted to be able to raise the issue. I look forward to all the contributions, particularly the response from the Minister for Secondary Care. It is always a pleasure to see her in her place: it makes my day and everybody else’s, I am sure. I know that she has a deep interest in the subject, so I am pretty sure that we will be encouraged by what she tells us. I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), in his place. He and I have discussed the matter on a couple of occasions this week: we focused on what we would love to see come out of the debate.

This debate is not about us as Members; it is about our constituents and those who contact us. It will be on behalf of all the people in this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As chair of the APPG, I will cover issues around asthma, severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and silicosis. The APPG has been conducting an inquiry on silicosis in particular. We have had meetings, usually on Zoom, with at least 20 contributors; the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) and I have attended those meetings regularly.

I will frame my comments around the latest initiatives and the current policy direction, but I first want to say a few thank yous. I am indebted to Sarah Sleet and her wonderful team at Asthma and Lung UK for their outstanding help and ongoing support. They have been enormously helpful to me and the APPG and, I suspect, to other Members present. I welcome their latest report, “A Mission for Lung Health”, which was launched on Tuesday. I was there, as were some Members who are here today and many others who unfortunately cannot be.

I met Dr Jonathan Fuld, the national clinical director for respiratory disease, for the first time to get his expert advice and counsel. I had always seen him on Zoom on a laptop, but on Tuesday I met him in real life: we were able to shake hands and say hello. My thanks also go to Dr Richard Russell of the British Thoracic Society for his insights and opinion, and I pay tribute to the ongoing work of our expert stakeholder groups, which comprise senior clinicians, industry professional bodies and other experts. Whenever we have that vast amount of knowledge, experience and input on a Zoom meeting, we learn quickly: I learned quickly what the issues were.

There have been some very welcome developments in respiratory health recently, including the development of a new guideline for asthma, which is due to be launched soon as a collaboration among the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and the BTS. The seasonal flu and covid vaccination programme appears to have been well planned and is rolling out well this year. Great credit and thanks are due to NHS England for its great work. Back home, where this is a devolved matter, I got two injections in one day: one for covid in the left arm and the ordinary one for flu in the right. It was like a conveyor belt: people were getting it every couple of minutes. It really is wonderful to see how well things can work when things go in the right direction.

The battle with smoking-related respiratory illnesses continues. The Government’s plans on smoking cessation, including through the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, are welcome. I understand that the Bill’s Report stage is coming next week, or certainly the week after. We hope that it will have a big impact in more deprived areas and on outcomes. When we were doing our research, having meetings and doing an inquiry into the matter, it became clear that it was more of an issue in deprived areas and areas of disadvantage. I will say a wee bit more about that later.

I hope that this debate will help to highlight World COPD Day, which falls on 20 November. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the headline figures on respiratory health in the UK. They are worrying. The reason why this debate is so important is that the evidential base tells us that things are not getting better. That is why I look to the Minister for some succour, support and easement of mind.

Respiratory disease is the third biggest killer in England. In the UK, 7.2 million people have asthma, while 3 million are affected by COPD. These are not just figures; they are people, and their families are affected as well. The UK has a higher death rate due to respiratory illness than the OECD average, and the highest death rate in Europe. My goodness! If that does not scare us, it should. Over the past 10 years, more than 12,000 people have died from asthma. All those deaths were preventable. That is another reason why we are having this debate: because if we can prevent deaths, we should. It is important to put this on the record.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. As an asthma sufferer, I know that one of the key elements of ensuring that we get the care we need is an annual survey with a clinician or GP about how our symptoms are either deteriorating or improving. I know many asthma sufferers who are not getting that annual review with their doctor. Some are going years without any sort of review of the deterioration of their symptoms. Given the really concerning number of people who die in this country from asthma attacks, is it not time that we did more to ensure that people get the yearly reviews they really need?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. If there are deaths of people with asthma that are attributable to not getting regular examinations or appointments with doctors or consultants, that is an issue that must be addressed. I am quite sure that the Minister is taking notes and that her civil servants and her Parliamentary Private Secretary will ensure that information is contributed to the debate.

NHS waiting lists for respiratory care have risen by 263% over the past decade. Poorly controlled respiratory disease results in hospital admissions doubling during the winter period. COPD exacerbations are the second most common cause of emergency hospital admissions. These are worrying figures—as worrying as the issue to which the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) refers. New research presented at the European Respiratory Society has shown that the biologics uptake for severe asthma is disastrously poor: the national median for patients in England with severe asthma between 2016 and 2023 is 16%. The uptake varied widely among integrated care boards: it was between 2% and 29% against a target of 50% to 60%. These are worrying figures that indicate an unfortunate trend that should concern us all.

The burden of respiratory disease falls disproportionately on the most deprived. Adults in the poorest 10% of the country are more than two and a half times more likely to have COPD than the most affluent. The 10% most deprived children are four times more likely to require emergency admission to hospital due to asthma than the least deprived. Those figures show a fall-down and a need to focus on those areas.

Lung conditions, especially asthma and COPD, cost the NHS £9.6 billion in direct costs this year and every year. That represents 3.4% of total NHS expenditure. Those conditions result in 12.7 million work days being lost every year. The stats indicate a massive problem that needs to be addressed. The illness and premature death associated with them causes reductions in productivity totalling some £4.2 billion a year, and the conditions have an overall impact of £13.8 billion on the English economy.

All these stats tell us that we have a major problem. I ask the Minister that the NHS prioritise the issue. I understand that it was prioritised by the previous Government, but that that was not acted on because of the election, so I ask respectfully that it be prioritised in our strategy for the time ahead. Improving respiratory outcomes will help to achieve the Government’s ambitions to improve the nation’s health, to halve the disparities in health outcomes, to eliminate waiting lists, to break the winter crisis cycle and to enable everyone to live well for longer.

I have a number of questions for the Minister; I think my staff have sent her a draft of my speech and the questions I will ask. Will she confirm that respiratory health will be a priority for the Government? That is my first big ask. The APPG strongly supports the Secretary of State’s three shifts, which were announced following the Darzi report. I very much welcome that report, and the Secretary of State has done extremely well: it was a difficult portfolio to take on, but he has shown that he has the ideas to take it forward strategically. I hope the Minister can provide an idea of how that will happen for those with respiratory health issues.

The Darzi report proposes a shift from analogue to digital. We certainly have to improve the system that is used for our data and for healthcare more broadly, as the Secretary of State has said in the Chamber; I was very encouraged when I heard him talking about that shift. The other two shifts proposed are from hospital to community and from treatment to prevention. Those three should be front and centre, and they all have an important part to play in improving outcomes. The Government are right to highlight the impact of inequalities and deprivation on health. We strongly support their plans to achieve that through the three shifts, with which they have set a strategic course.

The statistics are clear: we have to improve outcomes for the most vulnerable in society. Our No. 1 duty as elected representatives is to look out for our constituents, particularly those who are vulnerable—that is why we are elected representatives. Our duty is to look after those who are less well-off, those who are physically vulnerable, those who are disabled and those who have other issues in their life.

Mortality rates from respiratory disease are higher among disadvantaged groups and areas of social deprivation, higher exposure to air pollution, higher smoking rates, poor housing conditions and exposure to occupational hazards. That has to be a major focus for us all. The trial of neighbourhood health centres could offer a significant shift from hospital to the community; the Government are considering that, and it is a good step in the right direction. We hope that we will enable a better focus for diagnosis and treatment of respiratory health, which could help to reduce inequalities. As the burden of respiratory disease disproportionately affects the most deprived parts of this great country, winter pressures are higher in those areas, so the centres need to be able to match the local challenges. Will the Minister indicate how that will happen?

Part of the challenge relates to the provision of spirometry testing, which is an essential diagnostic tool for asthma and for COPD. Community diagnostic centres currently offer very few spirometry tests; some offer none at all. I ask the Minister to confirm that spirometry will be widely rolled out, especially in deprived areas where we need its use to be widespread in primary care. It would be extremely helpful if spirometry could receive sustainable funding to be equitably delivered. I welcome the Minister’s thoughts.

As the Minister will be aware, the national screening committee has recommended introducing a targeted lung cancer screening programme across the UK. However, the screening programme only explores the possibility of lung cancer; unfortunately, it does not focus on addressing incidental findings of undiagnosed COPD identified during the screening. Including those findings would enable neighbourhood centres to help deliver better care for COPD.

We are aware of some work being undertaken in Hull to roll incidental findings into potential COPD diagnoses. I ask the Minister and NHS England to look closely at the outcomes of that study, which I believe will give some direction on what needs to be done in the United Kingdom. We are deeply grateful to those in Hull who are working on COPD diagnosis.

The national screening committee’s guidance on COPD has not been reviewed since 2019. I ask the Minister whether there are any plans to revisit that and to bring it up to date. It is five years since it was done, and the figures indicate a worrying trend of more disease. We need to have that in place.

Overprescribing of SABA inhalers—short-acting beta agonists—remains a big problem. Guidelines would be of enormous help. I ask the Minister to ensure full support for the NHS to implement new guidelines.

The APPG has been looking at the impact of inequality for some time. We highlighted that at our COPD event in the House at the end of last year. It was a well-attended event with constructive comments. As we always do in the APPG, off the back of that, we are looking forward more strategically, with a number of asks. We intend to hold regional events to enable local clinicians to inform us what more needs to be done. There is nothing better than asking clinicians the best way forward. They know. They deal with patients daily, and we deal regularly with constituents, and that helps us to focus attention, specifically on prevention.

The number of asthma deaths is far too high. They are worryingly high, as the hon. Member for Redditch mentioned. It has to be a priority for us all to reduce deaths as quickly as possible and for that to be an integral marker in the 10-year plan. The Secretary of State is giving us a 10-year plan. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today where the asthma and respiratory health focus is in that 10-year plan. It needs to have that focus, and I hope we get that response from the Minister today.

We are 10 years on from the national review of asthma deaths report and very little has changed in terms of asthma outcomes. A recent study showed that people on lower incomes reported greater use of oral corticosteroids than people on higher incomes. These findings highlight that there may be an increase in OCS prescriptions for people with asthma and COPD in more deprived areas. The study results are similar to those reported in the 2019 survey by Asthma and Lung UK. I again urge the Minister to keep an eye on that study, to see what lessons we can learn. I know the Minister is committed to making things better and we support her in her quest to do so, but I believe there are many who have helpful contributions on how that can be done.

The APPG also welcomes improvements in inhaler technology, specifically the move to combination inhalers, which will ultimately eliminate the use of twin inhalers. That should benefit both asthma and COPD patients and will contribute to the NHS’s net zero targets. There are lots of things that have to be done. We all subscribe to the net zero targets—they need to be addressed—and this is a way of achieving two goals in one.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to increasing the NHS workforce. That is very good news as well. We will see how that looks in the workforce plan next year. I ask the Minister to ensure that with a significant increase in staffing levels in primary care, we will see an end to untrained staff undertaking annual asthma reviews. I do not want to be too critical—that is not in my nature —but when there is an anomaly we have to address, it has to be said.

The APPG warmly welcomes the promise of the outcomes of the 10-year plan, and we will submit our response to the consultation. To have any real impact on respiratory health, though, we believe the plan has to be disease specific and contain suitable outcome measures for respiratory health. Will the Minister confirm whether the plan will include disease-specific measures for respiratory health? Again, I ask the Minister to benchmark metrics at the start of the plan and to factor in regular outcome updates at three, seven and 10 years. If we do that at those points, we can chart the progress, or perhaps the lack of progress, and make improvements. The metrics could include fewer asthma deaths; reduced hospital admissions for asthma and COPD, especially winter admissions; prescription data; and reduced incidence of asthma and COPD in the most deprived areas. Interim data outcomes will enable us to determine whether the plan is on track to deliver the outcomes we all want to see.

The use of biologics is of particular concern to the APPG and features regularly in our meetings. I am sorry to say that figures on the use of biologics in England are simply dreadful. The national median by patients with severe asthma in England between 2016 and 2023 sat at 16%, and the uptake varied widely among ICBs at between 2% and 29% against an uptake expectation within the clinical community of 50% to 60%. It just does not seem to be working. Biologics treatment has been described by our clinical advisers as life-saving for severe asthma patients. There is both wide regional variation in access, and unacceptable delays to the start of treatment. Many patients who need urgent treatment have to wait years to get access to the services that will prescribe biologics to them. That is an inefficient use of NHS resource and means that the health of patients is deteriorating while they wait for the right treatment. I do not want to see that, hon. Members do not want to see that, and I know the Minister does not want to see that either.

We need more easily accessible severe asthma services. Again, I would be much obliged if the Minister could meet us to look at how we can provide better asthma care for those with the highest burden of disease. I hope that the NHS innovation and adoption strategy will put forward solutions to tackle low and variable uptake and the access to innovative treatments, such as severe asthma biologics. The APPG would like to see a funded transformation with the health innovation networks and clinical leadership on the implementation of NICE guidance on respiratory health at neighbourhood level and on the delivery of biologics.

We are being constructive—the Minister knows that I will always be constructive because I believe we need to move forward together and ask the questions. I note the Secretary of State’s recent remarks on data sharing and the call by Asthma and Lung UK for greater data sharing in its report, which urges the Government to

“Improve data collection and analysis across the care pathway to bring together primary and secondary data, and make high quality, publicly available data which will help ICSs target care where it is needed and ensure accountability”.

We fully support that, and I do not think there is anybody in this room who would not support that, because it is absolutely the way forward.

We are also looking closely at the recent increase in silicosis cases around the country, especially in relation to engineered stone. It is something that maybe not everybody is aware of, although I suspect those in this room are. There is a real threat that the rise in what are entirely preventable cases may add considerably to local health pressures. The Secretary of State has been clear that we need to address the waiting lists and take more action to prevent cases, and that is something I have suggested needs to be done as well. There are a number of recommendations in our silicosis report, and a key recommendation concerns wider data sharing between primary and secondary care.

The APPG will hold a roundtable in the new year to ensure a timely discussion to inform the 10-year plan. I ask the Minister if she would be most kind and put it in her diary and come along. We are not here to give the Minister a hard time, but to take her contribution and help us to move forward together. The Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), is not nodding because she cannot do that for the Minister, but she is indicating—I will send over the date, if that is okay.

Since 2015, 250 to 300 patients have been diagnosed with CF each year. Despite medical advances in recent years, in 2022 the median age of death for those with CF was just 33. Wow—think about that.

The Cystic Fibrosis Trust has called for greater financial support for people with cystic fibrosis for a number of years. In 2023, a University of Bristol study reported that a typical family with cystic fibrosis loses £6,800 a year due to the extra costs of living with that condition. The CF Trust has multiple requests, including for the Government to explore additional innovative market-incentive options to encourage the industry and others to fund research and trials for new antibiotics because of current antibiotic resistance.

I believe we have seen a good and positive contribution to research and development, but we are probably at a cusp where a bit more investment and help would get us over the line. We need to prioritise diagnostics for antimicrobial-resistant infections to prevent further lung damage. The Trust’s final request is to implement an early warning alert system on pollution for people with respiratory conditions.

I am looking forward to hearing what others have to say. The fact of the matter is that we have an opportunity this time because we have a Government who are spending £22 billion on the NHS. That is a massive amount of money. Every person in this great United Kingdom recognises what that means. It is the time to get it right. The Secretary of State has indicated that he is of that mind, and I know the Minister is also of that mind, so we have an opportunity to make effective change to the lives of people throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Some of the £22 billion will come to us in Northern Ireland through the Barnett consequentials, which is good news as well. It means that everybody gains across this great nation.

I believe now is the time to act. We in the APPG want to do all in our power to inform, support and guide the Minister and her Department in effecting change and improving quality of life for those with respiratory health issues.

13:57

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I start by joining the tributes to His Majesty the King on behalf of my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme as he marks his birthday today. It is excellent to see my hon. Friend the Minister in her position. I think it is the first time I have had a chance to speak when she has been on the Front Bench. It is very good to see her. I am also pleased to see that the shadow Minister’s brace has gone—evidence of the wonder of our national health service.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on leading it and on his opening remarks. He clearly enjoyed the lack of time limit, and probably the typo in the Order Paper that said that the debate would last for three hours. I thank him for his contribution. I should declare an interest: my wife is a deputy sister in an intensive care unit. I remain in full admiration of her and all her colleagues who work in our national health service on a daily basis.

My constituency is in the middle of our country, and air quality is one of the most important issues experienced by my constituents and one of the most frequently raised with me. It was with that in mind that I was delighted to host the Asthma and Lung UK reception in Parliament this Tuesday, where it launched its new report, “A Mission for Lung Health”. I encourage all colleagues present, all Members across the House and all those watching at home to read that report.

Air quality and respiratory health are some of the most important issues experienced by my constituents. The hon. Member for Strangford highlighted the fact that respiratory conditions are the third biggest killer in the United Kingdom, and one in five of us will be diagnosed with a lung condition in our lifetime. Colleagues will have heard me talk about the disgraceful Walleys Quarry landfill site in my constituency. For far too long, the operators have got away with doing whatever they want and leaving our town smothered by the most horrendous levels of hydrogen sulphide emitting from the site.

The levels of hydrogen sulphide have had an undeniable impact on the respiratory health of my constituents. I came down to London on Monday and will be heading back to my constituency shortly. I have had many reports from constituents back home that the levels have been horrendous this week. For us in Newcastle-under-Lyme, the fight for clean air is personal and it is constant. As I have the opportunity of the Floor, I make it clear again and reiterate to the Environment Agency, if it is listening: we need it to issue a closure notice with immediate effect to Walleys Quarry Ltd. We need to cap the site and restore it safely and swiftly.

[Chris Bloore]

rose—

[Adam Jogee]

I will happily give way to my hon. Friend from the west midlands.

[Chris Bloore]

Yes, the west midlands posse is here. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work to draw attention to the disgraceful scenes at Walleys Quarry. We are having a conversation about the health of the nation, in particular air quality and the impact on respiratory health, and there is no doubt in my mind that the years of lack of action on that site have had an impact on people’s health. That cannot be allowed to continue.

[Adam Jogee]

We are on the way to getting my constituents the justice they deserve. I thank my hon. Friend for his support for our efforts, which have been led by many of my brilliant constituents, Dr Mick Salt, Lee Bernadette Walford, Simmo Burgess, Sheelagh Casey-Hulme and many others, who have been fighting hard. I could list many people. They did not all necessarily vote for me, but they have played an important role in helping to clean our air and save lives.

In recent weeks, there has been a pretty furious rush on behalf of the borough council and an increase in demands placed on the new Government. That is all well and good, but as far as I can see, little representation seems to have been made by the borough council to the previous Government, or indeed to Staffordshire county council. The only theme among all three of those institutions is that they are led by politicians of the same party. My message to my constituents is that change has come, and I am determined to ensure that that change delivers.

I hope that, after the profit-over-people approach of the operators at Walleys Quarry, we do not see that politics over people has prevented the site being closed and the respiratory health of my constituents being protected and enhanced. I will be grateful for an update from the Minister on what cross-departmental work has taken place in Government on such issues.

Access to diagnostic testing for respiratory conditions is in dire need of reform, and the example and experiences of my constituents prove that well. Access to spirometry testing for lung conditions, in particular since the covid-19 pandemic, has been a slow and painful process for too many people across the country. It is estimated that in our United Kingdom, more than 600,000 people live with undiagnosed COPD; the hon. Member for Strangford touched on that.

Even when restrictive respiratory conditions are suspected or diagnosed, people are waiting far too long for care. The latest NHS data shows that in August almost 5,000 people in Staffordshire—4,963, to be exact—were waiting beyond the national target of 18 weeks to be seen by a respiratory doctor. That is a little more than 50% of all patients referred for treatment. Although that is higher than the national average, it is sadly not an uncommon figure. It needs to change.

When patients are diagnosed with a respiratory condition, the quality of care they receive often does not meet the standards set by NICE. Asthma and Lung UK, to which I pay tribute for all its work, has found that 70% of those living with asthma are not receiving all three aspects of basic care, and that the care received by more than 90% of those with COPD does not meet the five fundamentals required by NICE.

People living with undiagnosed and poorly managed lung conditions are more susceptible to environmental factors such as air pollution, wintry weather and poor-quality housing, all of which, sadly, are applicable to the communities and people who live in the areas surrounding Walleys Quarry in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I would be grateful if the Minister took some time today—I am happy to talk at another time, too—to discuss strengthening the powers and scope of the UK Health Security Agency, because although it has an important role to play, most of that role is currently advisory.

As colleagues have highlighted—the hon. Member for Strangford certainly did—lung conditions are more strongly associated with deprivation than any other major health condition. Sadly, the result of these combined factors is clear and, as the hon. Member noted, respiratory conditions are the largest driver of A&E admissions each winter. Thousands of people living with undiagnosed and poorly managed respiratory conditions end up in A&E, adding even more strain to a national health service that is already under strain.

Last year, across the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent integrated care board, 3,765 people were admitted to hospital in an emergency due to a lung condition. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care reiterated this new Labour Government’s ambition to reform our national health service, but it is clear that that will not be achieved without prioritising respiratory health and care. That is entirely in line with the shifting focuses: from treatment to prevention, which has my full support; and from hospital to community care, where most respiratory care happens anyway. The Department should introduce a recovery fund of over £40 million over two years to increase the availability of testing. I know that is a big ask and I understand the financial pressures, but it would result in savings of £80 million for the national health service in reduced exacerbations, as well as a reduction of 85,474 hospital bed days.

Lastly, I want to touch on the link between waste crime and respiratory health. This morning, I received an email from Councillor Robert Bettley-Smith, the chair of Betley parish council in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Although he is in a different party from mine, I appreciate the spirit in which he works with me as we seek to serve the people who elected us. Councillor Bettley-Smith noted the continuing activity on the land at Doddlespool Hall farm in my constituency. I will not go into all the detail, but the link between waste crime and the disposal of waste generally has a huge impact on respiratory health. Councillor Bettley-Smith noted that, apart from the waste issue, there appears to be evidence, based on smoke and smell, that tyres or similar materials are being burned, and have been burned in the last week or so. The failures to regulate the waste sector under the previous Government must be put right by this new one, and I look forward to working with Ministers across Government to do exactly that.

There is a financial issue here, an environmental one and of course a health one too. I urge the excellent Minister to ensure that respiratory health is prioritised in the forthcoming 10-year plan for our beloved national health service and, importantly, in the upcoming review of the long-term workforce plan. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for introducing this debate, and I look forward to working with him, with the Minister and with colleagues across the House on these issues in the months and years ahead.

14:06

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. We spent many years working on these issues together, when I was in opposition.

[Jim Shannon]

I am still here in opposition, but the hon. Lady is now over there on the Government Benches.

[Liz Twist]

We worked together as part of the APPG for respiratory health. I pay tribute to the work of that APPG’s members, as well as to the clinicians and patient organisations involved, including Asthma and Lung UK and Action for Pulmonary Fibrosis.

Respiratory illnesses have a disproportionate impact on the most deprived communities. In my constituency of Blaydon and Consett, the rates of conditions such as COPD are particularly elevated, and I have seen at first hand in my surgeries over the years how debilitating they can be; they can affect every part of a person’s life, from their mobility to their mental health, and tackling them is key to tackling health inequalities. Deprivation is linked not only to heightened rates of respiratory illness, but to faster rates of progression and poorer outcomes. That is true for terminal diagnoses such as pulmonary fibrosis, which has outcomes similar to common cancers, as well as for more common conditions such as asthma, which has seen a 25% increase in deaths over the past 10 years.

We know that the biggest driver of preventable lung disease is smoking, which is responsible for half of the difference in life expectancy between our richest and poorest communities. I am pleased that this Government are taking the decisive action that is needed to protect future generations through legislation, and I am particularly proud of the work that has been done over a number of years by Fresh, which sees public health and ICBs working together to tackle this issue.

Access to timely diagnoses and appropriate clinical pathways is vital for ensuring that people get the best possible treatment, but such access varies between conditions and areas of the UK. Of about 1.7 million people living with COPD in the UK, 600,000 are undiagnosed. Meanwhile, one person in every three has never heard of pulmonary fibrosis, which can lead to people receiving incorrect diagnoses, such as asthma. Incorrect diagnoses of severe asthma are common among children with the genetic condition primary ciliary dyskinesia. It is not a mild condition. In fact, children with PCD—I am not going to try to say it again—have a worse lung function than children with cystic fibrosis. It is vital that we do what we can to raise awareness of these conditions, including the rare condition of PCD, and their impact, whether they are primarily genetic in nature or driven by preventable causes.

We know that our NHS is in a really difficult place, following 14 years of Conservative mismanagement. We lost 14 years in which we could have made progress to improve the lives of people living with these conditions, but instead, they were left extremely vulnerable to the pandemic, following a decade of under-investment and disastrous top-down reorganisation by the previous Government. That is not the fault of our NHS staff, who are working hard to provide services in very difficult situations—I want to be clear about that—but the state of our health service at present was laid bare in the Darzi report just a few weeks ago. Among many other things, the report specifically notes the poor outcomes for respiratory conditions in people with learning disabilities, as well as the link between the rise in these conditions and the growing levels of damp often found in the private rented sector.

We have a long road to travel to fix the problems we have inherited, but I am proud to serve under a Government who are committed to huge investment in our NHS, and who have already made key steps towards a prevention agenda. Better public health and community care will be really important for tackling respiratory conditions and the shocking health inequalities that follow from them. I know that the Government have a sharp focus on preventive measures, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford, and will look at how we can best improve our access to diagnostics and treatments, including biologics, for respiratory health.

14:12

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing forward this important issue. Lung diseases are sadly prevalent in my constituency of Sherwood Forest. Diagnosis is often slow and prognosis is often devastating. Health inequalities in my constituency are stark, with people in the south of Nottinghamshire living an average seven and a half years longer than those living in the north of my constituency. Significant work across Nottinghamshire is being done regarding the diagnosis of lung cancer, and rightly so, but there are serious gaps in pathways for those suffering from lung diseases such as pulmonary fibrosis.

Pulmonary fibrosis is a devastating disease, and its impact is felt acutely by those affected. I know at first hand that this relentless and often rapidly progressing condition drastically changes the lives of the people affected and their loved ones. They face a daily struggle of breathlessness, constant fatigue and the immense mental toll of facing a terminal illness with very limited treatment options. Simple tasks such as walking across a room become an enormous challenge.

Yet pulmonary fibrosis lacks a focus that it desperately needs. Many people receive their diagnosis far too late, partly because the symptoms are often mistaken for less severe respiratory issues, and long waits for access to specialist care and life-extending treatment are very common. The disparities in access to these life-enhancing resources are unacceptable and must be addressed. Health inequalities play a significant role in accessing pulmonary fibrosis care, with those coming from a socially deprived background and living further from one of the few specialist centres likely to die sooner. I welcome the Secretary of State’s call for more specialist care to be available closer to home, as the current situation is particularly problematic for pulmonary fibrosis.

I welcome the work of the national charity Action for Pulmonary Fibrosis in bringing together the community to implement a new pathway to improve many of the issues, and I hope the NHS will continue to focus on the implementation of that work. We have the opportunity to redesign services in a way that better aligns with local population needs and therefore enhances patient outcomes. I place on the record my thanks to those in the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS trust who work in respiratory care, particularly the lung nursing team, the healthcare assistants and Dr Saini, who are working endlessly to improve both diagnosis and prognosis. I know that at first hand, as sadly my father suffers from this cruel disease, and I have subsequently met many other sufferers and their carers.

People with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis are often misunderstood, as it has no known identified cause. They often feel lost and always feel ignored. The work to improve healthcare systems for pulmonary fibrosis requires collective effort, and I hope that today’s debate will pave the way for significant strides forward in how we address this heartbreaking disease so that those suffering are heard and understood.

14:16

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for all his work on the APPG for respiratory health. As has been said, it is a hugely important issue, given the sheer number of people affected and killed every year and the huge amount of resources taken from the NHS.

It was good to hear everyone talk about a holistic approach, because this issue is not purely about NHS services. Most people have discussed the importance of air quality and pollution, and the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) acknowledged that people living in poverty are more likely to suffer. I think they are five times more likely to die from COPD and about three times more likely to die from asthma. There are a whole variety of reasons for that, one being air pollution. In the village of Twyford near Winchester, one of our fantastic Lib Dem councillors has been campaigning for years to improve air quality and reduce pollution due to traffic. She is a former doctor, and one of her main motivations is to try to improve outcomes for asthma and children’s respiratory health.

The Minister and I were in this Chamber about a week ago to discuss housing. It was acknowledged that the UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe, with a lot of it have been built before world war two. Again, the link between people living in poverty and living in substandard housing is very strong. I am probably not the only Member who receives correspondence from individuals in private housing association accommodation who struggle to get a response from organisations when they encounter problems such as mould.

Living in substandard housing is bad not only for physical health, but for the environment and carbon dioxide emissions. Last week, we discussed a huge programme to try to improve the housing of people living in poverty, because it is good for the environment and for people’s health. We should remember that the NHS spends about £1.5 billion a year dealing directly with issues, such as damp and cold, that have arisen from people living in poor and substandard housing, so the comorbidities are huge.

I am mindful talking about the clinical treatment of respiratory diseases when the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), is actually a doctor and I am a rudimentary veterinary surgeon, but respiratory disease is a common disease that we treat in horses. By improving the surroundings they are in—by getting rid of dust and improving ventilation—we can get the huge majority of them off medication entirely. It is the same with groups of cattle, which are housed over the winter. Respiratory diseases have a huge impact on farmers’ productivity, but through a combination of improving accommodation, improving ventilation and vaccination, we can get fewer illnesses and better productivity. That would be more cost-effective for the farmer and we would use fewer antibiotics.

It is exactly the same with public health. Treating people who have got sick because they live in substandard conditions is an endless task, but getting to the root cause of the problem will have huge knock-on effects throughout society.

Vaccines in human and veterinary medicine are always the most cost-effective health intervention. They are better for patients and the taxpayer and, importantly, they help us to avoid using antibiotics unnecessarily. The World Health Organisation has noted that antimicrobial resistance is one of the biggest health challenges facing the world right now. Interestingly, vaccine hesitancy is another, so we should monitor levels of vaccination uptake, because the tripledemic, as people call it, of flu, covid and respiratory syncytial virus affects people all year round, but especially in the winter.

Slightly concerningly, it seems that 280,000 fewer NHS staff have been vaccinated this year compared with 2019, even though there are now slightly more frontline staff. Will the Minister explore why that is the case? Is it due to concerns about the vaccination or a lack of access to it? For example, I want to get vaccinated, but I just have not had the time yet this year, and that could be the problem for many people.

Vaccinating pregnant women against RSV is a hugely important intervention that helps to prevent babies under six months old from getting really sick. Most people just get a cold from RSV, but tens of thousands of babies every year are admitted to hospital with it, and it can be hugely damaging in the long run.

I have touched on holistic approaches to respiratory disease, but it is worth looking at other health conditions. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned the work on smoking cessation, which is hugely important, but it is also worth noting the work on obesity. If a person is obese, any underlying respiratory issues are much more difficult to manage and treat, and the symptoms can often be exacerbated. We need to focus on public health interventions such as improving the quality of our food, including free school meals. I hope that, given the financial constraints the NHS is currently working under, we do not view public health as a cost to be cut, because in the long run we desperately need to invest in it to stop people getting sick and ending up in hospital.

We will not prevent every disease, no matter how hard we try. People will still get sick for a whole variety of reasons, including with COPD, asthma and lung cancer, and they will need long-term management. In our manifesto, we called for people with long-term conditions to be able to see a named GP so that they get continuity of care from someone who is very familiar with their case. Seeing someone different every time causes patients a lot of stress and sometimes results in miscommunication.

We discussed air pollution earlier. During the general election, we called for a new clean air Act, based on World Health Organisation recommendations and ideally enforced by a clean air agency. Will the Minister look seriously at that proposal, and consider other suggestions about working hard on local pollution levels, working to improve vaccination rates and housing standards, and working to ensure that anyone diagnosed with any type of cancer, but particularly lung cancer, sees a consultant within 62 days of being referred?

[Adam Jogee]

I omitted to put on the record earlier what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.

Before my election to this House, I spent five years working with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), who shadowed the Minister responsible for air quality, so I spent a lot of time working on these issues, particularly in respect of the World Health Organisation guidelines. Will the hon. Gentleman find the time for a cup of tea with me, so that we can see what we can do together to make the progress we all want to see?

[Dr Chambers]

Yes, I will. I live off tea—it is the only way I get through the day—and I have a particular interest in air quality, so it could be a really enjoyable meeting. As this debate is not going on for as long as the hon. Member for Strangford would like, he could come and speak with us as well.

As I was saying, a clean air Act and a named doctor are among our proposals. We are heading into winter, which NHS staff must dread: it is always busier than other periods, and a whole load of respiratory issues add to the winter pressures on the NHS. I thank and pay tribute to all the NHS workers who are heading into this very difficult time. We must do whatever we can to support them, whether that is helping them to get their vaccinations or helping them in any other way.

14:26

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. This is my first day in my new role; it seems appropriate to take over this brief and speak in a debate on respiratory illness, because dealing with respiratory illness was my first ward job as a junior doctor. I worked for four months in accident and emergency department in the west midlands, and then my first ward job was dealing with respiratory conditions in Solihull hospital, so I have seen up front just how important respiratory medicine is.

I put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. He may often get called last in the main Chamber, but he clearly has a trick for successfully securing debates. I look forward to perhaps having a cup of tea with him to learn how he is so successful.

It is both a blessing and a curse to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) make the same argument that his predecessor made about the quality of air in his constituency. I gather that it is a tip that causes a huge amount of problems there, and I hope he has success in getting the issue sorted. I also hope he takes some comfort from the fact that the previous Government passed the Environment Act 2021 to put in place legal limits to try to improve air quality and, of course, offered air-quality grants.

There is clearly an interest in respiratory conditions in both the east and west midlands, given the contribution from the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), who is no longer in his place. Having worked over in the west midlands, I have now transferred to the clearly better east midlands.

[Adam Jogee]

I gently push back on the narrative that the previous Government made the sort of progress in tackling the issues at Walleys Quarry that the shadow Minister just implied. My constituents continue, on a daily basis, to deal with the worst effects of the hydrogen sulphide levels that the site emits. Hydrogen sulphide is a heavy gas and there are schools around the area. The impact on our children and the respiratory health of young lungs is massively underrated and fails to be part of the conversation. I invite the shadow Minister to come to Walleys Quarry and to Newcastle-under-Lyme to smell the situation for himself.

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful for that offer, and if there is a cup of tea involved that may well be a consideration too. Perhaps we could all go there as a group on a cross-party trip.

[Adam Jogee]

There has been a lot of sobriety in this debate so, rather than having a cup of tea, I will take the shadow Minister to the Waggon and Horses pub in Newcastle-under-Lyme for a slightly colder refreshment.

[Dr Evans]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that offer.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) on her work in the APPG. She was of course right to highlight smoking as a big problem, and health inequalities are also important. We also know that people experiencing health inequalities generally struggle to access healthcare, let alone healthcare for respiratory conditions—we have not even discussed the equipment and expertise needed to deal with such conditions.

The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) spoke about pulmonary fibrosis, a really important condition that is not given the precedence it deserves given how debilitating it is for patients who suffer with it. I pay special tribute to her for raising that issue so powerfully and so emotionally. She is a true champion for doing something about a condition that is not thought about nearly enough.

The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) is absolutely right about holistic approaches. They are outside the remit of this debate, but housing, environment and smoking are of course all big factors. We have not even talked about comorbidities yet. We know that people over the age of 60 are usually on several medications and may have heart problems or musculoskeletal problems as well. That will have a really big impact.

With regard to the hon. Member being a vet, I think I am right in thinking that he is still allowed to practise on humans, while I certainly am not allowed to practise on pets. That is not something for a debate today, but I think it is noteworthy; if there is a problem you should rush to him too, Mr Rosindell. What he said about antimicrobial resistance is really interwoven into everything, because there is a danger of over-prescriptions for chest infections that turn out to be viruses. That is a really problematic issue that is growing, and it is the next probable pandemic, with no easy solution. He is right to highlight that.

I thank the members of the APPG for all the work they do, led by the hon. Member for Strangford. It is really important to be able to get a debate and raise these issues, and to have the infrastructure behind the members to support the team in dealing with and producing updates.

I myself have a personal history with respiratory medicine, having ended up on the intensive care unit with bilateral pneumonia after an appendicectomy in my late 20s. It has left me, at previous times, at a brittle asthma clinic. There were many attempts to diagnose what was going on, but nothing was ever found. I had to be treated with repeated steroids and felt, full on, what it is like to suddenly not be able to breathe, not be able to exercise and have that ability taken away.

When they are listening to this debate, the key thing for the public to realise is just how important our breathing really is. A breathing condition is so seminal to everything we do. There is a reason why in an emergency it is ABCDE, or airway, breathing, circulation, disability, exposure: because breathing is quite literally life. Many people have experienced having that taken away a little bit by getting covid; that has at least made people aware of just how bad viral illnesses can be.

Turning to some of the other conditions that we have not talked about—I feel like I am back in one of my medical exams in the fifth year—we have heard about asthma and COPD, but we have not talked about pulmonary embolisms, pneumoconiosis or TB. We did hear about cystic fibrosis, but we have not heard about mesothelioma or sarcoidosis. Pneumonia is a really important one to talk about too, as is lung cancer, and there are probably some that I have missed.

Respiratory conditions are really important: they make up the third place for all deaths, so they need that attention. I was therefore pleased to see the last Government come forward with the community diagnostic centres—170 community diagnostic centres going up across the country to get better access to MRI scans, CT scans or blood tests. Those will be really important, and I was lucky to have a £24 million investment for a CDC in Hinckley, which will have MRI and CT scanners, and is being built as we speak. That will be transformative for my community when they are caught between two big centres towards Nuneaton and Leicester. I hope those measures will mean that respiratory conditions play an important part in the hospital rebuild programme and the current review, and that we will ensure we have the apparatus and equipment to support them.

Turning to the nitty-gritty of the debate, I entirely agree with the idea of prevention. The Conservatives brought forward measures to deal with smoking. I hope that as the Government step forward with further ideas of how to tackle smoking and push for a smoke-free generation, we will be looking at that very closely.

The hon. Member for Strangford really hit on a point about data. Health policy must be driven by decent data, and the APPG’s work highlights how respiratory conditions tend to fall behind in that. I have questions for the Minister about what work is being done now only on the simple matter of how we record things, but on how we can join up that dataset. For example, in my constituency we have two boundaries; we are caught between North Warwickshire and Leicestershire when getting answers to tests. An asthmatic does not have an asthma attack directly where they live—they could be on holiday. Sharing information on what has happened with treatment and investigations is really important.

That leads me on to spirometry. Spirometry is key, but where it is and how it is achieved is too sporadic, as is the skillset to deliver it. Then, of course, we have FENO—fractional exhaled nitric oxide—which can help to aid the diagnosis of asthma. That will be key, and the Opposition look forward to seeing what the new BTS guidelines, worked up with NICE, show on dealing with asthma.

I have a couple more questions for the Minister. I appreciate that this is not her brief, so I should be grateful if she passed on any questions she cannot answer for a written response. We have heard that the likes of the RSV vaccine are really important; new vaccines are coming out to tackle this huge problem for the elderly and the young. The vaccine was introduced for those aged between 75 and 80, but it would be interesting to see whether there is scope to grow that and see who else is responsive. I gather from work done by my Opposition colleagues that there is still some debate to be had and evidence to be gathered on what that would look like. I would appreciate it if the Minister took that point away. What steps are the Government taking to increase the uptake of flu and pneumonia vaccinations? Prevention is better than cure.

Finally, it was mentioned that the last Government looked at chronic health strategies. It appears that the new Government have decided to take a different tack with chronic conditions. I appreciate that that is their prerogative, but there is a danger that we could have a lag. The data that has been gathered, the research that has been looked at and the policies that have been structured for the past five years or so could fall by the wayside, even though we have heard how much of an emergency it is to deal with respiratory conditions. Could the Minister clarify whether interested parties will need to resubmit the work they have done, or whether the work will be a continuation within the new structure that the Government are planning? Is there any timescale on what that would look like?

Clearly the Conservative Government were unable to get the long-term health strategies in place in time before the election. Time is ticking on, and we have a winter coming up. It is really important for organisations to understand where they stand. Christmas is coming up, and I well know from my time as a GP—I should declare an interest, as my wife is a GP as well—that Christmas is the busiest time, and respiratory conditions are one of the top reasons for that. If anyone out there is listening, getting vaccinated is imperative. I advise everyone to do so.

We know that the staff of these organisations will go above and beyond when they see someone struggling for breath. They will take their time to get the right history and get medication and treatment in place. We give them our greatest thanks, from the Opposition side of the House, for all the work they have done and will do in the busy Christmas period. I am sure that that sentiment is shared by the Government.

14:37

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, for the first time in my new role. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate on an important issue, and I thank other Members for their contributions.

As the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, I am covering for my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne). I am pleased to do so. We had an outing this morning, and I was able to talk to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth earlier, whose first ward area was in this area as a medic. I must say that he is getting his money’s worth out of the NHS at the moment—I hope he does not have to do that again.

One of my jobs as a manager some 15 years ago was with the British Thoracic Society and primary care leading physicians on COPD. It was a project about living and dying with COPD and helping people to understand the disease and navigate it. I learned an awful lot about respiratory disease at that time and how people live and die with it. I commend that work.

I am shocked at some of what we have heard this afternoon and what I found in preparing for this debate about quite how poor things are, and that some basic preventive measures we were talking about 15, 16 or 17 years ago are still not in place. I am really happy to be responding this afternoon. I am not sure I will be able to satisfy everyone’s requests, but I can say on behalf of the Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton, that he will be happy to accept the invitation to the roundtable that the hon. Member for Strangford talks about, and his expertise will be better there than mine. We are keen to pursue that conversation with the hon. Gentleman and the all-party parliamentary group.

As we have heard, one in five of us will be affected by a chronic respiratory disease at some point in our life. These conditions are, sadly, the third biggest contributor to years of life lost in England. Many people out and about using public transport will know the symptoms of poor respiratory health. They might associate a wheezing or raking cough with being indicative of a smoker, but not all ill health is about personal choice. In fact, this common symptom belies a huge range of conditions, only some of them related to smoking and each requiring different interventions. On all those conditions, we are taking forward a combination of immediate bold actions and long-term reforms.

The Government are taking radical action to create the first smoke-free generation. We are clamping down on kids getting hooked on vapes and protecting children and vulnerable people from second-hand smoke. Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product and smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, disability and ill health. The statistics are stark: smoking claims the lives of about 80,000 people a year in the UK and kills up to two thirds of its long-term users. Second-hand or passive smoke is extremely harmful to health. There is no safe level of exposure to smoke: if we can smell cigarette smoke, we are inhaling it. Smoke is harmful, particularly to children, pregnant women or people with pre-existing health conditions such as asthma or heart disease, which may not be visible to the smoker.

Our Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which we introduced last week, will be the single biggest public health intervention since the last Labour Government banned smoking in indoor public spaces. The Bill’s primary aim is to create a smoke-free generation by gradually ending the sale of tobacco products throughout the country and breaking the cycle of addiction and disadvantage, so that someone born after 2009 will never be able to legally buy tobacco. This landmark legislation will also enable the Government to strengthen the existing ban on smoking in public places and to reduce the harms of passive smoking in certain outdoor settings. It will ban vapes and nicotine products from being promoted and advertised, to prevent the next generation from being hooked on nicotine.

We will hear all sorts of arguments against these sorts of policies, with people saying it is the nanny state or that they are anti-growth. However, most smokers—myself included—always wish they had never started. They have had their choice taken away by addiction induced at a young age by the tobacco industry. I remind Members present that smoking costs the economy and wider society some £21.8 billion a year through lost productivity, smoking-related lost earnings, unemployment and early death, as well as the cost to the NHS and social care of over £3 billion. Our action will save thousands of lives and protect the NHS. I pay tribute to charities such as Action on Smoking and Health and Asthma and Lung UK, which have supported our work. Through our changes we will create a healthier society and, in doing so, boost the economy.

As we have heard this afternoon, smoking is only one example of how our respiratory health is influenced by our environment. Even though it has been almost 70 years since the first Clean Air Act was passed, what we breathe remains one of the greatest risks to public health in the UK. As the chief medical officer’s 2022 annual report on air pollution sets out, there is clear evidence that outdoor air pollution contributes to the initiation and development of respiratory diseases such as lung cancer. That is why the Government are committed to a preventive approach in this policy area. I assure people that we are taking a mission-led approach, working across Departments to improve air quality. We want to address the inequalities in the quality of the air that people breathe simply because of where they live.

The Department of Health and Social Care will support the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to deliver a comprehensive and ambitious clean air strategy. This will include a series of interventions to reduce emissions so that everyone’s exposure to air pollution is reduced. The UK Health Security Agency, which has been talked about this afternoon, is working closely with DEFRA to review how we communicate air-quality information to ensure that members of the public, and vulnerable groups in particular, have what they need to protect themselves.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for his work in support of his constituents with regard to Walleys Quarry. The Minister for Public Health and Prevention visited Newcastle-under-Lyme recently and will pursue those discussions with the Environment Agency.

The Government are also taking steps to reduce risks to respiratory health in people’s homes—a point addressed well by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). Living in a home with damp and mould increases the risk of respiratory illness and conditions such as asthma and COPD. It also affects symptom severity and the risk of death for individuals with existing respiratory conditions. We are therefore putting forward an initial £3.4 billion towards heat decarbonisation and household energy efficiency over the next three years, and £1.8 billion to support fuel poverty schemes. That means that over 225,000 households will receive help to reduce their energy bills by more than £200.

The hon. Members for Winchester, for Strangford and for Hinckley and Bosworth made excellent points about vaccinations. We want to encourage everyone, including ourselves—I look around the room, even at myself; I am slightly behind on my flu vaccine—to do all we can ourselves and to encourage others to take up vaccines and prevent some of the related problems.

We recognise, however, that not all ill health can be prevented, so we need to act to help those who need treatment. I assure the hon. Member for Strangford and other contributors that respiratory disease remains a clinical priority.

The NHS long-term plan under the last Government set a series of objectives for improving outcomes for people with respiratory disease through early diagnosis and increased access to treatments. As we have heard, and as I have said, it is quite shocking that that basic objective is not being achieved everywhere. Access to checks and basic preventive care needs to be much better spread across the country. That is why we say that we want to take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. NHS England has 13 respiratory clinical networks across the country, which are vital in providing clinical leadership across primary and secondary care for respiratory services and supporting services in primary care, where of course most patient contact is.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for highlighting pulmonary fibrosis. I wish her father and her family well. She is absolutely right that early and accurate diagnosis is a priority for NHS England. Work to make improvements is under way, and that should have an impact on reducing delayed diagnoses of pulmonary fibrosis. As I understand it, access to these treatments has recently been expanded to patients with non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, following the publication of the NICE technology appraisal for treating progressive fibrosing lung diseases. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend, who spoke so eloquently today.

As the hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme, for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) and for Sherwood Forest highlighted, COPD is a major contributor to inequalities in life expectancy and in healthy life expectancy. People living in the most deprived parts of the country are five times more likely to die from COPD than those in the least deprived. I have seen that both in my previous work with those working in the NHS and since becoming the Member of Parliament for Bristol South in 2015. My constituency was home to the Wills tobacco company, a huge employer in the area over many decades. Its legacy can be seen in many different ways, but particularly in the very high rates of smoking in my constituency—up to 32% in some parts. The reduced lives lived in good health, and those shocking early deaths, are things that I see every day. The impact is still very apparent in the shocking statistics on health inequality across my home city of Bristol.

Let me assure hon. Members that this issue remains a priority for all of us in this Government. Reducing health inequalities is a key part of our mission. That requires us to work across Government, and it runs across all parts of Government. In NHS England, Core20PLUS5 is a national approach to inform action to reduce healthcare inequalities at both national and local system level. The approach provides a vehicle for targeted interventions to detect and treat the diseases that are major contributors to life expectancy as well as pressures on the NHS.

We know that there is a particular risk of condition exacerbation around the winter, leading to emergency treatment in hospital and in-patient care. That is why the focus of the Core20PLUS5 action on respiratory health this year has been to increase vaccination uptake, including covid-19, flu and pneumovax, which can protect against serious illnesses such as pneumonia and meningitis.

NHS England is leading on the development of an approach for COPD management. This will support proactive identification and management of risk in patients in winter, to reduce demand on primary and secondary care. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett was absolutely right to highlight the low levels of diagnosis, the number of people living with COPD and other respiratory diseases, and the impact on children that we might not even know about. The plan is to test and evaluate this approach in four sites this winter to help inform decisions on winter planning in the future.

On severe asthma and access to biologic treatment, significant work has been undertaken through the NHS England severe asthma collaborative to develop the capacity of the severe asthma centres. That important work includes streamlining patient pathways to biologic therapy and reducing variation in prescribing and patient management. Patient outcomes are now submitted to the UK severe asthma registry. That has led to improved identification of patients with potential severe asthma in primary and secondary care, resulting in referral to severe asthma centres for consideration of eligibility for biologic therapy.

Action to address avoidable deaths from asthma has not gone far enough. That is why we are working to ensure that asthma care has a higher prioritisation within systems, for example through the national bundle of care for children and young people with asthma workstream, which is intended to improve outcomes for children and young people with asthma.

Looking further forward, a central mission of the Government is to build healthcare that is fit for the future. As hon. Members have noted, our 10-year health plan will focus on the three shifts needed to deliver a modern NHS: from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from sickness to prevention. That is a long-term challenge and those shifts will take time to deliver, so the plan will consider what immediate actions are needed to get the NHS back on its feet and bring waiting lists down, as well as the longer-term changes needed to make the health service fit for the future.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for his commitment to respond to our engagement exercise. I encourage all organisations and individuals to contribute to the 10-year plan at change.nhs.uk. We are keen to work with the public, patients and our partners in all the organisations that support this work. We will listen and co-design the plan with them.

Disease-specific and more general long-term conditions that affect people’s health are a very live issue. Given the level of comorbidities with which people currently live, it is important to look at the person as well as the diseases. We will continue to look at that as part of the development of the 10-year plan; I know that all hon. Members will take an active part in that process. The hon. Gentleman will tell me if there is anything to which I have not responded.

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth asked for an update on the RSV vaccine. As part of my portfolio working on urgent and emergency care, we are looking closely at a vaccine update, as well as at the presentation of very young children with respiratory disease in the emergency care system; I am sure that he is aware of that issue. If there is anything else that he would like to know, I will ensure that he is written to. On spirometry and fractional exhaled nitric oxide tests, a look at the NICE guidelines is long overdue, so I hope that we see some more progress on that. If I have missed something, Members may write to the Minister for Public Health and Prevention and he will respond very promptly.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford and the APPG for raising the issue. I am genuinely very pleased to see it being raised. As a contributor to admissions and inequalities, it is a very serious disease and we need to highlight it. I thank him for the invitation to take part in a discussion with healthcare professionals on the way ahead for respiratory health. My ministerial colleagues look forward to discussing that further.

14:53

[Jim Shannon]

I thank everyone for their incredibly helpful contributions. It is no secret that I always look for a consensual debate, because that is more positive. That is what we have had today.

We have had the opportunity to discuss many issues. With your indulgence, Mr Rosindell, I will speak to each. Since coming to this House, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Lyme—

[Adam Jogee]

On a point of order, Mr Rosindell. My constituency is Newcastle-under-Lyme, not Newcastle-upon-Lyme as several colleagues have called it.

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

That will be on the record.

[Jim Shannon]

I will never get it wrong again. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for his contribution. Air quality has been a massive issue for him since he came to this House; he has reiterated that over and over again. I am hopeful that he will have the success for which he hopes. He referred to deprivation and low incomes as factors. Priority for respiratory health is needed, as the Minister confirmed. The hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) rightly referred to the need for regular asthma check-ups.

It is always a pleasure to work alongside the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist). She and I have talked about this issue over the past five or six years. It was a pleasure to hear her contribution, which included first-hand evidence from her surgery. I agree that we need improved access to diagnostics and medical help.

I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for her personal contribution; nothing tells a story better than a personal contribution. As the Minister says, we hope that her family members are able to deal with their issues in a positive fashion, and hopefully the medical care will be there as well. The hon. Lady referred to how the disease drastically changes lives, with some people being unable to walk. She also focused on charity work, which is really important.

The hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referred to air pollution, as his party has done for many years. He underlined the problems and the impact on children, and he referred to our old housing stock. These are critical issues. We sometimes forget about farmer’s lung, but those who live in the countryside do not, because it is a big issue. He also referred to RSV, the impact on pregnant women and the importance of vaccination.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), reminded us that his first job related to this issue. That has allowed him to make an incredible input into the debate: we thank him for everything that he has put forward. It is fair to say that the last Government had a plan, but a more holistic approach is needed. I thank him for his role on the APPG. Prevention is absolutely the way to go, and data is important. He also mentioned spirometry.

The Minister responded in excellent fashion. I wrote down all the things she said. I thank her for committing to a meeting. I am sure that her colleague the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne) will be watching the debate and will respond. She referred to her former job and vocation, in which she had dealings with COPD directly. I am also grateful for the roundtable commitment. The Government have committed to a smoke-free society, on which a Bill is pending: that will be important in preventing lung cancer, especially for children. She also referred to damp in homes, an incredibly important issue that comes up all the time in the main Chamber.

The Minister responded very positively, if I may say so, to all the issues on which we required answers, including vaccinations, energy efficiency and fuel poverty. The respiratory network across the nation deals with COPD and major contributors to respiratory health issues, and the Government are committed to it. Respiratory health and biologics are priorities for the Government. It is not often that we have a debate with so much input from everyone, and yet we have a Minister who answers all the questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered respiratory health.

14:58

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 14th November 2024 Written Statements

Thursday 14 November 2024

New Coal Extraction Licences: Prohibition

Thursday 14th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

First, I would like to give thanks to the hundreds of thousands of workers across the United Kingdom who have dedicated themselves to the coal extraction industry that helped power the industrial revolution for the sacrifices they have made.

At the end of September 2024, Great Britain’s last coal fired electricity power plant, Ratcliffe-on-Soar, closed after over 50 years in service. This marks the right time to take further steps to move away from coal by restricting its future supply.

It is our intention to change coal extraction policy through primary legislation to restrict future licensing of all new coal mines. We anticipate this will involve measures to amend the Coal Industry Act 1994 to prevent the prospective granting of licences. We will examine what limited exceptions may be required—for example, for safety or restoration purposes—and there are a small number of licensed operational coal mines that will be unaffected by the measures and can continue coal mining in accordance with their current licences and consents.

The measures we will bring forward, when timing allows, mean we will be one of the first countries in the world to ban new coal mines, allowing us to focus our efforts on revitalising our industrial heartlands, supporting the transition to new jobs in clean energy across the United Kingdom, and creating industries of the future. It marks a clear signal to industry, markets and the world that coal mining in the United Kingdom does not have a long-term future.

[HCWS215]

Diplomatic Immunity: Alleged Serious and Significant Offences 2023

Thursday 14th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)]

In 2023, nine serious and significant offences allegedly committed by people entitled to diplomatic or international organisation-related immunity in the United Kingdom were drawn to the attention of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office by the parliamentary and diplomatic protection unit of the Metropolitan Police Service, or other law enforcement agencies.

We define serious offences as those which could, in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment or more. Also included are other significant offences, such as driving without insurance, certain types of assault and cruelty to or neglect of a child.

Around 26,500 people are entitled to diplomatic or international organisation-related immunity in the UK and the vast majority of diplomats and dependants abide by UK law. The number of alleged serious offences committed by members of the diplomatic community in the UK is proportionately low.

Under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations 1961 and related legislation, we expect those entitled to immunity to obey the law. The FCDO does not tolerate foreign diplomats or dependants breaking the law.

We take all allegations of illegal activity seriously. When the police or other law enforcement agencies bring instances of alleged criminal conduct to our attention, we ask the relevant foreign Government or international organisation to waive immunity, where appropriate, to facilitate further investigation. For the most serious offences, and when a relevant waiver has not been granted, we request the immediate withdrawal of the diplomat or dependant.

Listed below are alleged serious and significant offences reported to the FCDO by UK law enforcement agencies in 2023.

Possession/distribution of indecent images of children

Iraq 1

Driving without insurance

Fiji 1

Pakistan 1

Assault

Ghana 1

Libya 1

Mongolia 1

Sexual Assault

Libya 1

Indecent Exposure

Portugal 1

Cruelty to or Neglect of a Child

Singapore 1

Figures for previous years are available in the written statement made to the House by then Under-Secretary of State for Americas and Caribbean on 14 September 2023 (HCWS1028), which can be found at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-09-14/hcws1028

[HCWS1028]

Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations: Debts 2023-24

Thursday 14th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)]

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials have regular contact with diplomatic missions and international organisations in the UK about outstanding national non-domestic rates payments, outstanding parking fine debt and unpaid London congestion charge debt, to press for payment of outstanding debt and fines. The protocol directorate wrote in February 2024 to all diplomatic missions and international organisations about their obligations to pay the charges, fines and taxes for which they are liable, and has since written again to those missions with outstanding debt to give them the opportunity to either pay outstanding debts, or to appeal against specific fines and charges that they consider incorrectly recorded.

National non-domestic rates

The majority of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom pay the national non-domestic rates due from them. Diplomatic missions and international organisations are obliged to pay only 6% of the total NNDR value of their offices. This represents payment for specific services received, such as street cleaning and street lighting.

As at 17 October 2024, the total amount of outstanding NNDR payments arising from invoices issued to 31 December 2023 is £4,142,255. Representations in 2024 by the protocol directorate of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to missions and organisations has led to the settlement of over £869,000 of outstanding debts owed by a number of missions and organisations. We continue to urge all those with NNDR debt to pay their dues.

Diplomatic premises of the following countries and international organisations have balances in excess of £10,000 in respect of NNDR for invoices issued up to 31 December 2023:

Director of Labour Market Enforcement: Interim Annual Strategy 2024-25

Thursday 14th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

Alongside the Minister with responsibility for employment rights, competition and markets, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), I am today publishing the labour market enforcement annual strategy for 2024-25, submitted by the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, Margaret Beels OBE. The strategy will be available on gov.uk.

The director’s role was created by the Immigration Act 2016 to bring better focus and strategic co-ordination to the enforcement of labour market legislation by the three enforcement bodies which are responsible for state enforcement of specific employment rights:

The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate;

His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs national minimum and living wage enforcement team; and

The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

Under section 2 of the Act, the director is required to prepare an annual labour market enforcement strategy that assesses the scale and nature of non-compliance in the labour market, and sets priorities for future enforcement by the three enforcement bodies and the allocation of resources needed to deliver those priorities. The annual strategy, once approved, is laid before Parliament. The director is a statutory office-holder independent from Government, but accountable to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Home Secretary.

In line with the obligations under the Act, Margaret Beels submitted this strategy for 2024-25 on 25 March 2024—it has since been revised and resubmitted to the new administration. This strategy continues on from the 2023-24 strategy by using the same four themes to provide an assessment of the scale and nature of non-compliance, and notes sectors where the risk level has changed. The strategy sets out the DLME’s desire to achieve improved cohesion and join-up between the DLME and the three state enforcement bodies through non-legislative measures, including suggestions of where the enforcement bodies and sponsor departments should be focusing their efforts.

The Government’s view is that the enforcement bodies have been funded sufficiently to deliver the activities set out in the strategy. The DLME carried out stakeholder engagement for the 2024-25 strategy with a call for evidence. In previous years, the Government published a response to the strategy setting out the approach we will take to the recommendations. Following their submission, the enforcement bodies have had an opportunity to review the recommendations, and we have sought agreement on the recommendations ahead of publication of the strategy.

As part of the Government’s commitment and in line with the ambition set out in Make Work Pay, the Fair Work Agency will bring together existing state enforcement functions and incorporate a wider range of employment rights. The DLME, as do we, consider the recommendations to still be appropriate to not only co-ordinate the enforcement of labour market legislation currently, but to help pave the way for the FWA by continuing to support the close collaboration of the enforcement bodies.

I thank the DLME for her strategy and encourage her to continue to work closely with stakeholders and the enforcement bodies.

[HCWS219]

Criminal Legal Aid

Thursday 14th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Heidi Alexander)]

Today, I am announcing the Government’s response to the criminal legal aid “Crime Lower” consultation which was launched in January of this year. “Crime Lower” covers work carried out by legal aid providers at police stations, in the magistrates courts in relation to people accused of, or charged with criminal offences, prison law and work completed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission

Criminal legal aid is a vital part of the criminal justice system. It plays an important role in upholding the constitutional right to access to justice and a fair trial, providing an equality of arms between the prosecution and defence.

In response to the criminal legal aid independent review, the Ministry of Justice allocated additional investment in its 2024-25 budget to solicitors undertaking criminal legal aid work in police stations and the youth court. The “Crime Lower” consultation sought views on how best to distribute the additional £21.1 million funding for those schemes.

The Government are committed to supporting the sustainability of the criminal legal aid system and will invest an additional £2.9 million in the police station schemes, taking the total annual investment in response to the crime lower consultation to £24 million.

£18.5 million per annum will go into the police station fee schemes to begin the process of harmonising the different fees across different police stations.

£5.1 million per annum will be spent on a separate youth court fee scheme with enhanced fees for the most serious offences.

We are also introducing police station travel renumeration in relation to police station schemes with fewer than two providers, and the Isle of Wight. This reflects concerns around capacity challenges for specific schemes and is designed to incentivise providers from neighbouring schemes to pick up cases in these areas of concern. This will cost around £0.4 million per annum.

The consultation response has been published on gov.uk and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

[HCWS216]

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: UK Delegation

Thursday 14th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

The United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is as follows:

Full representatives

The right hon. the Lord Touhig (Leader of the UK delegation and Vice-Chair)

Dan Aldridge MP

Sir Christopher Chope MP

Cat Eccles MP

Linsey Farnsworth MP

Stephen Gethins MP

Lord German

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port

Leigh Ingham MP

Alicia Kearns MP

The right hon. the Lord Keen of Elie KC

James MacCleary MP

Perran Moon MP

Jake Richards MP

John Slinger MP

The right hon. the Baroness Taylor of Bolton

Tony Vaughan MP

Michelle Welsh MP

Substitute Members

Richard Baker MP

The right hon. the Lord Blencathra

The right hon. Dame Karen Bradley MP

Baroness Brinton

The right hon. the Baroness Chakrabarti

The right hon. the Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Baroness Helic

Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green

The right hon. Sir Edward Leigh MP

Kate Osamor MP

Kate Osborne MP

Manuela Perteghella MP

Mike Reader MP

Sam Rushworth MP

Elaine Stewart MP

The right hon. Valerie Vaz MP

Nadia Whittome MP

Baroness Wilcox of Newport

[HCWS220]

NATS Technical Failure: CAA Report

Thursday 14th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)]

The Civil Aviation Authority has today published the final report of the independent review, led by Jeff Halliwell and an expert panel, into the NATS technical IT failure of 28 August 2023. I would like to express my gratitude to the panel for its work.

In its final report, the panel has recognised that several factors contributed to the technical failure and that it is unlikely that the same unique set of circumstances would ever occur again, and that if they did, due to the actions already taken by NATS, the outcome would be different. While I am pleased that actions have been taken since the incident, it is critical that we ensure that consumers have confidence when travelling; that possible disruption is minimised; that there is resilience in the system; and that air passengers are informed of their rights should something go wrong.

The report estimates that over 700,000 passengers were impacted, with the total cost of the technical failure to industry and air passengers likely to have been between £75 million and £100 million.

The panel met with a wide range of industry stakeholders, including NATS, airlines and airports, international operators, and the Department for Transport. It has reached the conclusion that all relevant parts of the aviation sector need to work together better in the future when responding to major events such as the NATS technical failure.

The panel makes a total of 34 recommendations for future improvements for NATS (12), CAA (11), airlines/airports (6) and the Government (5) to respond to and deliver on.

The five recommendations that the Government have been asked to consider relate to improving consumer protections for aviation passengers, including giving the CAA additional powers and mandating alternative dispute resolution for all airlines operating in the UK.

The CAA will be responsible for monitoring delivery against the panel’s recommendations for all parties. It is important that progress is made and that actions taken deliver better outcomes for the consumer. I have therefore asked that the CAA produces a report in six months’ time to provide an update on the progress made in response to each of the 34 recommendations set out in today’s publication.

Air passenger rights are a priority for my Department, and we will look to introduce reforms when we can to provide air travellers with the highest level of protection possible.

[HCWS221]

East West Rail

Thursday 14th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Louise Haigh)]

East West Rail supports this Government’s mission to kickstart economic growth and productivity right across the Oxford-Cambridge region by providing easier and faster regional connectivity, opening up access to employment and skills training, and supporting new housing developments. By 2050, East West Rail is set to boost the Oxford-Cambridge regional economy by £6.7 billion every year.

The Oxford-Cambridge region is home to a number of research and development hubs across a variety of highly skilled and highly productive sectors, such as life sciences research at the Cambridge biomedical campus. East West Rail would provide these vital sites with the connectivity they need to increase their access to the talent pool and allow the region to compete better on the global stage, supporting up to 28,000 jobs in Cambridge alone.

East West Rail will also be crucial to ensuring that planned housing developments in the region are well connected, by joining newer settlements and housing to established conurbations in Cambridge, Bedford, Oxford, and Milton Keynes.

The first stage of East West Rail from Oxford to Bletchley and Milton Keynes is currently in delivery and will open in 2025. The Budget confirmed the acceleration of works on the Marston Vale line, ensuring that East West Rail services will run from Oxford to Milton Keynes and Bedford from 2030.

The next stage of the scheme is a non-statutory consultation, which will go live on 14 November 2024, and be followed by a statutory consultation, and then a development consent order application. This consultation will feature proposals on:

The new services and stations that will be provided by East West Rail for people living in the Oxford-Cambridge region;

Battery/overhead electrification as the baseline traction solution for the railway;

Options for how stations and services should be provided for the Marston Vale line (Bletchley-Bedford);

Redevelopment of Bedford station to address increased service levels and improve the passenger experience;

The closure of Bicester London road level crossing and other proposals related to level crossings;

The alignment of the railway and new east coast main line interchange station at Tempsford;

A new station at Cambourne and potential alterations to other stations along the line of route, including in the Cambridge area;

Options in the Oxford area to accommodate additional services.

The Department for Transport will also be issuing safeguarding directions for East West Rail today to protect land from conflicting development. I am placing a copy of the safeguarding directions in the Libraries of both Houses.

Taking forward these next steps for the East West Rail scheme reinforces this Government’s mission to kickstart economic growth and connectivity to unlock access to the skills, education, and jobs needed to deliver national growth and individual prosperity. The Department for Transport will work collaboratively with cross-Government partners, including the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government, to ensure a joined-up approach to growth and development in the region.

[HCWS222]

House of Lords

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Thursday 14 November 2024

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Personal Statement

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

11:06

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

I rise briefly to supplement the explanation given by the Chief Whip yesterday as to why I was not able to ask the fourth Oral Question. There was, I am afraid, a bit of a mix-up; I put down to ask the fourth Question today. Yesterday I was lecturing in Cambridge and could not possibly change the lecture. I discovered far too late that I was expected to do the Question yesterday. This was no one’s fault. I am blaming no one, but I would like the House to accept my apology for my part in this mix-up.

Voter Registration and Participation

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

11:07

Asked by

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase voter registration and participation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

My Lords, as set out in our manifesto, this Government are committed to improving electoral registration and democratic participation. We will lower the voting age to 16 for all UK elections to widen democratic participation and encourage a lifelong commitment to voting. We are also exploring options to improve registration, including using data and online services to facilitate registration and increase registration rates. Changes will be informed by evidence and user research.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, especially regarding data sharing. Can he assure me that he will give serious consideration to the Electoral Commission’s recommendation that there should be a requirement on public bodies to share data with electoral administrators? Will he also look at allowing young people to use, for example, student cards and travel cards as ID when voting, following the very welcome change to the use of veteran cards?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an excellent point. We are exploring options to utilise data held by public bodies to encourage electoral registration, including what more can be done to enable electoral administrators to obtain local data. We are working with the Electoral Commission on this. On voter identification documents, as part of our commitment to expanding the voter franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, we need to consider whether the requirements and patterns of ownership of identity documents for identification differ for younger voters. If we find that the list of accepted identification documents needs to be revised, the Government will bring forward proposals in due course.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister not acknowledge that one way to increase participation in elections is for Governments not to break the promises they make in the run-up to a general election—in particular by imposing taxes on working people, which they said they would not do?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, we are delivering on our manifesto. On voter registration and increasing participation, the Government are committed to encouraging democratic engagement among all electors, including young people. That is why we will bring forward legislation for 16 and 17 year-olds to be able to vote in UK elections. This Government believe that by building a strong foundation for democratic participation among young people, we can establish voting habits that will continue as they grow older.

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on all his efforts to ensure participation from local communities in Burnley. However, what are the Government doing in rural areas, where people have to travel long distances and transport and polling infrastructure are poor. How do we get young people there to vote?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an excellent point on the difference between urban and rural participation. My department, MHCLG, is working with other government departments to explore the potential use of their data and online services to help improve voter registration across all areas. Continued collaboration is essential to deliver the Government’s electoral reform agenda. We will work with academics, civil society groups, the Electoral Commission and the electoral sector across the country, particularly with local communities.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, have we not wasted millions on a national scheme of individual registration to deal with a problem of fraud confined to only a few inner-city areas? Was not the real reason for the scheme’s implementation no more than a deliberate attempt by the then Government to suppress the vote in disadvantaged, transient communities in Labour inner-city areas? Ministers should read the debate of 8 September 2020 on the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill, where deficiencies in electoral registration were fully exposed. We need to increase the vote, not spend money decreasing it.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I note my noble friend’s important points, but I assure him that the Government are committed to improving electoral registration and addressing low registration rates among various groups in society. We will examine different approaches and use the experience of other countries to inform our decisions.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome the inclusion of the Armed Forces veteran card for use as voter ID but note that there will be a further review. Can the Minister assure the House that the integrity of the ballot box will be maintained in any future changes that the Government make?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for making the point about the addition of the Armed Forces veteran card to the list of accepted documents for voter ID. On her very direct question, yes—it is in our manifesto.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, only 65% of 18 to 25 year-olds are registered to vote, compared with more than 95% of the over-65s. Will the Government now act urgently on the unanimous cross-party recommendation of this House’s Select Committee on electoral administration in 2013, and begin the process of automatically registering young people to vote when they are issued with their national insurance numbers and the DWP has checked on their nationality?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point and I have had the great pleasure of working with him on various SIs and, in particular, on the Elections Act 2022. The Government will explore all options to ensure that we increase voter participation. We believe that, by building a strong foundation of democratic participation among young people, we will establish voting habits that continue as they grow older. It is about delivering long-lasting, positive consequences for our democracy and building an informed and engaged electorate for the future. In the meantime, we are working on these issues and will bring proposals to the House.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, on voter participation, does the Minister recognise that a gross disservice to democracy has been perpetrated by all political parties—I am afraid I include my own—that base their election canvassing on so-called voter modelling algorithms and social profiling? They aim at getting only identified party supporters to turn out and leaving other voters undisturbed. Is it any surprise that there is a cynicism towards politics? Will the Government give serious consideration to adopting the STV system, in which every vote counts, to encourage inclusivity in our democratic processes?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, there was a lot stacked in the noble Lord’s question, but he makes an interesting point. I single out that turnout at the 2024 general election was 59.7%, which was the lowest since 2001. It was 7.6 percentage points lower than in 2019, so there is an issue with increasing voter participation but also an apathy with politics. The Prime Minister was very determined, as he started his premiership, to make sure that we reach out across all parts of our electoral system to ensure that people feel confident to get involved and participate in the system.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, in this digital age, is it not a disgrace that we depend on displaying rail cards, bus cards, Armed Forces cards and all sorts of other cards to combat fraud? Is the answer not staring us in the face? In this digital age, we should have digital ID and digital ID cards, without which we will not be able to tackle voter fraud, far less black employment, immigration or counterterrorism. Will the Government finally at least consider the use of digital ID?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for making that very important point. He alludes to the use of technology and the digitalisation of the process, but I remind the House that technology already plays a part in the smooth running of the UK’s election registration infrastructure. The noble Lord is talking about ID to help voting, but there is a range of ways in which technology could be part of measures to improve the whole process. The Government will thoroughly explore the viability of every avenue to achieve that goal. Any new measures will be rigorously tested and will take the accessibility and diverse needs of different groups of people into account, so that all those eligible to vote are able to register.

State Pension: Age Increase

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

11:18

Asked by

[Lord Davies of Brixton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what preparations they are making to inform people born on or after 6 April 1960 about the increase in their state pension age from 66 to 67 which will be implemented over the period 6 April 2026 to 5 April 2028.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government recognise that information about the state pension age is crucial to retirement planning and are committed to communicating planned state pension age changes effectively. The department undertakes a range of activities, including awareness campaigns, digital tools such as “Check your State Pension age” and sending personalised letters. We are developing our strategy to communicate information and assessing the most effective ways to raise awareness about state pension age changes.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer. I remain concerned that we are only 17 months away from when people discover that they are not able to retire at the date that they thought they would. We know where this ends up: a finding of maladministration by the ombudsman and mass discontent. I urge the noble Lord, the noble Minister, the Baroness, to make sure that a mass campaign is initiated soon. Many people have an aversion to opening brown envelopes; we need this to be highlighted in the press for the next 17 months.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I answer to anything really. The Government have already used an array of methods to communicate state pension age changes, including leaflets, advertising campaigns, digital tools and directly writing to everybody affected. Between December 2016 and May 2018, DWP wrote to all those in the group my noble friend is talking about—that is, those born between 6 April 1960 and 5 April 1961, which includes me—who have state pension ages between 66 and 67. In 2016, DWP launched a tool “Check your State Pension age” on GOV.UK and also “Check your State Pension forecast”. More than 31 million digital forecasts have been done plus another 1.5 million paper forecasts. I think it is working. The 2021 Planning and Preparing for Later Life survey talked to exactly those people and found that, of those with a pension age between 66 and 67, 94% either correctly identified their state pension age or overestimated it.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, with the increase in life expectancy in recent years, will the Government consider increasing the state pension age by more than one year in order to limit the tax burden on those of working age?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, life expectancy is increasing, but the rate of increase is slowing. Built into the Pensions Act 2014 is a requirement on the Secretary of State periodically to review the state pension age, taking into account life expectancy and a range of other appropriate factors. There have already been two of those reviews. The next one has to happen by March 2029, I think. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will take account of precisely those matters.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we do not want a repeat of the WASPI women scandal? We have been here before. If individuals are not properly informed about the change to their state pension age, will the Government consider introducing a clear appeals process or a safety net to ensure that no one is financially disadvantaged due to a lack of information? From past experience, we know that there will be many people who fall through the net, and we need to have an appeals process in place.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, it is crucial that everybody gets to know their state pension age, but the reality is that there are a lot of different ways in which people do that. I already knew that my state pension age was increasing. A lot of that was simply from information in the news and on television. One of the ironies is that, when I was first briefed about this, I was told that the department had written to everybody in that age category. I said that I had no recollection of receiving such a letter, but I was assured that it had happened. Last weekend, I moved house and, when I opened a folder of unfiled papers, what was sitting on the top but a letter dated February 2018 telling me that my state pension age would be 66 and two-thirds. The point is that different people receive information differently. I am of an age where I get most of my information on my phone, from which I am rarely parted, and from news consumption. We have to use every possible means of communicating to make sure that people get the information out there.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that average life expectancy is highly variable depending on many factors, including class? There are parts of Glasgow where people die in large numbers before their pension age, so I hope the Minister can reassure me that the idea of extending it will not be adopted when the people who suffer most are those who need the pension most.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an important point. One of the requirements on the Secretary of State when she comes to do the statutory review of the state pension age is to look at issues such as life expectancy. Every now and again, someone comes up with the idea of varying the state pension age by, for example, location or profession. The reality is that, whereas there are differences between regions or professions, in some cases the differences within them are as great as or greater than the differences between them, so trying to find a way of doing something that would be fair, other than a simple state pension age, is challenging. The real challenge for this Government, as for everyone, is that we should not have these regional variations in our country. We are one country, and we should be tackling those kinds of regional inequalities so that we do not end up in this position.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that we should move to when people start paying national insurance? People often start work at 16 in construction and other jobs, while others do not start work until 23 or 24. Should there not be some understanding about the different types of people, how long they are in work and what jobs they do?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

There are variations. One of the challenges is that, now we want to keep young people in education, training or employment until 18, we find that fewer people leave school and start work early. My noble friend is raising an underlying point that is really about fairness. We want to see everybody having the opportunity to study for as long as is genuinely helpful and suits them, then to move into fulfilling work and to be able to progress in it over time. I return to one of the challenges. The Secretary of State will consider all factors, but if we look at how difficult it is—and we know how hard we have had to work—to communicate a single state pension age, trying to communicate variable state pensions ages risks complicating it. But my noble friend raises an important point, and we will keep it under consideration.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, the Chancellor has announced that she is going to merge 86 public sector pension funds into eight megafunds. We have been talking about that for quite a long time. Will the Minister update the House on how and when that will happen?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, information will be coming forward. We are doing a pension review at the moment. Stage 1 is coming to an end and stage 2 is coming through. There is also a pensions Bill coming through, and when that comes through, all the details will be made available.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, why is it that those who are above the state pension age, whatever age it is, and still working and contributing to society are not required to pay national insurance? We are missing £1 billion-plus to the Treasury. National insurance is a tax; it does not pay for anything. It should be paid by all those who are working, irrespective of age.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, of all the weeks when I am not going to start making up national insurance policy on the hoof, this is most definitely one of them. However, I hear what my noble friend says, and I will pass that along.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the impact on employment, particularly for older people, of increasing NI contributions for employers, bearing in mind that the winter fuel payment has been withdrawn?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, to separate those two out, the Treasury has published documentation on GOV.UK relating to the Budget and an impact assessment of different aspects of the Budget. On the question of the winter fuel payment, the noble Baroness will know that the vast majority of people who will be entitled to it are being encouraged, if necessary, to apply for pension credit or other benefits. For most of the rest, many of them will not be in employment and will not intend to be in employment. The winter fuel payment is aimed at people of pension age, so I do not see the connection between the winter fuel payment and national insurance, but if the noble Baroness wants to speak to me about it afterwards, I am happy to talk to her.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the best ways to get these kinds of messages over to older people is through the network of voluntary organisations, particularly Age UK, Age Scotland, Age Cymru and Age Northern Ireland? Will she and her department mobilise that network to get this message across?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My noble friend is a great advocate for Age UK and its counterpart organisations, and they welcome his advocacy. We have a good relationship with Age UK and other charities in this sphere. They have been very effective at getting messages out, but I come back to the fact that we have to get messages out across the piece. Messaging about the state pension age is aimed at people who are not yet retired, including me, so we need to get messages out everywhere people get their information. One of the ways of doing that is through family and friends—spread the word. Please make sure that everyone is aware of this: go on GOV.UK to “Check your State Pension age” and “Check your State Pension forecast”.

BBC World Service

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

11:28

Asked by

[Lord Dubs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the BBC World Service.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, the BBC World Service provides impartial, accurate news and journalism in 42 languages to 320 million people globally. It remains the world’s most trusted international news broadcaster. The Government recognise the World Service’s value as a soft power asset and its contribution to countering disinformation and ensuring access to free and impartial news. We value the emergency response services stood up recently in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan to provide vital safety and security information.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. It is welcome that the Government have improved funding of the BBC World Service in the coming financial year, but is the Minister aware that in the past, cuts in the World Service have led to frequencies being withdrawn and immediately being taken over by the Russians and the Chinese in order to push out their propaganda? Surely, the BBC World Service is source of great strength to this country. Could we not have a long-term funding arrangement to secure what is, after all, one of Britain’s greatest assets?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend. Although decisions about where to operate and what channels to use are clearly for the BBC to make—it is independent of government in that way—it is a service that we have insufficiently valued and promoted over the years. I am pleased that we have been able to improve the situation somewhat so far, but I completely agree with my noble friend that a long-term solution is what is really needed.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, in her Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, the Minister mentioned the issue of disinformation, which is of prime importance and obviously a threat to democracy around the world. What steps is she taking further to promote the BBC World Service as a trusted source of information?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a very good question. At the moment, 75% of those who listen to the World Service live in places that do not have good levels of media freedom, so we need to work with the World Service to promote what it does, both around the world, as the noble Lord says, and here in the UK. I think more people would benefit from and feel pride in knowing what the World Service has done to counter disinformation around the world.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former director-general of the BBC. For nearly a century, the BBC World Service has been a key element of the UK’s soft power globally. For almost all of that time it was directly and completely funded by the FCO. Can the Minister articulate any justification at all for the World Service being funded in whole or in part by the UK licence fee payer?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is not a decision that this Government made. Looking back, it was a mistake to put that burden entirely on the licence fee payer. We are looking at long-term solutions and we are open-minded about what they might be, but I repeat: the important thing is that we preserve all that is good that the World Service does for us around the world, but it needs to be on a much more secure footing so that we do not have the annual discussions we have had to have. It needs to plan, and it needs security to enable it to continue to do the amazing work it does.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, there is a tension here between having an independent BBC, which we are all grateful for—indeed, that is part of its integrity—and it being part of our strategic soft power. Could the noble Baroness tell us a little bit more about the strategic approach His Majesty’s Government are taking to thinking about the key places we need to engage with, not least in countering the deliberate disinformation coming from China and Russia, which is fundamental to the future of our democracies?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is vital that we maintain the independent position the BBC has, so that it makes its own decisions. However, this Government want to refresh the approach to soft power. We are establishing a soft power council, in which I hope the World Service will take part. From my point of view, it is absolutely legitimate for the Government to say that we are worried about these circumstances in these places and to share our understanding of situations around the world, and it is for the BBC to tell us to back off and to make its own decisions. My aim is to have a collaborative, respectful relationship with the BBC, preserving at all times its independence and ability to make its own choices.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the comments the Minister just made and thank the Leader for her response to me two weeks ago, when I raised concerns about World Service cuts in Lebanon. Does the Minister share my concern that, although the BBC World Service is critical for supporting civil society in many conflict areas, the more recent government development cuts of £2 billion—a reduction from 0.58% of GNI to 0.5%—could put at risk the very kind of programmes that support civil society resilience in many conflict areas? I welcome the extra support for the BBC World Service, but will the Minister make sure that there are not cuts elsewhere to programmes that support civil society in these critical vulnerable areas?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are reviewing development spend, as noble Lords would expect. We do not have the luxury of limitless funds to spend. We are spending a lot of our development money on housing people who arrive here in the UK for 12 months after their arrival. We need to get that spend down so that we can spend it much more wisely on preventing conflict, educating women and girls, supporting freedom of religion and belief, and all the other really positive, important work that we want to do in country. That is our aim.

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests, past and present, as listed in the register. The Minister referred to a long-term strategy for the World Service. Such a document exists. I chaired a group commissioned by the then Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. This report got lost in one of those infrequent reshuffles of the last few years, but it stands today as a blueprint for enhancing the BBC World Service’s influence in exercising the great soft power that exists for Britain’s foreign policy. Will she dust it down and read it?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing that to my attention. I was not aware that there was a strategy dating back to that time, but I commit to finding it and reading it.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister undertake to conduct and publish, before any future funding formula for the BBC is agreed, a dedicated impact assessment for the World Service which takes into account criteria such as the value of soft power and the need for built-in budgetary flexibility, so that the World Service can respond to geopolitical situations in times of jeopardy, which is part of what the charter says it is there for?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The key thing is that we reset the relationship we have with the World Service and stop using the BBC as some kind of political football. In recent years, and without the knowledge of many people, BBC Monitoring and the World Service have provided the most accurate assessment of the Russian war dead in Ukraine. They are educating women and girls in Afghanistan who have been excluded from education. They are the most reliable source of information in areas of conflict, where there is very little else available that can be trusted. We call what they are doing soft power; I think that is the wrong name for it, frankly. Other nations are investing heavily in their propaganda. We do not do that. We allow the independent, high-quality journalism of the World Service to speak for us and to support people in country. I am immensely proud of it and we need to work long term to support it.

[Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)]

My Lords, we have already heard today of the importance of the BBC World Service as a voice for accurate reporting in many conflict states and politically restricted states, but just this week we had a Question about the risks journalists face in order to do this reporting. Can the Minister say what support and measures the Government are offering to ensure the safety and security of journalists and staff in hostile environments?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is vital that journalists be able to go about their work in telling the truth, often in the most difficult of circumstances. They have full consular support from us. We are a member of several multilateral organisations supporting media freedom and the rights of journalists to do their work. We will continue that. I am proud of what the UK has done over many years in this space. We will continue to do that as a new Government.

Probation Services: Prisoner Early Release Scheme

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Question

11:39

Asked by

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the prisoner early release scheme on probation services.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

An impact assessment was conducted ahead of laying the necessary legislation. The SDS40 scheme now has an eight-week implementation period, allowing the service to better prepare and put release plans into place for offenders. The service has taken steps to meet growing demand by focusing on early engagement, and plans to onboard 1,000 new trainee probation officers across the year 2024-25.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. Given that we need to be looking long-term, and in the hope that the sentencing review will promote alternatives to custody, will the Minister say what the Government are doing not just to recruit more probation staff but to retain and develop staff so that they are respected and recognised as highly valued professionals?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for her work as the prison lead in the Church of England and for her comments and support for the Probation Service. The 1,000 probation officers who are going to be recruited as trainees will receive top-quality training, but we also need to look at how we retain the expertise of probation officers, value their experience and ensure that they are part of the Government’s mission to reduce reoffending. Once the sentencing review is complete, we must look to put in place effective sentences that reduce reoffending as well as punishing individuals.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

My Lords, a third of all people who leave prison have nowhere to go. Are the Government taking that into account and ensuring that the people they are letting out are not going to fall homeless in the period immediately after?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Bird, makes a valuable point. As part of the planning for the early release SDS scheme that is in place now, the Government are ensuring that there are prison leads, employment leads and housing leads, working eight weeks before release to ensure that individuals have support in order to—as far as possible, though there will always be areas where this does not happen—put in place a proper release plan, to ensure that people go into the community and do not face the pressures that lead to reoffending.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, if we look at the position of the recruitment of probation officers, as the Minister said, we see that all the inspectorate’s reports show a dire need for new recruits in that area at the first and second levels. Why is it that we are already unable to recruit sufficient people to the Probation Service, which now faces the additional work of having to work with local authorities—which are poorly stretched for housing—and health services? We need these people right now, and that is the problem that we face. The recruitment of the 1,000 officers will occur some time in the future, but how are the Government going to solve the problems immediately?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord should know that the 1,000 are going to be in place by March 2025, and he can hold the Government to account on that figure. We are recruiting now; it is currently 14 November 2024, and, from memory, by March 2025 the 1,000 will be in place. We have improved support for probation staff and increased the pay level from 1 October to 1 April this year, to recognise and, I hope, retain people who are in post.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the Chief Probation Officer said in September that they expected up to one-third of early release prisoners to reoffend. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that victims of early release violent offenders are first informed and then supported?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The initial assessment by officials of the early release scheme has indicated that there has not been a significant change to the number of recalls that have taken place—although that is always potentially an issue with anyone, at any time, who leaves prison with the remainder of their sentence in place. Victim liaison is extremely important. I assure the noble Lord that, in the event of breaches taking place, recalls happen quickly and individuals are recalled to prison as a matter of emergency.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

But—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, a magistrate recently told me that he is resorting to short-term custodial sentences because he has no confidence in the non-custodial alternatives. For example, people are being sentenced to unpaid work but the Probation Service is saying there is no unpaid work for that person to do, so the sentence is written off. Does the Probation Service really have the capacity to do what it is being asked to do?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Probation Service is asked to do an awful lot. Its first and foremost duty is to protect public safety, and to ensure the rehabilitation of people through community sentences or release mechanisms. The noble Lord will know that a sentencing review has been commissioned by the Lord Chancellor. That review is looking at long-term sentences, at short-term sentences and their effectiveness, and at the strengthening of community sentences. It is extremely important that community sentences are strong, that they are implemented and that people attend them. I hope that, further down the line in our policy development, the sentencing review delivers for victims, reducing reoffending and helping the rehabilitation of those individuals who have been convicted.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the early release scheme excludes prisoners serving a sentence for sexual offences, domestic abuse, terrorism and serious violent offences. Will the Minister explain why the Government do not regard all crimes of violence as serious for these purposes?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his question. I think that, on reflection, he will know that, had he been at this Dispatch Box after 4 July, he would have been introducing a similar scheme to the one that the Government have currently introduced, though perhaps without the exceptions that we have made on sexual offences, domestic violence offences and serious offences. A line has to be drawn, and the Government have done so. Our prime objective is to free up prison places while ensuring that there is probation support, as indicated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, to ensure that we protect individuals on their release. I hear what the noble and learned Lord says but he knows—and the smile on his face tells me he knows—that he would have introduced a very similar scheme in this place had he been the Minister.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, we are all familiar with the reasons for the early release scheme having to be established, but does the Minister agree that, if we are to reduce recidivism in this country, there needs to be a proper system in place for the planned discharge of prisoners—not for when they are discharged but for a long time before then—so that essential elements in their lives, such as accommodation and the like, can be established before the discharge takes place? Letting people go out from prison without those elements in place just encourages recidivism.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is an extremely important point. The issues of housing, potential employment, family contact, a bank account or access to finance, and the establishment of benefits prior to release if the person is qualified for them, are key building blocks in preventing an individual reoffending. I will draw the noble Lord’s comments to the attention of the Minister for Probation, who I am deputising for today. I am sure he will find common cause in those objectives.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords—

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Come on, it is Labour’s turn. We have not had a question.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

It is the turn of the Labour Benches now.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I think my noble friend would agree that the role of a probation officer is complex and requires a high level of skill. He has talked about recruitment. Can he share with the House a bit more about how that recruitment process is being conducted, where the search is going on and what the minimum requirements are for people who might apply for it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. If I may, I shall reflect on that and raise those points with the Minister, my noble friend Lord Timpson; he will have the detail of the recruitment exercise, which I do not have before me today. I ask her to rest assured that the 1,000 new officers are on track for March 2025, and quality is key to the delivery that those probation officers are seeking to ensure.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that no foreign national offenders are being released under the early release scheme?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord a direct answer on that, but I will examine the list of offenders who are being released. However, foreign national offenders per se will in some cases be subject to deportation on release, will be subject to the same issues of recall in the event of any further offending and will be subject to probation management accordingly. I will look at the figure because I do not have it in front of me, for reasons that I hope he understands, and I will return to him shortly.

Arrangement of Business

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Announcement

11:50

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we now move on to three repeats of Urgent Questions asked in the House of Commons. Each set of questions is for 10 minutes. We want questions, not speeches, and short replies from Ministers.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Monday 11 November.

“The Government have a cast-iron commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. We promised it in our manifesto at the election, the Prime Minister promised it at NATO in Washington in July, and my right honourable friend the Chancellor promised it in the Budget two weeks ago, as well as announcing a £3 billion boost for defence spending next year to start to fix the foundations of our Armed Forces. That, of course, is on top of £3 billion each year for Ukraine. I remind the House that the last time this country spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was in 2010, with the last Labour Government—a level not matched in any of the 14 Tory years since.

Everyone agrees that defence spending must increase to match and deal with the threats we face. One of our very first acts as a Government was to launch the strategic defence review, which is working at pace to look at the threats we face, the capabilities we need and the resources we have available. It is not just about how much we spend but about how we spend it. The Prime Minister said at NATO that our plan in the SDR will come first, and then we will set out the pathway to spending 2.5%. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said yesterday that this will come in the spring.

Today is Armistice Day. At the 11th hour, I had the honour of laying a wreath at the Cenotaph. Today is a reminder of what is at stake in this new era of insecurity; a reminder that our dedicated service men and women, around the clock, around the world, work to keep us safe; and a reminder of the ultimate sacrifice that so many have made in the past so that we may live in freedom today. We will remember them.”

11:51

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor’s continuing dithering on when the Government will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence has caused stasis in the MoD, which does not know what it can spend and when, a stagnation of the order book and disgruntled industry partners. What orders are currently being withheld, what is their value and to what extent are other customers overtaking the United Kingdom in the queue for supplies?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

I do not agree with that caricature of what is happening. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said at the weekend, and it has been repeated since, that we will reach 2.5% at a future fiscal event in the spring. The defence review is looking at what capabilities we need and we will then set that in the context of the 2.5% as we move forward. That sequencing is the proper way for us to go ahead. As it stands, no major projects are being disrupted as a result of the review.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The Minister’s answer was very clear, but at the weekend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury suggested that the Government were waiting for the SDR to report. However, one of the provisions of the terms of reference of the SDR is that there is a cap of 2.5%. Who is setting the agenda—the SDR or the Treasury—and should we be worried?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course the Treasury sets the context of the budget within which defence operates. The 2.5% commitment is cast-iron; the discussion is about the timeframe. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced at the weekend that the 2.5% will be announced at a future fiscal event in the spring. The sequencing is everything. If we decided to spend billions of pounds on a project now and the defence review suggested that that was not the best use of money to meet future threats, the noble Baroness would be asking me why we had spent the money before knowing what those threats were.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister knows that defence requires 2.5% of GDP now if it is to avoid cuts in capability and will require even higher spending in future. When the men and women of our seriously underresourced Armed Forces are required to confront the increasingly perilous situation in Europe and beyond over the next decade and their lives are on the line, how much consolation does he think they will take from repeated protestations about a £22 billion black hole?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord raises a serious point. The Government have given a cast-iron guarantee to reach the cap of 2.5%. As he knows, I meet the forces all the time, and I would give them the reassurance that we are seeking to ensure that they have the capability they need to meet the future threats that will be identified by the defence review. We make that commitment.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the elevation of the President-elect of the United States, who, among his many unpredictabilities, has at least one predictability—that he will insist that Europe pays more towards the defence of the West than it has done hitherto—makes it only more important that we take the lead in Europe by implementing the 2.5% at a minimum? Would that not also help us in our relationship with the incoming presidential Administration of the United States in, to put it crudely, a transactional manner?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. As he knows, we can say to the President of the United States that we will meet the cast-iron 2.5% commitment and will set that out in due course. We understand that European countries need to increase their defence spending; 23 of the NATO nations are now spending 2.5%, so that is a very real commitment. The American President will also be pleased to hear that this country is leading a carrier strike group into the Indo-Pacific—as we know, China is of particular interest to the incoming President as well as the current one. We will work with them to deliver that capability.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, there is already a bloody war being waged on the continent of Europe. Putin is waging war on us through cyberattacks and Litvinenko, the Skripals, et cetera. Does the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, agree that 2.5% is not enough?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Government have made a commitment to 2.5%; the previous Government made a commitment to 2.5% by 2030. We will see what happens, but we commit to look at the 2.5% at a future fiscal event in the spring. We also want to ensure that we have the capability to meet the threats we face. Let us be clear about this: the UK is the leading nation in Europe, along with the United States and our European allies, standing up against Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The message needs to come from this Chamber that this country will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to deter Russian aggression.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, even in advance of the strategic defence review, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has made it clear that we face a deadly quartet of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Yesterday we discussed with representatives of the Republic of Korea who were in London the opportunity of reaching some of the 10,000 North Korean soldiers now in Europe to fight in Putin’s war. Will we redouble our efforts to reach over the heads of the despotic leaders in North Korea to break the information blockade and encourage those soldiers to walk to freedom in the West?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point. I was in the Republic of Korea recently to talk about the importance of hybrid warfare and information wars. We must consider that fully when we get the defence review and ensure that our hybrid capability is a match for anybody’s. That involves trying to influence others opposing us at the present time.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, according to the OBR, if the Government were to meet their ambition to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by the end of the Parliament, they would break their new debt rule. Which is more important: the 2.5% target or the debt rule?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am not a Treasury Minister, but I know as a Defence Minister that 2.5% of GDP is an absolute commitment. I hope the Treasury is successful, because if we get the growth in the economy that we want, that 2.5% will be of a much larger amount.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, the defence review is due to report early in the new year. If that is the case, it will report before the figures on the years affected by the 2.5% increase are announced. Does that not make the whole defence review unbelievable, because it will not have the figures to hand?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. As I suggested in an earlier answer, the sequencing of all of this is extremely important. Of course, we need the defence review, which is taking place within the context of the 2.5% budget figure that the Treasury has set. As I said, we will make an announcement about the pathway to that and how we intend to reach that point at a future fiscal event in the spring. The noble and gallant Lord is right to point out the importance of sequencing.

[Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)]

My Lords, were any instructions or guidance given to the SDR team on guarantees about the financing of what will inevitably be the findings of the SDR?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The SDR team know the context within which they are working, which is the 2.5% envelope. There will be choices in that, and they will lay out those choices. It will then be a matter for consideration and decision following that. Laying out the threats for us to properly consider what they are and how we meet them is an important function of the SDR.

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1935 we were spending less than 3% on defence? We failed to either deter or appease Hitler. Is he further aware that, in 1939, when the war had broken out, our defence spending rose to 19% and in 1940, when we were fighting for our lives, it was 46%? That is the disastrous cost of fighting a war. Does he agree that we must do all we can to prevent history repeating itself?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I completely agree. The noble Lord will know that at various conferences and in various decisions I have made I have talked about the importance of deterrence. That has to be at the forefront of our minds as well.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister answer more clearly the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, about sequencing? It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, cannot conduct his strategic defence review if he does not know the date by which 2.5% will be available to him. The Minister also said that we are second to the United States as a spender in support of NATO. However, this year Germany will spend £30 billion more than the United Kingdom on defence.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

What I meant about the UK’s position is that, when I visit European countries and go around the world, the UK is seen as one of the foremost leaders with respect to the military. The noble Viscount may point to Germany and its spending, but I am just saying that, in terms of leadership on Ukraine and the deterrent effect we provide, the UK is at the forefront.

I have answered the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and others. The defence review team know the context in which they are working. The review will identify the threats and choices we have. As a consequence, at a fiscal event that we expect in the spring, we can then make decisions about the choices before us.

Let me finish with this: nobody should be in any doubt, as the noble Viscount knows, over this country’s determination to ensure that our Armed Forces are supported and given the equipment that they need to both deter those who seek to undermine us and be there to fight where necessary.

Social Security Advisory Committee: Winter Fuel Payment

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Tuesday 12 November.

“We welcome the letter from the chair of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We were hoping to respond to the letter on the day of the Budget. Regrettably, there has been an unexpected further delay, and we are due to issue the response this week. However, my officials met the committee in August to discuss the regulations, prior to the committee’s formal scrutiny in early September.

I want to explain briefly why it is important to invoke the urgency procedure in this case. We needed to make the necessary Exchequer savings in the current financial year, as the regulations needed to come into force on 16 September. The previous Government left us with a £22 billion black hole, with Treasury reserves spent three times over. The day-to-day departmental spending set out by the previous Government in their Spring Budget was not even close to reality. It is now up to us to clear up the mess of the previous Government, so we had to take some difficult decisions, such as means-testing the winter fuel payment, but we remain determined to do everything possible to support the poorest pensioners.

We have taken immediate action to increase the take-up of pension credit, working with charities and local authorities and through a campaign in print and broadcast media. The Government have written to more than 12 million pensioners about the changes to means-testing the winter fuel payment. We have also written to 120,000 pensioners on housing benefit, who could be entitled to pension credit, to encourage them to claim. We have extended the household support fund until March 2026. Thanks to our steadfast commitment to the triple lock, more than 12 million pensioners will see their state pension rise by up to £470 next year, and up to £1,900 over the course of this Parliament. The warm home discount, which we heard about a minute ago, is worth £150 off energy bills for low-income households. The warm homes plan will in the longer term insulate 5 million more homes.

By taking these difficult decisions, we were able to provide a cash injection of £22.6 billion to the NHS budget, which is the largest real-terms growth in day-to-day NHS spending—outside of Covid—since 2010. That will bring down waiting times for people across the country, including many pensioners. We are taking the responsible and difficult decisions to clear up the mess of the previous Government, to fix the foundations of our economy and rebuild our public services.”

12:02

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I trust that the Minister will agree that the Social Security Advisory Committee made six reasonable recommendations in its letter. I urge all noble Lords to read it. I ask the Minister to respond to the letter, particularly covering the point about the additional cost of pension credit against the savings of the winter fuel allowance. There are a number of other benefits that pensioners may well get that could be impacted by taking pension credit. I am sure that all the things the committee raised in the letter would raise unintended consequences, but we want to avoid making a difficult position worse. I draw noble Lords’ attention to one:

“We would encourage the government to assess the equity of excluding housing benefit as a qualifying benefit on the basis of incomes after housing costs, rather than on the basis of gross incomes”.


When the Minister replies to that letter, I ask that she place a copy in the Library for all noble Lords to see.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am sure she is aware that the Secretary of State has replied to the Social Security Advisory Committee and has placed a copy of that on GOV.UK. She has gone through all the points raised by the SSAC and responded to them in detail, so I commend that to the noble Baroness. If noble Lords would like to ask any questions, I am happy to respond to them specifically. The department has a good working relationship with the SSAC. We welcome its observations and comments, and we always listen to the points it makes. It will be no different on this occasion.

The noble Baroness raised questions of housing benefits and costings. Final costings for the changes were certified and published by the OBR at the Autumn Budget and take account of any behavioural responses and the estimated number of people claiming pension credit in the upcoming years. I stress that if more people who are entitled to it claim pension credit, that is a good thing. It means that those people will get approaching £4,000 a year rather than or in addition to the winter fuel payment.

On the question of housing benefit, the judgment was made not to make housing benefit in itself a qualifying benefit, because it is based not only on financial circumstances but the amount of rent. As the noble Baroness will understand only too well, households that get housing benefit can go higher up the income distribution than those that get pension credit. That can be true even if they get the maximum, because of the way earned income is treated. We also have to take account of fairness between those who are renting and those who are paying mortgages. I presume that is why, when the previous Government did cost of living payments, they did not choose housing benefit as a qualifying benefit. I imagine it was for the same reasons.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, following the Minister’s reply, the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended that the Government consider bringing forward an urgent amendment to the regulations which would, for this year only, very modestly passport those in receipt of the full rate of pensioner housing benefit on to winter fuel payments. It is a very modest request. Will the Government take that advice?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I have answered the point about housing benefit and explained why the Government took the decision we did. However, we are determined to do everything we can, so we are directly contacting approximately 120,000 pensioner households that may be eligible for pension credit, to encourage them to make a claim. We are also writing to all pensioners to make sure they are aware of the changes coming forward and to link them to where they can claim pension credit if they are entitled to it.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Will the Minister accept that the decision not to give money to people who do not need it was the right decision, and that to argue against it is not sensible? However, it is also true that the public has really not understood what this now means. The Government have to communicate much better than they are doing at the moment. It is wrong to attack the Government for the decision, but it is perfectly right to attack the Government for not putting that decision over in a way that people can understand.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, especially for the first half of that encouragement. The Government had to make some difficult choices. Deciding not to pay the winter fuel payment to people who do not need it was one of those choices. Inevitably, that causes some challenge and concern, particularly for those who are around the margins, as with any system of means testing. That has been challenging, but I take the advice of the noble Lord and we will look again to make sure that we are properly explaining to people what is happening and that those who need this most will still get help. I hope that they will not just get the help of the winter fuel payment, but potentially thousands of pounds in pension credit as well.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

Have the Government carried out any assessment of the differential impacts across the regions of England and the countries of the United Kingdom of this decision to axe winter fuel payments for most pensioners? There will be different impacts. Coming from Northern Ireland, we know some of the concerns there are, and the different levels of information that have been given out about people’s eligibility for pension credit and the campaign to encourage uptake.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the situation is different in different parts of the country. In Scotland, it is complicated by the fact that this is the first year it is devolved, so we have had to legislate in a different way to enable us to do that for Scotland but not for elsewhere in the UK. The Government have sought to make sure, by writing, across the piece, to 12 million pensioners, that we are directly engaging and that people are as aware as possible. There are also campaigns going on with partners in local government and voluntary organisations, as well as a media campaign on radio, television and social media. I will certainly check, go back and review that, and if I have any concerns that it is not being done appropriately in some parts of the United Kingdom, I will very happily come back to the noble Lord.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

As my noble friend says—I will get it right this time—we now have the letter from the Secretary of State. I am sorry to have to press her on this, but the Government consistently fail to answer the first question raised by the committee. I asked the same question in a Written Question during the recess and, again, it was not answered. The committee wants to know,

“the offsetting cost of different levels of additional Pension Credit take-up”.

I too asked that question, and saying that the OBR has signed off the figures is not an answer.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that the OBR listed certified costings if nobody claimed pension credit, and costings on the assumption, which was also our assumption, that there would be a five percentage-point increase in that. It seems to me that that gives the entire range, and between that, presumably one could do the sums. I think that that does answer the question.

Chagos Islands

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Wednesday 13 November.

“Following two years of negotiation under three Prime Ministers, on 3 October the Government secured a deal that will protect the secure operation of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia well into the next century. The Government inherited a situation where that future was under threat. International courts were reaching judgments on the basis that Mauritius had sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago. International organisations were also taking steps not to undermine Mauritian sovereignty claims. That was not sustainable.

The base on Diego Garcia plays a critical role in countering an array of threats to regional and international security. Without legal certainty, the base simply cannot operate effectively. Continued uncertainty would be a gift to our adversaries. That is why the agreement has been welcomed by all parts of the US system, and other critical regional security partners, including India. Agreeing the deal now, on our terms, meant that we were able to secure strong protections that will allow the base to operate as it has done. We have secured a deal that protects our national interests, respects the interests of our partners and upholds the international rule of law. There will be clear commitments in the treaty to robust security arrangements, including arrangements preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, so that the base can continue to operate securely and effectively. We would not have signed off on an agreement that compromised any of our security interests, or those of our allies.

The agreement will be underpinned by a financial settlement that is acceptable to both sides, and will underpin a strong, long-term partnership with Mauritius. That was crucial to securing the agreement. The Government will not scrimp on our national security; however, I am sure that the House will understand that it is not normal practice for the UK to reveal the value of payments for military bases anywhere across the globe, because to do so would put at risk their future secure operation.

The deal will also deliver benefits for the Chagossian community, who were removed from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s. I know that the whole House has already expressed, and will join me in again expressing, regret for that shameful episode. Mauritius will now be able to implement a programme of resettlement to the islands, other than Diego Garcia, and we will work together to start a programme of visits for Chagossians to all the islands. The UK will finance a new trust fund for Mauritius to support Chagossians, and will provide additional government support to those living in the UK. All Chagossians will of course remain eligible for British citizenship and free to make their home in the UK.

We will work with Mauritius to ensure the continued protection of the islands’ unique environment, with the shared objective of securing and protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments. That will include the establishment of a Mauritius marine protected area. The agreement also shuts down the possibility of the Indian Ocean being used as a dangerous illegal migration route to the UK, with Mauritius taking responsibility for any future arrivals.

The long-term protection of the base on Diego Garcia has been the shared UK and US priority throughout. This agreement secures its future. We look forward to engaging with the incoming US Administration. I congratulate both President Trump and Dr Ramgoolam on their recent election victories in the US and Mauritius respectively, and we look forward to working with their Governments on this matter. The agreement is in all sides’ shared interests, and in our national security interest.”

12:10

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the new Government were suspiciously quick to conclude the deal, within weeks of taking office, with the Mauritian Government, represented as they were by a close legal friend of the Prime Minister. They now seem strangely reluctant to allow anyone to see the actual text of this handover. Since then, of course, we have had two important elections, so can the Minister confirm what discussions the Government have had with the new US Administration and with the new Mauritian Government? Is this not a case of negotiating with the wrong people at the wrong time?

Today, the Chagossian Voices group sent a letter, signed by 200 Chagossians, to the Foreign Secretary, again confirming that no Minister has ever responded to its previous letters. Can the Minister confirm whether there are any plans to engage with Chagossians in these negotiations? Can she explain why no Chagossians have been consulted so far? The vast majority of Chagossians deeply resent their homeland being handed over on a subsidised plate to Mauritius, a country 1,000 miles away. Lastly, does the Minister think there are adequate safeguards in this treaty—which, of course, we have not yet seen—to allow the lease of Diego Garcia to be extended beyond its current 99 years?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, there have been changes of Government in the US and Mauritius. I take this opportunity to congratulate both President-elect Trump and the new Prime Minister, Dr Ramgoolam, in Mauritius, on their election victories. Changes of Government are an inevitable part of negotiations with fellow democracies. We have also had a change of Government in this country since these negotiations began. This is the conclusion of a few years’ worth of negotiation—11 to 13 rounds of negotiation took place under the previous Government. We were aware that this could happen, and we are working closely with our allies, in both the US and Mauritius, on making sure that everyone is comfortable with the deal and the treaty. We have no reason to think that this is not the case at this stage.

On engagement with Chagossians, it was not possible for them to be party to these negotiations because they took place between Governments. I regret what happened to the Chagossians in the past—it was over 50 years ago, but that in no way diminishes the pain and hurt that they will have experienced. I accept that Chagossians will be concerned about the arrangements reached. We have prioritised the security of the US-UK military facility on Diego Garcia. People can disagree with that and can say that prioritising security was the wrong thing to do, but that is what the Government have chosen on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom, because we think that was in the best interests of the UK. There are arrangements in the deal to allow Chagossians to visit and return, and some Chagossians will be able to take advantage of that.

The treaty will be published as soon as it has been finalised with the Mauritian Government, and there will be a process for Members of this House and the Commons to debate it.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Given that there was no public information from the previous Government—of whom the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was a member—about any of the 11 rounds of negotiations that took place, does the Minister agree that two points of principle should be adhered to now? First, for the treaty approval process, nothing should be done on behalf of the Chagossians without their involvement, and Parliament should have an ability to vote on the treaty proactively, rather than the limited process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. Secondly, unlike what Nigel Farage or Kemi Badenoch might suggest, British foreign policy should be formed and set by us, not Donald Trump.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My understanding is that the process will be the usual one for agreeing these treaties. We need to be careful about the use of the word “consultation”, because there will be an opportunity to listen to the views of Chagossian communities and to understand that there is more than one view among them about this deal. It would be wrong to give the impression that there would be an opportunity to have a treaty changed in light of Chagossian voices. We can all have a view on that, and some of us might wish that it could be otherwise, but when we are dealing with a matter of security like this in the Indian Ocean, and with a treaty between two Governments, it is far better if we are up front and honest about what will be possible during that process.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, is this not something of a trumped-up objection on the part of the Opposition? Does my noble friend agree that the previous Government never questioned the legitimacy of Mauritius’s eventual sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, very many years ago and internationally confirmed? Does she further agree that the majority of Chagossians do agree with this, and that all Chagossians are now being consulted by the Government? But can she say whether our Government are also discussing the resettlement plans with Mauritius?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

What is important is that Chagossians have the right to visit and return that the Mauritian Government will be free to enable. This is new, and some Chagossians have said that they wish to see this. It will now be possible under this deal. On the record of the previous Government, it is not for me to say whether the outrage is faux—others will judge. But I will say that I regret very much the implication by some on the Opposition Benches—by no means all, and I do not point the finger at the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—to attempt to co-opt other overseas territories into this, and to somehow suggest that there is a vulnerability there, which there is not. This is a unique situation, and I am glad that we have been able to move this forward and resolve it. It secures our base in the Indian Ocean and gives certainty on that and to Chagossian communities here.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness’s brief will probably be telling her, the Chinese are taking an immensely close interest in what is happening in the Chagos Islands and Mauritius. Can she reassure us that the Foreign Office has a clear focus on how the Chinese are playing this situation and what they are up to generally, in the Chagos Islands and in many other islands and coastal states of the Commonwealth, where they are involving themselves increasingly closely?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We consider this issue closely. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that Mauritius is a close ally of ours and of India, and it does not take part in the Chinese belt and road initiative. It is our view that the stable, secure and long-term arrangement we now have protects the Chagos Islands from any interest from any other parties that we would not wish to see.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

As a Minister of State who dealt with this matter a quarter of a century ago, I applaud the Government for reaching an agreement. Does the Minister agree that if the treaty were somehow derailed by some of its critics, surely the losers would be not just our country but the United States, Mauritius, the Chagossians themselves, the United Nations General Assembly, the Commonwealth, the African Union and international law?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is hard to believe that it was 25 years ago. We are confident about this treaty and the fact that it secures our presence in the Indian Ocean. We accept that when there is a change of Government questions are raised and it is right that new Governments will want to cast their own eyes over the deal that has been done. We respect that and will co-operate, but we are confident that we can answer any concerns that may exist, because we think this is the right thing for us, for Mauritius and for the Chagos Islands, in securing our security.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept my welcome for what she said—that this treaty, when it has been concluded, will be brought to both Houses? If it involves the International Agreements Committee, on which I have the honour to serve, will she undertake that the committee will be given sufficient time to take proper evidence on the treaty before it?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That would be very helpful indeed. My experience is that the more people find out about the treaty and the deal that has been done, the more likely that some of the concerns they will naturally have—we welcome questions and scrutiny on this—can be answered fully. I am not responsible for the scheduling and timing, but I am sure my noble friend the Chief Whip has heard what the noble Lord said.

Renewable Energy: Costs

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

12:21

Moved by

[Lord Frost]

That this House takes note of the cost of renewable energy and its effect on energy costs in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the register of interests. I thank all those Members of your Lordships’ House who have agreed to speak today; I am very grateful to them all.

With COP 29 well under way in Baku, it is a timely moment to have this debate, even if that conference is perhaps attracting rather less interest than in previous years. That is certainly not because of lack of interest in the climate and energy issue. President Trump’s election is likely to open up debate once again at a global level. In the EU, we see increasing levels of doubt about the policy consequences of the climate commitments already made. Here in the UK, we have the new Government’s plan to decarbonise the energy grid by 2030, with the report last week from NESO, the newly formed National Energy System Operator, constituting the first detailed commentary on that plan.

Central to that plan is delivery of large-scale renewable capacity for our energy grid, both wind—onshore and offshore—and solar, together with a revamp of the transmission system to handle that. The NESO report provides us with costings for all this and much else besides. Like most other official and quasi-official studies on the costs of net zero, the NESO report uses figures already produced by the Government for this purpose. That is why it is such a matter of regret that there appears to be a large measure of disagreement about many of those underlying figures. We would have a much higher quality debate about the costs of net zero overall if there were at least consensus on the underlying figures. There is not, and that is why I felt it right to try to secure today’s debate on this matter. I do not expect we will find consensus today either, I fear, but perhaps we can hope to shed some light on why the differences exist.

The difficulty arises for two broad reasons. First, there are starkly different views of the levelised costs of renewables, particularly onshore and offshore wind, and these are relevant to the closely connected question of subsidies to this sector. Secondly, it is an inevitable consequence of the intermittent nature of renewables that this imposes costs elsewhere on the energy system: back-up, interconnectors, other non-renewable generation, and measures to ensure grid stability, together with the costs of rebuilding and reconfiguring the transmission system—and all this seemingly on a highly ambitious scale. I want to look at these areas in turn.

First, on the levelised costs of renewables—that is, the cost of building and operating wind and solar, discounted over time—the latest figures were published in 2023 by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and, as I said, the NESO report is based on them. Those figures claim that offshore wind can generate power at £44 per megawatt hour in current prices. Yet AR6, the recent round of capacity auctions, awarded contracts for offshore wind at £82 per megawatt hour in current prices. It is difficult to understand why there should be such a significant difference between these figures, if the £44 figure is in any way correct. One becomes even more baffled if one looks at the actual accounts of recently commissioned offshore wind farms, which suggest a production cost of around £100 per megawatt hour, or, indeed, if one looks at the recent payments, published yesterday, to offshore wind farms under contracts for difference, which suggest a production cost of around £150 per megawatt hour.

There are similar huge gaps in other areas of the costings. DESNZ assumes a capital cost for offshore wind of £1.5 million per megawatt of capacity. Yet, once again, looking at the accounts of wind companies, the figure appears to be about £3 million per megawatt, which is twice as much. Indeed, at the end of 2023, the developers of Moray West wind farm were still installing the foundations of the wind farm yet had already, at that point, spent the equivalent of £1.6 million per megawatt hour. It bears noting that if the seemingly correct higher offshore wind capital spending figure were used, the NESO estimate for capex from now to 2030 would go up by about £15 billion every year, taking the total capex from a total of £31 billion to £34 billion to a total of £45 billion to £50 billion annually.

To take just one further difference, the DESNZ figures assume a 61% capacity factor for offshore wind—that is, they assume that over a year, wind farms generate about three-fifths of their notional installed capacity. But once again, recent wind farms are opening at a capacity of 45% when new, and that figure is falling over time. The real capacity factor over the whole of the life of a wind farm may well be under 40%. If that is correct, it means that we will need to build 50% more offshore wind farms to get to the actual power that DESNZ estimates—and, of course, costs will go up by the same amount.

I note that Professor Gordon Hughes from Edinburgh University and Andrew Montford, director of Net Zero Watch, wrote to the Permanent Secretary at DESNZ on 16 September asking for further detail on some of these discrepancies. They have not yet received a reply.

Those figures are just the actual costs of operating offshore wind. The gap between assumptions, auctions and actual real-world costs explains why there has been such a need for subsidies ever since the shift to renewables began in the mid-2000s. The OBR says that “environmental levies”—a catch-all category which covers the renewables obligation, the contracts for difference and the feed-in tariffs—currently stand at about £12 billion a year. That is over £400 for every UK household. Yet one has to ask again: if the real cost of offshore wind really is £44 per megawatt hour, well below current market prices and the prices agreed in auction rounds, why do we need these subsidies at all?

I turn now to my second category: the costs elsewhere in the energy system. I think everybody agrees that there are some such costs; the question is: how high are they and what are the consequentials? The costs are principally those of intermittency, of which there are two kinds. The better-known one is the fact that little power is generated by renewables when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine—periods like the one we saw in this country for most of last week. This requires back-up, currently mainly gas, and there is obviously a capital cost in maintaining a dual system of any kind. Moreover, the fact that the gas-fired stations cannot be used at close to full capacity but must be turned on and off at short notice brings a cost in reduced efficiency and revenue. The cost of paying operators not to shut their power down as a result of this lack of efficiency—the so-called capacity market—is currently £1 billion a year. The OBR says it will rise to £4 billion in three years’ time.

The other kind of intermittency, which is less well known, is the reverse: what happens when the wind blows and the sun shines when we do not need the power generated. Under current arrangements, that involves us paying the renewables producers not to produce and to turn their kit off to avoid grid instability. That costs £2.5 billion per year, which is expected to rise to £3.5 billion in three years’ time.

It bears noting that the more renewables we produce and build, the bigger these figures will get. The more we rely on renewables, the bigger the problem when we have the wrong kind of weather, and the bigger the concomitant costs are going to be. That is why it is a simple fallacy, though a seemingly widely believed one, that building more renewables reduces costs and brings more security. It is surely clear that the reverse must be true.

Finally, there are the wider knock-on costs, most notably in the plans for what NESO calls “demand management”: rationing of energy if the grid cannot supply enough energy to meet demand. This will come either by compulsion—for example, in plans to reduce supply to industry in such circumstances—or by price rationing to consumers, or both. The NESO plan for demand management is slated to cover, by 2030, five times as much potential demand as now—that is, about 10 gigawatts.

Now noble Lords may say, as people do, there have always been differential energy tariffs. Indeed, some of us are old enough to remember things like Economy 7, from the 1980s. But that was differential pricing to stimulate demand in the night-time, when supply was high but demand was low. This is the reverse; this is a plan for us to put up with differential pricing to reduce demand, when it is demand that is high and supply that is low. That is quite different, and it necessarily imposes an economic cost on industry and the consumer, for they cannot use energy when they want to use it and may have no warning of the fact, either. It is hard to quantify that cost, but it is clearly potentially significant. It should be factored in to the cost of running an intermittent renewables system, but it is not.

The only attempt that I am aware of by government to quantify some of those wider costs—though not all of them, for some are still excluded—was made by the then BEIS in 2020, in its document entitled Energy Generation Costs 2020. This showed, even on the imperfect measures being used, that both offshore and onshore wind were on average likely to be more expensive than modern gas power stations, even allowing for some of the implausible assumptions that I discussed earlier.

Let us try to bring all this together. We have a significant discrepancy—disagreement, call it what you will—in assessments of the levelised costs of renewables. In the case of offshore wind, it is a discrepancy amounting, potentially, to up to £100 per megawatt hour. The high levels of subsidy we are paying in various forms suggest that production costs are in fact quite a lot higher than acknowledged. There are also wider costs to the grid—£3 billion to £5 billion in the current year, growing in future—and to the economy, hard to quantify but definitely present in the various kinds of inefficiencies created by an inefficiently working electricity supply system. In short, one side of the argument sees low levelised costs and believes that they will fall further; the other, with which obviously I associate myself, sees costs that are not falling and that require high and growing levels of subsidy and complexity to make the whole system work properly.

This situation is deeply unsatisfactory. The Government are about to embark on a dash to decarbonise the electricity grid according to an assessment that is based on certainly disputable direct costings, and which will be heavily contested and simply fails to take into account many of the wider costs and consequentials. This really is not good enough; the country is owed better.

I recognise, of course, that when the Minister responds he may not have the information he needs to reply fully to some of these detailed points, but I hope he might do so in writing, and perhaps at the same time encourage his Permanent Secretary to reply to Professor Hughes’ letter, which I mentioned earlier.

I say all this not to make a political point. We really need to understand better the real cost of renewables to the consumer, the Government and the economy. If it turns out that I am wrong and the costs really are low and falling, that will be excellent news for us all. I am doubtful about renewables not on some ideological grounds, but because they seem to me extremely expensive in their own right and to come with many additional costs and security risks too. I have not yet seen the evidence that would persuade me otherwise.

I finish on this point. With this in mind—and I am not sure the Minister will leap with alacrity on what I am about to say, but I hope he might respond anyway—the Government should consider establishing some form of expert committee on this subject, made up of officials and experts from the department and bodies such as NESO and the Climate Change Committee, with a red team of outside experts to provide challenge, to look on a totally transparent basis at the evidence and the costings, and to see how close it could get to a common view. This would seem to me the best way of getting at the reality and an assessment that might command a bit more consensus than the current situation does. Whatever this country’s future energy policy may be, we surely all want it to be established on the best possible analysis and the best possible knowledge. I look forward to the debate today and to the Minister’s response.

12:36

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Frost, starting this debate. He did so in the way I anticipated he would, repeating what was said in the debate a couple of weeks ago. Rather than following him into his arguments, the House needs to recognise that even if the costs of renewables, including of construction, carbon capture and storage and so forth, prove to be double the estimates made under the previous Government—and which are still supported by the Conservatives and by the new systems operator—they would still be substantially cheaper than the estimated cost of gas.

Of course, the electricity price in this country, contrary to what the noble Lord has said and to what the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said the other week, is higher than in other countries at various points because it is based on the price of gas. We have to pay the world price for gas, which went up considerably. It does not matter whether the gas is from the North Sea or from overseas: that gas price determines our electricity supply. The mechanism is explicit and implicit.

The real problem with our attempt to move to net zero is that we have failed to do certain complementary things, and on that I would largely agree with the noble Lord. We have failed to develop storage, switching capacity and aspects of the grid. We have failed to provide an offshore grid so that different arrays and wind farms can land at one place, rather than creating a planning problem in different parts of the country. On the other hand, we have failed to develop nuclear power or to return to nuclear power early enough. We have also failed to develop the long-term investment in tidal and wind power, which we have plenty of around our coast and which would not be intermittent. But that is very different from denying the whole ability to provide at relatively cheap cost predominantly renewable energy and to get back on to the trajectory, around which there was a degree of political consensus a year or two ago.

There are other problems, as well, with the policy so far. Effectively, we have failed to produce a supply chain for renewable energy in this country to any great extent. Most of the blades and paraphernalia for wind farms come from abroad. I applaud the Prime Minister’s announcement a few days ago on investment in manufacturing blades in Hull. I hope that that is only part of a new industrial policy that takes into account the need to provide alternative employment through training, retraining and recruitment of those who hitherto worked in areas that were supportive of North Sea activity, so they have jobs in the new industry. The actual techniques used in the jobs are not that different, so retraining can relatively easily be done; but we also need a new generation who can support the renewable energy sector.

I do not think that the noble Lord makes the case for changing significantly our trajectory, but he does make the case for ensuring that these back-up arrangements are in place and provide jobs and income for this country’s businesses and workforce.

The other reason I put down my name for this debate is my deep anxiety that, while it is obviously right to query costs, particular technologies and their effect on employment and business within Britain, what are essentially queries about particular projects—whether on who pays for it, the environmental impact of, for example, solar farms on agricultural land, or the total cost—have been used by some people to support what appears to be a growing international degree of ending the consensus on climate change. Some of that is reflected in what is going on in Baku now and the near failure of the COP process so far. We need to get back to that consensus, with all-party support for the trajectory that, a few years ago, seemed to be agreed by us all.

12:41

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and to agree with him particularly on the last point that he made. There are difficult decisions to be made; we need transparency and we need critical analysis of individual projects and policy decisions that will influence how we go forward. But we had the advantage in this country, and it is one reason why we became such a leader, of basing those decisions on a fundamental agreement across parties of the huge significance of the issues relating to climate change and the opportunities that there were both to save the world—that sounds very dramatic, but it is not necessarily incorrect—and to hold back and stem the potentially disastrous consequences of global warming by taking action now.

I am getting ahead of my speech and I have not declared my interest, which I do now. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on again directing the House’s attention to these issues. However, I fear that today he has asked us to take a very narrow focus on the cost of renewable energy and the effect on energy costs in the UK. I do not dispute that these are important issues, but I will not spend my precious four minutes going into the arcane debate about the latest LCOE figures from DESNZ or the implications of the latest strike price from AR6 CfD.

I simply say to the noble Lord that he puts a very gloomy interpretation on these figures, and he says that they are disputed. I do not dispute that he disputes them. However, there is a weight of opinion—academic, scientific and international—that suggests that his interpretation is wrong. If we look at the latest reports of the NESO, which he referred to, the CCC, the IEA and the International Renewable Energy Agency, and the excellent briefings we got from the Grantham Institute, the ECIU and the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association, they do not take the same view of the costs as he does.

My fear is not only that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has got his sums wrong—and possibly, some would say, not for the first time—but that we focus only on the narrow issue of the debate today. We run the risk, as Oscar Wilde told us, of seeing

“the price of everything and the value of nothing”.

There is value in the transition to renewables, beyond the savings to consumers, which I believe are there. There is value in terms of energy security, sustainable jobs for the future, this country’s economic performance and our ability to lead in this area in the future. I hope that other noble Lords will go into more detail about that value later in this debate.

12:45

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for securing this debate at the time of COP 29. It is a pleasure as always to follow on from the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I speak as the lead Bishop for the environment and as a member of Peers for the Planet.

I would like to ensure that there is reflection in this debate on the cost of not embracing renewable energy, especially as a global neighbour. Under even the most optimistic scenarios, the planet will experience warming above 1.5 degrees. The predictions for people and planet are stark. Ours is the generation that simply must move off our reliance on fossil fuels and embrace a new, cleaner, more resilient energy future.

We know the data. We know that climate change knows no international borders. We know that those being most impacted by adverse weather events are the poorest in the world. We know that those nations are least resilient as they are least able to afford mitigation and adaptation to protect their populations. We know that climate change is leading to more health problems, more migration, more conflict and more war. The cost of this is in the trillions—as well as the huge human misery that results. The UN has estimated that moving to renewables could save the world up to $4.2 trillion per year by 2030 as we reduce pollution and climate impacts. By the UK investing in renewables, we are investing in the technological development that will see costs decline over time. That is ultimately good for us, the consumers of electricity. It also contributes to the technological development that is needed across the world as it becomes more affordable.

We have made international commitments about our carbon emissions, and I welcome the recent announcement by the Prime Minister at COP 29 that we will reduce them by 81% by 2035. Let us not underestimate the importance of having international leadership in this area. We make these commitments because we know that it will contribute to the well-being of the planet, but it is also in our domestic interest. The lesser the impact of climate change, the less our national security risks, the better our public health, the more secure our food supplies and the more progress we can make restoring our native biodiversity.

Last year Pope Francis, in Laudate Deum, his short follow-up encyclical to the much-lauded Laudato Si’, wrote:

“We must move beyond the mentality of appearing to be concerned but not having the courage needed to produce substantial changes”.


I urge His Majesty’s Government to consider our global responsibilities as part of the cost-benefit of renewable energy, and I hope that other noble Lords feel able to as well.

12:49

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I declare interests, both for past energy issues—I was at one stage the Secretary of State—and as an adviser to Mitsubishi Electric, which is one of the biggest producers of equipment and kit related to moving to a clean energy world. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Frost on securing this debate, which is very well timed. It comes not only during COP 29 but after a very good debate last week, promoted by my noble friend Lord Lilley. It also comes before we debate, on Monday, the Great British Energy Bill, which, as far as I can understand it, is going to confuse things even more among many agencies. Still, we will have to live with that for the moment.

This is of course a question of pace and process. It is an honour to come after the right reverend Prelate but, with respect, the issue is not really whether there is a problem and we address it. The issue is whether we address it in a way which slows it down and creates a pushback, diverting us from the real task, or whether we focus on what we are trying to do, which is to reduce or slow down the rise in methane and CO₂ emissions, which are going to lead to a very great world disaster. At the moment, methane emissions are rising faster than ever; CO₂ worldwide is rising faster than ever. That at least raises the question of whether we are doing the right thing now, when clearly some action is needed.

We also need to create a rendezvous with reality, of which there is little sense in this debate, and counter a tide of misinformation—some of it unconscious and some of it conscious disinformation—about what should be done now and which way we should go. There are also some rather cuckoo recommendations from really quite senior bodies about flying more slowly, which sounds extremely dangerous to me, or eating less beefsteak. For some people, that may be necessary, but generally that seems a rather bad addition to the nation’s health.

I am very pleased that our own Library here in the House of Lords has put forward an excellent briefing, in which it has corrected, rightly, a very important and basic issue about this whole discussion. It is the matter of the confusion, in assessing where we go next, between electricity generated, as at present, and total energy use. Those are very different things. Last year, the former, according to the Office for National Statistics, produced about 19% of total energy use and renewables were about half that. Of that 19%, about 51% was green electricity of all kinds, including nuclear, wind, sun and all the rest. That leaves renewables providing about 9% or 10%—not 50%—of the total energy that we use in this economy at present. It is the remaining 90% that we now have to focus on.

There are a number of reasons why it may not be quite as bad as that and a number of reasons why it might be much greater. Energy efficiency will reduce growth; interconnectors will help us out; local generation and tidal will help us out as well. The prospects are also for a huge increase in energy demand in this country, which we will have to meet by nuclear, when we have made no moves so far beyond Hinkley, which is turning into a pretty bad outfit altogether. There are also the costs of storage and having much more nuclear power at Sizewell, which will be a great mistake. We need six new switching stations, a new grip on pylons and an entire makeover of the National Grid system. None of these things appear to be going forward very fast and we therefore face the fact that we will have huge electrical growth for which someone will have to pay, and it will cost a great deal more.

12:54

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, in October 2006 Professor Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank, later introduced as the noble Lord, Lord Stern, vividly briefed the Cabinet on the looming climate crisis. His central message was that the costs of combating it will be high, but the costs of not doing so will be immeasurably higher. How right he was and how wrong the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said so eloquently, the science and the devastating effects of global heating are indisputable, as extreme weather—chaos, droughts and mega-floods—batters the planet, most recently in Spain.

Renewables are getting much cheaper, gas more expensive and nuclear power incredibly more expensive, especially with its decommissioning and waste storage costs. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has estimated the future costs of the nuclear decommissioning mission at a colossal £105.3 billion, significantly taxpayer funded. Offshore Energies UK also reports spiralling costs and a dramatic hike in the decommissioning costs for oil and gas platforms and plugging oil and gas wells, costing taxpayers over £16 billion from a 2021 Tory-funded deal. In March 2023, independent research showed that, since 2015, the last Conservative Government gave £20 billion more in support to fossil fuel producers than to renewables.

There is no doubt that generating electricity from nuclear power costs significantly more than generating it from solar and wind. Then there is the enormous untapped potential of marine energy: notably, the very low-cost tidal power from the Severn estuary, with the second highest tidal rise and fall in the world, which has never been harnessed and surely must now be.

Britain’s dependence on fossil fuel markets controlled by autocrats such as Vladimir Putin has left us vulnerable to energy price spikes, as well as the escalating costs of the climate emergency. That is why our Labour Government have committed to delivering clean, homegrown energy by 2030, meaning electricity based on renewables, nuclear and clean energy technologies that we control at home, rather than fossil fuels sold on volatile international markets. Last week, the National Energy System Operator—NESO, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Frost—published an independent, expert analysis showing that clean power can lead to cheaper and more secure electricity for households. A wide range of groups from business leaders to trade union leaders, the International Energy Agency and leading UK and international companies, such as National Grid, Scottish Power and SSE, have backed this.

We need Labour’s pro-energy security, pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-climate and lower cost policy to tackle the climate emergency with real urgency. Prioritising green, clean renewable energy is about choosing investment over decline, new skilled jobs over low productivity ones, growth over stagnation, and cheaper over more expensive consumer prices—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Stern, might have said to the Cabinet meeting that I attended in 2006, investing in the short term to save over the longer term.

12:57

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of Acteon, which operates across global marine energy and offshore infrastructure services. Central to this debate is a clear understanding of the significant distinction between the availability of renewables and hydrocarbons. One leads to the generation of intermittent power; the other to much-needed baseload. While moving to an increasing share of renewables, we always require the availability of baseload.

I had the good fortune, as Energy Minister back in 1990, to introduce the first competitive framework for renewables: the non-fossil fuel obligation, which morphed into the contracts for difference that we have in place today. What it has not led to is a simple trade-off between gas-fired power generation and renewables. Even as we debate today, at this hour—not just last week—our grid status shows that 53% of our power generation is from gas, with wind at 18%. Nuclear at 13% is far too low; the late delivery of SMRs is due to their being stifled by bureaucracy. While gas plants account for about one-third of Britain’s power requirements and are destined to fall to an average of 5% in about 10 years, we still have to retain the capacity of these gas-fired plants as a strategic reserve for windless days like today.

It is worth pointing out that we will not achieve that switch without substantial investment and private sector creativity. The recent NESO report, referred to by my noble friend Lord Frost, finds that the shift to renewables necessary for the Government to reach their flagship manifesto pledge of a clean power system in 2030 will require annual investment of more than £40 billion, with nearly 2,700 miles of offshore electric cables and 620 miles of new onshore cabling.

The alternative to this scenario necessitates storage solutions, and while I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that storage technology is improving, there is a long road to travel to reach scalability and affordability. The capex has to be found by the Government if they want to keep the promise made by the Secretary of State Ed Miliband that household bills will fall. Given this reality, it would be irresponsible to turn our back on maximising domestic gas production in the UKCS. A stable fiscal regime for gas production is essential in a highly competitive global market for investment dollars. Norway has a consistent 78% tax rate. If the Government are to follow the Norwegian model, which they began to do in the Budget, the next steps must include further investment allowances. Without them, we face—as we do today—a premature wind-up of the UKCS, leaving gas stranded and substituted not by renewables but by expensive, more polluting, imported LNG, which makes neither economic nor environmental sense.

Renewable energy sources come with massive upfront capital investments which cannot be excluded in any cost comparison. Maintenance, decommissioning, grid costs and life-cycle replacement need to be costed. It is true that the marginal cost of producing electricity from wind or solar, once the facilities are operational, is extraordinarily low. In summary, we have to create a resilient, sustainable energy system which has to underpin energy security. The key, as ever, will lie in the strategic investments we make today, in both technology and infrastructure, and in private sector investment to ensure that we are not merely reacting to market forces but proactively shaping the energy landscape for generations to come. This, I would argue, is a future well worth striving for, and I wish the Government well.

13:01

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an education to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. It is an obvious truth that we should note the costs of any national policy and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for giving us the opportunity to debate it. I congratulate him on his timing. COP 29 provides an international context for what is manifestly an international problem: the climate change emergency.

We must also factor in to the national calculation the benefits of the policy and the costs of not adopting it, as has been mentioned. We should do this for the long term as well as the short term. I shall focus on the long term, but it is unarguable that there will be short-term costs—whatever they are—in moving to reliance on renewables. A key issue is who is to bear them. We shall need to consider the split between public funds and consumer and upfront private sector expenditure.

Industry thinks long term, and the chief executive of CorPower, which has pioneered the first commercial wave energy device in Portugal, said:

“I believe that there are, today, several key trends in renewable energy which can be considered megatrends. One of them is … cost reduction”.


He describes this trend in solar energy as being

“even in places where the solar irradiation is quite low”.

I think the UK might find itself here, and in wind energy and eventually marine energy.

NESO, referred to by my noble friend Lord Hain, considers that the economies it mentions, after the shift to a clean-power system, come from offsetting benefits from the eventual fall in the price of electricity, the cessation of dependence on volatile international gas prices, and improved efficiency measures. I regret that there simply is not time in four minutes to break down the figures. We should also find a way to include the so far unquantified but clear gains in energy security and health which will come with renewables.

If we can ensure that our national strategy invests fairly and equitably in short-term costs, the profits of the companies involved will yield tax, as will the jobs that they provide, together with more consumer spending power. There is already an example in the joint venture project to supply decarbonised heat to buildings across Westminster from the Thames, the Underground and the sewer networks. It will cost £1 billion: an investment that is certainly a significant short-term cost but a measurable long-term significant gain in reducing energy bills.

We must put into our equation the likely costs of unimpeded climate change from the overuse of fossil fuels: extensive floods in the UK, homes abandoned from rising sea levels in the UK, lives lost from extreme heat—probably also in the UK—and the international disruption caused by the effects of climate change on people fleeing ruined habitats.

Finally, I put one request to my noble friend the Minister. Wave energy is the Cinderella of renewable energy, but it has huge potential, especially when combined with offshore wind, not least for reducing battery storage costs. The contracts for difference scheme does not give it a fair chance at present, because it has not yet achieved the scale-up reductions of the more established tidal energy schemes. Will he consider giving it its own ring-fence, so that all the research now producing results can be speeded up?

13:05

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, specifically my chairmanship of Project Tempo, a non-profit organisation which researches public attitudes towards the energy and climate transition. I thank my noble friend Lord Frost for this important and timely debate.

My right honourable friend the leader of His Majesty’s Opposition is right that we need to tell the truth. Over the last few years, successive Governments have set more and more ambitious emissions reduction targets, without a plan for how to meet them. We urgently need an honest debate about the different pathways to decarbonising our economy. The road is paved with trade-offs, and we must choose which ones to make.

I want to make two observations. The first is that British voters overwhelmingly support the ambition of getting to net zero. Project Tempo’s research shows that the public care about protecting the environment and want us, as a country, to do the right thing. However, it also shows that public support for green policies declines dramatically when individuals are asked to pay for them through higher energy bills, prices or taxes.

The second observation is that British energy prices are going in the wrong direction, and have been since well before the war in Ukraine. Data from the energy department shows that between 2010 and 2023, domestic electricity bills almost doubled in real terms, and data recently published in the Financial Times showed that the UK’s industrial electricity costs were among the highest in the world, more than four times those of the United States or China, and significantly higher than those of all other G7 economies. This is a profound challenge.

Our globally uncompetitive energy costs not only damage our productivity and economic growth, they risk undermining public support for the transition. If people come to associate green policies with higher bills, it will become much harder to maintain the public support that we need to reduce emissions and tackle climate change. That is why I was worried to read last week that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that Labour’s plans for clean power by 2030 will see green levies rise by an average of £120 per household by the end of the decade. The recent report from the National Energy System Operator also suggested that energy system costs could rise as a result of Labour’s plans.

We ought to pursue the mix of technologies that will reduce energy bills, protect national security and drive growth in our economy. Unfortunately, the Government’s policy will do exactly the opposite. Their ideological rush towards accelerated targets will send prices higher and exclude the development of other forms of clean energy such as nuclear, which would help us hedge the costs involved in decarbonising the grid. Can I press upon the Minister the importance of new nuclear and ask him to set out briefly the position on the Wylfa plant in Ynys Môn?

We must tell the truth about the challenges we face, not pretend that inconvenient facts do not exist. The reality is that many of the Energy Secretary’s current plans entail borrowing enormous amounts of money and spending it on subsidising technologies which are not otherwise viable on the open market, or on importing more products from China. Before the election, the then Opposition promised that their plans would cut consumer energy bills by £300. That claim—which they continue to stand by—is bogus. My fear is that false promises such as that, and their general rush to accelerate the transition, risk undermining the very environmental action which so many of us wish to see. I look forward to hearing how the Minister will address these legitimate concerns.

13:10

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for securing it. The renewable energy system stems from the climate change issue, so we cannot look at one in isolation without the other. I am interested in the noble Lord, Lord Frost, saying that there is no consensus around some of the figures and costings. I assume that that is because some of those estimates are just guesstimates at a high level, as opposed to having any significant background to the figures.

I am concerned about climate change, as I am sure most in this House are. I want to see renewable energy and I support it, but it all comes at a cost. We have to devise that cost in a practical manner and not just set targets that cannot be achieved. In Northern Ireland, we have set targets that I do not believe are achievable—in fact, we have missed all our early targets on climate change.

It also comes sometimes at an environmental cost. In the early 1950s, a renewable project—a hydro-plant—was built at Ballyshannon, in the Republic of Ireland, using the water that flows from Lough Erne in County Fermanagh. That has had huge environmental challenges, not least in that it has decimated the salmon and eel industries in Lough Erne. The salmon, eel and other fish trying to get back up through the hydro-plant have been slaughtered. They have been cut and killed by the blades of the hydro-plant, and that has reduced the number of fish stocks within Lough Erne. This has been a huge environmental disaster in County Fermanagh, so we need to be careful about how we do this. Just a few years ago, hundreds of thousands of eels were trapped in that hydro-plant and killed. That is a huge loss to the environment in County Fermanagh and to Lough Erne.

We do not always have sun shining and wind blowing, so we need to find other back-up mechanisms. I accept that other aspects, such as wave energy, might be more reliable. We need to do this in a managed way. In Northern Ireland, we had the renewable heat incentive, or RHI, which turned out to be an absolute disaster. We cannot now invest in further renewable incentives in Northern Ireland; we are pouring money back from the Executive every year, simply because we are not allowed to utilise that funding while the RHI is still in place. It has been a disaster not only for the Government and the Executive but for many of those genuine users who have invested millions of pounds into projects that they now cannot make pay, and who are returning to conventional types of heating such as oil and coal. We need to be careful in what we do and how we do it. That is why we should not rush into issues that are not reasonable.

Last December, I attended a seminar led by government and executive officials in Northern Ireland. We were told that, by 2027—in just three years—it will cost government departments in the small area of Northern Ireland £2.3 billion to implement climate change policies up to that point, and that is not to talk of what it will cost businesses, ordinary householders and the public.

13:14

[Lord Browne of Madingley (CB)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests as set out in the register.

I would like to make four related points on this topic and its wider context. First, in the UK, the cost of supplying electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar is far below the cost of supplying it from generators using oil, coal, gas or nuclear fission. However, there are many assumptions in these average calculations, notably for financing, location and risk. In my long experience, these will cause different analysts to come up with different estimates, but in almost all cases the results are the same: namely, that renewable energy sources are the cheapest today.

Secondly, the cost of renewable power has come down by at least 60% over the last decade. That is a result of economies of manufacturing scale and improvements in technology. Both these effects will continue. There is no reason why, for example, the efficiency of solar cells could not improve by 50%. The cost of battery capacity has shrunk by over 80% and it will continue to decline. That is important because it now makes it possible to have long duration storage of electricity supply, removing the uncertainty of sunshine and wind.

Renewables will be a significant contributor to the transition to clean energy sources. Their continued cost-effective deployment is vital to avoid the impacts of climate change. They are not the only source of climate mitigation, but they tell a story which needs to be repeated in other technologies. Their continued improvement and deployment in the UK give us credibility in the energy transition industry. We must not let go of this position.

Thirdly, no improvement or deployment can happen automatically. It requires research and development, from fundamental science to the engineering of how to grow an innovation to a commercial scale. The UK’s grip on many of the needed intellectual and practical scientific components is strong. If continued to be aggressively developed, this could become the source of significant growth, both domestically and as a source of export earnings.

Fourthly, the UK will need to pull together all its resources to compete in the areas likely to have the highest commercial impact and the lowest cost deployment. It will need to demonstrate that our innovations are scalable. That will best be done if the UK creates a national energy institute. It must consolidate in one place the best minds to work on problems that need access to many different scientific, engineering and economics disciplines. It must attract the best of the best, because it is a centre of excellence, much as has happened in the life sciences at the Francis Crick Institute and the Laboratory of Molecular Biology. It will need to be based in a city which already attracts the best people and has an appropriate platform of scientific and technical support. Given its track record in energy, Cambridge must come high, if not top, of the list of those candidates.

I make these four points to make a single overarching comment: that we need access to the best, lowest-cost and highest-impact technologies, not just now but in the future. We have low-cost renewables; we must not throw away the chance of having other low-cost technologies here in the UK to have low-cost, secure and clean sources of energy for generations to come.

13:18

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Frost for calling this debate and for his excellent opening remarks. I call attention to my register of interests.

Each day, the direct and indirect cost of renewables expands upwards and outwards, with subsidies, constraints, payments, curtailment, demand-side response, artificial inertia, and on. There have been rising prices every year from 2002 to 2020, at a time when—contrary to the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—gas prices were broadly flat. Now, we have the highest electricity prices in the developed world.

This week Ed Miliband claimed that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels and that the price of electricity will go down by £300. These assertions generated widespread derision. The Centre for Policy Studies called them “nakedly dishonest”, saying that

“the £300 figure is pure garbage”.

I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, just made a similar assertion.

We are told that net zero can be achieved at modest cost, but behind almost all those claims are the assertions of DESNZ, which are, unfortunately, divorced from reality. My noble friend Lord Frost mentioned experts discrediting DESNZ’s figures. The findings of others, including Dr Aldersey-Williams of Robert Gordon University and the independent energy consultant Kathryn Porter, are also completely inconsistent with DESNZ, yet its figures are treated as gospel throughout our institutions. The Climate Change Committee uses them and NESO’s claim that the Secretary of State’s plan is affordable depends on them. If current costings, rather than those of DESNZ, are applied to the Royal Society’s recent study on a net-zero grid, the overall cost rises, arguably, to an unaffordable level.

We are basing public policy on hopeful predictions that have little grounding in reality. Policymakers should surely demand to know what net zero would cost, using real numbers. It is unforgiveable that successive Governments have failed to prepare a cost-benefit analysis of net zero that is based on real, hard data.

Several weeks ago I told your Lordships’ House that

“net zero is a religion”.—[Official Report, 24/10/24; col. 774.]

How else can one interpret its proponents’ head-in-the-sand approach? Entire industries have been destroyed in this country—cars, aluminium, steel, North Sea oil—and for what? China’s carbon emissions are already five times the emissions of the entire European Union. India is about equal to the EU but rising fast. We ourselves are a rounding error. Why pursue this extraordinary destruction of value in our economy, spending huge random amounts that will not—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, put it—“save the world”?

The Government should be honest about their fudge, delegitimise those who created it and start again with credible, disinterested analysis as to what the real cost is, what it might be in future, whether we can afford it and what the overall impact on the country and the economy will be. Remarks in the recent debate implied that we must not concern ourselves with the cost, because we have to do this to save the planet. That is emotion-based, not calm and fact-based, reasoning. We must accept that, at some given level of cost, we would want to decide that net zero was unaffordable. We must find out, using facts and assertions, whether net zero’s cost takes us into that unaffordable territory.

To conclude, I hope that the Government will consent to my noble friend Lord Frost’s request for a speedy inquiry into what the costs really are and whether their expected impact on the nation is affordable. I do not believe it is.

13:23

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am voluntarily involved in a small Archimedes screw on the River Teme, generating electricity at Ludlow.

Given that the UK cannot build railways as fast as the Victorians, I am on solid ground in my belief that clean electrical power by 2030 is a non-runner. The UK is world class in setting targets, which is not the same as delivering actions. Last week’s report from the National Energy System Operator is claimed by some as saying it is all possible—that is pie in the sky.

What is expected in the 1,873 days until 1 January 2030? The list has to be delivered—all of it, simultaneously and in full. Market reforms need to unlock £40 billion a year in investment. Onshore wind capacity has to double. Battery capacity connected to the grid has to grow fourfold. Solar capacity has to be tripled. The high-voltage grid has to be upgraded and expanded twice as much in the next five years as we have seen in the past 10 years. Carbon capture and storage targets have to be achieved using technology that has not yet been delivered at scale. We have to contract as much offshore wind power in the next one or two years as we have seen in the past six years. We need a fourfold increase in the flexibility of demand using smart meters that actually work. When the wind drops and the sun does not shine, batteries and pump storage hydro will have to be there to compensate. The nuclear plants will be required as back-ups.

That will all have to be delivered at pace, on time and at the same time—come off it. This is the UK in 2024, not the UK of the Lunar Men 250 years ago at the start of the Industrial Revolution. The UK no longer has a culture of building or people like Isambard Kingdom Brunel.

I have never yet heard a Minister address the issue of intermittent renewables. Who pays for the intermittency? It is never addressed. Huge amounts of kit cannot be manufactured in the UK. There is an international shortage of substation transformers and the ships needed for offshore installation. There is a massive shortage of homegrown skills to make all this possible.

I keep hearing that planning has been dealt with. Really? I know I am alone in this, but I see pylons and wind turbines across the countryside as truly majestic. Not everybody agrees, but burying the grid at sea is far less secure than having it where you can see it. We know that the massive undersea cables for the world wide web have been interfered with by Putin’s Russia. A lot of these doubts have been set out in detail by many people, including Professor Dieter Helm in one of his blogs. Nothing has changed since then except the Government and the creation of NESO.

Let me be clear: I am not a climate sceptic—I was the first Minister ever to speak on the Climate Change Bill, for the simple reason that I introduced it in this House in 2007. It is 1,873 days and counting.

13:26

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I crave the House’s indulgence for largely lifting the comments I will make from a contribution to a debate we had in February this year. I was going to make a few rather politically pris comments until I discovered that, in February, the Minister who answered was a Conservative Minister. Rereading his answers, I found them as unsatisfactory as some of the things I have heard since.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Frost on what is a timely debate. I will limit my remarks to a very narrow part of it: the costs of transmitting the renewable energy that we are debating. There is absolutely no consensus on these costs at all.

I do not share the sentiment—although I understand it—expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about the “majesty” of a whole new generation of pylons marching across our countryside. In fact, that is when the public will begin to lose their enthusiasm for renewable energy. There are other ways of doing it, but we first need to address some fundamental questions. Why are we locating substations for bringing offshore renewable energy onshore, when countries such as Holland and Belgium are planning vast offshore substations? They are absolutely huge. Why is it current UK policy that, instead of pooling the power from the 18 or so wind farms around the country and having limited interconnectors, the National Grid is offering an individual connection to each offshore wind farm? It is completely unthought through and unnecessary.

On the subject of burying power lines versus not burying them, the technology is ever-changing, and some of the figures that have been bandied about by National Grid and others are simply unrecognisable. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is right: we do not build things very well any more. If you look back to the 1850s, when we carried telegraph traffic across the transatlantic cable, we were one of the first to do that, and five years later, Sebastian Ziani de Ferranti designed the first high-voltage underground mains cable, which he used to connect the Grosvenor Gallery to Deptford substation, and which carried 10,000 volts. These were all highly innovative and revolutionary acts of engineering. But we can do the same now; we need to have a debate about the various costs of ploughing in and trenching power lines. The new technologies are there, and we know that the environmental benefits of burying power lines in terms of reducing outages, the effects on the flora and fauna and bird life, and the visual impact as well on our landscapes are there and need to be factored into any cost-based analysis.

There was some question about the cost of burying power lines, particularly in East Anglia, and that is a good example. The National Energy System Operator, which formed part of the former National Grid, maintains, on the power lines which it is proposing to build overland in East Anglia, that if that timeframe was to slip to 2034, an underground cable system would come in £600 million cheaper than using pylons. So, we need an honest debate about the various costs, but I urge anybody who is keen on increasing the amount of renewables transmitted to this country to think very carefully about how we do that if we are to carry the public with us.

13:31

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for initiating it. It follows our recent debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and it feels a bit like it is a band reunion with some of the stars missing. We rehearsed a number of arguments from last time.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, protests that his position is not ideological, but I am afraid that I do not really buy that. He told us in his speech the other week:

“In my view, we are not in a climate emergency”.—[Official Report, 24/10/24; col. 769.]


I think science would beg to differ from that. I am all for us having the most open debates; we should have had greater debates on these issues, particularly at the time that we adopted net zero. That was the right thing to do, but we did not have sufficient debate. However, it is important that those debates seek to illuminate rather than to obfuscate the issues, and I fear that that is often what the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Lilley, organisations such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation and others seek to do, a bit like what the tobacco industry sought to do, confusing all the science—and we all know the cost of that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, quoted that old adage about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. But in a way, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, disputes the price of everything but he knows the cost of nothing. We heard very convincingly from Lord Browne about the realities of these costs. We know that from the figures that are provided by the Government, which I have heard some noble Lords on the Official Opposition Benches disputing, but which were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, in his speech last week or the week before. What he did not do was compare like with like; he took one figure which he had taken off the carbon price on gas and compared it with something else which was not in the graph and which told a completely different story. That is not very illuminating.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, described the noble Lord, Lord Stern, speaking at a Cabinet meeting some years ago and making clear that the costs of inaction were much greater than the costs of acting: that the costs of combating climate change would be high—that is true—but the costs of not doing so would be higher.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, did not talk at all about the external costs of burning carbon fuels. We have known a long time about those impacts. In fact, as long ago as 1965, in a report from the President’s Science Advisory Committee to President Lyndon Johnson, that council warned that the burning of fossil fuels

“may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate”

by the year 2000. As we know from internal papers of Exxon, the oil company, which were exposed by Inside Climate News, the oil companies knew about this very well themselves. In May 1981, an internal memo from Exxon stated:

“We estimate now that the doubling time”


for CO₂ in the atmosphere

“is about 100 years. This permits time for an orderly transition to non-fossil fuel technologies should restrictions on fossil fuel use be deemed necessary”.

The memo went on to predict a

“3°C global average temperature rise and 10°C degrees at the poles if CO₂ doubles … Major shifts in rainfall/agriculture … polar ice … melt”.

A number of presentations, documents and memos internally in those companies, with the American Petroleum Institute, which made clear the dangers of globally catastrophic effects.

However, we know what happened. After that time, companies such as Exxon, which had been very forward-looking in research on the impacts of carbon dioxide, suddenly changed their leadership on that and went about the process not of continuing to research—it closed down its research on that—but seeking others to do research to try to undermine climate science, the very climate science some of which they had pioneered. It is very much like big tobacco. We need to bear that in mind. Those costs were known about, and if we had acted earlier, the costs we would be dealing with now would be much easier.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, quite rightly talked about costs to households. We have to think about how we move into this transition, which is why it is so important that we have the real facts available and that we do it in a way that is as fair and has as least impact as possible on individuals. However, as she may know, average household expenditure on energy actually fell between 2013 and 2020. A lot of that was to do with measures that had been taken in the coalition Government through the levies in terms of energy efficiency of people’s homes and reducing energy consumption, and that should be a key area that we focus on.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich made the important point that the most vulnerable and the least resilient nations are likely to be the most impacted by climate change. On the costs, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, last week stated:

“If continuing to do nothing … were likely to result in the extinction of the human race, or even its immiseration, almost no costs would be too great to avoid it”.


However, he went on to say that he had put down a question to the Government some time ago about

“whether they knew of any peer-reviewed science, or science produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—whose job it is to consider the science—which forecasts that, if we do nothing over the coming centuries, it will lead to the extinction of the human race or even its immiseration”.—[Official Report, 24/10/24; cols. 795-96.]

But he did not actually ask that question. What he asked was whether there was any peer-reviewed science which said that the human population would be exterminated within the next century, and of course he got the answer, no. Again, it is this obfuscation of the actual facts.

When I think about the external costs, I think about some of the kids I taught many years ago in a school in Zimbabwe, which I mentioned last time. Shortly after my father died, that school, very movingly, sent me a photograph of a playground it had built and dedicated to his memory. At the bottom of the slide there is a six year-old little girl with a big smile—it is a beautiful picture. I think of that person, who has contributed almost nothing to the carbon in the atmosphere, but who will be one of the people most impacted by what we do, and to whom we have a moral obligation.

In a post on Facebook, one of the pupils I had previously taught was not talking about climate change; he was explaining why the school was named after St James. The Anglicans had this habit of naming a mission after a saint, but also adding the area where the mission was situated. In our case it was St James Zongoro. The name Zongoro is from the river, but the river is slowly dying because of climate change. That river is dry most of the time. They cannot feed their fish ponds any more, and they are increasingly impacted by severe weather events. It is those vulnerable people who are one of the reasons why we have to continue with this. We have been a leader in renewable energy; we should continue to be so, and we should be honest and open about the costs of doing that, the benefits and the values.

13:41

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to wind up this interesting debate on energy on behalf of the Opposition. Indeed, it is the second such debate we have had in the last two weeks, with a third to come on Monday as we begin the discussion on GB Energy.

It is worth framing this debate in the context of the new Government’s stated ambition on this topic, which is to make Britain a clean energy superpower. They are now bringing forward specific proposals for cheaper zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero.

It is worth reflecting again on the consensus that exists on net zero: that we have set a target of 2050; that at the moment the majority of our power—roughly three-quarters—comes from hydrocarbons and a quarter from non-hydrocarbons; and that our objective, over one generation, is to flip that on its head so that a maximum of a quarter comes from hydrocarbons, which will be green hydrocarbons, and three-quarters from non-hydrocarbons.

As to what that mix, or matrix, might look like, we have used words in the past such as a “balanced scorecard”. We have also discussed the fact that 2024 may not be the right moment to accurately predict what will make up that matrix or scorecard. We know the direction of travel, but as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has mentioned, technology is advancing rapidly and costs will move accordingly. Therefore, there will be a debate to be had on how we move forward and in which area.

It is interesting, therefore, having set that scene, to think about the specific proposals we will be considering next week, because this is the first concrete step on this Government’s journey to that end. The keyword here is “accelerating”. A number of noble Lords have already expressed concern about this concept of accelerating, and why and how we do that.

Coming before us will be the Great British Energy Bill, and the Budget committed £8 billion of funds as a key enabler of the zero-carbon electricity target of 2030, which has been brought forward by five years. The NESO report has described the ambition to achieve zero-carbon electricity by 2030 as “immensely challenging”, requiring the UK to double its onshore wind capacity and triple its solar power; and it will depend on flexible power demand—a euphemism for rationing.

That is quite a considerable statement by NESO, and a number of experts have raised concerns that this is going to be too aggressive. In fact, as we know, the analyst Cornwall Insight says that we are on track to get 44% from renewables, but that decarbonising the electricity grid completely would require getting to 67%. That is a long way off, and we estimate that that will cost an extra £50 billion.

I think the point the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, was making is this. These are great targets to have, but the Scottish Government, for example, have had to roll back very considerably on targets that were set, it would appear, more for grandstanding than in reality. I think we all agree that we do not want to set false targets that we cannot achieve, when we have an opportunity to do this in the right way and in a considered fashion.

Turning to the Great British Energy Bill that is coming up next week, I am concerned that the Government may have to manage public expectations on this matter. I gained some direct understanding of this a couple of months ago when I was in Irvine for the BBC’s “Any Questions?” The audience was convinced that GB Energy will be a new low-cost energy supplier, and was quite taken with the figure being bandied around of £300 per household. Rightly or wrongly, this is now in the public domain. In reality, as we will next discover week, GB Energy is simply an investment fund that will channel £8 billion of taxpayers’ money into renewables, principally offshore wind farms.

That may or may not be the right thing to do, but at the moment that sector is well invested in by the private sector. There is already £35 billion of private sector money in offshore renewables, projected to rise to £60 billion. This is a well-functioning market, so why does the taxpayer need to put £8 billion into a sector that is already well invested in?

If we take the £300 per household and multiply it by 28 million households, by compete coincidence that comes to £8 billion. Therefore, one has to double one’s money in five years—by 2030. Renewables is a low return on investment category, in the region of 5%, whereas hydrocarbon is a high return on capital category, in the region of 20%. The private sector has been investing renewables over a 20-year period and does not contemplate doubling its money in the space of five years, so why would the taxpayer expect to be able to do something different and double the money in five years? It is, frankly, beyond me, and we will get to the point where these numbers will be interrogated and will need to be backed up.

It has also been asked whether, if there is a spare £8 billion going and we are told that money is tight, the taxpayer should be considering getting rid of some of the bottlenecks in the system. Should we be thinking about some of the plumbing, for example? Should the money be invested instead in the national grid?

The national grid was built in the 1960s and ’70s, when energy was generated in coal-fired power stations in Scunthorpe and had to be sent to Orkney, which was considered a remote region and therefore had to pay more for its energy. Today, the majority of the wind farms are off Orkney and now send energy back to Scunthorpe, but at the moment the pipes do not allow for that to happen. There is no storage capacity in the meantime, which is why we have this ridiculous concept of curtailment payments and subsidies to switch off wind farms when the wind blows and keep the gas-fired power stations open when the wind does not blow. Given this, a lot of thought needs to be put into how we proceed.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, said, the real issue is that our electricity is too expensive. Our energy in the UK is too expensive. The cost of living crisis has been driven largely by the fact that basics—energy, housing and transport—are too expensive in the UK. Any Government of any shape or form should be working hard to bring down these costs. Why should it be that UK consumers are paying 43% more than French consumers in domestic usage and 83% more than the French in industrial usage? That should be the focus of government activity, rather than piling into a sector that is already well covered by the private sector as things stand. If we see the likes of the OBR saying that the levies will rise by £3 billion, which is £100 per household, and if the IFS is correct that these levies are fundamentally raising prices for consumers, I do not understand how that ties in with the narrative of any Government saying that we need to make the lives of our citizens better by urgently bringing energy prices down and not up.

I conclude by coming to the precise events on this issue that we saw in the other place last week, when the Government voted against an amendment to cut bills by £300, which they had promised would be a strategic priority for Great British Energy. That might be the wrong number, but can we please have some analysis on what the number will be? Why did the Government vote against an amendment that would hold them to their word if, at the end of the day, that is to the detriment of the British consumer? I am sure that we will get into this next week. When we come to the Second Reading, I will ask the Minister to confirm that these energy policies will cut energy prices as promised, and by how much.

13:51

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to respond to this morning’s debate and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on initiating it. We have had an interesting discussion on many of the challenging issues that we face around energy. This is our third debate because, although the noble Lord was not present for it, we had one on electric vehicles, which covered many of the same issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Offord, said, we look forward to the Second Reading of the Great British Energy Bill on Monday.

I welcome the interest. It is so important, on an issue that is of such critical importance to our country, that your Lordships are making a real effort, debating some of the difficult challenges that we face. Clearly, there are different views. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Whitty, and the right reverend Prelate about the apposite nature of the debate happening at the same time as the discussions in Baku. I also take the right reverend Prelate’s point about our international responsibilities, which we very much understand.

In essence the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has argued today and in previous debate that he sees the net-zero consensus as breaking down. He has said previously, although he did not cover it much today, that he disagrees that investment in net zero will make us richer. He thinks that we should unwind and invest in gas and nuclear. I agree about nuclear. I note his detailed analysis of the costs of renewables. I will ensure that he receives a considered response. I have a response that I could read out, but it might be better if I wrote to him, with a copy to all Members of your Lordships’ House, since it is technical in nature. I get the substance of what he is saying. He will understand that I do not think the consensus was quite with him. There are clearly many different interpretations of the costs, not least, as noble Lords have said, the costs of not taking action. That is one of the great dividing lines between us. It was discussed by my noble friend Lord Hain, the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, whose speech was about the costs of not taking action.

It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, made no reference to climate change, as far as I can recollect. I find it very difficult to debate this without taking climate change as the context in which we develop these arguments. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, that I see net zero not as a religion but as a rational response to evidence that is becoming clearer and clearer. The noble Lord, Lord Offord, said that he disagrees with the pace at which we are going—I understand that—but he does not resile from net zero. I do not want to waste your Lordships’ time repeating what other noble Lords have said about the impact of climate change. Clearly, it is with us. I took over the Climate Change Bill from my noble friend Lord Rooker in 2008. When we were debating it, it was almost an academic exercise in whether climate change was real. It was a future threat, but now it is with us. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, is so right about what is now happening. It is not a religion but a rational response to say that we have to take action and speed it up as quickly as we can.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that this requires a lot of investment. We cannot get away from that. I know that some noble Lords opposite are saying that the OBR, the Committee on Climate Change, my own department and NESO are all part of a blob. I hesitated to use the word, because it gives Michael Gove credibility and I think it is a word that is very disrespectful to many people who are doing the right thing—but noble Lords know what I mean. You cannot just dismiss the conclusions of those august, independent institutions. Their broad consensus is that we have to go down this route.

I quote the Committee on Climate Change:

“the net costs of the transition (including upfront investment, ongoing running costs and costs of financing) will be less than 1% of GDP over the entirety of 2020-2050, lower than we concluded in our 2019 Net Zero report”.

The party opposite has started to criticise the OBR, which is unfortunate, but it highlighted that delayed action on reaching net zero will have significant negative fiscal and economic impacts, which would be as true for Northern Ireland as for the rest of the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, raised. Do we ignore or just dismiss this? I suggest not; that is the basis on which we make progress.

The National Energy System Operator has produced a report; I have realised that noble Lords can find evidence in it to support any case they wish to put forward, but I think that the substance of what it says is significant. It says that an

“investment programme averaging £40 billion or more annually”

can support “economic and job opportunities” across the UK.

I will briefly mention levelised costs to the noble Lord, Lord Frost. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, suggested, he may not be comparing like with like, which is part of the problem of having a rational debate on the true cost of energy. For instance, you can have a levelised cost of electricity for offshore wind, which reflects the average cost to build and operate a plant, but it cannot be equated to the strike price. The strike price represents the price needed over the contract for difference for a project to be commercially viable, factoring in revenue, market and policy considerations. There are other points that I could make on that, but I think it best that I circulate a paper so that all noble Lords can see that.

I come to the issue that the noble Lord really raised. He agrees with net zero but thinks that we are going too fast. He and my noble friend Lord Rooker and the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, suggested that the 2030 target is unrealisable. We can look again at the NESO report, but it depends how you interpret it. I interpret it as saying that that is very challenging. I do not think anyone has resiled from that; of course it is challenging. It involves plumbing, as the noble Lord said, and there are issues with the planning system at the moment about the grid and what needs to happen, but we are working very fast to try to resolve some of them. I say to my noble friend Lord Rooker that we may not be of the same measure as the members of the original Lunar Society, in our great city of Birmingham, but we believe that we can meet those targets.

To the noble Lord, Lord Swire, I say that of course pylons are not popular. We understand that. I was interested in what he said about potential alternatives, although he will understand that the figures we have so far suggest that they are much more expensive at the moment. In the end, we have to make connections to the grid much quicker and we have to invest in and see an extension of the grid. This is inevitable and it will sometimes involve unpopular decisions. I accept that.

In relation to public opinion on the cost of energy to householders, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made his point very well. I gently say that most of these costs actually occurred under previous Governments, over a long period. The decisions that we are taking now will have an impact—there is no question about that—but noble Lords need to accept that that was an inevitability given what needs to happen to start to invest in the move towards clean power.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was absolutely right when he said that this is but one part of the story. The decarbonisation of heating, transport and industrial processes represents an immense challenge too, as we go towards 2050. This is very well understood, and our debate on electric vehicles two weeks ago brought that home to your Lordships.

The noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Moynihan, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and others mentioned nuclear. I say to the party opposite that, when I was doing this job between 2008 and 2010, we had just taken the decision to go back to new nuclear and were in firm discussions about Hinkley Point C and its siting, the skilled jobs required and the supply chain. I understand that the final investment decision did not take place until 2017, so there was an awful lot of delay. There have been other issues too. The cost of the project was underestimated and there was an unrealistic assumption that taking a technology from France and putting it into Hinkley Point C would not involve design changes because of our approach to regulation.

In July, I went to see Hinkley Point C, and I met the chief executive yesterday to talk about progress. It is fair to say that considerable progress is now being made. It is the largest construction in the UK, if not in Europe. It is immensely impressive, and 65% of the value of the supply chain went to UK companies. Another point is that, when Sizewell C is developed and we get to final investment decisions, which I hope will be in the next few months, it is going to be a replica above ground of Hinkley Point C, so all the lessons that have been learned will be translated. Huge progress has been made between the first and second reactors.

Noble Lords will understand that I am very passionate about the role of nuclear. It provides the essential baseload and deals with some of the issues that noble Lords have mentioned. The issue of intermittency is well understood, and it is part of the cost of what we seek to do. Our approach is to take nuclear as the essential base load.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was a bit unfair about progress. The technology of the SMR programme is being appraised by Great British Nuclear at the moment, and I hope that over the next few months we will begin to see progress there. There is clearly great potential with AMRs as well. We are all excited by what is happening in the US and the link between the major media companies’ data centres and potential AMR technology, and I want the UK to be part of that.

On Wylfa, I understand its potential. We will come to decisions over the next few months.

A number of noble Lords mentioned oil and gas and the North Sea. I understand the potential that it still has, because we are still going to need gas and the flexibility of gas. We want to develop carbon capture, usage and storage to make sure that it is abated gas, which means that we wish to see an orderly transition. We are working, and will work, very closely with industry in relation to the North Sea.

Other technologies have been mentioned: the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned hydrogen and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and my noble friend Lord Hain mentioned wave energy technologies. I readily acknowledge that all that may have a role to play. Essentially, we are ever-open to people coming forward with ideas and new technologies, but, at the moment, we think that in reaching clean power we need to focus on offshore wind, onshore wind and solar, alongside ensuring that the nuclear programme speeds ahead as quickly as it possibly can.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, did not discuss this today, but implicit in what he says is his doubt about the impact on the economy of investing in renewables. The evidence we have is that many jobs will become available in future because of what is happening and our drive towards clean power. We reckon that 640,000 people are employed in the UK in what are described as green jobs, and that number is going to grow as we accelerate to 2030. We have an office for clean energy jobs that is going to focus on how we can develop the skilled workforce.

On the nuclear side, the national Nuclear Skills Taskforce has estimated that, by 2030, we need an extra 40,000 people. If the programme goes well and we have a continuous number of nuclear power plants being developed, that figure could go well over 100,000 by the 2040s. We are talking about high-quality, well-paid jobs in all these sectors.

In relation to the North Sea, many of the skills being used there are translatable. We want to make sure that happens as smoothly as possible.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, in a very interesting speech, the Minister said just now that, in the next few months—those were his words—some decisions will be made on the smaller end of modular reactors and so on. My understanding from Great British Nuclear is that no decision will be made before 2029. Is this a new position being taken up? If so, that is extremely encouraging.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I hope I have not just announced a new position. The position is that they are now going through a technology appraisal, which will take a matter of months. At that stage, the Government will then have to make decisions about what will happen in the future and on the funding, and we will have to have discussions with our friends in His Majesty’s Treasury in relation to that. Before that, I hope we will be having discussions about a final investment decision on Sizewell C.

I am in danger of overrunning. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Frost, again. This has actually been a very interesting debate, although he did not anticipate consensus. I am going to disappoint him on his request for yet another committee. I have picked up the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, of an energy institute—without commitment, I should say, but it is very interesting. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for instituting such an interesting debate.

14:11

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships’ House for long. I thank every contributor today for the care with which they have presented their case, and I am grateful to the Minister for his thorough winding up. I did not really expect him to pick up my suggestion, and indeed he did not. I look forward to his full response to some of the points that I raised.

We have heard an extremely interesting set of speeches. If I might be allowed just one reflection, on those that we have heard from proponents of the transition, it is that I detected perhaps a reluctance to tackle some of the specific details of costs and numbers that I mentioned but rather appeals to authority and nebulous assertions about the costs of not acting in relation to our global responsibility and credibility in this regard. I feel that is a little unsatisfactory as a basis for transforming our entire energy system, which is why I suspect we will need to come back to this and related subjects before long in the future. Meanwhile, I commend the Motion to the House.

Motion agreed.

Budget: Arts, Heritage and Cultural Organisations

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

14:14

Asked by

[Baroness Sater]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Budget on arts, heritage and cultural organisations.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to introduce this debate and am very grateful to all noble Lords who have signed up to speak. I declare my interests as a trustee of the Dartington Trust and a member of the Arts and Heritage APPG, the Royal Academy, the Tate, the National Trust, and Historic Houses. I am a lover of old buildings and an enthusiastic amateur artist. It is an honour to share this debate with so many noble Lords whose many years of experience in the arts and heritage will add far more than I can ever hope to do.

We are a country of deep-rooted cultural and artistic traditions. For many centuries, we have led the way. We are a proud nation where arts, heritage and culture are an essential part of the lifeblood of our country. The arts have an enormous societal impact on our health and well-being. A report by UCL for DCMS in April 2020 showed, for example, that exposure to the arts and cultural activities positively impacts social skills, language learning and overall mental health, particularly among adolescents and young people.

Our cultural contribution is not only about us in Britain. Our institutions are world leaders with global standing, attracting people from around the world, who visit Britain because of the richness, breadth and depth of our cultural offering, delivering a vibrant addition to our tourism and hospitality sectors. These cultural industries support our global soft power. According to the House of Lords Library briefing in January, the UK exported £7.2 billion of cultural goods and £9.3 billion of cultural services. Between 2016 and 2022, the cultural sector in the UK ran a consistent trade surplus. DCMS figures in 2022 reported that gross value added for the cultural sector as a whole was £34 billion, which confirms that the arts and cultural sectors are enormous contributors to the UK economy.

We all know that there is no free meal. There is a financial cost to supporting, maintaining and extending our cultural life. We rely on thousands of organisations and individuals in our globally renowned institutions, including our art galleries, museums, theatres, historic houses and buildings, dance and art production companies, orchestras, choirs, local community organisations and charities. But they all rely on some form of financial income or support, whether from organisations such as the Arts Council, the National Lottery Heritage Fund, the British Film Institute and English Heritage, public funding from local authorities, private philanthropic donations, or memberships or sponsorships from corporations and volunteers.

The most recent edition of the Art Fund’s research, published in June, reported that visitor numbers have been on the rise—which is good news—with over half of venues at or above pre-pandemic levels. However, it also found that local authority-reliant organisations were in a “perilous and uncertain state”. Post-pandemic financial fragility, real-terms funding cuts, ageing buildings and increased overheads were all found to be placing these organisations under “enormous strain”. In addition, the impact of the cost of living crisis on staff and audiences was recognised as the biggest collective challenge facing organisations, with increased outgoings and falling income identified as problems for the sector.

Against this backdrop, we welcome the Chancellor’s recent Budget announcement of keeping tax relief for theatres, orchestras and museums and galleries; the extension of the audiovisual creative tax relief, which helps the film and heritage sectors reduce their tax burden; and the addition of £3 million into the creative careers programme set up in 2018. We also welcome the increase of 16% in the capital budget for DCMS for the next year. However, less welcome is the announcement in the Autumn Budget that the day-to-day DCMS resource spending budget will stay year on year at £1.5 billion. In reality, this represents a 2.5% real-terms cut, accounting for inflation.

This will make it much harder for the department to fund the cultural institutions it supports, such as the 15 DCMS-sponsored museums and galleries, at a time when the Art Fund reports that 89% of adults agree that museums are important to UK culture. Although national museums and galleries saw increased grant-in-aid funding in the recent Budget, regional ones did not.

Visiting York last week, I was overwhelmed by the incredible preservation of the Roman, Viking and medieval city, and was proud to see how we are preserving our history. Tourism thrives in the regions and cities, substantially because of our cultural heritage. None of this is possible without funding in our regional and local communities, together with the support of the dedicated people and volunteers who care so much about our wonderful cultural life.

In the Spring Budget, the then Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced £100 million of funding for levelling-up cultural projects. The money would have funded projects such as the British Library north in Leeds, the National Railway Museum in York, the Victoria and Albert Museum in Dundee, and the National Museums Liverpool. However, the recent Budget suggested that the Government were minded to cancel them. I ask the Minister: why do the Government not consider this investment to be an important part of their growth mission? Will they provide a commitment to investing in the arts across the entire country?

For the already financially challenged cultural sector, the Autumn Budget contained two further challenges. First, although relief for business rates has been extended, at the same time this is being reduced from 75% to 45% until March 2025, when it will cease. Many arts and cultural organisations operate from a physical location and will struggle significantly to foot the increased overall costs of business rates.

Secondly, British cultural offering contributes significantly to employment, with 2.9 million people in full-time jobs, according to the DCMS creative industries subsector, and with nearly 700,000 in the cultural subsector from the data from April 2023 to April 2024. This is why the employer national insurance contributions rise is causing real concern. It will push up staffing costs for cultural organisations and may impact levels of employment and future pay rises for staff, hurting particularly the lower paid workers. The Southbank Centre in London’s initial calculations showed that these changes will cost it at least £700,000 in 2025. These are not small sums. As we all know, no one can fundraise for tax increases.

With 40% of theatre and performing arts venues at risk of closure over the next five years, according to the Society of London Theatre, and with two-thirds of museums being concerned about funding shortfalls this year—up from 50% in 2022—the future is looking challenging. This was the situation before the increase in NI and the minimum wage and the reduction in business rates relief. Have the Government done an impact assessment on the effects of these increases in NI, the minimum wage and the removal of business rates relief on the cultural sector? Is the Minister able to provide an assurance that the Government will increase funding to the cultural sector, similar to that provided to the public sector, protecting it from these unwelcome rises?

Local authorities are champions of local arts and are the lifeblood of many organisations, playing a huge role in creating a thriving arts and cultural environment for their communities. They are the biggest funders of culture, spending around £1 billion in England alone on services such as libraries, museums, heritage and the arts. It was suggested in the Autumn Budget that the UK shared prosperity fund will be phased out the year after next. It will continue at a reduced level for a transition year by providing £900 million for local authorities to invest.

However, the Government have not said how they will replace it, which makes it difficult for future planning of arts funding. It creates uncertainty at time when local councils’ core services funding is under pressure, putting cultural projects and institutions in increasing jeopardy. Could the Minister give the House assurances that a replacement funding model will be established as soon as possible to provide the security so desperately needed? I know we all share a desire for a long-term settlement for our cultural future for continuing sustainability and enduring creativity, and a major global role for the country.

Let us thank all the extraordinary and talented people who deliver our fantastic cultural life, be they paid or hugely committed volunteers, who are preserving our heritage. They are caretakers for our most amazing buildings and the institutions we enjoy today.

14:24

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for ensuring that we have this debate. We do not talk enough about the arts and cultural industries in our politics, and it is vital that we focus on the issues that she rightly highlighted.

For background, the Library note explains that public funding for the arts has, over the last 14 years, decreased by some 18%. Museums, in particular, have been hit hard, with 32% of them experiencing budget reductions. Overall, local government revenue funding dropped by 48% in that period, and Arts Council funding dropped by 18% in England and a whopping 66% in Northern Ireland. BBC public funding dropped by 23% and the national portfolio criteria were changed—public funding there dropped by 10%. Worse than that, libraries experienced cuts of some 53%. So, if we are asking why the arts are in peril as a result of changes in public funding, the answer is clear: the last Government took money away from arts and cultural industries. Our Government’s challenge is to find ways of ensuring that some of that damage is repaired.

In that context, the recent Budget is very welcome. The DCMS settlement brought an uplift of 2.6%, and the Treasury committed to ensuring that creative sector funding became one of the eight growth areas, because of the way in which arts and culture drive our economy and make an important contribution to our industrial strategy. As the noble Baroness said, another £3 million was put into the creative careers programme, signposting employment in the sector. The Budget also promised additional grant in aid for arts and culture for the long term, to sustain that sector. Most importantly, increased investment in cultural infrastructure was promised to bring in additional capital for cultural institutions. I do not know a museum that has not complained recently about a leaking roof, and there are plenty of them. Money is tight.

So, can we explore other ways of funding? To ensure long-term sustainability, one of those might be the smart fund, which has been proposed by many from DACS. It is a mechanism that compensates artists whose original work is copied or stored on electronic devices. This works in 45 other jurisdictions. A levy of between 1% and 3% on the sale price of electronic devices could fund some 1,200 cultural projects a year, as it does in France. I also recommend to the Government a music venues ticket levy, which might bring in new and very welcome additional revenues, and perhaps help cross-subsidise small venues where talent emerges and where research and development is important.

I urge the Government to look again at Nesta and at Arts Council funding, to see where the balance lies, and to find new sources of revenue so that cultural and arts institutions have a more certain funding base for the long term, in addition to what we make available through public funding.

14:27

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for securing this important debate, and I declare my interests as a composer and broadcaster. I was delighted that the Prime Minister said in the other place recently that it was a priority for his Government to get music back on to the curriculum in schools. In my view, this is the single most important step in music education—indeed, in music. It is an opportunity for the young to make music, to listen and to react to others: there I think we have an analogy with sport. But of course, the devil lies in the detail, and I look forward to hearing more on this from the Government.

What is really relevant to today’s debate is that we also need to think about the financial status of supporting organisations and venues where, once acquired, a musical curiosity can be developed. That brings in small venues and organisations that promote the arts, where funding is most urgently needed after many years of underfunding. I think of the English Symphony Orchestra in Worcester and the plight of Welsh National Opera, both of which have done so much good work in underprovided areas.

I congratulate the Government on the orchestra tax relief, a welcome support, although it still relies on the orchestra activity being able to go ahead in the first place and the money can be received only after a long process, which can cause significant cash-flow issues.

The rise in employers’ national insurance is, as the Government have acknowledged, a difficult burden at this time. One would have hoped that charities, especially small ones with, perhaps, under £1 million pounds in turnover, might have had a dispensation.

I thank the Government for listening to concerns about VAT on specialist performing arts schools and confirming that courses covering the music and dance scheme and the dance and drama awards scheme will not attract VAT.

On the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Clancarty pointed out a few days ago, the reduction in business rates relief will adversely affect the arts. The Music Venue Trust has calculated that it will place an additional £7 million burden on 350 grass-roots music venues, put at risk more than 12,000 jobs and cost more than £250 million in economic activity. While of course it is good news that the arts tax relief remains unchanged, it is sad that it has not been extended to choirs.

In terms of the arts generally, the exchange of ideas across borders is essential, and the loss of Erasmus tragic, so a new rapport and sense of good will towards and from Europe must be fostered to allow easier touring in both directions. I ask the Minister whether any replacement for Creative Europe has been found or whether we might rejoin it, since the rules allow us to do so.

14:31

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for securing this debate.

A number of elements of the recent Budget are to be welcomed, such as the continuation of Museums and Galleries Exhibition Tax Relief and the cultural infrastructure funding. However, many of us were disappointed that there was no update on the Listed Places of Worship Grants Scheme, which is such a lifeline for so many of our historic buildings. The Church of England and other churches are trustees of some of the most important buildings in this country. We have to raise, voluntarily, tens of millions of pounds, and we really need to find ways to help very many pressurised local communities. These buildings are not used just for worship; many of them are the local concert venue. They have all sorts of music-making going on and they are places where music lessons are given. Many of our schools come into the churches, and they are used for all sorts of reasons beyond Sunday and midweek worship. I hope that DCMS will make a decision on this in the coming weeks, and I urge the Minister to ensure its future.

I want to say a few words about the impact of the introduction of VAT on school fees for cathedral choir schools. These schools are often not well known but, by and large, they are not in the top rank of schools for the privileged. Many of them offer an outstanding musical education for local pupils. Often, we have to raise money for bursaries to keep them going. They are running on very tight budgets, but they are a fundamental part of providing musical education. Many of this country’s leading composers over the last 200 years started their lives in church choirs, on organs or learning through local music-making. This pipeline is really important in bringing such people through.

There has already been a great deal of concern. The increase in employers’ national insurance contributions announced in the Budget has contributed further to the financial uncertainty facing these valuable institutions. I am sure the Minister will be aware of previous comments made by my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, and by John Glen, who spoke on this in the other place.

About a decade ago, Country Life published a list of 60 things that make Britain great, and the choral tradition was on that list. There is a real threat to this, as we look at the resources, and a danger that, should choir schools be forced to close, state-funded schools will not be able to plug the gap. Does the Minister appreciate that choral music is an essential part of our heritage and agree that we need to do all we can to ensure that it is preserved?

14:34

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, the danger for the arts of economic growth being so central to the Government’s plan is that more high-profile commercialised creative industries and institutions get support while other of the arts and related cultural areas, particularly in the regions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, has said, get neglected. Unfortunately, this Budget, while there are certainly good things in it, bears that out, with no emergency help for civic museums and a situation where our already struggling grass-roots music venues are in a worse position now than before the Budget. It is an elephant trap.

With respect to the arts, we need a plan for arts and cultural growth as much as we need one for economic growth, for three reasons. First, the arts are a good in their own right. Secondly, they are important socially and locally, in terms of both production and access. Thirdly, and crucially, they are the grass roots from which the commercial creative industries spring. The arts are an ecosystem.

I have some specific points to make. On Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and I—as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has done today—drew attention to the plight of the Welsh National Opera, which benefits both Wales and England. In a recent Answer to a Written Question by Liz Saville Roberts, Chris Bryant said that the WNO is in a “strong place to succeed”. Unfortunately, this is clearly not the case. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, asked for the Westminster and Welsh Governments to get together on this. Will the Minister use her influence to enable that?

As big operators are now a major factor in the arts, we need to consider levies—and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has mentioned a couple. I welcome the introduction of the voluntary ticket levy on big arena gigs to help small venues, although I believe it should be mandatory. Will the Government also consider the smart fund, which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, also mentioned. Would the Minister be willing to meet parliamentarians and interested parties who have proposed this scheme, including the Design and Artists Copyright Society?

Thirdly, as discussed in the Channel 4 interview with Peter Kosminsky, director of the Hilary Mantel adaptations, there is the application of levies on the big streaming companies such as Netflix to help our film and TV production, which, like the private copy levy schemes, are already applied sucessfully in European countries. Will they consider such levies, too?

Last but not least, there is Brexit, which I mention because this is a Budget geared to a desire for economic growth. Brexit is not in the past but is lived on a daily basis by artists, and it continues to have a detrimental effect on opportunities for, and incomes of, musicians, visual artists and many others. The Government need to set out a coherent plan to address it, because the sector is waiting on that.

14:37

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, on securing this important debate. I am a member of not nearly as many arts organisations as she is, but that is partly because I remain the king of the freebie—and in that sense I am completely aligned with government policy.

As I have said before, it always surprises me that the Tories get such a bad rap when it comes to the arts, compared to the party opposite. We created the DCMS, put in place the National Lottery as well as the museum and theatre tax relief—and there was also the superb support given by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and his colleagues during Covid. Yet here we are today with only one Labour speaker on the Back Benches, and no Minister in the Lords who is in the actual department. The Budget has seen a real-terms cut to DCMS, a cut to the levelling-up funding, the removal of planned capital funds for the national museums of Liverpool and York and the Victoria and Albert Museum. I should declare that I am a trustee of the Tate—although maybe not for much longer after this speech.

With the ongoing impact of the Budget, the national insurance hike, the removal of business rates relief and the war on non-doms, many of whom give to arts organisations, it is not exactly what one would call a refreshing time to have a Labour Government in place for the arts. There have been some bits of good news hinted at in the Budget. The cultural infrastructure fund was mentioned, but we have no detail on that. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, the listed places of worship scheme is so important, and we need its future to be guaranteed and established. There is, of course, some increase in grant in aid to the national museums, which it would be churlish of me not to recognise.

I give the same speech in this Chamber every time we have a debate on the arts, because securing the future of the arts in this country is such a simple and easy thing for any Government to do—believe me, I have fought those battles as well—by giving long-term and generous funding, which is still a rounding error on the overall budget of government, for all our national and regional institutions. It may be the time to experiment with some other form of funding. As somebody who believes in simplifying the tax system, it is perhaps counterintuitive, but I am interested in Manchester’s experiment with a tourist tax and whether that can make an impact. It is perhaps something that cities should be thinking about to embed the arts in health and education. Of course, we also talk about soft power and diplomacy, and the arts play such a vital role in that.

It is not a one-way street. There has to be some give and take for the arts. I became increasingly frustrated as Arts Minister that we lived in a world where no museum or no theatre should ever close. We celebrated the openings of numerous theatres and museums, which were never covered. The minute that one was under threat of closure, it was supposed to be a disaster for the arts. There should perhaps be more M&A in the arts and more co-operation.

Finally, I think that the national museum should be given independence and that the Parthenon sculptures should be returned to the Greeks—I give way to my noble friend.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that, in these difficult times, waste is to be avoided at all costs? We have the wonderful Imperial War Museum with the Holocaust galleries. The last thing that anybody wants is to waste over £30 million on a memorial museum in the beautiful Victoria Tower Gardens when that money could be spent—

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

With respect, the noble Baroness was not here at the beginning of this debate.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

I tried very hard, but the traffic was very bad.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

She was stuck in traffic, which is a side effect of rapid economic growth. I take her point; it is a narrow and focused point, but all I say is that I referred to M&A in the arts. I would like to see museums working together, with perhaps some merging. That is the kind of thing that we should be thinking about.

14:41

[Lord Janvrin (CB)]

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for the opportunity to discuss this important subject. I draw attention to my interests in the register, including being on the board of the British Library. Most of what I have to say is in relation to that institution.

The British Library’s stated mission is

“to make our intellectual heritage accessible to everyone, for research, inspiration and enjoyment”.

In the knowledge economy, it has a vital part to play in any growth agenda. In common with other DCMS-sponsored cultural bodies, the British Library has faced a period of sustained pressure on budgets in recent years. This has been mainly due to the inflationary pressures across the whole sector. In our case, this pressure has been greatly exacerbated by the cyberattack on the library last year, which is requiring a major rebuild of our digital infrastructure.

It was reassuring to see the broad commitment in the Budget to increasing grant in aid for our national museums and galleries. This will be a welcome first step in restoring financial stability for a vital part of our cultural sector. For the library, such investment, if confirmed, would be absolutely critical to our continuing recovery from the cyberattack. I pay tribute here to the essential part played by officials at DCMS to support this recovery over the past year.

The Chancellor was unable to commit in the Budget to some of the capital plans announced in the previous Parliament. I am nevertheless pleased to note that the British Library’s partners in Leeds and the wider region are just as committed as we are to making the strongest possible case for a new British Library presence at Temple Works in that city. We continue to believe that a new British Library site in the north can be transformative, unlocking opportunities for innovation and research, culture and regeneration. In doing so, it offers a long-term opportunity to contribute to national economic growth, an aim which unites us all.

14:44

[Baroness Fleet (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Sater for securing this important debate. I declare my interests as listed in the register.

Arts organisations were so full of hope when Labour came to power and there is now just profound disappointment and disbelief. As the esteemed critic Richard Morrison said:

“So much for Labour’s arts-friendly Budget”.


Theatres, orchestras and museums worked so hard to emerge from the dark days of Covid and, thanks to the previous Government’s £2 billion culture recovery fund, distributed by the Arts Council, most were on their feet again with ambitious ideas and programmes. They desperately want to contribute to economic recovery and growth. They are now reeling, with the minimum wage up and employer national insurance up. This is a tax on jobs, work and growth. It is a tax on talent, creativity and ambition.

In the music world, where I have a particular interest as co-founder and chair of the London Music Fund, providing scholarships for pupils from low-income backgrounds, organisations—music charities, music venues, music colleges, conservatoires, opera companies and music hubs, too, which are central to the delivery of music in schools—will be clobbered. At least the national plan for music education, which I chaired for the previous Conservative Government, was embedded in the nick of time, with funded streamlined music hubs, plus £25 million for musical instruments and a £5 million pot for music progression.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the schools in the Government’s music and dance scheme. I hear different things from what he has heard: incredibly, I am told that they will be affected by the VAT on school fees. That would have a profound effect on the future viability of MDS schools. At the Yehudi Menuhin School, where I was a governor, for example, over 75% of its exceptionally talented pupils receive MDS funding or school bursaries. How can parents with an income of £45,000 or even £60,000 find up to £10,000 a year for VAT? If the school absorbs the costs, it will run out of funds within a few years.

This pernicious tax is a tax on just those young people who we want and need in orchestras and the music industry—young people from diverse backgrounds who have been selected for their talent and potential, not on their ability to pay. They are the sons and daughters of teachers, truck drivers, care workers and refugees. Why should they be punished? I look forward to an update.

As my noble friend said, DCMS real-terms funding for day-to-day spending next year will go down. No doubt the Minister will enlighten us on how this will affect many of the arts institutions. Four months after the election, with all its broken promises and massive tax increases, is the Minister aware that many of our cherished arts organisations, right across this country, are now in peril?

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, has just mentioned the specialist schools. Like the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I have heard something that was completely the opposite. I wonder whether the Minister could clarify the latest situation on that.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

I would appreciate that, too.

14:48

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for tabling this debate today. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register; I am president of the LGA, chair of Sport Wales and previously chair of ukactive.

The LGA’s Commission on Culture and Local Government has highlighted that access to culture is not evenly distributed across the nation. Any measures to address this are very welcome. However, I believe that access to sport and physical activity is also very important but under threat. This is not about elite sport but about keeping people fit and well, mentally and physically, and keeping them out of the NHS, which, like local councils, is under significant pressure.

The positive benefits include driving economic growth and educational outcomes and improving the quality of life. Sport Wales has shown that sport contributes £5.89 billion in social value to Wales. Sport England’s figures, in research from 2024, show that participation relieves pressure on the NHS through £10.5 billion a year in health and social care savings, while the annual social value is over £107 billion. Providing people with the right culture and leisure services has the potential to deliver significantly better outcomes and socioeconomic benefits.

I thank ukactive for its briefing. Budget measures, particularly the rise in employer national insurance, the national living wage and business rates, place additional financial strain on the physical activity sector. Large public and private operators estimate that the changes will result in a 10% increase in payroll costs, forcing reductions in staffing, services and future investments. Cost pressures threaten the affordability of facilities such as gyms, pools and leisure centres, risking high barriers to the second-largest driver of physical activity in the country, and worsening health inequalities across communities.

His Majesty’s Government need to work with the sector to mitigate the Budget’s impact on the operating costs of facilities, thus safeguarding jobs, sustaining public health benefits, and allowing for continued growth and investment in local communities. The sector is essential in improving national health, driving economic growth and supporting the Government’s five missions. I understand there are massive challenges, but sport and physical activity are integral to a healthy society.

14:50

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a member of Historic Houses and the owner of heritage-listed buildings in Wales.

As my noble friends Lord Vaizey of Didcot and Lady Fleet have said, the Conservative Government recognised the significance of heritage to our nation’s cultural fabric, its role as a major employer, its educational value and the joy it brings visitors. This understanding was evident in the robust support extended to the sector during the pandemic.

In just one Budget, the new Government have enacted in this sector measures of financial savagery not seen since the post-Second World War era of country house destruction. At the Historic Houses AGM, held at the QEII Centre this week, owners and operators spoke of their terror at the ramifications of this Budget. Not a single Minister or civil servant from DCMS chose to attend. At best, this Budget shows a total lack of understanding by the Treasury as to the fine margins and long-term planning with which these organisations survive. At worst, much like in the farming community, it is seen by many as an ideological attack on private ownership which will decimate the sector.

The changes to the IHT regime could mean sales of land, buildings, artworks—all diminishing the heritage significance of estates. An increasing number could now be sold in their entirety and new owners may be less inclined to open for visits and events, so a reduction in public access to heritage is another consequence of the Budget. This in turn will reduce the number of jobs and diminish the strength of the UK tourism and heritage sectors.

Because an estate will comprise predominantly capital assets, IHT becomes an existential issue for the owners and custodians of heritage businesses. In few other sectors, and I cannot think of another, must businesses relinquish 40% of their net worth at the point of a succession event—that is, death—with all the added stress that can come with a bereavement. Therefore, the long-term sustainability of these businesses depends on their ability to manage the ever-present IHT risk.

The Welsh Government’s 2024-25 budget initiated severe cuts to heritage and this Westminster Budget heaps on further damage. Will the Government raise the £1 million cap or limit it to assets held for less than 10 years, or provide that assets held for 10 years after succession qualify for full relief? This will catch those who have bought land to escape IHT by claiming APR or BPR, while permitting long-term custodians of important heritage estates to continue to benefit from full relief.

14:53

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I speak today with profound concern for our nation’s cultural and heritage sectors. The current funding situation raises serious doubt about our ability to maintain and develop our cultural institutions effectively. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said about how this came about. Since 2010, grant in aid funding has fallen by 18%, and DCMS’s core cultural funding now represents just 0.17% of public spending per capita, relegating the United Kingdom to among Europe’s lowest cultural funders. The impact on communities has been severe. Local authority revenue funding of culture has suffered devastating cuts, at 48% in England and 40% in Wales. Only two in five cultural organisations can adequately maintain their collections. Heritage site visits remain below pre-pandemic levels—although thankfully they are rising, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, mentioned—while school visits have dropped by nearly 40%.

While I welcome the recent Budget’s increased grant in aid for national museums, focused support for the creative industries and sports facilities, revised tax relief rates, an announcement of cultural infrastructure funding and some stabilisation of local authority funding, these measures fall short of addressing the fundamental challenges.

Consider the mounting pressures. National insurance contributions are rising to 15%. Increased minimum wage costs, while essential for supporting workers, burden the charity sector by £1.4 billion, and a 35% reduction in business rates relief will impact heritage venues. The new £1 million cap on agricultural and business property relief threatens centuries-old estates and their collections, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. The £5 billion reduction in levelling-up funding has left vital cultural projects at risk. The National Railway Museum is losing £15 million—one of many—while local authority museums’ urgent plea for a £20 million emergency fund goes unanswered. The Art Fund describes many institutions as in a “perilous and uncertain state”. Local authority museums, vital repositories of community heritage, face redundancies, reduced access and potential closure.

While the Government promise to increase DCMS funding to £2.3 billion by 2025-26, this offers little comfort to institutions fighting for survival today. Our regional and local cultural institutions—the bedrock of our nation’s cultural democracy—cannot endure another year of chronic underfunding. Therefore, like the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, I ask what assessment the Government have made of these measures’ cumulative impact on our cultural sector. What plans exist to address local authority museums’ urgent needs? How will the Government ensure that increased operating costs do not trigger widespread closures across our cultural landscape?

14:56

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I know time is tight. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap, and I will do so briefly.

I ask my noble friend the Minister to bear two things in particular in mind, both of which have arisen in the course of this debate. One is the complex interdependency of the entirety of the arts and cultural ecosystem, as referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, within which any bit, small or large, is important, as if it comes under threat it is a threat to the whole system.

The second point I want to make is narrower, about the particular challenges facing small performing arts organisations. I remind noble Lords of my many, often rehearsed interests in the performing arts sector. Those organisations operate on tiny margins; very small sensitivities can have a huge impact on them. It is very important—in particular to those organisations that expend an enormous amount of effort on fundraising—that they can feel confident, even in difficult times, that this Government understand and appreciate the value of public funding of the arts and will do their very best to sustain it to the best of their ability, locally and nationally.

14:58

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Sater for this debate. It is an opportunity to welcome the positive news in the Budget, which I do gladly, not least the reconfirmation of the extended rates of tax relief for theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries. As I noted in my Question on 15 October, it is not just the rate but the certainty for planning that is so important. I welcome too the recognition of the need for cultural infrastructure funding. There were no numbers attached to that in the Budget, so maybe the Minister can provide some today.

Today’s debate is also an opportunity to highlight the less positive news and the entirely absent. Like so many other businesses, employers in the arts and heritage sectors are dismayed by the Government’s new job tax, in the form of national insurance contributions and the rise in the minimum wage. My noble friend mentioned the £700,000 cost to the Southbank Centre. The Youth Hostel Association says that the Budget will add another £1.75 million to its cost base, on top of the hit it will receive from the decision to scrap the National Citizen Service.

At a well-attended event hosted by the Heritage Railway Association here in Parliament yesterday, I spoke to the North Yorkshire Moors Railway and the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland Railways, the latter of which said that the Government’s changes in the Budget would wipe out its entire modest profit, forcing it to re-budget and make some very difficult decisions.

The NCVO estimates that the national insurance hike alone will cost the charity sector £1.4 billion. It is calling for the exemption that the Government have given to public sector employers to be made available to charities. Can the Minister say whether that is being considered? If it is, does she understand the invidious position in which that will put many arts and heritage organisations that are currently constituted as companies?

As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, noted, it was disappointing that, while the Government are providing welcome support to our national museums, there was nothing to help our brilliant civic museums. There are 2,500 of them, compared to the 15 national museums. Many are reliant on local government, a far bigger funder of culture than central government. What are the Government doing to support both of them?

The Minister’s colleague Sir Chris Bryant today called on the music industry to impose a new levy on larger venues, but the sector is still reeling from the removal of the 75% business rates relief for grass-roots music venues in the Budget. That will create a tax bill of £7 million for a sector that, last year, returned an entire gross profit across all venues of just £2.9 million. The Music Venue Trust says that that £7 million bill is equivalent to 12,000 jobs in the sector.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harlech on his award this week from the Historic Houses Association; I was sorry that no one from DCMS attended to see it. Its director-general said that the Budget was a disaster from its perspective, particularly the changes to business property relief—a measure first brought in by a Labour Government in 1976. Many custodians of historic houses are lynchpins to their local visitor economy, providing venues for films, television and music concerts as part of the interconnectivity that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned.

I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for mentioning cathedral schools. I hope that the Minister can give us some clarity on the music and dance scheme for schools and address its importance.

I have mentioned already the halting of funding for the National Railway Museum. That was part of more than £52 million for the culture and capital regeneration projects announced in March, including for National Museums Liverpool, the International Slavery Museum, the V&A Dundee, Venue Cymru, British Library North and the National Poetry Centre—a project led by the Poet Laureate, Simon Armitage. Sadly, the Government have now said that they are “minded to withdraw” funding from all those projects. Those of us familiar with Whitehall jargon fear that that may be just a euphemism to avoid judicial review; I hope that the Minister can put us out of those worries.

Finally, I hope that the Minister will pick up the right reverend Prelate’s point in telling us about the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, which is a vital lifeline for the custodians of historic churches.

15:01

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for initiating this important debate. Noble Lords will notice that we are extremely tight on time. Everyone managed to get about three or four questions into their very short speeches, so if I do not get to every point I will write to noble Lords and place copies of the letter in the Library. I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions. Many have raised concerns that I will endeavour to address, but first I will highlight the Government’s commitment to the arts, culture and heritage, and their recognition of the value of the sector. At various points, I will refer to what the Budget does to support these sectors.

Most noble Lords stressed the value of culture and heritage, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. The arts, culture and heritage are vital to the UK’s economy, well-being and opportunities. They are also fundamental to our cohesion as a society and to our national story, fostering pride and earning global recognition. These sectors employ 666,000 people and indirectly support a whole host of other businesses. Culture and heritage are not simply nice to have. To respond to a point raised by the noble Baroness, they have crucial roles to play in supporting the missions of both growth and opportunity. This Government are committed to making sure that heritage and culture are not just the preserve of a privileged few but that their benefits can be enjoyed by everyone. As the noble Baroness noted, that includes social and mental health benefits.

A number of noble Lords spoke about the pressures faced by the culture and heritage sectors. The Government recognise the financial pressures facing our sectors after 14 years of cultural vandalism and the legacy of Covid-19. The level of the cuts experienced by the sector during the period of Conservative government was highlighted by my noble friend Lord Bassam.

I will go through some of the specific questions raised. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about the impact of business rates on grass-roots music venues. The Government are working closely with the live music sector to support an economically sustainable grass-roots music sector. Following the Autumn Budget, we are continuing to support Art Council England’s supporting grass-roots music fund, which provides grants to venues, recording studios, promoters and festivals.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked about the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. I note the concern for our listed places of worship. Departmental budgets have been set following the Budget announcement on 30 October. The outcome of individual programmes such as the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme will now be assessed during the departmental business planning process.

On the points made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, around touring and the EU, the Government are focused on resetting and strengthening our relationship with our European partners. We will engage with the EU Commission and member states and explore how best to improve arrangements for touring across the European continent without a return to free movement.

My noble friend Lord Bassam made a number of points. I agree that it is absolutely vital that we work with Arts Council England and leading thinkers such as Nesta on understanding how we should fundraise. On the smart fund, we are not ruling out that type of work but we need to look at more evidence on user behaviour.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, asked about specialist schools and VAT increases and a number of noble Lords also raised the issue of VAT on private schools. The noble Baroness asked whether the specialist schools were in scope of the VAT increase. As set out in the Treasury’s response to the technical consultation on the VAT changes, performing arts schools that offer full-time education to children of compulsory school age and/or 16 to 19 year-olds for a charge will remain in scope of this policy. This is to ensure fairness and consistency across all schools that provide education services and vocational training for a charge.

The noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Harlech, made points about business property reliefs. Currently, agricultural and business property reliefs contribute to the largest estates paying a lower effective tax rate on average than smaller estates. In our view, that is not fair or sustainable.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sater, mentioned the strain on the sector after the pandemic and local government funding issues, as did the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. The Government know that the public funding landscape we inherited is very challenging. Net expenditure on cultural services by local authorities—which, as noble Lords made clear in the debate, are the largest funder of culture across England—has fallen significantly since 2010 as councils saw their budgets decimated. This Government have, however, started to address the funding concerns for local authorities, with an increased settlement confirmed at the Budget. We recognise that commercial income is not keeping pace with increased outgoings. We are acutely conscious of these significant challenges.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sater, made a specific point about business rates. The Government are creating a fairer business rate system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century.

In relation to other Budget issues highlighted by my noble friend Lord Bassam, the measures announced by the Chancellor on 30 October amount to a valuable package of support for these sectors. It included an uplift in grant-aided funding for national museums and galleries to help support their long-term sustainability and a package of cultural infrastructure funding that will build on existing capital schemes, with additional capital investment to support cultural organisations across the country. Further details will be set out in due course. The Budget also included funding for creative industries, one of the eight growth-driving sectors in the Government’s modern industrial strategy, which will see DCMS continue to fund important programmes such as Create Growth and an expansion of the creative careers programme, worth £3 million. This will build on its success in raising awareness of career routes and tackling skills gaps in this key sector.

Another priority for this Government is to improve access to arts and music for all children and young people, which links to our government mission to extend opportunities. That is why we are working with the Department for Education on its curriculum assessment review that promises to review barriers and opportunities in order to ensure that every child has the best start in life.

This Government also committed £3 million at the Autumn Budget to expand the creative careers programme, which will give schoolchildren the opportunity to learn more about creative career routes and directly engage with the workplace.

We are going to run out of time for this debate, so I will address a couple of issues that came up and I will write to noble Lords. I am keen for the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, to get at least a minute at the end to respond.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Okay—I will carry on until I am cut off.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, among others, raised the issue of national insurance contributions. I know that the announcement of an increase in the rate of employers’ national insurance contributions has caused some concern across these sectors. Officials from my department have spoken with a number of major cultural organisations to understand how it will impact them.

Regarding the cuts to the levelling-up funding for cultural projects, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, the Chancellor has set out the state of the UK’s spending inheritance from the previous Government—a forecasted overspend of £21.9 billion above limits set by the Treasury in the spring. The MHCLG will consult with potential funding recipients, including funding to some projects related to DCMS-sponsored cultural bodies, before a final decision is made. Recipients will have until mid-December to respond.

This Government are absolutely committed to culture, as we believe is demonstrated by the positive settlement achieved for DCMS at the Autumn Budget. However, to repair the public finances and help raise the revenue required to increase funding for public services, the Government had to take some difficult decisions, including increasing the rate of employers’ national insurance.

On the impact to charities in particular, our tax regime, including business rates exemptions, is among the most generous anywhere in the world, with tax reliefs for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, raised the issue of support for the Welsh National Opera, and I am happy to pick that up with him separately outside this debate.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I sympathise entirely with the Minister; I know what it is like to watch the Clock when there are lots of questions to answer. She kindly offered to write. Will she commit to going through the Official Report and picking up some of the detailed and technical questions that noble Lords raised? I know that we would be grateful.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Absolutely—I would be happy to. We are almost out of time, so I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for raising the issue and securing this debate. A number of these one-hour debates on Thursday afternoons could be considerably longer. I look forward both to working closely with the sectors and to continuing to provide the support they need.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, the question we asked on specialist schools was about the music and dance scheme, and the dance and drama awards. I am not sure that the Minister mentioned them. They are the ones that I thought were now exempt from VAT.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

With huge apologies, we have run out of time and we need to move on to the next debate. My officials will go through the Official Report and we will endeavour to write to noble Lords.

Universities

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

15:14

Moved by

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

That this House takes note of the findings and recommendations in the Universities UK report, Opportunity, growth and partnership: a blueprint for change, published on 30 September.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, as a former chief executive of Universities UK, I appreciate the interest of this House in debating the findings and recommendations of its recent blueprint. It is good to see so many speakers from all sides of the House. The report sets out a stark question in which we all have a stake: how can we ensure that our universities are in a stronger position in 10 years than they are today?

Universities are one of our great national assets. They are a source of real strength in the UK. They provide opportunities for individuals from an ever-wider range of backgrounds. They are essential to our current and future economic success, to strong public services and to flourishing towns and cities in all parts of the United Kingdom. As the report argues, the success of our universities and our country are intertwined. Neither can be said to be in the most robust health today. It says forcefully that as a nation we have a choice. We can allow our great universities to slide into decline or we can act together to ensure that they take a different path and thrive in the next decades.

Our higher education sector makes a £265 billion annual contribution to the UK economy. This means that for every £1 of public money invested in higher education across the UK, £14 is put back into the economy. Universities play a critical role in supporting public services, with more than 191,000 nurses, 84,000 medical specialists and 188,000 teachers expected to graduate between 2021 and 2026. The Government have set out a number of missions. Universities have a central role to play in achieving each of them. They will play a foundational role in the industrial strategy and continue to be a source of competitive advantage to the UK in our position on the global stage. They are a major source of export earnings and attractors of foreign direct investment. In short, they are engines, which we need to be firing on all cylinders.

We all know that our universities are facing enormous financial challenges. This is also true of students, of course, who struggle to make ends meet as costs rise and maintenance loans fail to keep pace, an issue to which I shall return. However, the blueprint sets out to be about much more than funding. It considers the central missions of the university sector and what the country needs of it. It asks what is working well and what could be better. It is consciously self- critical.

In putting together its contents, Universities UK asked a set of commissioners—some of them from this House—to act as critical friends and to hold a mirror up to the universities to allow for a thorough examination of what needs to change in the future. I commend that approach. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, as the commissioner for chapter 6, is contributing to the debate today. The commissioners were largely but not exclusively drawn from outside the higher education sector to give fresh and more objective inputs, drawing on their diverse range of expertise. Universities UK also consulted closely with its 141 members and with stakeholders such as the CBI, and with related sectors, to hear and input their views.

The blueprint advocates five shifts: to expand opportunity, to improve collaboration across the tertiary sector, to generate stronger local growth, to secure our future research strength and to establish a new global strategy for our universities. Chapters on each of these topics address where performance is strong and where it could improve, generating recommendations for universities as well as for government on how we go about that. The blueprint also sets out three foundational areas where change is needed: putting universities on a firm financial footing, streamlining regulation, and improving how the impact of universities is assessed. Throughout the report, there is a lot of emphasis on what universities can do themselves. As the president of Universities UK, Professor Dame Sally Mapstone, says in her foreword, it is “consciously reform-driven”. Happily, it anticipates many of the same areas for reform that the Education Secretary, the right honourable Bridget Phillipson MP, set out in her recent statement to the other place, to which I will return.

Each chapter generates practical proposals for change, which I hope will provide a foundation on which the Government can build in determining their own approach to university reform. I have said that the blueprint is not exclusively about funding. However, it also puts forward very clear proposals in that area and about student support.

I believe it is widely understood in this House that the funding of universities across the UK is structurally unsustainable. In England, the most recent Office for Students report on the financial sustainability of the sector indicated that 40% of providers expected to be in deficit in 2023-24, and a rising number of universities reported low net liquidity days. Does my noble friend agree that joint efforts from the Government and the sector are of the utmost importance to ensure that higher education returns to a stable financial footing?

University research and development activity is world leading, but the current system relies on a disproportionate and growing cross-subsidy from universities to make this activity viable. Given the financial deterioration of universities, this has produced a huge gap in funding and renders this vital activity exposed. Fees from international students currently make up some of this shortfall, but I think we all agree that this is not a robust or sustainable solution. An ambitious and long-term approach is needed to ensure that the UK retains its international competitiveness and continues delivering on the Government’s ambitions for economic growth. I hope the Minister will comment on this.

For students, rising living costs in England have coincided with below-inflation increases in loan funding for many years. The removal of grants was, in my view, a retrograde step that I would like to see reversed. The blueprint argues that both fee and loan levels should be linked to inflation on an ongoing basis, and that grants should be restored. It proposes a two-phased solution to the sector’s funding challenge. The first phase is to be focused on stabilisation, and the second on an enduring solution that puts universities on a path to longer-term sustainability.

The new Government should be congratulated for their swift action on the first goal in the recent announcement on tuition fees and maintenance loans. The decision to end the near 10-year freeze in tuition fees cannot have been easy for the Government, but it is the right thing to do. The financial sustainability of the university system is not a challenge that can be ducked. Inflation has eroded the real value of student fees and maintenance loans by around a third, which has proved unsustainable for both students and universities. Last week’s announcement was a hugely important and courageous act, but only a first step. This inflation linking must become automatic each year.

Alongside this—and I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her personal contribution to this—the Government have sought to stabilise international recruitment through efforts to communicate to international students that they are welcome and appreciated, and that the Government wish to support their ambitions. I ask my noble friend to go one step further and confirm that the graduate route is here to stay, and that action will be taken, at long last, to ensure that international students are properly presented as largely temporary visitors in migration statistics.

On the research side, we look to the Government to reverse the long-term decline in QR funding—a feature of all four nations of the UK.

The decision to index-link tuition fees and maintenance loans for one year cannot, as I have said, be the end of the matter. We need to carve a path for a second phase to transform the sector’s finances longer term, through a package of reforms. This is where universities must work with the Government to ensure that the Treasury is utterly convinced that investment in the university sector will assist in fostering stronger growth, getting more people into high-wage jobs, reducing social inequalities and supporting our national ambitions, through both a better skills system and our industrial strategy.

The five priorities for reform set out by the Education Secretary last week speak to these challenges. The blueprint shows that universities are ready to answer the call and are primed with ideas about how they can deliver. However, we should be clear that linking fee income to inflation does not solve the sector’s financial problem. It just stops the real value continuing to decrease. It seems churlish to mention that this one-year uplift will be more than offset by increased national insurance contributions, but that is the fact of the matter. As we approach the comprehensive spending review, there is a clear case for an injection of further public funding to go beyond stopping the slide to equip universities adequately to meet the Government’s reform priorities. This will also allow for rebalancing the way that we fund higher education with a fairer balance between public funding and graduate contributions, reflecting the fact that universities deliver both public and private benefits.

I am a firm believer that universities have to be architects of their own solutions. Universities UK has committed to leading a transformative programme of work that will bring universities together to share learning and good practice in efficiency, transformation and income generation. The work will also build on the sector’s rich tradition of finding efficiencies through collaboration by exploring the appetite for additional regional or national shared services. Universities UK’s transformation and efficiency taskforce is leading on this work. It will be established by the end of 2024 and will report in summer 2025.

I stress that across the university sector a huge transformation is already under way. As many noble Lords will be aware, universities in all parts of the country and of all types have been trying to balance shrinking budgets against rising costs. I am sad to say that a staggering number of jobs have been lost. Huge changes in the way that many universities organise themselves have been accompanied by changes to course offerings, reducing module options and, in some cases, cutting whole programmes of study. Some of these changes will be good and necessary, but many do us great damage, such as the worrying loss of modern foreign language programmes. There is an urgent need to act. Universities can and must take this head-on, as they are doing, but the Government must act too. It is in all our interests to do so.

Ahead of this debate, I consulted Hansard. In the past five years, there have been 44 references to “world-leading universities” across this House and the other place. There is great commitment and willingness across parliamentarians, the sector and wider partners to sustain and better our world-leading universities, but there is a clear choice. Our world-leading university sector can be allowed to slide into decline, or institutions and the Government can work together to ensure that the sector delivers for the nation into the 2030s. I hope the Minister will confirm that this is the path that they will take. I beg to move.

15:28

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. I am delighted that she has secured this timely debate on the future of our higher education system. It is timely because the financial condition of the sector is worsening very rapidly. She mentioned in her excellent remarks that 40% of universities are likely be in deficit next year and that a further, or perhaps the same, 40% have low liquidity of less than 40 days’ cash. Updated analysis suggests that as much as three-quarters of the sector will be in deficit next year, suggesting that conditions are deteriorating extremely rapidly. Like the noble Baroness, I welcome the Government’s move to increase fees with inflation for the next financial year. It is an important step. It is a shame that it has taken this long, and it is a shame that, as she said, the sector has had almost a decade of real-terms erosion of undergraduate tuition fee income. I am glad that this decision has at last been taken. It was a real abdication of responsibility on the part of more recent Governments to have let this issue drift in the way that it has. It is no way to provide certainty for institutions vital to our success as a knowledge economy and, as she remarked, has led to needless job cuts, programme closures and increased dependence on the volatile income from overseas students, welcome though they are.

Above all, the freeze in fees has been detrimental to students themselves, who have, in many cases, seen their institutions lack the resources they need to provide them with the high-quality teaching and wraparound support they want during their studies. That is why I echo the noble Baroness’s pleas for the Government to ensure that the uplift in tuition fees is undertaken on an ongoing basis throughout this Parliament. People can disagree on whether it was an easy decision for the Government to take. Personally, I think that an automatic uplift of tuition fees with inflation should not be a big drama in our system. It is a real cost that institutions experience. The Government need to recognise that and accept their responsibilities towards institutions that are critical to our performance as a highly innovative economy.

The OBR forecasts inflation of 2.6% next year and a further 2.9% in 2028-29. This is an ongoing issue and the Government cannot simply leave the uplift as a one-off. If it is treated as such, it will deliver about £1.5 billion of additional income to the sector over the course of this Parliament to 2029-30. However, that does not in itself address the issue of real-terms erosion of institutions’ income. They will continue to see a real-terms erosion of income per student of 11.4% over the course of this Parliament if the Government do not continue to uplift fees with inflation in the later years of this Parliament.

The real-terms hit will be all the greater for the probably quite considerable number of institutions that find themselves unable to pass on this increase in tuition fees this coming financial year because they are too late to update the contractual position to students to whom they have offered places already. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on this and whether she has made any assessment of how many universities will actually be in a position, at this relatively late stage, to uprate their fees for this coming financial year.

It is clear to me that, as the noble Baroness said, many institutions will not just be barely standing still following this one-off uplift; many will be going backwards. The net position, as a result of the other recent policy changes, including the increase in employer national insurance contributions, suggests that the sector overall will be down rather than up. I have seen analysis that suggests that the sector will bear almost £400 million in increased costs from national insurance contributions, compared with increased income for English providers of only £300 million, so it is clearly not assisting the Government overall at this stage, even though, as I said, I welcome the move to increase the fees. Perhaps the Minister might indicate how much of the fee increase, if any, will be left for universities following the rise in NICs.

The last few weeks have not been a bonanza for the sector by any means. That said, it needs to accept accountability for the additional public money being invested in it. The write-offs associated with the increased fees could amount to about £450 million over the course of this Parliament, and it is important that the Government continue to ensure that there is robust quality assurance and assessment of where institutions are delivering value for money and high-quality teaching in their performance. I am glad to see that the TEF, as well as B3 metrics, will continue to play an important part in that respect.

15:34

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for securing this important and timely debate, and for her excellent introduction to the topic. I declare my interest as an emeritus professor of biology at Oxford University and as the cofounder and chairman of a university spinout company providing software to the financial services industry.

I wish to speak about research in our universities. As has often been repeated, we have a number of truly world-class research universities in this country. Only the US has universities of comparable stature. There may be many reasons for that, but one point to note is that the institutional structure of research in the UK is more similar to that of the US than, for instance, that of France and Germany, where research institutes take a bigger share of the research landscape.

When the late Lord May of Oxford was government chief scientist, he analysed the relative performance of the UK in science and showed convincingly that we outperform most other countries in scientific quality and output per pound. He speculated that one of the reasons might be that we invest in research in universities as opposed to separate research institutes. As Gordon Moore, the creator of Moore’s law and the former CEO of Intel, put it: invest in research in universities and you get three bangs per buck—research, innovation and education—but invest in institutes and you get only two.

I shall make one simple point about investment in research in our universities: the quality of research in our top universities today is a reflection of investment made decades ago—not last year, not in the last five years, but probably during at least the last 30 years. You cannot simply turn research on and off; it is a long-term venture and therefore deserves a long-term strategy. That is true whether you are talking about the basic discoveries of pure research or their translation into outcomes that save lives, save the environment and are a source of prosperity. It took Dorothy Hodgkin, Britain’s only female Nobel laureate, 35 years of research at Oxford University to elucidate the structure of insulin. The Oxford malaria vaccine was the result of 20 years of research effort.

If we look to the future, we see that the system that has brought us success in the past is under serious threat. In 2022-23 there was an estimated £5.3 billion deficit in university research funding. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, has said, research in universities really is reliant on cross-subsidies from other activities, and that is not really sustainable.

There are two main reasons for the deficit. First, research is not funded at full economic cost. The estimate in the blueprint report is that about 69% of FEC is recovered by universities. Secondly, as has been mentioned, the QR funding stream is not sufficient to fill that gap; it has declined by 15% over the past decade. Across the university sector, the cross-subsidy for research from overseas students and from other activities accounts for over one-third of research income, compared with only one-sixth of research income from UKRI, the major government funding agency. Paradoxically, the more successful a university is in securing research funding, the bigger the gap that has to be filled. Last year Oxford University secured £789 million of research income, the highest of any university, but that poses a massive financial problem for the university in cross-subsidising that income from other sources.

The truth is that we are not investing enough public money in research. Our public investment in R&D is 0.5% of GDP, which places us 27th out of 36 OECD nations—less than the OECD average of 0.6% and substantially less than countries such as South Korea, Germany and the United States, which invest between 0.66% and 0.99% of GDP.

It may be several decades before we see the full effect of the squeeze on university research, and by the time it becomes acute it will be too late. However, there are already warning signs. Between 2016 and 2020 there was a 17% drop in the UK’s share of highly cited papers, one of the key metrics of our performance. If our research quality and output drops, so will our future economic performance. Wealth creation in the future will depend on brain, not brawn. Crucially, it is likely to come from unexpected discoveries motivated by pure curiosity.

I end with three questions. First, does the Minister agree that we need to take a long-term view of research in our universities, with a long-term commitment? Secondly, does she agree that our public spend on research is too low? If we are not prepared to create more jam, should we try to spread the jam less thinly? Thirdly, does she have a view on what proportion of publicly funded research in universities should be ring-fenced for pure curiosity-driven research, which is likely to be, in unexpected ways, the source of future prosperity?

15:40

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for tabling it. My reflections are rooted in conversations and experience in the sector within the diocese of Gloucester. I declare my interest as a pro-chancellor of the University of Gloucestershire, of which the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, is chancellor. It is one of 14 universities in the Cathedrals Group of universities, based on a Church of England foundation and ethos and with an explicit dedication to enhancing and expanding a greater plurality of routes into higher education.

This report rightly highlights a number of areas for reform and poses useful questions about funding. It is well known that universities drive local and regional growth. I agree with the report’s recommendation that universities should have a key role in local growth plans. The University of Gloucestershire recruits heavily from Gloucestershire and the surrounding region, and there are currently opportunities from the cybersecurity hub linked to GCHQ to do more to collaborate with and meet the needs of local employers.

On expanding opportunity, I welcome the report’s analysis that, to meet the challenge and widen participation, universities, schools and colleges should and could work better together to improve outcomes. I long to see learning communities in which every member can flourish. To do that, we need to work hard to break down the barriers that prevent people accessing university, be they issues of disability, age, ethnicity or religion. We need to be intentional about the things that will enable this, and to think long term. Initiatives such as reduced offers for disadvantaged students can and do help, as is evident at the University of Gloucestershire.

The report argues for a reformed funding structure for universities in England, encouraging the Government to work with the sector to establish a more reliable financial foundation. This is key; universities need to have assured, stable incomes. This is about coupling the wise and courageous leadership of vice-chancellors, staff and councils with a government-led initiative. In the University of Gloucestershire, I have seen a drive in income, a continuation to develop a university more connected with its partners, students and prospective students, and a commitment to reduce costs, which has not been without considerable pain. I see good business practice and a commitment to being commercially astute, but what can the Government do to encourage and enable this? For example, as other noble Lords have said, the recent tuition fee increase seems only to mitigate the national insurance increase. International students are another significant matter, as has been mentioned; will the Minister provide clarity on them?

I hope that at the heart of this debate is a recognition that higher education in this country needs to be actively supported in order to develop and to remain being for the common good, and a recognition of the commitment of our universities to supporting and developing individuals, the community and the very social fabric of our nation. I greatly look forward to hearing the rest of the contributions and, in due course, the Minister’s response.

15:44

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate UUK and the authors of the blueprint for change, which aims over a 10-year timescale to strengthen the universities sector. While our universities are one of this country’s great strengths and more than hold their own internationally, we cannot be complacent.

While the decision to increase fees in line with inflation will be welcomed by the sector, more innovative thinking by the Government on how to finance universities in the medium and longer term is really important and necessary. I am sceptical about continuing to load all the increases in funding on graduates. Although initially young applicants from disadvantaged homes were not deterred by high fee repayments, there are signs that this is no longer the case. Moreover, mature students have been deterred for a long time. What consideration are the Government giving to longer-term funding? What mechanisms, if any, are being set up for a radical review considering all the options, which might even include the possibility of a contribution from affluent parents?

The report’s chapter on expanding opportunity notes that there is a continuing large gap in the participation rates of disadvantaged students compared with those from more privileged backgrounds. The poorer areas of the country have far fewer applicants than wealthier ones. It proposes that the Government and the sector collaborate in reaching a target of 70% participation in level 4 attainment by the age of 25. I would have preferred it to say by the age of 30 since, in my experience, there are many mature students wishing and trying to return to study between the ages of 25 and 30.

The target of 70% is ambitious, and it must include an improved offering for FE as well as a much better apprenticeship scheme than is currently planned. How do the Government intend to distribute the rather small expenditure increase that has been announced for the endlessly neglected FE colleges? What incentives, if any, are they planning to encourage meaningful university and FE partnerships? Would she agree that the national training programme for disadvantaged pupils in the school system mentioned in the report should be extended to FE colleges, so that their students too can be encouraged and supported to progress to university, as well as being helped to improve their skills?

The concept of lifelong learning and how to put it into practice is not really addressed in the report, although many of its recommendations are relevant. A commitment to attaching a high priority to lifelong learning by the Government would be welcome. We all need to go on learning throughout our lives.

I turn now to the UK’s role in global higher education. It is surely right to continue to benefit from the recruitment of large numbers of overseas students, which was introduced by the Blair Government 25 years ago. The obsession with immigration figures has recently posed a threat to granting visas to overseas students which include a short period of employment in the UK after they graduate. I, and a number of other speakers in this debate, have asked previous Governments to take students out of the immigration figures, as happens among most of our competitors. Will the new Government address this? An internationally diverse student body benefits both British and foreign students, who will work in an increasingly globalised world. They need the knowledge and the curiosity about the world beyond these shores to do so.

As the report makes clear, UK universities need to collaborate in research with colleagues around the world. Brexit damaged our opportunities to do so in the EU. The restoration of the UK’s participation in the Horizon programme is hugely welcome, but more joint projects must be developed between research-intensive universities in this country and right across the world if we are to retain our high status internationally in research and innovation. The report asks for a global strategy from the Government. It is surely needed if we are to maximise our opportunities and our research output.

I conclude in hoping that the Government will continue to respect the autonomy of universities. Of course they need to be regulated, but that regulation, as the report argues, needs to be much more effective and efficient. It should also support more flexible courses, which can be followed by older students during their working lives.

15:49

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a professor emeritus of the University of Dundee and its previous chancellor. I have also been associated with the University of St Andrews.

I applaud the Government for recognising that a more sustainable approach to the funding of higher education and research is needed. I am pleased to see that the Government have protected the R&D budget and full funding of our association to Horizon Europe. As highlighted by the Universities UK report, brilliantly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, I hope that, going forward, the Government will recognise that more will be needed to ease financial pressures on universities to support emerging blue-skies research and develop infrastructure to do so.

I will briefly mention two areas that deserve further attention—one was briefly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. The bedrock of the UK ambition to remain a leader in science and technology is doctoral education in UK universities. But there are worrying signs. Although talented overseas doctoral students flock to UK universities, which are second only to the USA, domestic demand, particularly from talented students, is falling. This and the reduction in funded PhD studentships are likely the next university crisis.

Of the 113,000 PhD research students, 46,300 are from overseas. A recent report suggesting that there would be fewer funded places in the future is worrying. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council training centres will fall from 75 to 40, leading to some 1,750 fewer funded places. The Arts and Humanities Research Council is reducing its numbers of funded PhD students from 475 to 300. The Wellcome Trust, once a major funder of doctoral students, particularly in the life sciences, is to severely reduce its support following its new strategy. Universities currently provide some PhD studentships and considerable other support for doctoral education, but this will be an early casualty if universities face further financial pressures.

Doctoral researchers are a big cost centre, with low cost recovery. Universities have subsidised doctoral research from fees from overseas students, as we have heard, and from other sources, such as the QR funding. In the past, universities have done this training on the cheap, thanks to 30 years of university growth. By the way, talented overseas PhD students are keen to come to the UK and stay, innovate and help grow our economy, as was mentioned. But, for this to happen, the Government need to introduce more stability in student and post-doc migration policy, as was alluded to. We need them to be able to stay and grow our economy, like in other countries. Otherwise, it does not make sense for the UK to grow brains only for other countries to benefit.

My second point is also relevant to universities’ ability to support research. An important part of this is the QR funding, mentioned in some detail by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, so I will not go over it again. Although there has been a welcome increase in charities funding research, charity research support funding—CRSF—has not seen a commensurate increase or an increase with inflation. The cost recovery of funding related to charity-funded research is now less than 57%. If this continues, it would undermine the important partnership for research between government, charities and universities.

On successful research institutes, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who said that, for institutes, the return is two to one, as opposed to three to one for universities. I might have said that it is four to one for institutes, such as the Institute of Cancer Research. This not only carries out fundamental research, particularly in cancers, but has been responsible for producing 60 drug molecules, two of which have been on the market for treating breast cancer and prostate cancer. It also trains half the number of UK oncologists. But it benefits from this research support only due to the funding it gets through the CRSF-related funding, which is not enough for it to support its doctoral students. Over the years, it has therefore supported this activity to the tune of £30 million, which it has to raise from other sources.

There is a need to look at the level of QR and CRSF funding with some urgency. With the spending review in mind, there is a need to look at a more sustained model of university research funding. I hope the Government will be sympathetic.

15:55

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on bringing this debate to the House. I declare my interests as a visiting professor at King’s College London and a member of the council of the University of Southampton. I was also one of the commissioners who served on the UUK exercise. The chapter on which I was most heavily engaged concerned international students. It is excellent that the Government are now preparing, and have committed to produce, an international strategy for higher education—of course, my noble friend Lord Johnson was himself responsible for an excellent one in the past—and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what timescale that is on. I shall put two specific points to her about that strategy.

The first point concerns visas. The Minister is a former Home Secretary, and if I pressed her on the cost of visas, I know exactly what her answer would be, so I will not press her on the cost but on another problem with visas: the speed of getting them. There is an internationally competitive market whereby some overseas students apply for a range of different universities around the world, and for several visas, and they are waiting to see whether they get their US visa, their Canadian visa or their British visa. If the British visa process is the slowest, they have already committed to going to Canada before we have even had an opportunity of getting them here. I hope the Minister will undertake to pursue the speed of visa issuing with the Home Office.

Secondly, I ask the Minister to raise the issue of international students with the Department for Business and Trade. There is enormous opportunity here for trade negotiations, whereby we make a commitment that we will extend access to our student loans for British students going to study abroad. The moment that the conversation with another country is about exchange and reciprocity, about saying, “We want more of your students to come here but it would be great if some British students could come to you, and we will provide them with a loan to do so”, we can make much more progress on growing international student numbers.

I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Johnson said about fees; I strongly endorse his point. It was treated as though it were a heroically difficult decision. I asked the Library about the history. The Blair Government considered £5,000 fees; we ended up with £3,000 fees, but it was well known at the time that the Prime Minister himself and some of his advisers wanted £5,000 fees. They introduced £3,000 fees, which they indexed for several years with no fuss whatever—they just got on with indexing them. If they had done £5,000 fees and simply indexed them every year since then, fees would now be £9,545, almost identical to the level which the Government are now putting them at, but with some associated HEFCE grant; there were still teaching grants as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was right to say that we either need an injection of public money alongside, or fees will need to go even higher.

One of the most disappointing features of the argument about the recent indexation was the amount of confusion and misunderstanding about how the fees regime works. A lot of people linked it, somehow, to student hardship. The cash students need to live on at university is a completely different issue but does need to be tackled. Very few people realise that if the repayment formula is fixed, there is no increase in your monthly or annual repayments; it is just that you will repay for a bit longer.

One lesson from this, so that we do not slip backwards and see the type of anxieties to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred, is that it is really important that the Government keep on communicating the realities of how this system works, so that no disadvantaged student in a college or a sixth form thinks that he or she somehow cannot afford to go. I have to say that, in the last few weeks, Martin Lewis has once again been a voice of sanity, explaining the truth of the system, which is very different from some of the widespread misconceptions.

Unless we have a significant increase in fees, or further public expenditure support alongside, sadly, there will be universities that get into very serious difficulties. Will the Minister tell us when we are going to see a clear statement from the Government of what the process is for a university that runs out of cash? What happens? This could well be tested in the next year; we need authoritative guidance in the absence of a bolder proposal to increase fees.

Finally, I comment on one other issue. This is a Government who have an admirable commitment to raising the growth rate. Universities can really contribute to that. The industrial strategy had, I think, 11 references to FE colleges, which is admirable; it had two references to higher education, both in the context of research, and we have had eloquent statements about research. Universities are just useful for educating people in practical, vocational skills. There are 160 employer and other credentialising bodies that credentialise students who emerge from university. Will the Minister place in the Library the DfE estimates not of how many courses there are but of how many students are studying vocational courses that are in some way credentialised or vocational? Universities have an invaluable vocational role and I very much hope that, in the next stage of the industrial strategy, they are identified as a key sector, meriting particular support from the Government.

16:01

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a former chancellor of Cranfield University and current chair of the Royal Veterinary College, which is ranked globally as the number one vet school in the world. Nobody should have to follow the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, on the subject of higher education: I want to raise a complaint about that.

I too welcome and support Universities UK’s thoughtful report, and the admirable introduction that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, gave in launching this debate, and, indeed, her work in prompting this debate. Her speech really laid out how flourishing universities are key to Labour’s missions. I also thank the Minister for the encouraging way in which the department has set off in its relationship with the university sector, first, in recognising the deep financial crisis being faced by universities, in the face of what was previously the total intractability of the Government to recognise that there was a crisis at all. Secondly, the ministerial team has shown real commitment to a partnership approach with the sector. Thirdly, it is welcome that Ministers have recognised that our universities, in their teaching and research, are vital for the Government’s and indeed the nation’s growth agenda, with the nurturing of skills and talent that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, talked about, and the world-class research, which is the bedrock of innovation and drives new technologies and approaches, not only to solve the problems of today and tomorrow in the UK but to form the basis of new global export industries.

The UK has always been very good at innovation, but we are not very good at providing a better environment for spin-out and scale-up. We really have to find a way to avoid the distressing repetition of promising start-ups being bought by the USA and others and relocated away from the UK. We should welcome the Chancellor’s recent commitments on pension reforms to enable more UK investment in promising UK businesses. Our research and innovation success is also highly improved by being able to attract high-quality international junior and senior researchers, but there are severe hurdles in their way. Can the Minister tell us how the Government will reduce or stagger the upfront costs for healthcare and visas, how the graduate visa can be developed further and how the Turing scheme can be extended to encourage young international researchers to spend some time here?

As several noble Lords have said, at the moment university research is precariously subsidised by cross-subsidy from other university funding streams, particularly by fees from the growing number of international students. As the UUK report outlined, international students must not just be seen as a cash cow; they are highly welcome for the diversity that they bring to our student bodies and the life of our universities. There needs to be a clearer compact between the universities and government on where the balance between UK and international student numbers should lie, because that fundamentally influences the discussions on the future trajectory for tuition fees.

We might have the carpet drawn out from under our feet by Mr Trump who, in his first term, sabre-rattled about refusing to fund students to study outside the USA. Notably, despite his sabre-rattling, the number of US students in the UK increased during that time, which I hope will continue in his second term.

We should also thank the Minister for the tuition fee increase but, as many noble Lords have said, it has been counteracted in many institutions by the increase in national insurance contributions. That has been particularly so for specialist institutions such as the RVC, where the increase in national insurance contributions is by a factor of four the size of the benefit from the student tuition fees. I welcome the commitment in the Universities UK report and by the Government to work together with the sector on future tuition fees, efficiencies and the reduction of the regulatory burden. I welcome the Universities UK task force on efficiencies, which is being established as we speak.

I make one last point, which is about student hardship. HEPI did a report on students in paid employment and, quite frankly, it upset me for days. It showed that 56% of students have paid employment, working on average 14.5 hours per week. If that was not bad enough, 80% of students who have been in care are working in part-time jobs and, for many, they are not exactly part-time jobs; they work many hours, approaching full-time. I cannot envisage what it must be like to hold down almost a full-time job and try to do a gruelling university course. That is particularly so in the case of students in longer-term studies, such as veterinary and medical studies, where the courses are long and that has to be sustained over a long period of time.

Although I welcome the maintenance loan improvements, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, in calling for the restoration of maintenance grants. Can the Minister say how this regressive and discriminatory situation for students from poorer backgrounds can be reversed?

16:07

[Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)]

My Lords, we should welcome this debate on the excellent and thought-provoking report from UUK. It recommends that the long-term goal should be 70% of young people with qualifications at level 4 or above, to be achieved via flexible co-operation between higher and further education. I declare an interest as a member of Cambridge University, and I will focus on the university sector in my comments.

How best can our universities adjust? Despite their manifest general quality, there is currently a systemic weakness: their missions are not sufficiently varied. They all aspire to rise in the same league table, which gives weight to research as well as teaching. Most of their students are between 18 and 21, undergoing three years of full-time residential education and studying a curriculum that is too narrow, even for the minority who aspire to professional or academic careers. There is a contrast with the US, where there are several thousand institutions of higher education: junior and regional colleges, huge state universities—several are world class and some are highly innovative, such as Arizona State University—and the private Ivy League universities, supplemented by liberal arts colleges that offer top-rated undergraduate education but no PhD courses.

We should query the view that the standard three-year degree is the minimum worthwhile goal, or indeed the most appropriate one, for many young people. The core courses offered in the first two years are often the most valuable. Moreover, students who realise that the degree course they have embarked on is not right for them, or who have personal hardship, should be enabled to leave early with dignity and a certificate to mark what they have achieved. They should not be disparaged as wastage; they should make the positive claim, “I had two years of college”. Vice-chancellors should not be berated for taking risks in admissions nor pressured to entice them to stay, least of all by lowering degree standards.

There are many 18 year-olds of high intellectual potential who have had poor schooling and other disadvantages, and who do not have a fair prospect of admission at 18 to the most competitive universities. To promote fairness and diversity, therefore, universities whose entry bar is dauntingly high—Oxford and Cambridge in particular—should reserve a fraction of their places for students who do not come straight from school. This would offer a second chance to those who were disadvantaged at 18 through their background, or their choice of A-levels, but who have caught up by earning two years’ worth of credits online, at another institution or via the Open University. Such students could then advance to a degree at Oxbridge in two further years.

Moreover, everyone should have the lifelong opportunity to upgrade—to re-enter higher education, maybe part-time or online. This path could become smoother, indeed routine, if the Government were to formalise systems of transferable credits across the UK’s whole system of tertiary education. Incidentally, since I have mentioned league tables, let us not overrate salaries in those tables. If a talented young artist can be enabled to pursue their vocation as a career, after suitable courses, that is surely good for society even if they only just earn the living wage.

What makes Oxford and Cambridge unique assets to the UK is that they combine the strength of top world-class research universities with the pastoral and educational benefits of the best American liberal arts colleges. It is unrealistic to raise 10 more UK universities to the top of the international research league, but we could surely counterbalance the unhealthily dominant allure of Oxford and Cambridge to students, and promote regional balance, by boosting the funding of some of our smaller universities so that they can emulate US liberal arts colleges, and Oxbridge colleges, in offering high-quality intensive teaching.

Let us hope that the UUK report catalyses reform. As other speakers have said, higher education is currently one of the UK’s distinctive strengths and certainly crucial to our future, but it must not be sclerotic and unresponsive to changes in needs, lifestyle and opportunities. A rethink is overdue if we are to sustain its status in a different world.

16:13

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rees. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on securing this debate. When I was a very junior member of the union she used to run, we marched about with a very unsexy slogan, “Rectify the anomaly”. Only academics could have produced such a thing, but never mind. I do not think it was ever rectified. I was also the Minister who was universally execrated in 1981 for introducing fees for overseas students. We would have been in some trouble without those fees.

Let us congratulate the Government on some good first steps. The R&D protection is good, as are the long-term contracts in R&D, and I so much agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said. To add a sentence to his admirable speech, I say that universities can be thought of as the R&D department of the nation, not only in the sciences and applied sciences but in social sciences. We have very difficult problems to do with the increase in our non-working population and the loss of productivity in the public sector, and these are social science issues that the universities can help with.

As for the unit of resource, it is no good at the moment standing in a queue and demanding more public money but, luckily, the universities have two other sources of funding where the Government can help or hinder. The first one relies on fees going up alongside inflation, and my noble friends have spoken well about that. It has sadly been hit by the NIC costs, so it will not be much of a gain for this year, if any gain at all. However, it must continue and we must explain to the students—as has been said by so many noble Lords—that this is not a cause of hardship for them; rather it is a sensible way of funding universities. That must surely continue in the years to come.

Secondly, there are overseas students. I strongly join with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and others. I used to lobby my noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone, who was an excellent Minister, about this matter—I never got anywhere. When I was chancellor of Reading University—an interest I should have declared, alongside being a governing body fellow of an Oxford college—we tried to get the overseas student figures taken out of the immigration totals and the crossfire of those battles. I urge the Government to apply their mind to that; it could be a really sensible thing to do, and then put out the welcome mat, as others have said.

I am a little sceptical of the soft-power argument that one used to hear—that we have taught all these people to be friendly towards the United Kingdom. My old mentor Lord Carrington told me once that the most difficult man he ever had to deal with was the late Mr Dom Mintoff of Malta, who was, of course, a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, so it does not always quite work like that. However, it is a wonderful source of income for our universities. It is an invisible export, if you like, on which we should capitalise—we should be putting out the welcome mat. I believe I am right in saying that there has been a 15% decline in visa applications this summer, compared to the one before, and that is a very alarming sign which needs to be reversed. I hope that the Government will heed the words of my noble friends, both excellent University Ministers, on that subject. There are these two funding streams that can help the universities in the medium term, in what is now becoming a near crisis, as so many have said. We have not got long to wait before that crisis begins to hit. The consequences will be seen over many years.

I will raise one other subject, that of regulation. The report has some very sensible things to say on what the Office for Students should do and how it should be focused. I suspect there will have to be amalgamations of universities in the coming year; there will be real difficulties for some, as my noble friend said. The Office for Students will have a big job and should focus its efforts on seeing, as a regulator, that these things are handled in a way which is sustainable for the sector.

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act is now on hold. I am always against centralisation; universities are separate institutions. I was nervous about the establishment of this regulator—I was proved wrong—but I am also nervous about somebody called “the director of free speech” being established. There is something Orwellian about a director of free speech, is there not? That is not to say that there is no problem of closing of minds and of bullying by people in unacceptable ways. There is a real issue, yet I urge the Government to continue with the declaratory aspect of that Act but to look again at the tort, which will submerge the sector in lawyers if we are not careful.

A final and most unpopular thing of all, particularly to the Association of University Teachers, is that very many of our best academics are underpaid. If we are to compete with the United States in the top, we will have to recognise that—non-collegiate though it is—some of them have to be properly, internationally paid.

16:19

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to add my words to my noble friend for giving us this opportunity to look over a sector of national life that is so vital.

I begin by mentioning just two words: “Robbins report”. It in a sense shaped the architecture of much of what happened subsequently in the development of higher education in this country. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, whose speech on the 50th anniversary of the report reminded us that perhaps Robbins brought to a proper conclusion what was begun in the Butler Education Act 1944. Since I am the beneficiary of the latter for my secondary schooling and the former for my higher education—or part of it, as I will explain—it is a good place to start for me.

I ask your Lordships to exercise their imagination and see a very raw graduate aged 22, exactly 60 years ago, taking a train—when there was still a train—from Carmarthen to Aberystwyth and stopping at Lampeter on the way. I had just been appointed as an assistant lecturer at St David’s College in Lampeter. I did not want to go. I was doing a PhD and my professor told me I had to, because at that time, Lampeter was being merged with the University of Wales as a fifth college—Cardiff, Swansea, Bangor, Aberystwyth and Lampeter—but could do so only under the aegis of one of the existing colleges. Aberystwyth, fiercely Presbyterian, did not want anything quite so Anglican, so it was cosmopolitan Cardiff that wanted to do the deal.

I was sent to be the assistant lecturer. My subject area was medieval English from “Beowulf” to Chaucer, the history of the English language, pre-Shakespearean drama, and all that kind of thing—gifts that noble Lords would never imagine from hearing other outbursts on my part in your Lordships’ House.

I pause there for a while for two reasons. First, I am absolutely certain that I would not be standing in your Lordships’ House—with all the caveats and mitigations that have been mentioned in the debate—if I had been of university age now. I could not have gone; it could not have been entertained. The poverty from which I came would not have been helped with a bursary, or anything like that. The pressure of home was to have a 15 or 16 year-old boy out working, instead of going off on these fancy educational things about which parents knew absolutely nothing. Little coteries of people would come to persuade my mother, a single parent—we lived in destitution—that it mattered that I went on to do O-levels. They said, “Give him a chance”, and when I did well, that the A-levels were now the next thing I should aim at. Each time, she had to be persuaded, and each time, she did not know how to put food on the table or how to clothe us for school.

From my pastoral work ever since, I can detect large numbers of young people who are trapped in precisely the same way and who will never even entertain the idea, even if we hold out carrots before them. I was just fortunate to have been born when I was. That is the first thing.

I look at this issue through the eyes of students, because most of my life I have not run things, as most Members of this House have done; I have simply gone into people’s homes and dealt with them in their time of crisis and helped with all the pastoral matters. Out of that, I have formed my opinions from the ground up, instead of from the top down.

My second point is that I doubt whether I would easily find a place that wanted a teacher of medieval English now—it is one of the subjects that is been sacrificed. Much more recently, I played a significant part, although not a leading part, in the formation of the University of Roehampton, which brought together four former teacher training colleges: the Roman Catholic Digby Stuart College, the Methodist Southlands College, an Anglican college and a humanist college. We got our degree-granting powers from the Privy Council and all the rest of it. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, mentioned the phrase “liberal arts”, and I am astonished that teacher training colleges—which were, in essence, liberal arts colleges—are now sacrificing jobs in the humanities and liberal arts for the sake of the disciplines and studies that quantifiably can be shown to get you a job in the kind of world we now live in. I promise noble Lords that real attributes that earn real money are to be found in people who can put two proper sentences together, can hold their own in an argument, can read a book, can form a study group and can see, in those aspects of life, things of importance.

I must finish because I have reached my time, but the House must have the impression that I could go on for a very long time. I will say one last thing, if noble Lords will be patient with me. This morning, I heard from the university in Lampeter that it will finish teaching and that it will have no courses after this year. It is for that reason that, although I am usually well co-ordinated, I have put on my Lampeter colours tie to protest the very idea of losing a brilliant piece of educational work, all on the altar of what is called “progress”.

16:26

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for tabling this debate. I draw attention to my register of interests. Having served as chancellor of Northumbria University for nine years, I have shaken tens of thousands of hands and can see first-hand the difference that a university education can make. I am also privileged to have a number of honorary degrees.

I am pleased that many people are generally supportive of the report and happy to see that elements are already being addressed by His Majesty’s Government, but continued progress is required to ensure that it is a blueprint for change. Having spoken to colleagues at Northumbria University, they welcome the Government’s recent increase in tuition fees in line with inflation for 2024-25, but, as has been suggested, a longer-term solution is required. The increase in fees only just covers the increase that employers must now face to pay for the increase in national insurance. That means that, while tuition fees were raised, additional resources are not necessarily available for students, teaching and research.

A recent study by the London School of Economics has shown that 84% of the costs of higher education will be borne by graduates, with the state contributing only 16%. I and many others in this Chamber were privileged to have free tuition, so I wonder whether we need to consider whether we have the balance quite right. This split is out of kilter with many other countries and does not recognise the benefit to the nation of higher and further education.

While I am pleased that the Government have taken steps to increase maintenance loans for students, the increase of £414 a year comes to only £34 a month, which does not go far in challenging times. It shows that many students from the least well-off backgrounds must take out the maximum maintenance loan. Often, because their parents cannot continue to subsidise them financially, they have to work long part-time or full-time hours alongside their studies to cover the rising living costs. Not only does this detract from them making the most of their education; they leave university with the most amount of debt.

Like others, I support maintenance grants, which I notice were not included in recent government announcements. However, many universities are proud of the work they do to facilitate social mobility, and consideration of this issue would ensure that students who are struggling financially can make the most of their education.

The Open University—of which, I am proud to say, I am an honorary doctor—is facilitating part-time distance learning, which is critical to widening access, supporting social justice and levelling up, so it is not surprising that it welcomes this report. In the academic year starting in 2022, 28% of Open University undergraduates lived in the top 25% most economically deprived areas, and over 37,000 registered students declared that they had a disability. This is really important for the workforce, but it also shows how important flexibility is.

I will take a moment to draw your Lordships’ attention to the wider impact universities have, not just on students; it is about the communities in which they are based. In the north-east alone, universities provide 32,000 jobs. We should capitalise on the central role so many universities are playing in their areas to ensure local growth, and promote collaborations such as the Universities for North East England partnerships, in order to ensure that universities can provide greater social and economic impact. It is clear that steps need to be taken so that universities up and down the country can establish a firmer financial footing for a sustainable future.

I have just one question for the Minister, on the implications of all this. Many universities are looking to diversify in order to bring more money in, and Northumbria is just one example. It has a service called Norman, which provides out-of-hours IT support to approximately a third of UK universities. It generates income, and it is high quality and cost-effective. However, if it partners with another university, it incurs VAT, but if it goes it alone it does not. This is a barrier to the collaboration that I think we would all like to see more of. What reassurance can the Minister offer, in order to help universities promote collaboration and to continue to educate our young people to the best of their ability?

16:32

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for securing this debate of a vital report. It is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—as it happens, for the second time this week. I celebrate the contribution of all the commissioners and advisory group members to the report, and I welcome its recommendations for a bold new strategic vision for the sector.

I am tremendously proud of all the phenomenal HE providers in my diocese: Sheffield Hallam University, the University of Sheffield, the Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and the colleges of Sheffield, Barnsley, the Dearne Valley, Doncaster and Rotherham. For the next few minutes, I just want to comment briefly on maintenance grants and financial support, and on the challenges facing FE colleges in particular.

First, on maintenance grants and financial support, the inequality of access to education is well documented and much lamented. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, remarked, potential students are facing severe financial challenges as the costs of tuition, housing and other expenses increase to levels that are simply unsustainable for a growing number. Those from disadvantaged backgrounds are particularly hard hit, such as those across south Yorkshire. We are seeing a rise in the number of potential students who cannot afford to study or whose studies are significantly compromised by the obligation to pursue simultaneously a demanding burden of paid work—a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is unacceptable to restrict equality of opportunity in this way.

To make matters worse, special support grants were abolished and replaced with loans in 2016. Since 2007, the household income threshold, which determines access to the maximum maintenance loan, has been frozen at £25,000 per annum. This has meant that the percentage of the student population accessing a full maintenance loan has dropped from 56.6% in 2012-13 to 37.5% in 2021-22. I applaud the report’s recommendation to reinstate maintenance grants for the most disadvantaged students, and to ensure that maintenance loans are increased in line with inflation.

I turn secondly to FE. Noble Lords will be aware that there is a systemic dichotomy between the higher education and further education sectors. According to Ofqual’s latest data, A-level students at FE colleges as a whole secure poorer results than at all other education institutions at which A-levels are studied. I commend the report’s recommendation for the establishment of a “tertiary education opportunity fund” to respond to the needs of pupils in areas with low participation in higher education. It is vital that any new fund does indeed, as the report advises, incentivise HE/FE partnerships and joint programmes to signpost and support a diverse array of learning opportunities both for students and for the sake of employers. As in most sectors, collaboration is key.

The report illustrates some successful models and I hope we can learn from them. As the Government pursue their commitment to growth, I implore that further consideration be given to develop a lifelong learning entitlement to streamline post-18 student funding. This support, provided on a modular basis, would go a long way towards enabling more flexible training and reskilling over a lifetime.

I celebrate the Higher Education Progression Partnership in South Yorkshire, funded by the Office for Students. This partnership supports young people from under-represented groups to improve academic achievement and helps them find bespoke routes into further education.

As other noble Lords have said, the report’s proposals are integral to this Government’s missions. A creative, innovative approach to both HE and FE is fundamental for kick-starting economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. This country owes nothing less to our young people and to future generations.

16:36

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, this debate is, to me, the House of Lords at its best. Earlier this week, we were discussing the future of the House of Lords. I do not think that an elected House would produce the quality of debate that we have seen. As I listened to each speaker—all infinitely better qualified to address the House than I am—I was struck by the cumulative experience, knowledge and contribution.

I have known my noble friend Lady Warwick since she was at the AUT, and subsequently at Universities UK, and I recommended her as the person who should join the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life. She is such a wise person, as are so many other noble Lords. I look forward to the Minister, who I have not yet heard in her new role, winding up. I will not need to remind her about the importance of universities for training doctors, nurses, paramedics and so forth. I knew her very well in her health days.

I congratulate UUK on what is a tremendous report. I enjoyed reading it, which is rather strange. I do not know about others. I enjoyed the excellent chapter written by my noble friend Lord Willetts—“Two Brains Willetts”—and Andy Haldane’s chapter on the impact of universities. I even enjoyed the chapter by the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, who we now know is auditioning to be not chancellor of Oxford but British ambassador in the United States. I know that the only aspect of higher education the House is really interested in is not, why did Oxford turn down Baroness Thatcher, many years ago, but will it be my noble friend Lord Hague, the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, or maybe AN Other? These are, of course, extremely profound points.

I want to speak about the London School of Economics. My great-grandfather, a Wrangler at Cambridge, in a part of East Anglia, went to Toynbee Hall and worked with the Webbs in setting up higher-education institutions across London. In 1894, they received a bequest of £20,000—would that it could be that today—and within a year Beatrice and Sidney Webb were admitting their first students. My great-grandfather, Dr William Garnett, was one of the seven signatories who signed up for the incorporation of the London School of Economics. What a magnificent institution; University of the Year this year; performing exceptionally well across a range of areas; and with a formidable new president and vice-chancellor, who I hope the House will get to know better, Professor Larry Kramer. Twenty Nobel Prize winners and 40 past or present world leaders have studied at the school.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rees, will say that this is nothing compared with Cambridge, but Cambridge was not founded in 1894. I frequently agree with the noble Lord on various issues. He has often talked about the importance of social sciences. The issues that we face today are about behaviour change. Climate change, net zero, is about not only science, technology and industry but about how we can persuade people to change their habits. The Minister will know that so many of the issues involved in health, healthy lifestyles and life expectancy have nothing to do with surgery or pharmaceuticals but are all to do with behaviour change—diet, exercise and all the things that are so much more difficult than simply having an operation. I hope that when the Government discuss the importance of STEM, science, innovation and research, they will not forget the importance of economic, social and legal analysis.

The other area where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rees, is that the sector is incredibly reactionary. The Open University and the University of Buckingham changed the paradigm. We talk about major efficiency changes, innovation and transformative change, but I do not see much of it. I entirely agree that we need greater diversity of institutions, flexibility, institutional variety and different courses. Of course, many people would much rather go to university when they are older. When you are young, you are too distracted and have too many emotional problems to actually study. I must mention my 17 years as Chancellor of the University of Hull. Who got the firsts? It was the mature women, who had made a great sacrifice to go to university and do well. I hope that we can be more radical and more innovative about what we mean by a university education.

Talking of Hull, I have to say that being in a troubled area with great challenges, its success is all the more important. It is a global institution, but it makes a profound difference to the local community, with Professor Dave Petley doing a remarkable amount. Since Richard Lambert’s review of business and university collaboration in 2003, there has been a great change in innovation, research, collaboration with business and spinouts. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, talked about his work. All over our universities, we have institutions helping with funding, innovation and intellectual property, and we should celebrate that. I also endorse the vulgar comment. Academics are paid remarkable little. We want our best people to be academics. We need to respect them and support them.

Next time, please can we have a debate that lasts twice as long?

16:42

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, to clear any confusion, I have swapped with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, as she is currently on the Woolsack. I declare an interest as a former chancellor of De Montfort University. I currently sit on the international advisory board of IE University in Madrid and I do some ad hoc work with my local university, Royal Holloway.

I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for initiating this debate and introducing it so well, but I also congratulate UUK for taking this timely initiative to produce the blueprint for change. The recommendations in this report are of course intended, as we heard, to achieve five big shifts. However, these shifts cannot be seen as a stand-alone. They are integral to the five missions of this Government and part of the Government’s mantra of “fixing the foundations”. If we are serious about achieving these shifts, a coherent strategy for our universities and higher education sector, which is integral to these missions, is essential. The future of our universities cannot be left to the vagaries of market forces. To avoid decline and maintain our excellence, the Government must intervene to create an enabling environment for universities to become financially sustainable and incentivise them to excel and deliver for communities, society and internationally.

At the same time, universities and other institutions need to adapt and change to meet the challenges of the future. I am grateful that this has been recognised in the report itself. The recommendations of the report, the Government’s plan for the reform of higher education as stated in their manifesto, and recent announcements about increasing the fee cap and making further investment conditional on major reform are all welcome. The direction of travel is encouraging but, as we have heard in this debate, a lot more needs to happen.

I want to amplify two areas of this report: one is the question of local growth and the other is global reputation and impact. On local development, the needs of employers, the skills gaps and a changing technological environment, the report rightly highlights the recent overemphasis on STEM subjects. Employers recognise that arts and the humanities equip students with a valuable and versatile set of skills—skills that are likely to become even more essential as technologies, automation and AI continue to transform traditional professions. It is therefore critical that arts and humanities provision continues to be available. The recent decline in the arts and humanities is worrying. It has rendered humanities and arts education vulnerable to cuts and closures. Are the Government going to take action to reverse this trend and give greater support to the humanities? I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, emphasise this point.

In recent years, there has been a shift in universities responding to local and regional needs. I highlight another example of my local university, Royal Holloway. During 2019-20, Royal Holloway contributed £190 million in gross value added to the local economy, as well as 2,700 jobs in the borough of Runnymede. The university has signed a civic agreement for Surrey with Surrey County Council, the University of Surrey and the University for the Creative Arts. This is a declaration of the partners’ shared commitment to working together to help grow a sustainable economy, tackle health inequalities, enable a greener future, and foster empowering and thriving communities.

Such approaches need to be multiplied and scaled up. At present, they are patchy, and the report rightly argues that there is a need for stability, consistency, better co-ordinated engagement through devolution and local structures—such as industrial strategy councils and Skills England—collaboration between universities and investment in the Higher Education Innovation Fund. A critical question is whether the Government can ensure that universities play a full role in supporting growth, especially in areas where there are no mayoral combined authorities. I would have liked to have seen greater recognition in the report of the role that universities can play through local engagement with communities and civil society organisations to create social capital, which helps build cohesion and inclusion. That is the social purpose of universities in tackling society’s challenges.

My second point is about global reach, reputation and impact. I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, gave a broader perspective to this. It is not purely about international students but about recognising that a global strategy, and leveraging the potential that universities offer by bringing together education, training, research and global development to harness global reach, reputation and impact, should be coupled with a coherent strategy to encourage international students. Such an approach would have multiple benefits. It would create opportunities, foster prosperity, develop knowledge and make strategic use of our universities’ global reputation to build bilateral co-operation in trade and development.

As we know, one area where the UK excels is in research and innovation and the excellence of our universities, where we should endeavour to enhance our leadership and be at the leading edge. In an era of geopolitical shifts and growing competition, there is a need to develop a better understanding of universities’ role in diplomacy and foreign policy. The Government should support universities by investing in the broader infrastructure that supports universities and businesses globally—for example, the British Council. It will be helpful to hear the Government’s plans for supporting the wider structure.

Finally, are the Government considering removing student figures from the migration statistics? This has been a running sore and has contributed to this issue being politicised. It has impacted on our ability to attract international students. Such a removal would change perceptions and enable a more strategic approach to the recruitment of international students.

16:50

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, this is a most valuable report, although I wish it had been a mite more self-critical. I would have liked to have seen more of an interest taken in the value of undergraduate degrees. Is the content of our degree courses what is needed now in both breadth of subject and connections? I do not think it would do any harm for a physicist like me, who would probably these days end up in the depths of the AI revolution creating something which would have a big effect on society, to have at least a passing acquaintance with mediaeval English drama, and therefore perhaps to understand people a bit better.

It is also important that the content of courses is reviewed in the context of the curriculum review that is taking place in schools, so that all that is being taught to children is shaped not by the wishes of some professors but much more by the needs of our children. I very much support the whole speech from the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, but particularly his going on about what we are teaching our students. This morning, I attended an All-Party Parliamentary University Group meeting on the Government’s plans for skills, and it was notable that there was nobody there from the Russell group. I think that is a great mistake, but it rather indicates a style of thinking.

We need to question whether it is any longer appropriate to have isolated arts and creative arts schools. I declare an interest as having a child at one of them. The needs of children are so much wider than what is taught there. They need an acquaintanceship with the whole of the humanities and a good deal of business if they are to succeed in a difficult and competitive world. These isolated institutions, however grand, just do not provide it.

We need to ask universities to be a great deal more open and honest with prospective students about what their courses will actually lead to. What do students go on to do by way of careers? What do they think of the courses they have taken when they look back on them? It is hard to find anything approaching that sort of information. I think it is untruthful and unworthy of universities that they continue down this road. It is just marketing; it is not taking the interests of our children into account. In that context, I urge them to take seriously the calls for universities to have a duty of care for our children.

Reference has been made to the value of overseas students. Yes, but I note how slow universities have been to sign up to the British Council’s Alumni UK, which would offer considerable additional incentives to students to come here, and a great deal of value to the country as well. I sense universities looking after their own parochial interests, rather than caring for the larger picture.

I would like to see much more openness about finances. Assertions that universities are short of money are not enough. They ought to share with the Government and with students the details of what the money is being spent on, so that somebody setting out on a course which will leave them with a very large student loan knows where that money is going.

If I can offer a small ray of hope, I think the Government are wrong to try to bear down on level 6 and level 7 apprenticeships. Rather than subsidising them, the Government should open them up to the student loan. These are the safest possible investments for the Student Loans Company: somebody who is being backed by an employer to take on a long course of education and be employed at the same time has a very high chance of success.

I end by picking up on something the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said about doctoral students. I am reminded of my first year working for a merchant bank in the City. We were approached by the National Coal Board for a very large loan to build a new coal mine. We had a long look at it, then we went back to the National Coal Board and said, “Yes, we will give you the money, but if you had run the mine differently and started extracting coal as soon as you’d sunk the first drift, you wouldn’t need a loan at all”. I declare an interest as having a child who is studying for a doctorate, but we ought to review whether the current system of not extracting any value out of a student for three years is the best way of financing a doctorate.

16:56

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare a non-current interest: I was for four years a director of the University of Cumbria and for seven years chair of the council of Lancaster University. My theme in these brief remarks is that I believe universities have lost their place at the centre of the ambitions of our nation. I think this is a tragedy.

Lancaster University was opened by Prime Minister Harold Wilson 60 years ago. That was a great occasion. For him, it embodied what his new Labour Government were all about: a new Britain of classless opportunity for all, which he was to achieve through massive investments in education. The opening of the new universities was a very successful public intervention. A successful institution was built, which has grown—with some bumps along the road, of course—to 16,000 students. It has kept to the mission of providing academic excellence with equal opportunity.

How do we put universities back at the centre? I praise the Government for having taken steps to resolve the financial problems and increase the maintenance loan, but the maintenance loan is still 10%, in real terms, below what it was at the start of the Covid pandemic. As an earlier speaker said, 55% of students now need to work to finance their way through university. We need to think more deeply about the role of universities and their financing. To be cruel, this was a bit of sticking plaster politics. We have to proceed with greater thought and more reform.

On research, I listened very attentively to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. There is cross-subsidy, a funding gap and potentially a long-term problem there, but he should at least have given the Government credit for what they did in the Budget on research in maintaining the existing budget and not trying to shoehorn the rejoining of Horizon into the research budget. That was a positive step.

At Lancaster I observed a terrific tension between the success of the golden triangle as a great set of research institutions—I fully support that, by the way; I do not believe the way forward is to try to ruin the things you do really well—with universities such as Lancaster, which, in terms of the research assessment exercise, achieved very good results but lacked the critical mass to do projects in the sciences and the medical world, where breakthroughs are being made today. I do not know how we resolve that dilemma. I was keen on partnerships—mergers, even—with other institutions in order to create more critical mass. The European partnerships that Lancaster was able to join were critical, and that is why rejoining Horizon was of such importance.

I think universities should have a duty to come up with proposals to use their research strengths as part of local growth plans—that is essential—and their partnerships would play an important role in that. They should also be required by the Government to put spinouts of research at the centre of their concerns.

On opportunity, the problem with our university system is that there is too much of the single model of the three-year degree. We should be more adventurous in thinking about other models of learning. We should use the lifelong learning entitlement in innovative ways. We should see how people can combine work and study at the same time. We should go over to a modular system that people can build on at one institution and then, later in life, continue at another. We should have more provision for part-time and mature students. Universities should also be charged with the responsibility for breaking down barriers with further education and raising further education standards.

I could go on but I see my Whip staring at me in a knowing way, so I shall be a good boy and say only that we have to think radically about the role of universities, which play a vital role in our society. Now is the moment for a new wave of reform.

17:03

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I have the privilege of being an observer on the Medical Schools Council, I have a role at Cardiff University and I am on the advisory council of Brunel Medical School.

The relationship between medical schools and universities goes back centuries, and this report is timely as we face changes. There is a shortfall in our workforce in medicine. Places in medical schools need to expand, and the number of medical schools is expanding, but we have another crisis because of the shortage of clinical academics.

Clinical academics are those doctors who are employed 50% of the time treating patients in the NHS and 50% in research and teaching. They are jointly employed, even though HMRC treats them as though they have a single employment. There are costs associated with the newly agreed contractual arrangements for these doctors. The UK’s future research strength is now jeopardised because, unfortunately and erroneously, the funding for the new contractual arrangements for NHS consultants omitted clinical academics. So I ask the Government whether they are making arrangements to reimburse universities somehow for the estimated additional £20 million of costs that this is going to result in for universities.

These clinical academics are, by and large, the research-active doctors. Academic clinical medicine accounted for 35% of all higher educational institute research grant income in 2022, valued at almost £2.5 billion. When all bioscience-related categories are included, the figure rises to around £4 billion, or about 57% of total research income. However, clinical academics represent a decreasing proportion of the workforce. The proportion aged over 55 doubled from 18% in 2005 to 36% last year, meaning that we have more approaching retirement without the flow of younger academics coming through. Only 4% of consultants are clinical academics, compared to 7% in 2005. These are the people needed to research and teach the next generation of doctors; their contribution to the national economy through money invested in research must not be underestimated. The numbers of clinical academics coming from general practice are tiny, even though they have risen slightly to 0.6% of GPs in the last 10 years.

The work to recruit applicants into healthcare from a broader section of society through widening participation is proving effective. The number of entrants to medical school from the most deprived areas has more than doubled from 6% to 14% in the last 10 years. The proportion of female applicants has certainly increased, up to 63%. Asian applicants increased to 29% and the proportion of black applicants has grown from 6% to 10%.

For those coming from schools in more deprived areas which have no selective intake, it is important to ensure that the entry tariff is appropriately adjusted. University league tables look at the average entry tariff, but those which have adjusted to take students from this broader proportion of the country—that is, deprived areas—risk being relatively downgraded in rankings, yet they are providing the future medical workforce for the most deprived areas in the country. Those responsible for student finance arrangements should consider the impact of the cost of living crisis on medical students, with their slightly longer courses, inability to take on other jobs and difficulty of success in a course that is rigorous and demanding. Will the Government support the recommendation from the Medical Schools Council that organisations publishing university league tables should consider removing average entry tariff from the criteria and include diversity and inclusion? Without diversity and inclusion, we will not begin to redress the imbalance in supply of workforce to these most deprived areas of the country.

The decline in clinical academics risks hampering the sector’s attempt to expand medical school places, as set out in the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan. There is a tension here. Without urgent action to increase the numbers and retain pay parity with NHS colleagues, the commitment set out in the long-term workforce plan will not be met, as we risk losing the vital workforce and the benefits it brings. There is also strong evidence that patients cared for in research and teaching-active institutions can have better clinical outcomes. These are benefits to wider society, not only to the innovative aspects of research in our community.

In 2021, the research excellence framework classified over 90% of clinical medicine research as world leading or internationally recognised. We all recall the Oxford AstraZeneca Covid vaccine, which resulted in 3 billion vaccine doses worldwide. As the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee stated in its recent letter to the Secretary of State,

“we heard concerning evidence that the future of clinical research, and the clinical academic workforce in particular, is under threat”.

17:09

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for giving us the opportunity to debate this substantial and wide-ranging report from Universities UK and congratulate her on her masterly introduction. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, I am humbled by all the insightful contributions we have heard from around the House.

I must explain that there are many people on our Benches with expertise and an interest in this subject, but there is a Liberal Democrat “away day” today and I am the only one who has been released for the whole debate, so I am the only one who can speak. Luckily, my colleague my noble friend Lord Storey, has joined me at this stage.

We all recognise that universities are going through a very tough time at the moment. Student fees have not gone up for years, until the Government proposed an increase this year. The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, set out the implications of this. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, also spoke about this and pointed out that universities would not get the full amount of the fee increase.

EU students are obviously not coming in such numbers since the folly that was Brexit. International students have been put off by regulations on visas, restrictions on staying post-study and the clampdown on accompanying relatives. Some of the decisions have been made in the face of reasoned arguments and opposition from universities, which, perversely, the previous Government chose to ignore. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and others, I add my support to taking students and their dependants out of immigration figures. They are temporary and will return home at the end of their stay. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, raised the issue of visa problems deterring international students. Surely, this is something we ought to be able to sort out. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, is to be congratulated for bringing in fees for international students.

As the report makes clear, the country certainly needs more young people to progress to tertiary education. We would also argue that the acute shortage of skills means that many young people should be encouraged into apprenticeships and further education. Along with the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Gloucester and Sheffield, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and others, we support the report’s proposal that universities and further education colleges should work together to allow talented youngsters, whether academically minded or not, to follow their ambitions and abilities and foster their skills through tertiary education. What plans do the Government have to ensure that further education is properly funded and its teachers appropriately remunerated? Their low pay is shockingly disproportionate to their achievement. How will the Government incentivise greater collaboration between universities and colleges? Of course, we heard a heartened plea for the pay of university staff as well.

In universities, researchers are often more highly prized than teachers. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, set out the vital importance of research both for the status of the university and in economic terms. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, also raised research, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has just spoken of the importance of medical teaching and research; it is obviously a vital part of our universities. Yet it is the teachers who encourage and foster learning in the next generation.

Could the teaching grant be restored, for instance? If the national tutoring programme was extended to fund university students to tutor disadvantaged pupils at school, this could not only benefit schoolchildren by seeing teachers nearer their age, but it might encourage more students to teach. The national teacher shortage in schools is reaching critical point in some areas and subjects. Without schoolteachers, students will not be able to progress to tertiary education. What plans do the Government have to recruit and retain teachers in schools, colleges and universities?

Universities have a key role to play as agents of change, but they need assured funding. The recent controversy over some vice-chancellors’ pay has not been helpful; they bear huge responsibilities and need good pay packages. Obviously, cutting the pay of one person will not help universities balance the books, but it would perhaps be encouraging if some might consider taking less as an example to others.

We also know that part-time study is growing. As ever, we applaud the work of the Open University and Birkbeck, which both do so much to support and encourage students. Will the Government consider introducing credit-based fee caps to facilitate growing demand for accelerated part-time study? Will they extend eligibility for maintenance support to all part-time students, including distance learners? Such encouragement would reap dividends. Student hardship has been named a number of times and it is a real problem. The reinstatement of maintenance grants should be seriously considered. The Liberal Democrats have long supported grants rather than loans, on the basis that adults in particular are unlikely to want to incur further debt, whereas a grant may well help them to progress.

The noble Lord, Lord Rees, did not mention—but I will—that Trinity College and Cambridge University have set up a multimillion-pound PhD student programme. Obviously, not many colleges or universities could fund such an enterprising scheme. But both UKRI and the Student Loans Company report a fall in the number of doctoral starters, and Cambridge has thus stepped up to fund more than 25 PhDs. We know that many will become highly successful entrepreneurs and will pay back handsomely the funding they receive. Are there any plans perhaps to replicate this elsewhere? I accept that the funding at other universities will not be as lavish as at Trinity College and Cambridge.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, on his medieval English, and I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, add his support for this. My Oxford degree was due mainly to my love of medieval French, which has never been of any use to me whatever in later life, but it was fun at the time. I would be sorry if Oxford stopped offering medieval English as well as other medieval languages, because they add something to our national life.

This has been a truly inspiring and an authoritative debate. Universities are applying their efforts and brains to ensure that they continue to thrive, but many are having extreme difficulties with their finances. Good departments, and subjects, are being cut. My own subject, modern languages, is being cut at universities, which is a major mistake because, in this international world, we must be able to speak the languages of other countries. We have been stupid enough to cut ourselves off from the EU, so the very least we can do is learn to speak its languages.

I hope the Government will be able to respond with generosity in their support, even in these straitened times. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

17:16

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, on securing this important and excellent debate. I thank all noble Lords for their insightful and varied contributions.

I welcome the blueprint prepared by Universities UK and its distinguished commissioners. The breadth of the report makes it hard to draft a succinct speech, but it underlines the scale, complexity and opportunities that our universities offer. I also welcome the outcomes that the blueprint aspires to: expanding opportunity, improving collaboration across the tertiary sector, generating stronger local growth, securing our future research strength and establishing a global strategy for our universities.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for being the first and possibly only Member to suggest that the report could have been a bit more self-critical. I would have been fascinated to hear more about how technology in general, and AI in particular, will in future shape our degrees, our teaching, our research and the university experience overall—but that is perhaps for another document. I also absolutely agree with my noble friend about transparency on costings and the differential impact from different universities and institutions—that would be really welcome.

This debate comes hot on the heels of that led by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, recently on the sustainability of the university sector. The blueprint covers the funding picture in detail, in all its aspects. The blueprint argues that there are two phases to achieving the outcomes to which it aspires. The first is about more funding for teaching, student maintenance and research, and the second phase relates to the transformation agenda, which is set out in the document to be led by universities and supported by government. Both are then underpinned by improved regulation and better measurement of impact. I wonder what the Minister thought when she read that and whether she shares my concern that the two phases need to be linked and that the transformation must be in parallel with any additional funding; otherwise, the delicate balance between what is paid for by the taxpayer and what is paid for by the graduate might tip too far towards the taxpayer.

Similarly, what are the Minister’s thoughts about fees increasing in future in line with inflation? As noble Lords have pointed out, the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions has, in effect, wiped out the increase in fees which her right honourable friend the Secretary of State spoke about earlier this month. If fees will increase in line with inflation in future, does the Minister agree that this must be mirrored by an increase in the quality of degrees as it relates to high-skilled employability? As the blueprint itself states, higher earnings are clearly not the only reason to go to university, but they are an important one which should not be dismissed and without which we will not achieve the faster economic growth that we all aspire to.

Does the Minister agree with what the Institute of Fiscal Studies said in an article published in September this year, in which it talked about potential changes to the fiscal rules? It said:

“Another issue is that departments may also face new incentives to design policies that create financial assets (e.g. student loans rather than a graduate tax to finance higher education) purely”—


I emphasise “purely”—

“because of differences in how the accounting treatment affects ease of compliance with a”

public sector net financial liabilities target. How will the Minister ensure that policy in this area, which is so important, is not distorted and other options for reform are not rejected because of this potential conflict of interest?

My noble friend Lady Bottomley talked about room for more radical and innovative approaches. The blueprint rightly raises important questions about cross-subsidisation of different subjects and of research and, indeed, describes this as “not fit for purpose” and “unsustainable”. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on that.

The blueprint also raises the thorny issue of the affordability of the teacher pension fund for universities. What is the Government’s attitude to giving universities more flexibility in relation to pensions?

The blueprint sets out an ambitious vision for research in our universities, and Universities UK rightly focuses on the importance of R&D and of full cost recovery. I confess that I am concerned at the prospect of having a target for R&D spend as a percentage of GDP and would rather focus strategically on the areas of research that yield the highest social and economic impact. The data in the report clearly shows that full economic cost recovery is highest in the most research-intensive universities, at 74%, compared with below 50% for the less research-intensive ones, although I totally accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about the absolute size of the shortfall in our largest research institutes. I wrote in my notes that I am to make “jam” points, and then could not remember what I meant, but I think this is about spreading the jam, which he mentioned. I do not know whether there were recovery percentages by subject in the report, but it would be interesting to understand where we should focus for maximum impact and affordability.

In the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, led recently, there was a discussion about increased specialisation in our universities, and the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, raised the subject again today. Does the Minister have more to say about the Government’s view on moving to more specialisation between research and teaching universities, particularly in a world where the giant tech companies have more to spend on research than all our universities combined?

Despite having more time than other noble Lords, as ever my speech is too long. I am going to skip ahead to the section on local growth. I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, highlighted the impact of Royal Holloway, in financial terms and the partnership that it has created. The report highlights the regional disparities that all of us across the House recognise and which so urgently need to be addressed. I remember when I was academies Minister visiting schools in some of the most deprived areas of England, where those children had exactly the same aspirations as their fellows in London and the south-east but a fraction of the opportunities. On the moral purpose, it is an area where universities do, and can do more to, make a huge contribution. I am really grateful to universities with active outreach programmes in those areas of the country for the work that they do.

Finally, in wrapping up, I echo the questions to the Minister from other noble Lords about the Horizon programme and what work the Government are doing to engage and shape its framework. On regulation, we were delighted and slightly horrified—delighted by the calls to streamline regulation but horrified by the diagram on page 107 of the report showing the extent of regulation in the sector. We remain concerned about the delays in the implementation of the freedom of speech Act.

As ever, it has been a privilege to listen to the points made. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.

17:26

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, like others, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for raising this debate and introducing it in such an interesting and broad-ranging way. As noble Lords have said, as always with debates on the subject of higher education in the House of Lords, this has been a high-quality debate—not least when there are contributions from both those who have first-hand knowledge of higher education and those who have previously been university Ministers. I must make a confession at this point that, as a student, I probably protested against at least one of them—and I may well have been wrong.

In considering the Universities UK blueprint, I put it on record that Universities UK plays a crucial role in the higher education ecosystem and is an extremely well-regarded government stakeholder. As the collective voice of our universities, UUK advocates for the interests of higher education providers, offering invaluable insights into the concerns of the sector.

We welcome the report. Taken as a whole, it is an important contribution to the wider and crucial debate that we will of course consider carefully in our policy development, which I shall touch on later. It will help to ensure that our higher education sector, as all noble Lords have argued for today, remains resilient and continues to drive innovation and inclusivity. I reassure my noble friend Lord Griffiths that the Government remain committed to the most famous principle of the Robbins report on higher education,

“that courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so”.

As others have said, our higher education system is not set in aspic. It is important—as is reflected in this report, and something I wholeheartedly agree with—to evolve our higher education into a lifelong journey, accessible to a larger and more diverse cohort than ever before. That transformation will ensure that the UK’s higher education providers remain world-leading and continue to play a key role in meeting the UK’s current and future skills needs. So many of our businesses and so much of our economy are dependent on skills gained in higher education degree courses.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, that universities provide academic, vocational and technical courses, and I will place in the Library the answer to the question he outlined. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also identified, some courses enable us to combine different elements of learning, which is enormously helpful for us in balancing our lives.

The Budget set out the major challenges facing our public finances and public services and the tough decisions the Government are taking to fix the foundations and deliver change, some of which I know will affect higher education providers. As the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, pointed out, the teaching income per UK student that higher education institutions receive has declined in real terms since 2015-16 and is now approaching its lowest level since 1997. That is the reason why the Office for Students reports a growing number of higher education providers facing significant financial difficulty, with 40% forecasting deficits in 2023-24. As many noble Lords have argued, we need to put our world-leading higher education sector on a secure footing. In line with this, from 1 August 2025 we will be increasing both the maximum cap for tuition fees and maintenance loans for students, in line with forecast inflation.

The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, calls on me—as did my noble friend Lord Blunkett earlier this week—to engage the services of Martin Lewis in order to make sure that the explanation of the impact of that on students is clear: that there will be no upfront payment and no increase in monthly repayments. We will certainly take on board the need to continue to communicate that to students. I also recognise the case made by my noble friend Lady Young, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield regarding the hardship experienced by students who have been impacted by the cost of living. This is reason for our increasing the maintenance loan as well, but I take the point that, in our further reform, we need to consider how to support students. I particularly hear the point about how we can ensure that this system is progressive.

Additional funding for higher education, which is of course an increased investment that we are asking students to make, has to be coupled with reform. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that those things need to run concurrently. That is why, in the reform programme that we are engaging in, we will expect higher education providers to play a stronger role in expanding access and improving outcomes for disadvantaged students; to make a stronger contribution to economic growth; to play a greater civic role in their communities; to raise the bar further on teaching standards; and to drive a sustained efficiency and reform programme. I know that there is much good practice already under way, and this Government are also committed to respecting the autonomy and diversity of the sector. I note and agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rees, about the benefit of that diversity; it is a great strength of our world-leading system. This agenda will need a real change of approach, from both the Government and the sector itself. We will set out the Government’s plan for higher education reform by next summer to ensure that the system delivers against these priorities. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Liddle that there will be more thought and more reform.

Several noble Lords raised the issue of regulation. As noble Lords are I hope aware, the Government moved fast to deal with the focus and leadership of the Office for Students. Within weeks of entering office, we accepted in full the recommendations of Sir David Behan’s report on the Office for Students and appointed him as interim chair to begin the work of change that the OfS needs. He will oversee the important work of refocusing the role of the OfS to concentrate on key priorities, including the higher education sector’s financial stability.

While the OfS has statutory duties in relation to the financial stability of higher education providers, the Government also have a clear interest in understanding the level of risk across the sector. That is why my department works closely with the Office for Students, and other relevant parties, to understand the ongoing impacts and changing landscape of financial sustainability. The department will come forward with proposals, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about the potential intervention that might be necessary in the case of real financial crisis for a higher education provider, although we have been clear that our focus will be on protecting the interests of students in those cases.

In the case of freedom of speech, I assure noble Lords that while we have paused the implementation of the Act, we are looking seriously at how we can respond to the challenge of ensuring academic freedom and freedom of speech. We will come forward with proposals soon.

I share the views of those noble Lords who have argued that we need greater transparency, transformation and efficiency within the sector. The most recent report from the OfS on the financial health of the sector makes it clear that the business models of a significant number of providers will need to change in the near future to ensure that they remain financially sustainable. That is why we welcome the commitment that Universities UK has made to establishing a cross-sector transformation and efficiency task force by the end of the year, to seek savings through greater collaboration. I am pleased to see the focus on sector evaluation, shared services and structural opportunities, and look forward to the task force reporting. However, I share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that it should include greater transparency and comparability of the finances of higher education.

Noble Lords have rightly raised the issue of access and participation. The House will note that this is the first area of the Government’s reform programme. My noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lord Griffiths identified the challenge of ensuring that all those who can benefit from higher education are able to. Sadly, the gap in outcomes between disadvantaged students and others from higher education is unacceptably large and widening, with participation from disadvantaged students in decline for the first time in two decades. To support not just disadvantaged learners, but all learners, we need to do more to create a culture of lifelong learning and help everybody to access higher education.

We will expect the sector to work closely with the Government and the Office for Students to tackle these issues, making sure that it is delivering strong and ambitious access and participation plans, and implementing the lifelong learning entitlement to the fullest degree. I reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield that we will bring forward the lifelong learning entitlement. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, I say that this will bring with it some improvement to maintenance for some of the areas that she identified. Of course, that will ensure that both young people and adults, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone argued for, can upskill and reskill in an ever-evolving economy and get the benefit of a lifelong education.

This will also require different forms of delivery. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, argued for this; he is right that we should look at this to enable more students to benefit. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, identified in talking about the Open University some of the really imaginative ways in which it delivers access. We need to learn from that as we take forward the work on access and participation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, said, in this area we must be radical and not defensive.

I heard the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the efforts being made by medical schools to increase attainment. I will reflect on the points that she made about the accountability measures and how they might act against broadening access.

We recognise that, for some young people, an apprenticeship is the most appropriate route, and the Government are taking action on that. We also recognise that degree apprenticeships support employers to develop high-level skills and provide valuable opportunities for those who would not otherwise go to university and begin a career that requires a degree. We will work with Skills England to ensure that the level 6 degree apprenticeships are part of the growth and skills levy-funded training offer and continue to offer good value for money while supporting our missions for growth and opportunity.

On the issue of quality, while we can rightly argue that UK higher education is world leading, an engine of growth, supports local communities and breaks down barriers to opportunity, we also need to ensure that this is not compromised by low-quality provision. We want to see higher education providers aspiring to improve the quality of the education that they deliver, far beyond minimum expectations. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right: students make a considerable investment in higher education, and they deserve the highest quality teaching to support them in progressing and achieving to the best of their potential. They also deserve to know what to expect when making this investment, and providers should be clear and transparent about, for example, the number and nature of contact hours that students will have.

Several noble Lords rightly talked about the significance of research for both our higher education sector and our country. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, raised several questions, as did the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lady Young. It is of course significant that total government investment in R&D is rising to a record allocation of £20.4 billion in 2025-26. As part of this, core research funding is rising to at least £6.1 billion to offer real-terms protection to the UK’s world-leading research base. That increase will support UKRI to deliver on the UK’s key research priorities. In addition, at least £25 million will be invested in 2025-26 to launch a new multi-year research and development missions programme. This will solve targeted problems and will help to crowd in private and third-sector investment to accelerate delivery of each mission.

The Government have maintained long-term institutional funding for university research and knowledge exchange through quality-related research funding and higher education innovation funding. It will be provided on a recurring basis in order to allow universities to plan over a longer time horizon and smooth out funding fluctuations. Nevertheless, the Government are determined to work with sector to transition to sustainable research funding models. Having said that, as with other areas of work, universities will also need to take their own steps to ensure that they are working as efficiently as possible and, where necessary, make difficult choices.

I noted the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about doctoral students; perhaps I can come back to him on that. Several noble Lords rightly talked about the civic contribution of higher education providers; they are important not only for learners but for local economies and local communities. There is an array of public benefits to providers engaging with businesses, policymakers and civil society in their local areas, as made clear by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, in talking about the University of Gloucester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in talking about the work in Northumbria. This is enormously important work, and we want to promote it as another element of our reform. There are parts of the country where the full civic contribution of providers and their potential to benefit local communities has not yet been unlocked.

We want higher education providers to be civic anchors in our communities and the beating heart of local life in our towns and cities, not ivory towers far removed from local concerns. It is right that they have a role to play in regional and national growth, and we want to work with the higher education sector to maximise that.

I strongly support the comments made about the collaborations between higher and further education. That can be instrumental in improving access for disadvantaged groups to levels 4 and 5, as well as to degrees, and to ensuring that there are clear pathways from further education to higher education. Greater collaboration through local skills systems is also crucial for supporting regional growth and local communities, recognising the different and distinctive roles that different types of providers play regionally and nationally.

We want to ensure that all parts of the country enjoy the benefits of higher and further education collaborations. This will be a key part of our post-16 strategy, where we are exploring how government can foster and encourage stronger relationships and collaboration between higher and further education providers. As part of that, we will make further announcements about how we will allocate the £300 million additional funding that we received for further education in the Budget.

On the issue of international students, I want to make clear the Government’s position. We recognise the vital contribution that international students make; we are committed to a United Kingdom that is outward-looking and welcomes international students. We are conducting a review of our international education strategy to ensure that it continues to reflect the priorities of this Government, including on international students. To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, this will be done alongside the Department for Business and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

I will certainly undertake to raise the issue of the speed of visas with my former colleagues in the Home Office. On the point about students within the statistics, it is the independent Office for National Statistics that is responsible for that.

In conclusion, the discussions today have underscored the pivotal role that higher education plays in shaping our nation’s future. We have demonstrated our commitment to sorting the most immediate financial challenges for the sector, but we expect that to be associated with and done alongside a significant programme of reform. We are committed to working collaboratively with Universities UK on that, and its blueprint will help us in this very important task.

17:47

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her constructive, positive and comprehensive response to the debate and for her commitment to work with the sector and to resolve the dangerous financial instability of universities. I am delighted that she will engage with the sector on that.

At this stage, I will not attempt to cover the very wide range of contributions. I think that everybody acknowledged the expertise around the House and the amazing number of ideas that have come out of the debate. All I will add is that the blueprint from Universities UK has provided an invaluable catalyst for a degree of consensus across the House on the issues which were powerfully raised in the report and which universities will need to take seriously when they look both at this debate and at their continuing dialogue with the Government and other stakeholders about the way forward. This is the start of a process, as Universities UK clearly says, and there were so many valuable suggestions, recommendations and, to some extent, remonstrations for the sector, which all need to be taken very seriously.

I thank all noble Lords for making such wonderful contributions to the debate. I am absolutely delighted that so many people right across the House were prepared to make a contribution on a Thursday afternoon, going on until almost 6 pm.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 5.49 pm.