House of Commons
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
The Government and industry are working together to accelerate the shared rural network and deliver substantial improvements to outdoor 4G mobile coverage across the UK. In the past few months, the Government have activated 13 publicly funded masts across the UK, and there are now 27 Government-funded extended area service mast upgrades delivering 4G.
Greg Smith
In my constituency, only 40, 50 and 60 miles away from this House, villages such as Cuddington are still complete mobile notspots. Will the Minister explain how quickly the Government intend to move on activating the shared rural network, to ensure no rural community is left without a reliable mobile signal?
Chris Bryant
I know about Cuddington, because the hon. Gentleman told me about it yesterday. Cuddington is such a typical English village that it has featured in “Midsomer Murders”, which is fictional—a bit like the previous Government’s financial affairs. I know we have said that the desire to please is not part of what Ministers are meant to do, but I do have a desire to please him and his constituents. The Government will work as fast as we can with industry to try to develop 4G in his constituency. I am happy to arrange for a meeting between him and my officials to ensure he has street-by-street analysis of how we can do that.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
We welcome the recent update on the expansion of 4G to rural areas under the shared rural network project, particularly for businesses and farmers who are under such pressure at the moment, with the recent Treasury announcements. Which Secretary of State should we thank for the planning approval and funding of this vital infrastructure project?
Chris Bryant
We support developing all the plans set out under the shared rural network and Project Gigabit—those plans were regularly announced by the previous Government, but they never actually put any money into the budget. There was never a line in a Department for Science, Innovation and Technology budget that said, “This money is guaranteed for the future.” We are putting our money where our mouth is and we are determined to ensure everybody has proper connectivity. Frankly, that is essential for people’s businesses, whether they are farmers or running any other kind of business, up and down the land. We will deliver that.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
We are improving digital connectivity in rural areas by rolling out 30 Project Gigabit contracts, filling in gaps that are not being met commercially, predominantly in rural areas, and delivering better 4G mobile coverage and eliminating partial notspots through the shared rural network.
Connor Naismith
A number of my constituents in the village of Haslington have been in touch with me about poor mobile signal and digital connectivity in the village. One constituent was unable to contact emergency services in the event of a medical emergency. Does the Minister agree that the lack of progress on connectivity in our rural areas under 14 years of Conservative Government is unacceptable? Will he meet me to discuss how we can improve matters for my constituents?
Chris Bryant
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend, not necessarily at the same time as I am meeting the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), but Haslington is a bit like Cuddington: they have exactly the same set of problems. I am sure many hon. Members from across the House have similar issues in their constituencies that they have a burning desire to raise with me. I am happy to make arrangements for hon. Members to meet officials and go through issues case by case. In relation to the 999 emergency my hon. Friend referred to, I would be grateful if he could provide me with specific details. All 999 calls from mobile phones should automatically roam on to another available network if there is no signal from their own provider, so I want to get to the bottom of the issue in that case.
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Can I add to the Minister’s list of beautiful villages to visit the wonderful villages of Cranleigh, Shamley Green, Peaslake, Gomshall and Bramley? They are all having big problems with 4G and 5G mobile phone reception, not least because apps need to be used to pay for parking there. Can he meet me to discuss what more can be done to help those beautiful, but also economically important, places?
Chris Bryant
I am very happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman as well. I am not the Pope, but it feels like I will be having a series of audiences over the next few weeks. The right hon. Gentleman has villages, I have villages. If only he knew someone who had been the Chancellor in recent years, who would have been able to deliver the financial support that we really needed to secure the investment.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My constituents in the village of Crowthorne will welcome the Government’s action to tackle this massive issue and support connectivity for phones and 4G in rural and semi-rural constituencies. Will the Minister have a meeting with me to discuss the issues affecting Crowthorne?
Chris Bryant
I am getting more popular day by day, which is unusual in my life. I am, of course, very happy to discuss the issues in Crowthorne.
One thing that really concerns me is that quite often, the published version of what connectivity is available in everybody’s constituency will say that there is 92%, 93% or 95% of connectivity from all four operators, but actually, if we stand there with a mobile phone, there will not be any connectivity whatsoever. I have written to Ofcom and it has written back saying, for instance, that in that precise location the coverage may be above or below the predicted level, leading some consumers to not get the service they expected. There is a phrase for that.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Organisations such as TechResort in my constituency support people who are digitally excluded to become digitally included. The Minister has a long list of meetings to go to, so instead, can the Secretary of State come along the coast to the sunniest town in the UK to visit TechResort and hear more about the funding it needs to power its work?
Chris Bryant
I am pleased to say that the Secretary of State says he will indeed visit when he possibly can.
There is a really important point here: poor digital connectivity excludes so many communities up and down this country. We have no chance of creating the economic growth that we want in this country unless we take the whole of the country with us. That is why it is so disgraceful that we have not had a proper digital inclusion strategy for 10 years. That is something we will remedy.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Chris Bryant
Project Gigabit has always been designed to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to premises that will not be met by the market, regardless of whether they are in urban or rural areas. Most premises deemed uncommercial by the market are in rural areas, but consistent evidence suggests that we will also need to intervene in some urban areas to achieve full national gigabit coverage. Funding will continue to be provided where it is needed.
Jerome Mayhew
There are 11,500 houses that will be connected to fibre as a result of the Conservative Project Gigabit policy. There is real concern that some of those will miss out if money is redirected from rural to urban communities. After the family farm tax, can we please give rural communities a break?
Chris Bryant
The vast majority—more than 90%—of the spending in Project Gigabit has gone to rural areas because those are the areas most in need. There is absolutely no change in our policy to that. However, some urban areas have significant problems as well and we need to rectify those. The hon. Gentleman points out some of the issues in his own constituency. I am happy to provide him too with a meeting, if he wants. I see he has nodded.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
We want to boost investment in innovation and enable people in all regions of the UK to benefit from an innovation-led economy. That is why the spending review supports the UK’s research and development ambition, with total Government investment in R&D rising to a record £20.4 billion in 2025-26. That allows us to extend innovation accelerators for another year, which will continue to bolster the west midlands’ high-potential innovation clusters, fund the Midlands Industrial Ceramics Group through the Strength in Places fund, and support the region’s investment zone.
Alex Ballinger
Last month, alongside Richard Parker, the Mayor of the West Midlands, I was lucky enough to join Halesowen college as it opened its new digital and media campus at Trinity Point. Does the Minister agree that excellent institutions such as this are fundamental to supporting innovation across our region, and would she be so kind as to visit us at some point in the near future?
Feryal Clark
I agree with my hon. Friend that educational institutes are crucial to innovation. Halesowen college is one of five colleges across the region using the further education and innovation fund to support innovation and technical excellence within the local community. Such facilities and expertise will help businesses to develop a workforce with skills and take advantage of that. I would be delighted to visit the Trinity Point college if the opportunity arises.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Increasing levels of innovation across the UK are crucial to unlocking growth and solving some of our biggest problems. That is why I was worried to read about the Secretary of State saying that we have to apply “a sense of statecraft” to working with multinational tech companies. Does the Minister agree that what we should be doing is working with such companies as companies, not states, focusing on increasing healthy competition and supporting innovative UK businesses so that they are not left with the choice of being bought up or leaving the UK?
Feryal Clark
As I have said, increasing productivity right across the UK is fundamental to our mission to kick-start economic growth. Through our industrial strategy and the development of local growth plans, we will build on local strengths to ensure that public and private research and development businesses right across the UK help local places to reach their potential. We are strengthening the relationships with businesses to deliver for British people.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
The UK is a founding member of the AI Safety Institute international network. The network convenes for the first time today in San Francisco.
Tony Vaughan
The UK is a global leader in AI development, which brings many opportunities, but we know that the risks associated with AI can be managed only by global co-operation. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the UK works with other main leaders in AI development, including the US and China, to ensure that the most advanced frontier AI models are safe for global consumers?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is completely right to say that safety has to be there from the outset. We want our country to safely explore all the opportunities that AI offers, but it can do so only if people are reassured that safety is there from the outset. The UK safety institute is at the forefront of this. It is the first safety institute, and we are at the forefront of delivering international as well as domestic safety. We are currently working on an international review of the science of AI safety, which draws on the expertise of 30 countries.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
On question number 13, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister what steps he will take to ensure that people who are visually impaired are able to engage—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry—we have not reached that question. I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) rightly raises the need for research into frontier AI safety, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to protecting the public from future AI risks. But AI affects all of our lives already. Today, my Committee launches an inquiry into algorithms, AI and their role in spreading online harm, as we saw in the terrible riots over the summer. As we build our evidence, how is the Minister building the evidence base on AI online harms and their social impact right now?
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for choosing this as her first inquiry. It is an incredibly important area. This Government are committed to the algorithmic transparency recording standard. The previous Government reneged on their commitment to having individual Departments releasing their standard statement each year. This Government are committing to doing so again and will remain committed to reinforcing the fact that algorithms are there to serve people and not the other way round.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There are many firms in Northern Ireland that have the capability and the experience to offer some advice on getting scientific research on AI safety. I know that the Minister is very interested in Northern Ireland, so has he had an opportunity to speak to companies in Northern Ireland so that we can play our part in how we take this matter forward?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging my interest in Northern Ireland, which I have already visited since being appointed in order to meet some of the pioneering tech companies there. I will stay committed to ensuring that the Government recognise the talent across Northern Ireland, harnessing it for not just the domestic good but the global good.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
Unfortunately, the UK’s roll-out of 5G has been far too slow. According to Opensignal, the UK ranks 22nd out of 25 European countries for 5G download speeds and availability after 14 years of Conservative rule. We are determined to change that, aiming to have higher-quality stand-alone 5G in all populated areas by 2030.
Alex Baker
Access to 5G data is a real issue in Aldershot. According to Ofcom, a third of our households cannot connect to 5G—nearly three times the national average. What are the Government doing to give residents in Aldershot and Farnborough the same data access as the rest of the country, and will the Minister make that work a priority?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right: that work has to be a priority for businesses, families and everybody engaged in her constituency, and for the public sector. We want the Ministry of Defence in her constituency, for instance, to have the highest-quality data access possible, so that we can deliver more effective and productive government across the whole United Kingdom. The work will indeed be a priority for us.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
There have been great improvements in connectivity across Ceredigion Preseli, but there remain total mobile notspots such as Porthgain, and a growing body of evidence collected locally that the connectivity reported by Ofcom does not quite stack up against the lived experience of those on the ground. Will the Minister meet me so that I can present some of the evidence collected by local authorities in Ceredigion Preseli and he can address the problem?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman has just said what I said a few minutes ago. It is great that Plaid Cymru is signing up to the Labour party’s agenda these days, but it is upsetting that he forgot to mention the seven high-quality masts extending better coverage of 4G in Wales that have been installed in the last couple of months alone. Of course I will happily meet him, and place in the Library a copy of the letter that I received from Ofcom that makes the precise point that we need to do much better in recognising the real experience of people’s mobile connectivity rather than a theoretical, ethereal version of it.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
More than 30 Project Gigabit contracts are currently in place, with a total value of almost £2 billion, and more are in the pipeline. In the past few months, the first premises have been connected as part of Project Gigabit contracts in areas including Norfolk, West Yorkshire and south Wiltshire, and the build has now started in earnest in other parts of the country.
Shaun Davies
I welcome the progress that the Government are making on the roll-out of Project Gigabit to all corners of the country, but in Telford the inequality remains stark, with some wards having complete gigabit coverage and areas such as the world heritage site in Ironbridge having almost none. Will the Government confirm that their agenda to break down barriers to opportunity includes residents, businesses and world heritage sites that cannot get online?
Chris Bryant
The world heritage aspects relate to my Department for Culture, Media and Sport responsibilities, but my hon. Friend is right about Ironbridge. I hope that we will be able to announce something shortly in relation to extending gigabit coverage in his constituency through a procurement via Openreach.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Minister will be aware that there is a strong link between communications technology and the roll-out of smart meter technology in areas in the north of Scotland that are suffering from cold weather. Particularly at the moment, connectivity is really important for such alternative technologies to work. What discussions has he had with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on that issue?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is right: there is a series of issues about the security and safety of connectivity in areas that suffer from particular weather conditions. We had a successful summit on Monday morning to discuss the closing down of the public services network to ensure that everybody will be secure, but I assure him that we will work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that the roll-out in all such areas works in the interests of businesses, whatever the weather conditions.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
To protect people online, today I became the first Secretary of State to exercise the power to set out my strategic online safety proposals for Ofcom to consider. From increasing transparency to baking safety into social media platforms from the outset, those priorities will support Government in monitoring progress on acting where our laws are coming up short. I have also launched a new research project to explore the impact of social media on young people’s wellbeing and mental health.
Dr Cooper
Each year millions of patients in England interact with two or more different hospital trusts. Most of the trusts that commonly see the same patients do not use the same record systems. What steps is the Minister taking with Cabinet colleagues to utilise the Centre for Improving Data Collaboration and other available technology to improve data sharing across NHS hospital trusts?
Peter Kyle
What a pleasure it is to speak from the Dispatch Box to another Labour MP from Sussex.
That issue is a Department of Health and Social Care responsibility but, on its behalf, the Data (Use and Access) Bill will include a requirement that IT providers in the NHS have to meet information standards. That will deliver the interoperability needed so that data can be shared across the NHS, often for the very first time.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
On the Opposition Benches we are proud that it was the last Conservative Government who created the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. I am glad that Labour is following our agenda, and I look forward to my exchanges with the Secretary of State.
Under the last Conservative Government, Britain was home to more billion dollar tech start-ups than France and Germany combined, but last month an industry survey found that nearly 90% of tech founders would consider leaving Britain if Labour raised taxes on tech businesses. Yesterday, Labour U-turned on policy in Scotland, so today will the Secretary of State commit to reversing Labour’s jobs tax, which damages tech businesses across the entire country?
Peter Kyle
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post. We worked together on the all-party parliamentary group on the fourth industrial revolution, which he chaired, and I look forward to having a constructive relationship going forward.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the last Government. Given the way the Conservatives are going, that will have been their last Government. To be honest, the circumstances that businesses, large and small, operating in the tech landscape have asked for are a smooth regulatory process—we have already delivered regulatory reform; reform to planning—we have delivered reform to the planning system; a stable financial settlement—we have delivered that with a Budget for—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, this is topicals. We will see a very good example from the shadow Secretary of State.
Alan Mak
I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words, but he has punished labour: figures from his own Department show that workers will be losing out by nearly £800 each per year as a result of Labour’s Budget. Will he stand up to the Chancellor and oppose any further tax rises on Britain’s hard-working tech sector?
Peter Kyle
The Budget gave a pay rise to working people in this country and set the conditions for a stable economy, fixing the black hole left in our economy by the mismanagement of the last Government.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
Outside the classroom, the CyberFirst programme has engaged 250,000 young people across the UK. Those are the first steps; this Government will be going further.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, because the first job I ever had was at the Body Shop working for Anita Roddick, and I joined her campaign against animal testing for cosmetics. She would be proud to see me at the Dispatch Box engaging in this conversation. Labour made a manifesto commitment to phase out animal testing in the long term. That is something we are committed to and something we are taking steps towards.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising one of the most serious issues of our time. The Online Safety Act 2023 requires providers, as part of their risk assessment, to consider specifically how algorithms will impact a user’s exposure to illegal content and children’s exposure to harmful content. I have introduced new measures to ensure that children are kept safe, and today I issued a statement of strategic priority to Ofcom to insist that it continues to do so in future.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Peter Kyle
The Government are working closely with individual universities, the university sector and our intelligence community to ensure that our research is not only world class but safe and secure.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister (Angela Rayner)
I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has attended the G20 summit, strengthening the UK’s ties with major economies to drive jobs and security at home.
This week marks 1,000 days of Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine. We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. This week also marks Equal Pay Day. I am extremely proud that this Government have introduced the Employment Rights Bill, strengthening the rights of working women and making work pay.
This morning, I will have meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I recently met members of the British Association for Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology, who highlighted a loophole in the Human Tissue Act 2004 allowing human remains to be auctioned, frequently disguised as modified items or replicas. Such items have included a foetal skeleton posed under a glass dome, a human thigh bone turned into a cane, a human jawbone necklace and the varnished skull of a six year old, and are often from indigenous communities in Africa and Asia, having been stolen during colonial expeditions. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is abhorrent for human remains, regardless of their origin or age, to be sold by auction houses and on social media sites such as Instagram, Facebook, eBay, Etsy and Gumtree, and will the Government take action to end that depraved practice?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that sensitive issue. It is absolutely horrifying to hear her account of it, and I agree that it is abhorrent. Although the Human Tissue Authority strictly regulates the public display of human remains, with fines or imprisonment for breaches, it does not cover sales or purchases. However, I will ensure that a meeting is arranged with the appropriate Minister to discuss the troubling cases that my hon. Friend raises.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am very happy to associate myself and the official Opposition with the right hon. Lady’s remarks about Ukraine. Democracies must stand together.
What are the Government doing to bring down inflation?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think it is astonishing that—first, may I welcome the hon. Member to his place? Many people might not know that he was the Minister with responsibility for growth when, under Liz Truss, inflation was at 11.1% and growth flatlined, so we are doing much better than he did.
Alex Burghart
Well, I thank the right hon. Lady for her standard charm. The truth is that the Government are not doing anything to bring down inflation; this Government are stoking inflation. First, we had above-inflation pay rises for the unions. Then, we had a Budget that the Office for Budget Responsibility said would increase inflation—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] I am going to hear the question. I suggest that we all hear it together—then our constituents can understand the answer as well as the question.
Alex Burghart
First, we had above-inflation pay rises for the unions. Then we had a Budget that the OBR said was going to push up inflation. This morning, we had City economists—real economists—saying that next year inflation will hit 3%. Does the right hon. Lady agree that this Government’s decisions mean higher inflation for working people?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I ask the hon. Gentleman: 11.1% or 3%?
Alex Burghart
We have already talked about Ukraine. It was Ukraine and covid that drove up inflation, but this Government are doing it to the British people. High tax, high inflation, low growth, low reform—there is a word for that: it is Starmerism.
Yesterday, like many Opposition Members, I spoke to farmers from across the United Kingdom. Some of them were families who have farmed their land for centuries—elderly men in tears, children worried about their parents and all of them worried that their way of life is about to be destroyed. What would the right hon. Lady like to say to them?
The Deputy Prime Minister
First of all, we are absolutely committed to our British farmers, and—[Interruption.] That is why we have committed £5 billion to the farming budget over the next two years. That is the largest ever amount for sustainable food production in the UK, and it is alongside £60 million to support those affected by extreme wet weather and over £200 million to tackle disease outbreaks. The hon. Gentleman’s party could not even get the money out the door for farmers, failing to spend over £300 million on farming budgets. The farmers know that they were in it for themselves, and that is why we are in government and they are not.
Alex Burghart
Perhaps the right hon. Lady thinks that everyone came to London yesterday to thank the Government. Let us look at the facts. A typical mid-size, 360-acre family farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) have spoken to their accountant. Their new liability because of this Government is half a million pounds. That is 12 years’ worth of profit. When this generation passes away, that farm will become totally unviable, and it is just one of thousands and thousands of similar farms.
It is clear the Government have not got their facts right. The Central Association for Agricultural Valuers—the real experts in this field—say so. The National Farmers Union says so; it is shortly to publish a report showing that 75% of all commercial farms will fall above the threshold. If the Government are not going to reverse this terrible policy, will the right hon. Lady at least commit to no further increases to inheritance tax and no further reductions in agricultural property relief or business property relief in this Parliament?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman talks about the facts, and I absolutely stand by the figures that the Government have set out. The vast majority of estate owners will be totally unaffected. The hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the figures. I will be crystal clear: the vast majority of estate owners will see no change and pay no tax on land passed on that is valued at £1 million. Couples can pass on £3 million tax-free, and those above the threshold will pay only half the normal rate and can pay it over 10 years interest-free.
Alex Burghart
This is just another part of the Budget that is unravelling. Everyone here and all the farmers at home will have heard that there was no guarantee there. We know what that means: they are coming back for more. Even if the right hon. Lady had made a promise today, it would not have been worth a fig. We know that the Environment Secretary, before the election, promised the farmers that this would not happen. Labour promises get broken.
Let us put all this into context. The Treasury says that the family farms tax will raise on average £441 million a year. The Treasury also says that the public sector pay rises the Government announced in July will cost £9.4 billion a year. That is over 21 times as much. Why do the Government think that above-inflation pay rises for the trade unions are worth so—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not need any more from the second Government Bench. Please, less of it—we have had a bit of a run-in recently, and I do not need to have any more.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think it is an audacity for the hon. Gentleman to stand at the Dispatch Box and suggest in some way that Labour broke promises or raised taxes. I will school the hon. Gentleman: it was his Government who raised taxes to their highest level for a generation. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Sorry? We will have less of that as well, unless you want to go and have a cup of tea. Will we hear any more? Is that it, now? Yes or no?
Mr Speaker
Well, I am sorry, but you must be able to do it like a ventriloquist’s dummy.
The Deputy Prime Minister
It was the hon. Gentleman’s Government who crashed the economy—who saw inflation rise to 11.1% and growth flatline. It was his Government who spent the reserves three times over. I will take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman.
Alex Burghart
I understand why the right hon. Lady does not want to answer questions about the terrible choices the Government have made. It is because the truth is ugly. The truth is that this is a punishment meted out to people who do not vote Labour. It is the same punishment meted out to parents who send their children to private schools. It is the same punishment meted out to the owners of small businesses who are terrified about national insurance contributions, and it is the same punishment meted out to pensioners who cannot afford to pay for their fuel this winter. Is it not the truth that if you do not vote Labour, they do not care about you? [Hon. Members: “More!”]
The Deputy Prime Minister
After that display, it is clear that the hon. Gentleman did not recognise the result of the general election and has learned nothing. While this Government have been fixing the mess that the Conservatives left, they have been desperately trying to rewrite history. They come here every week, jumping on a new bandwagon and taking a new pot-shot, but with absolutely no word on what they will do differently.
Last week, the Leader of the Opposition admitted that she supported Labour’s plans to invest in the NHS, schools and homes. The Conservatives want all the benefits of the Budget, but have no idea how they will pay for them. The faces may change, but it is the same old Tory party: straight back to putting everything on the credit card, spending the reserves three times over. We took the difficult decisions to fix the £22 billion black hole that they left behind, and while they are reinventing the past, we are investing in the future.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
The situation in the middle east is catastrophic, and I know the whole House is horrified at the terrible loss of civilian life. We are calling at every opportunity for an immediate ceasefire, with the release of the hostages and more aid into Gaza, but we urge Israel to ensure that UNRWA can continue its lifesaving work, something the Foreign Secretary has discussed directly with the Israeli Foreign Minister. We have imposed sanctions in response to appalling incidents of settler violence and have suspended export licences for arms, following a review that found a clear risk that they may be used to commit or facilitate violations of international law. We will continue to seek a two-state solution, with a secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestine.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
May I associate myself and the Liberal Democrats with the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks on Ukraine?
Ahead of the Budget, I warned the Deputy Prime Minister that increasing national insurance contributions on social care providers would make the crisis in social care worse. Now, OBR figures suggest that the increase in NICs will cost more to social care providers than the money the Government have announced for that sector in the Budget, with that measure alone withdrawing £200 million from the sector. Will the Deputy Prime Minister speak with the Chancellor to ensure that, at the very least, health and care providers are protected from taking the hit?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for that question. The Chancellor is sat near me, and I know that, through our discussions, we wanted to ensure that social care was protected. That is why we confirmed £600 million of new grant funding for social care next year, an uplift to local government spending and an £86 million increase to the disabled facilities grant. Our Employment Rights Bill will help deliver the first ever fair pay agreement for the social care sector as well, and we will also ensure that the NHS is funded to help with the social care situation.
Daisy Cooper
It is clear that social care providers will be worse off, so I urge the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor to look again at that.
Somebody else who was worried about the Budget is Cathy, a farmer in my constituency, who told me yesterday that she thinks the Government changes simply do not make sense. They mean that her family may have to pay a bill that will force them to sell land, which makes food production unviable. At the same time, the Government have not closed the land-buying tax loophole that can be exploited by equity firms and the super-wealthy. Farmers told me yesterday that they feel as though they were betrayed by the Conservatives, and they now feel—[Interruption.]
Daisy Cooper
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Farmers told me yesterday that they feel as though they have been betrayed by the Conservatives, but they now feel that they have also been lied to by Labour. Will the Deputy Prime Minister think again on this measure, so that our farmers can feed Britain?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Again, I am sorry to hear that Cathy is distressed by the scaremongering around what the Labour party is doing. The Budget delivered £5 billion for farming over the next two years—a record amount. The last Government failed to spend £300 million on farmers. Our plan is sensible, fair and proportionate, and protects the smaller estates while fixing public services that they rely on.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Every child deserves the opportunity to succeed in school and beyond, and I am sorry to hear of the experience in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Last week, I visited Ravensfield primary school in my constituency, and its school council had a lot to say about the resources to our schools. We have increased the core schools budget by £2.3 billion next year, increasing per-pupil funding in real terms. As her constituency is the home of the British Army, I know she will also welcome the expansion of childcare support to service families deployed overseas, saving families around £3,400 a year. I am happy to ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
A few weeks ago, from that Dispatch Box, the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs said he had been congratulated by a farmer on the introduction of the inheritance tax. I think that farmer must have been a cannabis farmer, because yesterday we had 10,000 farmers on Whitehall protesting against this madcap decision. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the decision should be thrown in the trash can, along with Rachel from accounts’ CV?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Member talks about CVs, and it is good to see him doing well on his Bench: once a Labour councillor, then a Tory MP, now a Reform Chief Whip. Every time he switches party, he gets a promotion. I have already outlined what we have done to support our farmers. We will continue to support the farmers and we will continue to invest in our public services to get Britain back on track.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Free speech and our press are incredibly important—they are part of our democracy—but in direct response to my hon. Friend’s question, the police are independent and it is a live investigation, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on that. I believe that we should have a free press. It is part of our democracy, and we should have free speech, but with that comes responsibility for those who do it.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I say to the hon. Gentleman and to Duncan and Nicola that this Government have not declared war on farmers. The vast majority of farms will not pay any inheritance tax. We have protected them. We have been as generous as we can. The farmers rely on our public services, like everybody else. We inherited a £22 billion black hole from the Conservatives, who spent reserves three times over. We are investing in our schools, our hospitals, our public services and housing. If the hon. Gentleman does not agree with that, then, like the Leader of the Opposition, he should say what he would do differently .
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am sorry to hear about the situation in Stroud, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue for women in his constituency. The Darzi report clearly set out that under the previous Government, the NHS was broken, with patients waiting too long for care. We are committed to ensuring that all women and babies receive safe, compassionate and personalised care through pregnancy, birth and, critically, the following months. We will ensure that maternity services deliver the best outcomes for patients as we invest to build an NHS fit for the future.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is right to say that I value the work of care providers and carers across the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why we have put in additional funding through the Budget. We have been ensuring that for care providers and charities, including hospices, the tax regime is among the most generous in the world. That includes tax relief for charities and their donors worth more than £6 billion for the tax year ending April 2024. We have put record funding into our NHS, we have increased funding into adult and children’s social care and we will continue to support our public services, which were left on their knees by the last Government.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for being such a champion for Plymouth. As he knows, we are providing £25 billion extra over the next two years for the Department of Health and Social Care, including the largest real-terms capital budget since 2010. We will ensure that every corner of the UK will see the generosity, and that services will improve for them. I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss in detail how Plymouth can capitalise on that.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
We have committed to 350 banking hubs through this Parliament. I am sure that the Minister will be happy to meet the hon. Member on that point. I hope he will thankful for the levelling-up fund round 2 money that we secured, with £14.3 million going to Waltham Cross renaissance project, to regenerate the town centre for his constituents.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his expertise and his work before he came to this place. Tory austerity has decimated neighbourhood policing. We will put thousands more neighbourhood police and police community support officers back on our streets, to ensure that every community has a named local officer. We will tackle illegal drugs, halve knife crime, crack down on antisocial behaviour and go after the gangs who lure young people into violence.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we always follow the strict rules on planning, ensuring that safety and other factors are always taken into consideration, and we will continue to do so.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Thousands of families in my constituency have moved into new-build developments in Shinfield, Loddon Park and beyond. But many have found their dreams of home ownership punctured by unfair and opaque property management charges. Can the Deputy Prime Minister reassure my constituents by setting out how the leasehold reform Bill will address those concerns, and will she meet me and affected constituents?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. Unjustified increases to service charges are completely unacceptable. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 will provide homeowners with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes, including greater transparency over service charges. Leaseholders have been ripped off for too long. It is this Government who will sort it out.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We are committed to championing human rights, including the right to freedom of religion and belief. I join him in marking Red Wednesday, an important moment to show support for all those persecuted around the world for their religion and belief. Today, we will light up Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office buildings in the UK in red in support of that. Envoy roles are under consideration and will be decided on in due course.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Harshita Brella was killed and found in the boot of her car as it was taken from her home in Corby on 14 November. This tragic murder left a community shocked and scared, and it is being investigated by the police. Harshita was protected by a domestic violence protection order that lasted 28 days. It was not renewed. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that all must be done to reassure the community and bring the perpetrator to justice? Further, does she agree that in some circumstances domestic violence protection orders should last longer than 28 days, when the victims are most vulnerable?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case. My thoughts are with Harshita’s family in this horrifying set of circumstances, where Harshita should have been protected and felt protected. The Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls. We continue to do our work, hopefully across the House, to make sure that we can end the circumstances Harshita faced and we can stop this kind of barbaric action.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, what can I say? I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman—may I say my hon. Friend?—about the Spelthorne Litter Pickers. Those who come together to volunteer and help, in particular young people who do a lot of this, play an important role in all our constituencies. I think across the whole House we congratulate the Spelthorne Litter Pickers on their award, and all those who do voluntary work to support our communities.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a very proud trade union member. In 2019, the Conservative party promised to deliver an employment Bill that would protect and enhance workers’ rights in the UK. Like so many of its promises it never delivered, but my right hon. Friend has done it, cleaning up the mess that the party opposite left behind. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me that her Employment Rights Bill is the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I too declare an interest: my hon. Friend and I used to be convenors for Unison North West, and I champion the work that she has done on behalf of her constituents and for working people. The Government are delivering on their plan to make work pay, and to ensure that employment rights are fit for a modern economy. The Employment Rights Bill will benefit people in some of the most deprived areas in the country, and will save them up to £600 a year in replacing lost income from the hidden costs of insecure work. I commend the work that many Members—some on the Opposition Benches, but in particular some on ours—have done to bring the Bill to fruition.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I know where the right hon. Gentleman is trying to go with this. While it is tempting—[Interruption.] What I will say to the right hon. Gentleman is that in the last four months our Chancellor has shown more competence than the last four Chancellors that were appointed by his Government.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Despite being its capital, my home city of Edinburgh is, per head, the lowest-funded local authority in Scotland owing to the austerity inflicted on us by the Scottish National party in Holyrood, which means that great projects such as The Ripple face closure. Now that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has secured the biggest block grant for Scotland in the history of the Scottish Parliament, will the Deputy Prime Minister work with me to ensure that the Scottish Government use it to end austerity for my constituents?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who is entirely right to raise the subject of the impact of the SNP’s irresponsible management of Scotland’s finances and the austerity that it is inflicting on his constituents. Our Budget rejected a return to austerity. We delivered the largest real-terms funding settlement for Scotland since devolution, and the result of the Budget is clear: the SNP has the powers, it has the money, and it has no more excuses.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am sincerely sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent’s husband, the terrible diagnosis at stage 4, and the delays leading up to that. We have explained before how difficult the inheritance was in respect of the cancer diagnosis waiting lists. People are waiting far too long for treatment, which is why the Chancellor put a record amount of money into our NHS so that we could catch cancer in time. I know that the Health Secretary is determined, as a personal endeavour, to ensure that people do not have to wait and do not end up in the circumstances that are so tragic for the hon. Lady’s constituent.
Mr Speaker
Order. Just for the record, I should like to apologise to Mr Kruger. I got the wrong person. Mr Wild has now owned up to it. [Laughter.] What I would say to Mr Kruger is, “Don’t sit next to him again.”
Police Reform
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on police reform.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I will respond on behalf of the Secretary of State, and I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important question on what is an important subject.
At its best, policing in England and Wales is truly world class. Every day, officers perform their duties with courage, skill and dedication, and we are all grateful to all of them. At the heart of our British policing tradition is the notion of policing by consent, which is dependent on maintaining mutual bonds of trust between officers and the local communities they serve. But over the last decade or more policing has faced a perfect storm as visible neighbourhood policing has been decimated, as law enforcement has struggled to keep up with fast-changing crimes, as outdated technology has held forces back, and as confidence has fallen in communities and among victims because far too often people feel that if something goes wrong no one will come and nothing will be done.
For too long, instead of Government showing leadership and helping the police to navigate these testing times, predecessors in our Department have just walked away. This Government will not stand on the sidelines while public confidence and public safety are put at risk, and that is why we are pursuing our unprecedented safer streets mission to reduce the most serious violence and to rebuild confidence in policing and the criminal justice system.
To successfully deliver that mission, we need forces that are fit for the challenge of today and tomorrow. That is why the Home Secretary yesterday announced a programme of police reform that will be pursued in partnership with policing. Under our neighbourhood policing guarantee, we will restore patrols to town centres and rebuild the vital link between forces and the people they serve. To drive up performance and standards, a new performance unit will be established in the Home Office which will use high-quality police data to spot trends and improve performance and consistency. And we will work with policing to create a national centre of policing to bring together crucial support services such as IT, aviation and forensics. We will present a White Paper on police reform to Parliament next year.
The 2025-26 police funding settlement for police forces, including full details on Government grant funding and precept, will be set out to Parliament in the normal way before Christmas, but the Home Secretary confirmed in her written statement yesterday that, as part of that settlement, direct central Government funding for policing next year will increase by £0.5 billion. That is core grant and additional funding for neighbourhood policing, counter-terrorism and the National Crime Agency.
We are at a critical juncture for policing and we cannot go on as we have been. So together with the police we will embark on this road map for reform, to get back to those precious Peel principles and to rebuild the confidence of our communities in the vital work the police do every day to keep us all safe.
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
Yesterday the Home Secretary announced significant reforms to policing through a written statement. A comprehensive restructuring of policing in England and Wales that will affect thousands of personnel, create a new performance unit and establish a national centre for policing surely merits some parliamentary scrutiny and an opportunity for Members of this House to question what it means for their constituents.
For my Hazel Grove constituents, what does it mean for Mellor, the most rural part of my constituency? There was no specific mention of rural crime in the Home Secretary’s statement, so I ask the Minister what her plans mean for those tackling crime in our rural communities. What do the plans mean for places like Woodley, a district centre in Hazel Grove, which has seen far too much antisocial behaviour and shoplifting? And what do the plans mean for places like Offerton, where illegal off-road bikes are causing havoc on our roads? How will the plans better encourage the police to work with local partners to tackle this problem, which blights so many people’s lives? Any police reform must address the Conservatives’ cuts to the number of police community support officers, who are so often the face of proper neighbourhood policing. My police force, Greater Manchester, has seen more than 350 PCSO positions cut since 2015.
More than anything, we need to ensure that the reforms deliver the proper frontline policing that our communities deserve. Years of ineffective resourcing by the previous Conservative Government have left our police forces overstretched, under-resourced and unable to focus on the crimes that affect our communities the most. It is no wonder that the vast majority of burglaries still go unsolved, while for seven out of 10 car thefts last year, a police officer did not even attend the scene.
It is genuinely good to hear that more resources will be committed to neighbourhood policing, but as we saw with the Conservatives’ police uplift programme, more resources does not automatically mean that communities will see the difference. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that the Government will ensure that officers have the time and resources to focus on their communities, and will ensure more bobbies on the beat.
Dame Diana Johnson
I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s interest in this area. The written ministerial statement laid before Parliament yesterday set out the direction of travel for this Government on police reform. As I said in my response to the urgent question, a White Paper will be published in the spring. There will be full consultation with, I hope, parliamentary colleagues as well as those involved in policing, police and crime commissioners, and all the key stakeholders. This is the start of the process, so many of the hon. Lady’s questions will be part of the consultation and the conversations that we have next year, but I reassure her that the safer streets mission is about the neighbourhood policing guarantee. It is about delivering 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and specials in our neighbourhoods and reinvigorating the neighbourhood policing model.
The hon. Lady mentioned antisocial behaviour and shoplifting. Those are issues that we will deal with, and we will bring forward legislation, particularly around shop theft. That will include a stand-alone offence of assaulting a shopworker, and the removal of the £200 threshold that the previous Government introduced, which meant that there was almost a shoplifters’ charter—they could steal up to £200-worth of items and there would be no action. We are getting rid of that. We are taking action now, but we will have a conversation about broader police reform next year. The statement was about setting out the direction of travel.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
On Friday, I spent some time on patrol with Telford police, and Sergeant Alex Webb told me about her frustration at not being able to get repeat antisocial behaviour offenders out of our town centres and high streets. When will the Government give the police the tools that they need to deal with these issues and get the yobs out of our high streets and town centres?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. This is Antisocial Behaviour Awareness Week, which aims to focus on the effect that antisocial behaviour can have on individuals and communities. He is absolutely right to say that we need to tackle antisocial behaviour. That is why the neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will get officers back on the streets, and the other measures that we will introduce to keep our town centres and high streets safe, are so important. We will bring those forward in due course.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Let me welcome the Policing Minister to her role; she is succeeding me in the job that I did in the last Government. I genuinely wish her well in the job, and I hope that she succeeds in it, because it is important for the whole country. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in thanking the police up and down the country for the work that they do to keep us safe. When they put on their uniform to go to work each morning, they take risks that are required of those in few other professions.
In March this year, the police headcount hit 149,769—a record number of police, and 3,000 higher than the previous record. My first question is: will the Policing Minister commit to at least maintaining, if not growing, that record number of police officers? Secondly, will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that in the past seven years, overall crime, as measured by the crime survey for England and Wales—the Office for National Statistics says that is the best measure of crime trends—has come down by 17%? The written statement yesterday, and the Home Secretary’s speech to the National Police Chiefs’ Council yesterday, mentioned the importance of technology, which I feel very strongly about, as the Minister knows. In the March Budget, the previous Chancellor committed to £230 million of spending on police technology over four years, of which this year is the first. About £80 million was due to be spent this year. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the £80 million for this year is secure, and that she and her colleagues will honour the £230 million commitment over the coming four years?
Does the Minister agree that it is important that police spend their time actually investigating crime, not policing thought? Does she agree that the guidelines need to be changed, so that police spend time investigating only real crimes, and investigate non-crimes only when there is a real and imminent risk of criminality? That would mean a change to the guidelines. Will she make that change?
On the reform programme, we need to see the details of course, but will the Minister confirm that no money will be taken away from local police forces? Will she confirm that police and crime commissioners and chief constables will continue to be fully empowered? Finally, on police funding, she mentioned some numbers for next year’s funding settlement. She will be aware that when I was Policing Minister, we arranged a £922 million increase in funding for frontline policing for this financial year, compared with last year. The numbers she talked about in her statement are much lower than that, so will she give a commitment that any funding increase for frontline policing that she brings forward in the police funding settlement will be at least as big as the one that I announced last year?
Dame Diana Johnson
This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role as shadow Home Secretary, but I think he might be forgetting a few facts. As I recall, over the previous 14 years, the Conservative Government slashed policing by over 20,000 police officers, and many support staff as well. I acknowledge that the uplift programme was brought in at the end of their period in government, but they got rid of a lot of very experienced, good police officers. Also, just to remind him, we stood for election on a manifesto commitment to providing 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and specials as part of our neighbourhood policing guarantee.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very keen on technology. That was absolutely one of the things that he focused on. I have certainly taken up some of the issues that he was concerned about to do with live facial recognition, and I want that investment to continue. I think he is again forgetting a few things when he refers to the guidelines for non-crime hate incidents. As I recall, he was the Policing Minister who introduced those guidelines. I have listened to what he said, but I think he needs to remember what he actually did when he was the Policing Minister. I take the approach that this should be about common sense and consistency. His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services talked about the need for consistency and training; I will listen to what it has to say, rather than to the right hon. Gentleman’s view on guidelines that he introduced. Many of the questions that he asks will form part of the consultative approach that we will adopt when our White Paper is laid before Parliament.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
My constituents tell me that they are particularly worried about antisocial behaviour, and that they want guaranteed police patrols. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is what this Government intend to deliver?
Dame Diana Johnson
I very much welcome that question from my hon. Friend and neighbour in Kingston upon Hull. He is absolutely right to say that the neighbourhood policing guarantee will include designated police officers, PCSOs and specials who will patrol neighbourhoods. There will be a named officer that people can go to if there are problems around antisocial behaviour. We will also bring forward respect orders, which will deal with the people who are engaging most persistently in antisocial behaviour; they can stop them being in particular neighbourhoods or even put conditions on them—for example, if they have an alcohol problem, they may have to get treatment and help for that problem. But he is absolutely right to say that antisocial behaviour is a big issue for many of our constituents.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s announcements on neighbourhood policing. We have already seen a real move in this direction in Staffordshire, under the leadership of the police, fire and crime commissioner, Ben Adams, and our chief constable Chris Noble, so I very much welcome what the Minister has said. She will know, however, that the National Audit Office has raised concerns about the experience of officers when it comes to neighbourhood policing. What work will she do to ensure that officers have the right degree of experience, so that their effectiveness at neighbourhood policing is maximised?
Dame Diana Johnson
Can I take this opportunity to welcome the new Chair of the Home Affairs Committee? Chairing it is one of the very best jobs in Parliament. On neighbourhood policing, I recognise that there is good practice around the country, with certain police forces doing it very well indeed, but she is absolutely right to say that we want to equip our neighbourhood police officers with the best training, to enable them to do a really good job for their communities. That is why we have already announced money for the College of Policing to engage with neighbourhood police officers and give them the training that they deserve, particularly in problem solving, because that is a really important part of the role that they will play in neighbourhoods.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
To deliver effective policing, we need reform, but police officers also need to feel that they have our support. Does the Minister agree that agreeing the recommendations of the pay review body is a key part of delivering that support? What view does she have about those, including Conservative Members, who would prefer not to agree those recommendations, and on the impact that would have on police morale?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to support our police officers in the work that they do to keep us all safe, day in, day out. He will know that this year we accepted the recommendations of the pay review body, and that additional funding was provided to police forces to pay for an increase in salaries. It is important that we continue to ensure that our police are properly remunerated for the difficult job that they do. The Home Secretary has made that clear in her support for police officers.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Farmers in my constituency tell me that they are often the victims of serious rural crime, including threats of physical violence, but do not usually bother to report it because they do not think our rural police forces are well enough resourced to give a full response. If that is happening across the country, presumably it means that rural crime is seriously under-reported. What more does the Minister plan to do to resource our rural crime teams, and to give farmers and others living in rural areas reassurance that they can and should report crime?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Lady is exactly right. We need to make sure that when crime happens, it is reported. That is absolutely vital. As I said in my opening remarks, for too long people have felt that it is not worth reporting a crime because no one will come and nothing will be done. Our neighbourhood policing guarantee is not just about urban areas; it also covers rural areas, and we want rural communities to have the support that they need from police, PCSOs and specials. I am also responsible for rural crime, and I know that there is a range of issues that we need to look at again, including the theft of agricultural machinery; that is an area that I am particularly focused on.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Just last night, Guisborough Town FC in my constituency suffered a break-in and burglary. I am grateful to Cleveland police for responding, and for meeting me this morning to update me on the situation, but there simply are not enough of them on the streets. Can the Minister give me an assurance that this Government will prioritise frontline, visible, neighbourhood community policing once again?
Dame Diana Johnson
Yes, I can. I pay tribute to Cleveland police, which has made great progress in recent times.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will the Minister include references to fraud in her White Paper? Action Fraud, which would be more accurately described as “Inaction Fraud,” is presiding over a complete failure to do anything, particularly about fraud against online retailers. Can we ensure that action is taken to help victims of fraud?
Dame Diana Johnson
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend Lord Hanson, the Lords Minister, is looking at this. I gently point out that, in relation to fraud, we are having to deal with our inheritance from the previous Administration. We will now look at some of the problems with Action Fraud that they did not deal with.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The latest crime figures show that shoplifting has shot up to a 20-year high, knife crime has risen yet again and violence against women and girls remains shamefully and persistently high. Does the Minister agree that this shows the last Tory Government’s disgraceful dereliction on law and order?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend puts it well. This is why our safer streets mission has the ambitious aim to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, to halve knife crime over the next decade, to restore neighbourhood policing and to restore confidence in the criminal justice system.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for proper neighbourhood policing, so we welcome this announcement. Sadly, I have heard at first hand the concern and fear of one community in Dartmouth, following a police decision to redeploy a local sergeant who had spent a couple of years building positive relationships and trust with the local community, particularly on antisocial behaviour and drug dealing. Can the Minister clarify how the neighbourhood policing guarantee will be implemented and how the Home Office plans to ensure that communities have consistent and long-term access to a known, named officer who will remain in the community?
Dame Diana Johnson
I gently point out that the Liberal Democrats were part of the coalition Government, and that through those years of austerity, we saw major cuts to police officers, including neighbourhood police officers. However, I take her point. That is why we have the neighbourhood policing guarantee, and it is why we will have 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and specials. People will be able to go to a named police officer if they have problems in their area, as she requests. As I said earlier, we want to make sure that neighbourhood police officers are properly trained and that this is seen as a very important part of policing, so that officers want to stay in neighbourhood policing for longer.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
My constituents in Nantwich often report experiencing unacceptable antisocial behaviour at night, particularly linked to the night-time economy, so I welcome the Government’s plan to introduce zero-tolerance zones and respect orders to get a grip of the antisocial behaviour that the last Government allowed to run out of control. Will the Minister say a little more about how this will help my constituents?
Dame Diana Johnson
All Members will know that antisocial behaviour can blight communities and can cause real problems to individuals and families. This week is Antisocial Behaviour Awareness Week, and I was struck by Resolve’s statistic that one in seven householders is thinking about moving because of antisocial behaviour. That is really shocking, and our respect orders and neighbourhood policing reforms will start to address the antisocial behaviour that has blighted many of our communities for too long.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister has outlined the lack of confidence in police services across the United Kingdom because of the failure to deal with real crimes such as burglary, shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. At the same time, we learn that three police forces have spent a year investigating a tweet by a columnist after a report from someone in Holland. Surely, if there is to be reform, one thing we should do is tell the police that they are no longer the thought police. They are meant to be dealing with crime. If that means changing the bad law introduced by the last Government, will the Minister make sure it is done so that we do not have any more of this nonsense?
Dame Diana Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman is right that this Government are prioritising the crimes that affect communities and individuals, such as the increasing antisocial behaviour, threats and knife-enabled robbery. Those are the things that people care about, and those are the things that our safer streets mission is designed to deal with.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, it is worth reflecting that the provisions on non-crime hate incidents came out of the Macpherson inquiry following the murder of Stephen Lawrence. That recommendation was about providing an intelligence picture for police officers. It may not be a crime, but the intelligence picture might benefit from knowing about it. It is worth reflecting on that. Of course, I want consistency and common sense in such investigations and, as I said earlier, the inspectorate has also highlighted the need for consistency and training because of the confusion about the guidelines issued by the previous Government. I am happy to look at that with the College of Policing to make sure we get it right, but there is a place for it in some circumstances.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Residents living around Wilmot Park in west Dartford continue to be plagued by antisocial behaviour, including vandalism, the use of motorbikes in green spaces, noise and threatening behaviour. As part of their safer streets mission, will the Government use police reform to ensure that such crimes are prioritised in Dartford and across the country?
Dame Diana Johnson
I want the police to be getting on with this now, and they have powers they can use to deal with antisocial behaviour, but we want to make sure they have additional officers through the neighbourhood policing guarantee to ensure that they can deal with antisocial behaviour in communities. We have been very clear that the police will be given additional powers to make sure they can seize and destroy the motorbikes and vehicles that are causing nuisance to communities through antisocial behaviour.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Having worked with the right hon. Lady on Committees over a number of years, I am delighted to congratulate her on her appointment. In that spirit, I will make what I think is a helpful suggestion about non-crime hate incidents. Clearly, chief constables have huge discretion over how much effort they put into investigating local crime and non-crime incidents of the sort that she says have a place in the spectrum. Could she perhaps require chief constables to report back to her Department on how many hours their forces spend investigating crime incidents and non-crime incidents? It appears that tens of thousands of non-crime incidents are being investigated every year.
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. It has been a great pleasure to work with him on various Committees over the years. He is correct that this is an operational matter. It is for chief constables to decide how they use the resources available to them. My understanding is that very little time is actually spent on non-crime hate incidents, but I will check that with His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
Coming from a policing family, and having served with the National Crime Agency, I am immensely proud of British policing. However, I am equally devastated at the decline overseen by the Conservatives. Can the Minister outline what we are doing to rebuild British policing and return it to being the best in the world?
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his service. We will all benefit from having him in the House, sharing his experience and knowledge. The police reform agenda, as set out in the Home Secretary’s speech and the written ministerial statement yesterday, is about resetting that relationship with the police. We want to work with the police. This is not about doing things to the police, but about working collectively to get the very best police service for this country, for today, tomorrow and the years ahead.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
My residents in Boston and Skegness want the police on the streets, preventing antisocial behaviour and crime. They do not want our valuable police resources wasted on monitoring tweets for non-crime hate incidents, threatening and bullying residents, and then that record remaining on a database, which can prevent people from getting a job in the future. It is a complete waste of time. Will the Minister and the Home Office scrap those guidelines as an unnecessary use of valuable time and resources?
Dame Diana Johnson
This Government have been very clear about their priorities on policing. In our safer streets mission, we have set out that we will halve violence against women and girls and knife crime over the next decade, we will restore public confidence in the criminal justice system, particularly in the police, and we will introduce neighbourhood policing, which we know to be the bedrock of policing in this country and the area in which most people want to see investment. Those are our priorities, as the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have said, and that is where the focus and attention of the police needs to be.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
For too long, far too many of my towns and villages have had to endure rising levels of antisocial behaviour, such as people riding unsafe bikes through village centres, and an epidemic of shoplifting, including at my local Morrisons, whose staff I met last month. I am working closely with our local police and crime commissioner, John Tizard, to push for a more robust police response. What reassurances can the Minister give my constituents that our new strategy will ensure that a far greater priority is given to such crimes, and that those crimes will not be tolerated, as they seem to have been far too often in the past?
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this important area. This Government are committed to dealing with shop thefts and attacks on retail workers, and we will bring forward legislation in due course. Our safer streets mission focuses on high streets, town centres and communities, so that people feel safe, there is a police presence and antisocial behaviour is not tolerated.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Week in, week out, police officers from my constituency are extracted to go and police protests and events in central London. My constituents and I are proud to live in our great capital city and in a democracy where the right to protest is cherished. However, under the Conservatives, since 2015, the capital city grant has been cut by 17% in real terms. That is the money that should be used to police such protests, not community policing resources, which is what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is having to draw on. Will the Minister review the capital city grant, so that my constituents can see a bobby on the beat again?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Lady will know that announcements about the provisional police settlement will be made in December in this House. Discussions are under way about exactly the points she raises. I note what she says about the levels of abstraction, which are a concern, but this Government are committed to the 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and specials in our neighbourhoods. The Metropolitan police area will benefit from that, as will every other police area.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
When I spend time canvassing in my constituency of Harlow, as I often do, residents tell me that they do not see community police officers any more. In 2010, we had over 30 PCSOs for the whole of Harlow, but we now have four. Will the Minister set out how the safer streets mission will make residents in Harlow feel safer?
Dame Diana Johnson
It is worth reflecting on the fact that the number of PCSOs has halved in the past 14 years, and the number of specials has reduced by two thirds. Those are shocking figures. We want to ensure that we use PCSOs, because they police neighbourhoods in such a valuable way. Also, I am personally committed to making sure that we see more specials on the beat. People who stand up for the local community and do such work on a voluntary basis are to be commended. I hope that across the House we would all support an extension to the work of specials.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Cambridgeshire constabulary is one of the most poorly funded in the country under the current police allocation formula, which is based on population data from 2012. Cambridgeshire has grown vastly since then and is projected to grow by nearly 20% in the next decade. In order to fulfil the Government’s pledges and ensure neighbourhood officers are not overstretched under her plans, will the Policing Minister commit to reviewing the formula before the forthcoming announcement of the 2025-26 police funding settlement, so that Cambridgeshire receives its fair share of the £0.5 billion increase? Will she explain how many officers, of the 13,000 she mentioned, each force will receive?
Dame Diana Johnson
The Home Secretary announced yesterday that there will be £0.5 billion of additional funding for policing next year, including money for the core grant and neighbourhood policing. The announcement about the 2025-26 police funding settlement will be made in December in this House, in the normal way.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping, off-road bikes and e-scooters racing along pavements and streets, and an epidemic of shoplifting are all issues raised time and again by my constituents across all wards of Portsmouth North. Does the Minister agree that we need police officers back on the beat in local communities, equipped with tougher powers to crack down on these crimes, to not only make the people of Portsmouth feel safer, but to get pride back in our communities?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend puts her point incredibly well. That is why we have the safer streets mission, and why we will have those police officers, PCSOs and special constables back in our communities, policing for the vast majority of law-abiding citizens and dealing with the antisocial behaviour that has blighted communities for too long.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
In 2012, I was run over by a car in the Netherlands. I woke up in hospital several days later, with some fairly severe injuries. I am thankful that the resulting police investigation was swift and efficient. Unfortunately, that is not the case for such incidents in the UK, because forensic collision units across the country are facing severe challenges in preparing cases, resulting in large delays to trials and ultimately to justice, prolonging the agony for impacted families. What is the Department doing to help the police tackle those resourcing challenges and ensure road traffic collision cases come to a swifter conclusion?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am sorry to hear about the accident that the hon. Gentleman suffered in 2012, and I hope he has made a full recovery. On his specific point, I will go away and ask my officials about that, and about what more we can do to ensure justice is done on road collisions and that cases go to court quickly.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I am often contacted by businesses from across Gateshead Central and Whickham complaining about high street crime. A recent spate of crimes on Low Fell high street has left some businesses potentially having to close. With shop thefts up 40% in the past year alone, what will these very welcome measures do to lower crime on our high streets?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. High streets are the lifeblood of our local communities. We want to ensure they are as safe as possible, and that businesses are not suffering losses through shop thefts and assaults on their workers. Our package of measures will deal with antisocial behaviour, put in place the neighbourhood policing guarantee, allow new prosecutions under the legislation we will introduce about assaults on retail workers, and get rid of the £200 threshold for shop theft cases to go forward. One approach will not solve the problems, so we will ensure we have a whole package of measures to make high streets, neighbourhoods and communities safer and to allow businesses to thrive. We need businesses to thrive so that they can pay their taxes, and we can invest that money back into public services.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Two years ago, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner said that 3,000 officers were not deployable for reasons of physical fitness, and 500 officers were not deployable for reasons of misconduct allegations: that is more than 10% of the Met’s headcount. Will the Minister tell us the latest numbers? Does she plan to make it easier for chief constables, as they have requested, to fire underperforming officers?
Dame Diana Johnson
I can write to the hon. Gentleman with the figures, but clearly, there have been issues with the Metropolitan police over the last 14 years and I know that the current commissioner has raised concerns about the procedures for getting rid of police officers.
Dame Diana Johnson
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I have been the Policing Minister for five months, compared with the 14 years that those on his side of the House were responsible for policing. I did not see any action then on dealing with the issues that he raises with me.
I can guarantee that this Government will be looking at the workforce and making sure that we recruit the right people into policing and vet police officers throughout their careers. Because of the shocking cases that we have seen—David Carrick and others—we will take action, which we set out in our manifesto, to have a workforce that is fit for purpose. I know the hon. Gentleman is very new in this place, but he needs to remember the legacy that his Government and his party delivered to us when we arrived in July.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Whenever I speak with residents, business leaders or their staff in my constituency, they all tell me the same thing. Whether it is the staff at Wortley ASDA who have to deal with persistent shoplifting, or the stallholders at Morley market who tell me that they have to deal with crime on the high street in Morley, they all tell me that the police do not turn up and that they never see police patrols in our communities any more. Can the Minister confirm that we will return to neighbourhood policing, that we will see police on our streets patrolling again and that we will have named police officers turn up when things go wrong?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is the experience that many Members of Parliament will encounter when they talk to their constituents, who feel that there is no point in reporting things because nothing will happen and no one will come. That is why the neighbourhood policing guarantee is so important. We will have those police officers, PCSOs and specials back on our streets. That visible presence will be there, so I can absolutely say that that is part of our safer streets mission and that is what we will deliver.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
May I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), particularly in relation to things like rural crime, car racing, bike racing, threatening behaviour, burglary and shoplifting, and the frustration that people feel with the delays and lack of response and with things such as camera footage, which is taken every day, not being used? That frustration is, none the less, absolutely dwarfed by the frustration of the fact that the previous Avon and Somerset police and crime commissioner had 28.5 full-time equivalent members of staff and a massive budget. My constituents have no idea how that is justified when what they want is police officers. Can the Minister please make sure that her review actually includes getting a grip on what is happening in PCC offices?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Lady will have an opportunity, when the White Paper is published, to make her and her constituents’ views clear. Clearly, there will be questions around the different roles—the Home Secretary’s role, the PCC role and chief constables’ operationally independent role—and that will be part of the discussion and debate around how we take forward the White Paper and the recommendations that come out of it.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question on a subject that is on the minds of so many of my constituents. Stalking is a form of psychological violence that remains severely underreported. I have met constituents who are victims of stalking, and they have shared with me the lack of support they feel they receive from the Metropolitan police. They live in constant terror and anxiety, even after taking the brave step of reporting the offences. Will the Minister outline what steps her Department is taking to work with the Metropolitan police to ensure that officers receive proper training to identify stalking, support and protect victims and take robust action against perpetrators?
Dame Diana Johnson
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question; I am really concerned to hear what he is saying. The safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), is dealing with the issue of stalking and I know she feels very strongly about that. It might be helpful if the hon. Gentleman wrote to her, and I will certainly raise the matter with her. We may need to feed in the experiences the hon. Gentleman mentions to make sure the Metropolitan police are doing everything they need to to support victims of stalking who bravely come forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to see the right hon. Lady—she has moved from the Back Benches to the Front Bench and is doing equally good work.
I welcome the safer streets programme and the enhancement of community policing. Can the Minister outline how there can be a UK-wide drive in addressing the money lending and drug warfare that blights all our communities throughout the United Kingdom? I am thinking of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland and criminal gangs in the UK mainland that work together and share their criminal activities. What opportunity will there be within police reform to discuss how we can work alongside the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland? We can do better together.
Dame Diana Johnson
It is always a pleasure to be questioned by the hon. Member. When I chaired the Home Affairs Committee, we produced a report on drugs and we went to look at drug problems in Belfast and in Northern Ireland. I was struck by the particular issues there around the involvement of paramilitaries. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman and I could have a conversation about what more we can do on that issue when we look at the broader safer streets mission.
Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on the Government’s decision to recommence the use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
This Government inherited an asylum system under unprecedented strain, with many thousands stuck in a backlog without their asylum claims processed. The Home Secretary has taken immediate action to restart asylum processing and scrap the unworkable Rwanda policy, which will save an estimated £4 billion for the taxpayer over the next two years. We remain absolutely committed to ending the use of hotels for asylum seekers and continue to identify a range of accommodation options to minimise the use of hotels and ensure better use of public money, while maintaining sufficient accommodation to meet demand.
In accordance with the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Home Office has a statutory obligation to provide destitute asylum seekers with accommodation and subsistence support while their application for asylum is being considered. We are committed to ensuring that destitute asylum seekers are housed in safe, secure and suitable accommodation and that they are treated with dignity while their asylum claim is considered. We continue to work closely with local authorities and key stakeholders, building on lessons learned in terms of asylum accommodation stand-up and management.
Hotels are not a permanent solution, but a necessary temporary step in keeping the system under control and ensuring it does not descend into chaos. We will restore order to the asylum system so it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly. As we progress with that, it is right that we deliver on our legal responsibilities and ensure people are not left destitute. Ultimately, we will be able to tackle irregular migration and bring the cost of the system down by billions of pounds. It remains our ambition to exit hotels; however, in the nearest future, they remain key to delivering on our legal responsibilities in ensuring people are not left destitute.
Sir Gavin Williamson
May I record my appreciation for securing this urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker?
My constituents have had the devastating news that the Roman Way hotel is to be stood up to house asylum seekers. This was after it had been closed last year. Such a move has a significant impact not just on my constituents, but in Cannock more generally. We have seen 19,326 people cross the channel since Labour came to power, which is 19% up on the same period last year. This must be seen in the context of Labour’s manifesto pledge in July to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers.
Members can imagine the devastation that so many constituents across the country are feeling when they see these hotels being brought back into use, breaking one of Labour’s manifesto pledges. There is also a total lack of transparency. There is no consultation with local authorities. This is a diktat that those authorities receive, with no support and no help, and it is only news organisations such as GB News that are shining a light on it.
Will the Minister provide a list to the House of Commons, detailing all the hotels that have been stepped up to provide accommodation for asylum seekers since Labour came to power? And will she commit to continuing to update that list? What is the estimated cost of reopening these hotels? What has changed so drastically that has caused Labour to abandon a manifesto pledge so quickly? Considering that there is a correlation between the removal of a deterrent effect, which our party had put in place, and a rise in crossings, what will the Government do to provide a credible deterrent going forward? Finally, will the Minister commit to ceasing to use the Roman Way Hotel in my constituency, and will she also commit to not putting the Hatherton House hotel in Penkridge into use?
Dame Angela Eagle
As a senior member of the last few Administrations, the right hon. Gentleman will know that we inherited an asylum system that had been ground to a standstill by the previous Government’s pursuit of the Rwanda policy, which was doomed to failure. They spent £700 million over two years to send four volunteers to Rwanda. Conservative Members claim that the Rwanda scheme was somehow a deterrent, but from the day that it was announced to the day that it was scrapped 83,500 people crossed the channel in small boats. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is the definition of a deterrent, I think he needs to look it up in a dictionary. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member talks about a 19% increase in channel boat crossings since Labour came to power, but in the first six months of this year when the Rwanda scheme was up and running and apparently about to start at any minute, there was an 18% increase in channel crossings. Again, the Rwanda scheme was an expensive distraction, not a deterrent.
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether we will produce a list of hotels that are currently in use. He will know that, when he was in government, hotel use peaked at more than 400. I can tell him that, currently, there are 220 hotels in use. At the time of the election, there were 213 hotels in use, but since July seven hotels have shut and 14 have opened, which has created a net increase of seven.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this question. Under the previous Government, when the current shadow Home Secretary was in the Home Office, two hotels in my constituency were opened. There was no notification to the local authority and no consultation. This is another example of the Conservative party crying over the mess that they made and the attempt that this Government are making to clear it up. Does the Minister agree that we will smash the criminal gangs and stop those channel crossings, and that the carping from Conservative Members demonstrates that they have learned nothing since their election defeat?
Dame Angela Eagle
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend: we inherited a system that was at a standstill. There was a backlog of 90,000 cases involving 116,000 people, and the law would not allow them to be processed. We have restarted processing. We are gearing up the asylum system, so that we can get throughput in the system, and ultimately exit the hotels and start using a more cost-effective system. I agree with my hon. Friend that the carping by Conservative Members, who created the backlogs and the mess that we are having to deal with, is a bit rich.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing this urgent question. He is right to raise this issue. As he said, Labour promised in its manifesto to end the use of hotels, yet the Minister has just admitted at the Dispatch Box that, far from ending the use of hotels, the Government are in fact opening up even more. She has just admitted to 14. Perhaps it should come as no surprise now that, once again, Labour is doing the precise opposite to what it promised in its manifesto.
When the Conservatives were in government, they were in fact closing down hotels. Luckily, I have the figures in front of me. Between September last year and 30 June this year, the number of people in contingency accommodation, which is Home Office speak for hotels, went down by 47%—it went down—yet under this new Government it is going up. The Minister has told us how many hotels have opened up, will she tell us how many extra people are now in contingency accommodation, compared with 4 July? Will she also commit to always notifying Members of Parliament in advance—at least two weeks in advance—that a hotel will be opening in their constituency?
We all know the cause of this problem. It is the illegal and dangerous channel crossings. I am afraid the position has got even worse since the figures my right hon. Friend quoted were drawn up. Since the election, 19,988 people have crossed the channel. That is a 23% increase on the same period last year, and it is a 66% increase on the same period immediately before the election. Why have these numbers of people illegally crossing the channel gone up? The National Crime Agency has told us that we need a deterrent—that we cannot police our way out of this. Even Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, has said that European member states should look at offshore processing. We saw a deterrent system work in Australia, yet Labour scrapped the Rwanda deterrent before it had even started. The first flight had not taken off and that is why the deterrent effect had not commenced. Will the Minister follow Ursula von der Leyen’s advice? Will she emulate the Australians and reinstate the scheme?
Dame Angela Eagle
That was quite a rant. It made certain assumptions that are completely untrue, including that the Rwanda scheme would have worked. We already know that it cost £700 million to send four volunteers to Rwanda. The Conservative party was planning to spend £175,000 per person sent to Rwanda, and it had not managed to send anyone to Rwanda. Had the Conservatives put aside the money, going into billions of pounds, to pay this £175,000 per person sent to Rwanda? No, they had not. No money was set aside. What we inherited was a system where no processing was going on—well, fewer than 1,000 asylum cases a month were being processed. We are now processing up to 10,000 asylum cases a month.
The right hon. Gentleman knows, because he was a Home Office Minister, that there are backlogs and lags between the first decision in processing and all the potential appeals. We cannot exit people from the asylum estate until they have a final decision. We inherited backlogs of more than two years in the tribunal system because the Conservatives did not fund it properly. In the last period, we have returned nearly 10,000 people, which is nearly a 20% increase on the numbers returned last year. We are working on making the asylum system fit for purpose. We inherited an unholy mess from the Conservatives.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
I know that the Government understand that using hotels to house asylum seekers is bad for communities, for the taxpayer, and ultimately for those seeking asylum themselves. Conservative Members broke our asylum system and now wash their hands of the consequences. Will the Minister outline the progress that the Government are making on clearing the backlog that the Conservatives created, so that we can stand down hotels, including by prioritising the processing of those housed in the Cresta Court hotel in my constituency?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are prioritising getting the system up and running again so that we can have throughput in our asylum accommodation estate. The fact that the system had ground to a complete halt when we came into government, with 90,000 unprocessed cases, has meant that there have been delays in getting it up and running. I explained to the House that we have gone from making 1,000 asylum decisions a month to 10,000. The system is beginning to get flow-through, and as that happens, we will exit from hotels. We have had to have a small increase. We have been in power four months. The manifesto did not say that we would end the use of hotels in four months. When the Conservatives were in power, more than 400 hotels were in use at its height, and they did not give any MP two weeks’ notice that those hotels were opening.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
While an asylum seeker waits months or even years in a hotel for a decision on their claim, they are trapped in limbo. They are unable to work and are forced to depend on Government funds. That benefits no one—not the asylum seekers, who want to get on and start rebuilding their lives, and not taxpayers, who foot the bill. That is before I mention our local councils, which are left to pick up the pieces.
To end the use of hotels, tackling the backlog that ballooned on the previous Government’s watch must be part of the solution, but we can also reduce the demand for Government accommodation by allowing asylum seekers to support themselves and contribute to the economy—something that the Home Office has recognised will not act as a pull factor for asylum seekers. Will the Minister finally scrap the ban on asylum seekers working and paying their fair share as doctors or dentists if they have been waiting three months or longer for a decision on their claim? Will she commit to providing local councils with the resources that they need—both funding and clear guidance—to provide proper support for asylum seekers and the local communities hosting these hotels?
Dame Angela Eagle
I do not agree that allowing asylum seekers to work while their claim is being considered will not be a pull factor. The way to deal with this issue is to have a fast, fair and efficient asylum system. We are looking at how we can redesign it, and at what we can do to deal with the huge backlogs that we inherited, not least in the tribunal system when there are appeals. We need a much better end-to-end system that is fair and efficient. That will mitigate any of the issues that the hon. Lady raises with respect to asylum seekers not being allowed to work. Were that restriction to be lifted, I believe that it would be a huge pull factor, which would have potentially serious consequences.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing this urgent question on a matter that the Home Affairs Committee is looking at, but I am astonished that he wants to draw attention to the Conservatives’ legacy in this area. In 2019-20, the Home Office was spending £17,000 per asylum seeker per year on accommodation; by 2023-24, it was spending £47,000 per asylum seeker per year. At that point, it stopped taking decisions, so the number could only grow as the UK taxpayer paid for asylum seekers to stay in hotel accommodation. Does the Minister agree that the correct way to deal with the issue is to seriously address the systemic problems in the immigration system, such as the lack of any decisions being taken, and not ridiculous gimmicks such as wave machines and deterrents for four people?
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree that it is about doing the day job effectively and efficiently, and if it cannot be done effectively and efficiently, redesigning it so that it can be, rather than having huge rows with the international community, threatening to leave the European convention on human rights, and setting up a parallel scheme that was not agreed by anybody, which spent vast amounts of money and ground the system to a halt. That is not the way to achieve success in this area. Considering the use of a wave machine to somehow send boats back to France just about sums up the reality of the Conservatives’ attitude to what is a difficult situation.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister has pledged to smash the gangs, and the Minister appears to be very confident in her position, so can she tell the House which metric we should use to judge whether the gangs have been smashed and the channel crossings ended, and by what date that will happen?
Dame Angela Eagle
I will answer in my own way. The Conservative party allowed channel crossings to be industrialised. We are now facing a very sophisticated set of international supply chains that need international co-operation to be taken down and disrupted. We have established the border security command, we have announced the investment of £150 million, and we are getting 100 additional investigators to look at this matter. We managed to achieve a very significant arrest of an offender just the other week, which will begin to degrade the capacity of international organised criminal gangs to smuggle people on to our shores. The hon. Gentleman will see when the numbers start to go down, as will the rest of us.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The Minister has inherited an incredible mess. Reportedly, £3.6 billion of overseas aid will be spent on refugees and asylum seekers in this country this year, but simply ending the use of hotels will not solve some of the problems that the system is causing in our communities. A lot of the private providers of asylum accommodation buy up properties in the most deprived parts of cities. I think that the Government’s biggest challenge is to rebuild trust with the public. I ask her to consider the difference between the Homes for Ukraine system of housing people and the system of allowing big corporates and profiteering companies to house asylum seekers, and to think about how we involve civil society and our communities in the way we respond to the needs of asylum seekers.
Dame Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend will be comforted to know that I am thinking of precisely those things.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I do not envy the hon. Lady in her job. Does she agree that no amount of hotel accommodation will ever suffice as long as there is no effective way of preventing large numbers of people from coming into this country without permission? As a form of interception near the French coast will probably be the only deterrent, will she at least keep open the possibility of negotiations with France as to how we could work together to do that?
Dame Angela Eagle
We have a relatively new Government in France just bedding in. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are working closely with them to see how we can strengthen and deepen our co-operation and partnership.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) who raised the urgent question appears to be suffering from some memory loss. Under the Conservative Government, we saw 130,000 small boat crossings and record backlogs at the Home Office. The Conservatives opened 400 hotels—that is, 21,000 places costing £8 million per day to the taxpayer. Does the Minister recall him raising that issue under the previous Government?
Dame Angela Eagle
No, I do not. I noticed the revelations at the weekend about why the Conservatives decided to call the election earlier than some of us had perhaps thought. One reason set out in Tim Shipman’s book “Out” was that illegal migration was a problem,
“with a new armada of small boats predicted and the issue of whether they would be able to get a repatriation flight to Rwanda in the air before polling day.”
They evidently decided that they could not. We are now hearing this complete fiction from Conservative Members that somehow the Rwanda scheme was just about to work before we scrapped it, when they had spent £700 million on an increasingly futile and ridiculous attempt to get the scheme off the ground.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Here we go again with this new Labour Government simply copying and aping the failed and disastrous policies of the Conservative Government on hotel accommodation, while engaging in this grotesque competition to see who can sound the hardest on asylum seekers. Why not be bold and imaginative? Many of these asylum seekers are highly educated, with skills that could be deployed in communities up and down the United Kingdom. The ridiculous answer that the Minister gave to the Liberal Democrats about the UK being a pull to asylum seekers is simply nonsense, and she knows that with the tens of thousands coming to our shores right now. Why not get them usefully employed instead of leaving them to rot in hotels across the UK?
Dame Angela Eagle
We certainly want those who gain status to be usefully employed, and my part of the system is ensuring that we get those asylum decisions up and running as fast as possible. Unfortunately, we have inherited a difficult situation, which we are working hard to resolve. Once someone has gained status in this country, of course they are able to work, so we have to get the system working faster.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In my constituency, two hotels were opened under the previous Conservative Government, and they are still there, so I find the new concern from Conservative Members slightly disconcerting. Although I accept what the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) says about this now being the Labour Government’s problem, I am certain that Conservative Members do not want to publicly defend their appalling legacy, wo need a little less from them. The question I put to the Minister—[Interruption.] That is how it works here: we ask a question and wait for the answer. [Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), can keep quiet.
Schools in my constituency say that accessing children in those hotels for educational welfare visits or safeguarding checks is proving more and more difficult because the providers do not understand their responsibilities. I encourage the Minister to speak to her counterparts in the Department for Education and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that those necessary checks to keep children safe can be done unimpeded.
Dame Angela Eagle
Since we came into government, we have done much more to co-operate across Departments, and I will certainly take that issue up with my opposite numbers in the Department for Education and MHCLG.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Two hotels in my constituency of East Londonderry are being used, and we have problems enough trying to provide good-quality hotels, with Royal Portrush coming up next year. We need to see a gradual, continuous reduction in hotel accommodation being used for this purpose. Will the Minister address that and try to show some sense of direction on when that will be achieved?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are processing asylum claims, which were at a standstill when we came into government, not least those that are extant in Northern Ireland. I hope that will lead to a process where we get throughput in the system and we begin to exit hotels.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s informing the House that return figures are now at nearly 10,000, which is up 1,000 from last week. May I ask on behalf of my constituents how we can make returns even faster?
Dame Angela Eagle
For the integrity of any asylum system, it is important that a person who is not granted asylum recognises that they do not have the right to stay in the country. Hopefully they will leave voluntarily; if not, they will be removed. Immigration enforcement, which operates out of the Home Office, is focused on increasing total returns. As I said, they are up 19% on the same period last year, and we intend to double down and carry on.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
In Boston and Skegness, we want the use of hotels by asylum seekers to stop, as is the case across the country. Under the previous Labour Government 20 years ago, processes and applications were dealt with within three to four weeks, including appeals, and only about 20% of applications were granted asylum. When will the Minister and the Home Office get back to the sensible workmanlike processes that worked 20 year ago?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are working on it, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have inherited a huge mess with large backlogs that are not easy to clear.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), who has eloquently described how it used to work under the previous Labour Government. In fact, on the last day of 2010, the number of people on an asylum waiting list was around 14,000. In June this year, the asylum caseload was 224,000. That is 16 times higher. The brass neck, frankly, of Conservative Members to come here and criticise us is genuinely breathtaking. Given that we have gotten three of the largest deportation flights in British history off the ground in four months, does the Minister agree that although there is far more to do, the plan is working?
Dame Angela Eagle
Yes, but it is tough and difficult, and to be successful, it requires international co-operation across borders operationally, politically and diplomatically, and we are doing that.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Yesterday the Minister finally replied to my letter after my Datchet constituents were given next to no notice about single adult males being housed at the Manor hotel. She said the numbers housed there could reach as high as 85 people, and she gave no indication about how long they would be there, in breach of her manifesto commitment. Will she now give my constituents a concrete timetable for when the misuse of the Manor hotel will end?
Dame Angela Eagle
Our manifesto commitment was not to close all asylum hotels within four months of being elected.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
It is truly astonishing to hear the Conservatives come here today to defend their Rwanda policy—£700 million spent on four deportees, or £175 million each. They could have purchased a five-star hotel for each of them. Surely the Minister agrees that the money is far better spent on intelligence, enforcement and, of course, processing, to get the backlog that we inherited down.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I am sure that the vast majority of Members accept that the new Government have inherited a complete and utter shambles of an asylum system, and are having to clear up another area of Tory mess. Part of that clearing up will involve sorting out and processing asylum applications promptly, so will the Minister give us more insight on how she is doing that? My area had asylum hotels imposed upon it by the last Conservative Government. How will the Government avoid principal holiday accommodation areas taking further such hotels?
Dame Angela Eagle
We certainly are having to get the system back up and running from a virtual standing start, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out. That means that we have been able, as I said, to go up from processing only 1,000 asylum claims a month to nearly 10,000 a month. Those who have gone through the whole system and have received a grant, for example, need then to exit our asylum accommodation. That allows us to backfill and, in the end, to exit hotels. However, that is not an instant solution; the system has ground to a halt and we must redeploy resource to get it up and running again.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is worth remembering that when this Government came into office, we were in the middle of the worst year ever for small boat crossings —the number of crossings was 6% higher than in 2022, the previous record year. That, I am afraid, was the legacy of chaos and failure that the Conservative party left behind. There is still a long way to go in tackling the crossings, but does the Minister welcome the fact that, so far, total arrivals this year are 20% down on 2022?
Dame Angela Eagle
I welcome any progress, but I also recognise the seasonality of arrivals. Unlike the last Government, I am not here to tell the House that there are any quick or easy solutions to this difficult problem. We are getting the system up and running, we have created the border security command to start disrupting and degrading the gangs that are smuggling people across the channel, and we will assert the right of the rule of law to exist, and get our asylum system working, so that we can stop those dangerous crossings.
However, I cannot stand here and say that a magic wand that can easily be waved. It will take hard cross-jurisdictional and cross-country work, and that is what the border security commander has been appointed to do. That is what the extra £150 million of resource given to that job is there to do. That is what our operational and National Crime Agency people are there to do and are doing.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
We have heard today that more than 19,000 illegals have come in on small boats since the Government came into office. Does the Minister have any figures on the influx in the United Kingdom of illegals and others from the Republic of Ireland, where there are no checks? On the question of hotels, how can my constituents judge her party’s manifesto pledge to reduce the number of hotels? To help them do that, will she undertake to publish, on a monthly or bi-monthly basis, the number of hotels in use in each constituency and the number of illegals accommodated in them?
Dame Angela Eagle
No. The previous Government did not do that either, for safeguarding and public safety reasons, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
It is rather galling for the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) to protest about a hotel in his constituency being used. That is clearly the result of a backlog created by the Conservatives when in government, as they wasted hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on gimmicks that they knew would never work. Surely my hon. Friend agrees that the right answer is better and faster processing. That is fairer for those seeking asylum, fairer for those in communities where hotels are being used for asylum accommodation, and fairer for the taxpayer.
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree. Of course, the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) knows only too well that the same hotel was open from 21 November 2022 to 8 February 2024, and he did not complain about it in the House then.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister outline the safety procedures in place to ensure that there is additional community policing in the areas around the hotels, as literally hundreds of single men are descending on small hotels and communities? That is a safety issue, and all our constituents across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland deserve to have that reassurance.
Dame Angela Eagle
There is a safeguarding and safety issue going in both directions. I see reports of asylum seeker service users being attacked and injured, as well as of attacks in the other direction in a small number of cases. We always liaise with the local police and local authorities. We take an intelligence-led approach to see whether there is outside agitation or difficulty, and we are in constant contact with local services and our service providers to ensure the safety of service users and local populations.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and I am responding to it in the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I can only agree with her on Rwanda. Not only was that scheme an inhumane shambles, but it has brought shame and ridicule to our country, and I am glad to see the back of it. I welcome her commitment to bringing dignity and respect to the immigration system, and her acceptance that the way in which the hotels have been operated is a big part of that.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s recent “Destitution by Design” report, which was authored by Professor Beth Watts-Cobbe, a researcher at the Institute for Social Policy, Housing, Equalities Research in my constituency, makes absolutely clear the human impact of the so-called hostile immigration policy operated by the previous Government on real people in our country. Is the Minister aware of that report, and if not, will she commit herself or one of her staff to speaking to Professor Watts-Cobbe about its findings?
Dame Angela Eagle
I am happy to check out the report, and I will write to my hon. Friend.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House to set out the Government’s measures to deal with this issue. I share my colleagues’ amazement about the new-found concern of Conservative Members—[Interruption.] I am not sure why the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) is heckling. This time last year, under the Conservative Government, we had more than 400 hotels and more than 21,000 hotel rooms in use for asylum seekers, and we were spending £8 million a day on hotels. Does the Minister agree that although the Conservatives were apparently happy with that, this Labour Government are not, and we are taking steps to deal with their mess?
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank my hon. Friend for his observations. Clearly, we begin from the situation that we found when we came into office. In this case, the system was in chaos, with a Rwanda scheme that was an unworkable and massively expensive distraction, which meant that no processing of any of the asylum claims made from March 2023 was happening. We have a huge backlog. We have had to switch the system, and divert resources from a failed Rwanda scheme into processing and the border security command, so that we can deal with the causes of the problem, rather than pretending that it does not exist.
Defence Programmes Developments
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on defence programmes developments.
I have now been Secretary of State for four months, and it is an honour and a privilege to have this job. Every day I meet staff from the military, the civil service and industry who are totally inspiring and dedicated to keeping this country safe, often unseen and unheard by us and by the public. We are proud of their professionalism and thank them for everything that they do.
This is a new Government getting on with delivering for defence. We have stepped up support for Ukraine, signed the landmark Trinity House agreement with Germany, and given forces personnel the largest pay rise in more than 20 years. We have confirmed defence as a priority sector as part of the Government’s industrial strategy, and this week we secured the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill to improve service life. Labour is the party of defence, and we will make Britain better defended.
We know that these are serious times. We have war in Europe, conflict in the middle east and increasing global threats. Technology is rapidly changing the nature of warfare, as we see right now in Ukraine. Before the election, we knew that there were serious problems with defence—one previous Conservative Defence Secretary told the House that our armed forces have been “hollowed out and underfunded” over the last 14 years.
However, as I have told the House since taking office, the problems were even worse than we thought. The inheritance was dire: the state of the finances and the forces was often hidden from Parliament, with billion-pound black holes in defence plans, taxpayers’ funds being wasted, and military morale down to record lows. That is why we are taking swift action to inject investment, get a grip on Ministry of Defence budgets and kick-start much-needed reforms to start fixing the foundations for UK defence. I will update the House on what we are doing.
First, I will mention investment. In July, the Chancellor exposed the £22 billion black hole at the heart of the Government’s plans. There were hundreds of unfunded pressures this year and into the future. The first duty of the Government is to keep this country safe, which is why the Chancellor announced in the Budget that defence will receive a boost next year of nearly £3 billion to start to fix the foundations for our forces. The Chancellor also told the House that we will set a clear path to 2.5% of GDP on defence, which will be fully funded, unlike the Conservatives’ unfunded pre-election gimmick, which was never built into Government finances. This is not just about how much we spend on defence; it is how we spend that counts. That is why we are conducting a strategic defence review at pace to assess the threats we face and the capabilities we will need in the future. That is also why I have introduced tight financial controls on the Department, including a £300 million reduction in planned consultancy spending. We are getting a grip on MOD budgets and investing in people and future technologies.
Secondly, I will mention kit and capabilities. For too long, our soldiers, sailors and aviators have been stuck with old, outdated equipment because Ministers would not make the difficult decommissioning decisions. As technology advances at pace, we must move faster towards the future, so, with full backing from our service chiefs, I can confirm that six outdated military capabilities will be taken out of service. These decisions are set to save the MOD £150 million over the next two years and up to £500 million over five years—savings that will be retained in full in defence.
Alongside this statement, I have made a written ministerial statement outlining the detail of my decommissioning decisions. They include decisions to decommission HMS Northumberland, a frigate with structural damage that makes her simply uneconomical to repair; 46 Watchkeeper mark 1s, which are 14-year-old Army drones that technology has overtaken; and HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, landing ships effectively retired by previous Ministers but superficially kept on the books, at a cost of £9 million a year. They also include decisions to decommission 14 Chinooks, some more than 35 years old, which will be accelerated out of service; two Wave-class tankers, neither of which has been to sea for years; and 17 Puma helicopters, some of which have more than 50 years of flying. Their service will not be extended. I recognise that they will mean a lot to many who have sailed and flown in them during their deployments around the world. They have provided valuable capability over the years, but their work is done, and we must now look to the future. All current personnel will be redeployed or retrained; no one will be made redundant. As the First Sea Lord said about the retirements,
“The threat is changing so we must have the self-confidence to make the changes required”.
Of course, we should be in no doubt that the future of our Royal Marines and its elite force will be reinforced in the SDR.
These are common-sense decisions that previous Governments failed to take. They will secure better value for money for the taxpayer and better outcomes for the military. They are all backed by the chiefs and taken in consultation with strategic defence reviewers. Allies have been informed, and we have constant dialogue with NATO. Those will not be the last difficult decisions that I will have to make, given the defence inheritance that we were left with, but they will help us to get a grip on the finances, and give us greater scope to renew our forces as we look towards the strategic defence review and spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. I thank the chiefs for their determination to work with me on this.
Thirdly, I will mention reform. Defence reform has been of little interest to recent Defence Secretaries—it does not make headlines or advance careers—but the way that defence works must change to deal with the increasing and diversifying threats. I recently launched the biggest reform programme in defence for 50 years to create a stronger UK defence centre, secure better value for money and better outcomes for our armed forces, and better implement the strategic defence review. Central to a reformed defence will be our new, fully fledged national armaments director, whose recruitment is under way. The Chief of the Defence Staff will oversee a new military strategic headquarters, operating from the end of 2024, where he will formally command the individual service chiefs for the first time. He will be central in prioritising investment and spending between the services. The permanent secretary will lead a leaner Department with more policy muscle and influence. These reforms will ensure faster delivery, better integration and clearer accountability across defence to make our forces fit to fight in the future.
Finally, I will mention our people. This Government are putting defence people at the heart of our defence plans. We inherited a Conservative crisis in military recruitment and retention; targets have been missed every year for 14 years and morale is at a record low. We cannot fix those deep-set problems overnight, but Ministers are on a mission to lift military morale. We have awarded the forces the largest pay increase in more than 20 years, and I can announce that from April, I am introducing a new £30,000 retention payment for a cohort of tri-service aircraft engineers who sign up for an additional three years of service. It will be open to around 5,000 personnel in total. From January, we have a new £8,000 retention payment for Army personnel who have served for four years. That will support 4,000 personnel a year for three years—12,000 troops in total.
I have set out where we were, and where we are going. We are in a new era of rising global tensions, and we need a new era for UK defence. To achieve that, the Government are investing £3 billion extra next year and setting a clear path to 2.5%. We are driving far-reaching reform and fixing the foundations for our armed forces to make Britain better defended, strong at home and secure abroad.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
We have heard it all today. The Secretary of State claims that Labour is the party of defence, when barely an hour and a half ago, Prime Minister’s questions was taken by a Deputy Prime Minister who, along with the Foreign Secretary, voted against the renewal of Trident.
The Secretary of State talks about inheriting a financial black hole. I remind the House that in 2010, when the Conservative party last took office, the deficit was 10.3% of GDP and we were on the verge of bankruptcy. When Labour took office in July, the deficit was 4.4% of GDP. Had the deficit Labour inherited been the same as in 2010, it would have been £160 billion bigger—the same as the NHS budget in England last year—so we take no lectures on black holes. The fact is that Labour has refused to set a pathway to 2.5%, and now we see the consequences: cuts instead of a pathway. The Secretary of State says that his path to 2.5% will be fully funded, while describing our path to 2.5% as a gimmick. Our plan was funded by reducing the size of the civil service. That is not a gimmick; it is just something that Labour’s union paymasters will not allow them to do.
The Secretary of State says that defence reform was of little interest to recent Defence Secretaries. If he is talking about Ben Wallace, he was the Defence Secretary who took the massive decision to provide battlefield weapons to Ukraine before Russia invaded it, and to provide it with Storm Shadow and Challenger 2. If he is talking about Grant Shapps, he gave me his 100% backing in delivering the integrated procurement model, a fundamental reform of defence procurement that was all about modernisation, and that accelerated our procurement of anti-drone lasers.
Having delivered a 9.7% pay rise for the most junior personnel in 2023, we welcome the retention payments. However, given the cuts relating to the Royal Navy and its staffing pressures, will retention payments be offered to non-aircraft engineers, and will the RAF and Navy also receive the £8,000 four-year retention bonus? If not, why not?
The Secretary of State says that we “superficially” kept Bulwark and Albion on the books. Yes, we placed them in extended readiness, but to be clear, I personally sought and received assurances from the Navy’s leadership that in the event of a full-scale warfighting scenario in which the priority for the Navy was littoral capability, those ships could have been regenerated to a condition that enabled them to fight, and the crews could have been found. That is what the Navy’s leadership confirmed. Permanently scrapping the landing ships means removing that capability entirely. What impact will that have on the operational effectiveness of the Royal Marines? The multi-role support ship is intended to fill the gap, but it is at least eight to nine years away. Is the Secretary of State still committed to MRSS, and if so, how many will he procure?
Turning to rotary, what will be the operational impact in the immediate term of the Puma and Chinook decisions, and what will be the cost of the commercial solution that the Secretary of State will use to fill the capability gap in Brunei and Cyprus? As for the Conservatives’ record on rotary, the Secretary of State knows that we secured £320 million of savings by renegotiating the Chinook extended range procurement, and that I personally commenced the new medium helicopter competition. On the new medium helicopter, I insisted that the procurement should have strong scoring for maintaining skilled rotary work in the UK, and for exportability, to sustain that work. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he will not change the competition, and that he is still committed to procuring the new medium helicopter without delay? Will the NMH come into service before those Pumas are retired?
On Watchkeeper, as the Minister who launched the MOD’s first ever drone strategy, I appreciate that this is an area where we need to move fast and to have the capability to deliver in the modern battle space. Will the Secretary of State be gifting any of these capabilities to Ukraine, such as the older Chinooks or the Pumas, especially given what happened yesterday? Finally and most importantly, what on earth does all this mean for the strategic defence review, from the MRSS to future drones for the British armed forces? The Secretary of State will no doubt say that I should wait for the SDR, so why did he not wait for the SDR before making today’s decisions?
To conclude, whatever the Chancellor’s true grasp of economics, she has certainly been able to force her priorities on to the country, getting the MOD to scrap major capabilities before it has undertaken the Department’s much-vaunted strategic defence review. The Labour Government have killed off North sea oil, undermining our energy security. This week, they are killing off the family farm and threatening our food security, and today, they are scrapping key defence capabilities and weakening our national security. The Government have made their choices, and they own the consequences.
John Healey
That was a rather wide-ranging response that spanned the fiscal position in 2010 and farming today. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence was in 2010 under Labour, and that the Tory plan to spend 2.5% on defence was a pre-election gimmick, announced four weeks before the election was called and never hardwired into any Government finances. That is why it was unfunded; that is why it was a pre-election gimmick; and that is why the Institute for Fiscal Studies called the plan “misleading”.
I readily pay tribute to Ben Wallace as one of my predecessors. The hon. Gentleman talked not about defence reform, but about the decision that Ben Wallace rightly made to step up with military aid to Ukraine, so that we led the field and made sure that other countries followed suit. We were proud to support those decisions in opposition, and we are proud to continue that UK leadership, and to help command the continued, united support for Ukraine.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s welcome for the retention incentives, which are for aircraft engineers, as well as the retention payments for the Army ranks. Those payments are for privates and lance-corporals; they stand as I have announced them, and will start from January. I am glad of his welcome for the decision I took on Watchkeeper. He did indeed launch a drone strategy as defence procurement Minister. He recognises that we are talking about a 14-year-old drone in the hands of the British Army, and that the innovation cycle for drones in Ukraine is two to three months. We can do better; the Army knows how it will do better, and it will replace Watchkeeper.
The hon. Gentleman also asked questions about helicopters, the future structure of our forces, and the capabilities we need. Those areas are being considered by the strategic defence review. As I said in my statement, I made today’s decisions in consultation with the reviewers, to make sure that they are aligned in their thinking, and in dialogue with NATO.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. Those ships were mothballed; there were no plans for either of them to go back to sea for nearly 10 years—until they were due to be taken out of service. They were not ready to sail or to fight. There are capabilities there that can be covered elsewhere. That will save us money every year—money that we can redeploy in defence, and put towards upgrading our forces and technologies.
The hon. Gentleman saw the figures before the election that I saw afterwards. He knows the truth of the black hole that his Government left across the board, but he did nothing in defence to get a grip on the budgets, or to decommission out-of-date kit. I am taking action now to strengthen defence for the future. These decisions are overdue, and the service chiefs support these changes, which means that we can move more rapidly—as we must, learning the lessons from Ukraine and recognising the changing nature of warfare and the rising global threats. We have to evolve our equipment, and invest in and prepare our forces for the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Overall, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today, because some of the work to reform the operations of the Ministry of Defence is long overdue. It is right that old platforms be retired and that we transition to newer equipment. I am also glad to note that the plan has the full backing of our military chiefs.
However, this plan is being implemented without the full findings of the strategic defence review having been announced, and obviously it has cost implications as well as an impact on our people, so can the Secretary of State advise me on a couple of things? First, will the unrequired kit be either sold to allies or given to Ukraine? Secondly, how will our people be reskilled and retrained, so that there are no job losses?
John Healey
As I said in my statement, the decisions I have taken help us to get a grip of the MOD budget now and create greater scope to better implement the strategic defence review when it reports. These decisions, as I said, are overdue. They were ducked by Ministers in the previous Government. Further decisions about what to do with the decommissioned equipment have not yet been made, but when I make those decisions, I will ensure that I inform my hon. Friend’s Committee. I look forward to the grilling that he and his colleagues on the Committee are set to give me tomorrow morning, no doubt about this and a number of other things.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I declare an interest in that my nephew is an aircraft engineer with the Royal Air Force, so I shall not be commenting on the retention payment, much as it sounds very handsome.
I welcome the emphasis in the statement on defence people. A legacy of the last Conservative Government was that there was not enough emphasis on retaining brilliant people in the armed forces. With Grant Shapps, we saw a Defence Secretary who was fascinated by technology—he came to the House and made a statement about DragonFire—but missed the very important things that were slipping down the list, such as the platforms that we hear today are being decommissioned. So I welcome the pay rise for personnel, and I particularly welcome the retention payment for Army personnel who have served for more than four years, given that the legacy of Capita is an appalling one.
However, there are some alarming gaps. The new Chinook heavy-lift helicopters not coming in till 2027 leaves a very substantial gap of three years in relation to the 14 Chinooks. The new medium helicopter contract is not due to be awarded till next year. I question when the contract for the new medium helicopter will be introduced—perhaps not until the beginning of the next decade. The multi-role support ships are not due to come into service until 2033. I am alarmed at what that may do for the ability of the Royal Marines to operate in the littoral. I question that the statement said there was full backing from our service chiefs. Of course, there was: they have to salute, turn to the right and carry on. What was lacking was a statement about this being done in consultation with the strategic defence reviewers. Was this statement given their full backing?
John Healey
My statement was very clear. I made these decisions in consultation with the strategic defence reviewers. It is not for them to back them or not. But if the hon. Gentleman asked them, I am sure they would say that these are entirely the right decisions, that they go in the right direction and that they start to make our forces more fit for the future. These decisions are consistent with the direction of our thinking, which is why I can confidently take them now, because we need to create the scope to move faster towards the future once the defence review reports.
We also need to do more to deal with the dire state of the finances that we inherited in defence and across the Government. The hon. Gentleman asks about the Chinooks. This acceleration of their retirement will apply to the 14 oldest helicopters in a fleet of more than 50, some of which are more than 35 years old. This means that the oldest 14 will be retired at the point when they are due to enter a costly maintenance package. That will not happen, and it means we can speed up the transition to the new, much more capable Chinooks that will arrive. It also means that we can save money for defence that we can redeploy to other purposes.
Finally, I very much hope that we can sign up the hon. Gentleman’s nephew with the new aircraft engineers incentive payment.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
Those needing to know in what state the last Government left the armed forces should look at the report on readiness for war by the Defence Committee, on which there was a Conservative majority. I really welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly on waste and on the recruitment and retention of key people in the armed forces. However, on the issue of defence reform, can I ask him whether in the few months he has been in the job he feels that the MOD is fit for purpose? Is it agile and adaptable enough for the modern, oncoming threats we face?
John Healey
The short answer to my hon. Friend’s question is no, which is precisely the reason for the far-reaching reforms that I have begun. This process will continue, I expect, through my entire time in this post. It needs to be relentless, far-reaching and radical; otherwise, we simply will not be able as a country to fashion the forces we need in the future to be able to fight, deter and defend this country.
I say to my hon. Friend, who is one of the leading experts on defence, having served as a Defence Committee member during the previous Government, that I value his view, and I refer Opposition Front Benchers to the points he made. I congratulate him on being, and wish him well as, the leader of the new UK parliamentary delegation to NATO. I wish all the Members involved, from both Houses and from all sides, a successful delegation visit to Montreal later this week.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I have known the right hon. Gentleman for a long time, and he will know that I have a high regard for him, so I simply offer him these words from my knowledge of all the battles one undertakes within government—always with the Treasury.
Putting aside for one second any party difference on this, we all want a functional and ready defensive force able to take on whatever comes at us. We live in a very unstable and dangerous world—more dangerous than at any time I can recall. The Government rightly, and I welcome this, set up the strategic defence review to set out the key priorities and key threats, and it therefore seems reasonable to me that we should wait for this report, which I believe will strengthen the MOD’s arm in future discussions, negotiations and battles with the Treasury—always with the Treasury.
I pose this simple question to the right hon. Gentleman. When he feeds little bits and pieces to the Treasury ahead of the review, it will come back for more. Bulwark and Albion still had life in them and could have been resurrected; mothballing is what the Americans use all the time. Could I please suggest that he rethinks this process, and says to the Treasury, “Back off now, and when the review is there, we can have a proper discussion and a proper debate”?
John Healey
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s tone and his advice. On the savings I have outlined that will flow from the six decommissioning decisions, that money will be retained in full in defence. It will not go to the Treasury. He links finances to the strategic defence review. The Prime Minister has always been clear since the NATO summit in Washington in July that it is the strategic defence review first and the pathway to 2.5% second, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently confirmed that we should expect that in the spring.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and it is good to hear a Secretary of State finally getting to grips with the root and branch reform that we need in the MOD. I want him to cast his mind back to the dossier on waste that we produced in opposition. It showed that, since 2010, £13 billion of taxpayers’ money had been wasted by the MOD. Will he commit, as he did in that report, to a root and branch National Audit Office report on MOD waste, and to the MOD being the first Department to be referred to the Office for Value for Money? Will he also commit to continuing to update this House on his ongoing battle against MOD waste?
John Healey
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments, and the reminder to this House of the dossier of defence waste that we did indeed work on together in opposition. I can confirm to him and the House that I have commissioned an internal audit of waste, but I have not waited for the results of that; I have already reduced the consultancy spend by £300 million this year. It was set to be a ballooned £1 billion over three years for consultancy and extra staff. I have also scrapped the Tories’ £40 million VIP helicopter contract, which was money spent on moving VIPs around the country, rather than investing in our servicemen and women, which we can now do.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
This is a black day for the Royal Marines. I advise the Defence Secretary that he would do well to have a look at the report, “Sunset for the Royal Marines?”, which was published by the Defence Committee in February 2018, when the issue of scrapping our amphibious assault ships was described by the cross-party Committee as “militarily illiterate” and totally at variance with strategic reality. Does he accept that the purpose of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, which were due to remain in service for nine and 10 more years respectively, is to have the capability of making a landing across a foreshore when it is opposed by enemy forces, just as the Fearless and Intrepid did the job before Albion and Bulwark? Does he agree that we have no way of knowing whether the absence of that capability for the next decade will be an incentive for somebody to try something like the Falklands?
John Healey
I have a huge amount of respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He led the Committee that produced an important report, but it was six years ago. Far from it being “a black day”, as he says, this statement signals a bright future, which will be reinforced by the SDR for the Marines and their elite force. On HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, he is right that both ships were not due to go out of service for nine and 10 years respectively, but neither—given the state they are in and decisions taken by the last Government—were set to sail again. In other words, they had in practice been taken out of service, but Ministers had not been willing to admit that. Our three Bay-class landing ships and RFA Argus for now will continue to provide, as they do currently, the amphibious capability. That will allow us to save at least £9 million a year that would have been spent under the previous plans, and it will allow us to focus much more strongly on the multi-role support ships, which promise to have a greater capability and a broader range of ability for the future.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on the future of our forces, which has been backed by the chiefs, and I particularly welcome the retention payments for our aircraft engineers and Army personnel. As others have alluded to, technology is changing the nature of the threats that we face. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will work closely with the defence industry to harness new technologies to ensure that our forces have the kit they need to respond effectively to increasing threats?
John Healey
I can confirm that, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. The best exemplification of the argument she makes is in the Army’s plans to rapidly replace the Watchkeeper mark 1 capability. It is a 14-year-old drone in an era where, as Ukraine tells us, drone technology has a lifecycle of two to three months. The Army knows what it can do better. It knows it can do it more quickly. It knows how it will focus its efforts for the future. Decommissioning the Watchkeeper mark 1s will allow it better to do that.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I recognise and appreciate that he is doing a difficult job in a dangerous world. Can I seek some clarification on the scrapping of HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion? We are told that there is a bright future for the Royal Marines, yet at the same time we hear from the Government that decisions about defence capabilities will be made in the strategic defence review. Can the Secretary of State tell the House precisely what conversations he has had about the future of the Royal Marines? Specifically, what does that mean for the UK’s commitment towards NATO to defend the high north?
John Healey
The statement means no change to the available amphibious capability, because, in practice, Albion and Bulwark had been mothballed. They are out of action, and there were no plans for them to sail again until they were to be taken out of service a decade into the future. This position allows us to focus more quickly on the more modern, more flexible capabilities we will need for the future. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming a member of the Defence Committee. I am sure that if he is at the Committee sitting tomorrow morning, he will pursue this matter further.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
A bit of this debate should be about honesty. If the Ministry of Defence were to step forward and say, “We want to modernise and be able to buy kit at scale and at pace, but we have a limited budget,” it would just be being honest and realistic to say that we have to let some things go.
With my Royal Marines background, I first went on Bulwark in 2017 on a training exercise, learning how to plan and execute raiding operations. I have fond memories of the ship, as do many in the Royal Marines, but that exercise was not conducted at sea; it was conducted with Bulwark alongside in Devonport, where it has remained for a number of years. Even then, we were told, “You will go not on this ship at sea. It will not happen.” People knew that at the time, so can we be honest?
On Plymouth and Devonport, where Albion and Bulwark are, and HMS Westminster, which the Secretary of State has also mentioned, may I ask him how the jobs and workers in Plymouth will be protected? With new submarines coming forward at huge scale, can we talk about the investment in Plymouth required—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call the Secretary of State.
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right that too often decisions were ducked or Parliament was too often not fully informed when they were taken. The point he makes about the experience on Bulwark is telling. We do not have the capability, if it is incapable of sailing. We do not have the facility to train effectively on it, if all it can do is stay alongside. In practice, as I said earlier, Bulwark and Albion had been taken out of action; Ministers had just been unwilling to level with the public and with Parliament about that. I understand his interest in the case of Plymouth and Devonport. I have been a strong supporter in opposition and in government of the Team Barrow transformation approach. There is a case for looking at replicating a similar model in other parts of the country. For me, the first in frame would be Plymouth.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
What does this announcement tell us about how the strategic defence review is going? One lesson of the Ukraine war is that old kit can be very useful. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, America’s airfields and dockyards are stacked full of old kit for future contingencies. We are throwing away capabilities that are only out of commission because there was not enough money. Now the Secretary of State is telling us that there is probably even less money. Please will he not come to this House and pretend he is just clearing out an old cupboard of rubbish that everybody had forgotten about and that the defence chiefs are hopping up and down with delight at his clearing out.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman has a long interest and great expertise in defence. Over the years, I have listened to him make the argument that the UK’s alacrity in disposing of any decommissioned kit and commitment was a strategy that should be reviewed and rethought and was different from that of some other countries. I have made it clear to the House today that the decommissioning decisions have been taken, but what we do with the kit as it comes out of service has not yet been settled.
On the strategic defence review, what my decisions and announcements tell the House and the hon. Gentleman are, first, that people will be at the heart of the plans for the future, and secondly, that the technology is changing at an accelerating pace. That imperative will be part of the strategic defence review. The lesson of Ukraine also tells us that we must have an increasingly integrated force—that is reflected in the decisions I have taken today. He should expect that to be reflected also in the confirmation and recommendations of the strategic defence review.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Another day, another Labour Minister at the Dispatch Box cleaning up the mess left by the Conservative party. Does the Secretary of State agree that the decisions outlined in today’s statement will fix the foundations of our nation’s defence, spend every penny he has wisely and keep our nation safer?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. I would add that when, inevitably, we want to do more than we can afford, we must focus our resources on the areas of most importance. That is the underlying principle that applies to the retention payments for the tri-service aircraft engineers, lance corporals and other ranks in the Army after four years’ service, which I have been able to announce this afternoon. We need them for the future. We have trained them, they have great skills and we want them to have a longer and more productive career in our armed forces.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Servicemen and women will have listened with despair to the Government and the Opposition argue about whether the strategic and catastrophic underfunding of the armed forces was over the last 14 or the last 30 years. Either way, it results in the situation of defence of the realm that we find ourselves in.
Given the Secretary of State’s announcement today, and with one more Type 23 to bite the dust, can he advise how many escorts and frigates will be available—subject to the power improvement project on Type 45 —before Type 31 and Type 26 are available? What about the AW149 new medium-lift helicopter? Why is this Government moving at a snail’s pace, as the last Government did, on new medium-lift helicopters? What message does the 31 rotary-linked platforms and five Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships coming out of service send to the outside world? What will the strategic defence review do to bolster that situation? Some £300 million less is being spent on consultants, but can the Secretary of State advise what the consultancy spend will be now in the MOD?
John Healey
It will be £300 million less than it would have been before. The decision on HMS Northumberland makes no difference to the availability of the Royal Navy ships at sea, because that ship was not capable. Refitting it in its current state, as planned, could have cost hundreds of millions of pounds—that is also behind my decision. The process for the medium-lift helicopters is under way and continues.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
On a recent visit to Commando Training Centre Royal Marines with the armed forces parliamentary scheme we saw the amazing Gordon Messenger facility, which serves Royal Marines, their families and veterans. It is a true community hub, and was valued by everyone in the service. Will the Secretary of State say more about the support that this Government are giving to service personnel, veterans and their families?
John Healey
One of the most important things that this House—never mind the Government who introduced the Bill—has done in the past week is to give its full backing to the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. This is an independent champion who will improve service life and will be there for those who serve and the families who support them. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contribution to those debates, and I congratulate him on becoming a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which is a great scheme. I know that he will have inspiring experiences and will make an even more informed contribution to debates in this House.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I appreciate the constraints on the Defence Secretary, but this statement makes a mockery of the SDR process. It also removes significant lines of contingent capability. He says that these will not be the last difficult decisions that he will have to make and that he is working in lockstep with the SDR, so is he, and is it, rolling the pitch for the removal or mothballing of the carriers, as has been rumoured? Does he understand what that means for the future of the Royal Navy as a globally deployable blue-water navy? Given his comments on Albion and Bulwark, is he also rolling the pitch for the future of the Royal Marines, since the two are intertwined and will be for the next 10 years before a replacement can be provided?
John Healey
Bulwark and Albion are not capabilities available to the Marines at present. On the Marines, I have said three times this afternoon that the future of its elite force, as part of the complex of what we need for the future, will be reinforced in the SDR. That is what I expect. The decisions that I have announced today are consistent with the SDR. He wrongly suggested that somehow these announcements make a mockery of it, but they are entirely consistent and are taken in consultation with the reviewers. On the future of carriers, in recent weeks my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have paid particular attention to the plans for one of those carriers to undertake the carrier strike 2025 voyage into the Indo-Pacific, where it will have validation exercises with some important allies. It is a vital part of our ability to reinforce both our hard power and our soft power in future.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is clear both from the statement and from the follow-up questions that the previous Government have wasted millions of pounds in defence spending that could have been spent better, making it clear that Labour is the party of defence. That money could also have been spent better in our economy, to support the defence sector across the UK. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that future programmes will be spent in the UK? What guarantees can he offer to support shipbuilding across this country?
John Healey
I am proud of our tradition of UK shipbuilding, including in Scotland. I want Britain’s warships to be built in Britain. My hon. Friend may be aware that we are committed to make the Government’s industrial strategy with the defence sector one of those priority sectors, so that we not only strengthen our forces for the future but use defence to strengthen our economy, create fresh jobs and back the innovative companies that will have a bigger part to play in both our security and our prosperity.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Secretary of State presented the savings as no-brainers—the ships were damaged and obsolete—but in his closing remarks he told us that these would not be the last difficult decisions. He simply cannot have it both ways. It is all about the messaging in the end. What message will be received from this statement in Buenos Aires, Moscow, Peking and Tehran?
John Healey
The message is clear: we now have a Government who are willing to take the decisions to deal with outdated equipment that should have been retired long ago, so that we can switch our focus and our finances, and develop the capabilities, technologies and weaponry that our forces need to fight more effectively in future.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I very much welcome today’s statement from the Secretary of State. It is rather galling to hear from Opposition Members about cuts, when the previous Government’s biggest cut was to our armed forces—to the smallest size since the end of the Napoleonic wars. In that vein, I very much welcome the increase in the salaries of our armed forces, the highest in 20 years, and in particular the retention payments to aircraft engineers and serving armed personnel. What message can my right hon. Friend give to those who are in our armed forces, and those who are thinking about a career in our armed forces, that they will have a better future if they serve?
John Healey
The message is that our UK armed forces offer a fantastic career: a wide range of opportunity and skills for any young person who wants to sign up that will give them experiences and set them up for life. My hon. Friend is totally right when he talks about Conservative cuts. In the first year of a Labour Government, we are increasing defence spending by nearly £3 billion. In the first year of the Conservative Government in 2010, they cut defence by £2 billion.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
If I can echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—now that the Secretary of State’s Treasury minder has left the Chamber, he will be able to speak more openly about some of the challenges he faces in dealing with the Treasury—I appreciate that the Secretary of State faces really difficult decisions and that all these decisions will have been incredibly hard to make, but will he confirm to the House that the Chinooks and the Pumas will, as a first option, be at least offered to the Ukrainians to see if they can use them in any way at all?
John Healey
Given the right hon. Gentleman’s experience in this very job, I will take that as an early representation on the future decisions I will have to take on what to do with the kit once it is decommissioned.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Secretary of State rightly says that the MOD needs reform. One of the major failures has been the procurement of equipment, which has led to the wasting of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds of taxpayers’ cash. Will he commit to also reform the recruitment of new personnel into the armed forces? Nobody has a good word to say about the outsourcing contract to Capita. Bring it in-house. Will he commit to that?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right. Procurement is one of the first focuses and most important areas for further reform in defence, but defence reform is required across the board. On recruitment, I hope he will welcome the steps I have already taken to remove almost 100 bits of red tape that prevent young people from being recruited. I hope he will welcome the tough targets for the rapid turnaround in recruitment and an offer of a training place. I hope he will welcome also the direct recruitment route for those who want to join our cyber-forces, as part of reinforcing our national security.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
With close social and economic ties between communities on both sides of the Tamar, a Devonport deal is very important to people in South East Cornwall and in Plymouth. Will the Secretary of State commit to scoping a Devonport deal that looks to the future?
John Healey
If my hon. Friend, with her south-west posse, wants to come to see me to discuss this matter, I would be very happy to try to arrange that soon.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Minister of State for Defence in the other place earlier today talked about the world becoming darker and darker. Can the Secretary of State assure us, after the difficult decisions he has had to take today, that the SDR will be robust and that the defence equipment plan will reflect future threats and the future capabilities that our armed forces will require?
John Healey
My hon. Friend puts his finger exactly on the button. At the heart of the SDR is an assessment of the increasing and diversifying threats we face, the rapidly changing technology and nature of warfare, and therefore the capabilities we require for the future and the sort of forces we require for the future. Those are at the heart of the work the reviewers are doing at the moment. They are doing that in a thorough way and at pace. I expect them to conclude early in the new year.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
While it is deeply disappointing to hear the decisions around Devonport’s surface fleet today, in particular as the MP for a proud home to the Royal Marines and 42 Commando, it does provide, as has been alluded to by some colleagues on the Labour Benches, an opportunity to raise again the need for a Devonport deal, and in particular Plymouth and Devonport’s role in refitting the Royal Navy’s submarines going forward. As a member of that south-west posse, it is great that the Secretary of State has already offered a meeting. However, what we are specifically looking for is cross-ministerial commitment. We are getting plenty of meetings, but we want to know that the Ministers are joined up and having conversations cross-departmentally, and that the Devonport deal might be able to offer Plymouth and the wider south-west a future as we see these armed forces changes.
John Healey
I regard defence as largely beyond party politics, so I am happy to extend, on a cross-party basis, that invitation to a meeting to the hon. Lady. What I cannot undertake to do is to promise to deliver a cross-ministerial meeting, but if she is happy to start with me, then that is what we can do.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
As one of a number of Royal Marines on the Labour Benches, I really welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to the Royal Marines in the forthcoming SDR. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), I served on HMS Albion, but that was 15 years ago. I think we all recognise that the battlefield has changed and that it is important we have the financing available to invest in the technology of the future. On reform, I notice that only two out of 49 major defence programmes are on time and on budget at the moment. What steps is the Secretary of State taking on defence reform to ensure the failures we saw under the previous Government can never be repeated?
John Healey
My hon. Friend refers to the regular reporting of the Major Projects Authority. The fact that only two out of 49 major defence projects can be said to be on time and on budget means that the Department is not delivering effectively for the taxpayer or for our forces. That is why defence reform, far reaching and deep, is required.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. It is really good to have a Secretary of State who is taking the long-term decisions to ensure our military is fit for the future. I particularly welcome the fact that all personnel affected by today’s decisions will be retrained or redeployed. In his first month in the job, the Prime Minister stated at the NATO summit that we were firmly committed to increasing defence spending to that 2.5% target. Given that this today’s final question, will he take this opportunity to restate not only that commitment, but also our commitment to take the long-term decisions so that our armed forces are equipped to ensure that our country is secure at home and strong abroad?
John Healey
My hon. Friend does not just ask about the detail of the statement, but cuts right to the chase of the purpose of the announcements I have made today. I will reinforce his point. The purpose is that we can make Britain better defended: we can make Britain more secure at home and strong abroad. That is exactly what this Government are determined to do.
Points of Order
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are now widespread reports in the media of Storm Shadow missiles being used in Russian territory for the first time. To be clear, I entirely sympathise with the Secretary of State in his reluctance to provide an operational running commentary, but equally he will appreciate that once these matters are being reported in the media there may be an expectation among colleagues that we will hear more in the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, have you been given any representations about a possible statement on these matters by the Ministry of Defence?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. As he will, I believe, be aware, I have been given no indication that the Secretary of State will be making such a statement, but the Secretary of State is obviously here and taking note of what is being said, and if he wishes to comment either now or later, he has the opportunity to do so.
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have seen, over recent weeks, a significant change in the action and in the rhetoric on Ukraine, and Ukraine’s action on the battlefield speaks for itself. We, as a nation and as a Government, are doubling down on our support for Ukraine, and are determined to do more. When I discussed this with Minister Umerov in a call yesterday, he talked about Ukraine’s robust response to recent Russian escalations—the escalation in the attacks on Ukrainian cities and children, the escalation in the attacks on the energy system, and the escalation that involves deploying 10,000 North Korean troops in combat positions on the frontline. We also discussed our plans, as the UK, to support the Ukrainians throughout 2025.
I remain committed to keeping Parliament as fully informed as possible. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and the House will, I think, understand the reasons why, at this point, I am not able to go into any further operational details.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I trust that that response has satisfied the hon. Member for South Suffolk.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister's questions, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), said that the Government had given a pay rise to trade unions. That is factually incorrect. The Government gave pay rises to workers, and gave them to all workers, regardless of whether or not they were members of trade unions. That is the power of a trade union.
I know that it is difficult to educate His Majesty’s official Opposition about the benefits of trade unions, Madam Deputy Speaker, but can you advise me on whether I can compel the shadow Minister to come back and correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I understand that the hon. Member informed the shadow Minister that she was due to make a point of order on this issue, and I thank her for notifying us of the point of order. She will know that the contents of Members’ speeches are not a matter for the Chair—if they were, I would keep them much shorter—but I am sure that if the shadow Minister inadvertently said anything that was inaccurate, he will find a way in which to correct the record.
Terminal Illness (Relief of Pain)
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the application of the criminal law in respect of the administration of pain relief by healthcare professionals to people who are terminally ill; and for connected purposes.
As we know, a ten-minute rule Bill is a delicate flower; it is almost certainly doomed to oblivion because there is no time for a Second Reading debate, but it can serve a purpose in allowing us to demonstrate a truth or a problem, or even just ask a question. I am deliberately proposing this Bill 10 days before the debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—the “assisted suicide” Bill—because I want to highlight a real problem. There is simply not enough time to consider the immense complexities of this issue before we will be required to make our decision. That point will be the subject of a joint letter from me and the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), to be published in The Guardian tomorrow.
A private Member’s Bill may be an appropriate vehicle for an issue that is narrow in scope, or involves a decision that is relatively clearcut, but that is not the case for the assisted suicide Bill. Were it a Government Bill—which it should be—there would be an impact assessment, but there is none. The Bill is much longer than almost any other private Member’s Bill, but it was published only very recently. What will be the impact on the NHS? Do we not need to know? At least one retired judge has questioned the role of judges. Should we not know more?
My Bill seeks to gain, and give the public, extra knowledge on one key aspect of this debate. What is the state of palliative care in this country? What are the options available to assist people in their dying? I use that phrase advisedly. All hospices currently assist people in dying as peacefully and painlessly as possible, but they do not do that by administering lethal drugs. So much of the impetus in favour of assisted suicide comes from an understandable fear of dying in pain. Talking to palliative care nurses and doctors, I am told that in nearly every case experienced practitioners can make our passing bearable, but I would like to know more, and I think that the public would. We would like to know more about the passing of people with degenerative diseases.
Demand for palliative care is increasing, and will continue to do so. It is estimated that by 2050, one in every four people in England and Wales will be over 65. The charity Marie Curie estimates that by 2048, over 646,000 more people will need palliative care—and, of course, just as individuals and families are feeling the cost of living crisis, our hospices are facing higher expenses. Hospice UK estimates that hospices faced £100 million more in costs in 2023 than in the year before. Research from King’s College London suggests that more than 100,000 people in the UK die each year without receiving the palliative care that they need and deserve.
My Bill asks the Secretaries of State for Justice, and for Health and Social Care, to publish a detailed analysis and advice on the law and procedures. For instance, palliative care nurses tell me that if your only motive is to relieve pain, you can give as much morphine as you like to a patient, and you will not kill him or her. However, I also hear that sometimes the pain doubles but the nurse—probably not in a hospice, but in a hospital—is unwilling to double the dose for fear of legal consequences. I hope that if I am dying of terminal cancer, a nurse will not hesitate to give me as much as necessary. I was at the deathbed of a dear friend and former colleague in the House; we were together in a hospice. I could hear the morphine pass, gurgling, into his wrists. He was knocked out, and his death was peaceful. It was clearly good practice. We, the public, need to be told what the situation is, in respect of ensuring a peaceful death in all conditions. My Bill would be a small step forward in taking up the debate and informing it. The debate in 10 days’ time could be seen as a useful airing of the issues, and then, in a year or two, we could make a measured and well-informed decision.
This is an immeasurably complex issue. First, there are deeply held moral and religious concerns about the ethics of assisted suicide; but even if those are of no concern to some people, there are practical issues as well. The hospice movement is one of our most loving and admired services, but we all know that sometimes there is not sufficient experience in some NHS hospitals to match the care given in hospices, so we need to know more. Should we not start by building up our hospice movement before we are given a binary choice in 10 days’ time? All this is before we even start to consider other issues, such as extending the law to other countries, or pressure being put on old people who feel themselves to be a burden.
There is something else that we that must consider. We know that we must provide more funding for the hospice and care home sector, but how can we afford it from general taxation? We need a national debate on a new social contract for a ballooning frail and elderly population with multiple health needs, and I have long argued that we can only do so with social insurance. We have to pay more for our care in old age. What we do not want, however, is pressure for assisted suicide for old people because there are not the resources to pay for them. Again, we need much more information about this whole area. I hope that my intervention today, in which I am seeking more knowledge, not just loudly stating my own position, is helpful, and that my Bill is useful.
Today I received the following letter from a doctor:
“Only recently, I was giving my condolences to a grieving woman who had lost her husband in the early hours. He had been given a few small doses of pain relief and mild sedatives over the last few nights for symptom control and had passed away peacefully at her side. She asked me in all seriousness, ‘Doctor, did the nurses give him something to make him die quicker last night?’ This was an awful lingering doubt that she had. I was able to firmly reassure her that, no, the medication would not have sped up his passing.
For her, and the vast majority of other patients, doctors are there to prolong life and palliate symptoms. Were this to change, then we should not be doctors in the eyes of many but bringers of death, agents of a state which counts the weakest members as expendable and worthy of nothing but an early grave.”
In conclusion, I hope that my Bill and this very short debate will inform discussion on this unbelievably moving and delicate matter. I have a dream, as we all have, that in years to come, when our time comes, we will be given the care that we need, but there is so much doubt and uncertainty about that. Many people, quite understandably, take a position from a point of principle. They may believe fundamentally, from a religious point of view, in the right to life; or they may have a libertarian point of view that states that everybody has a right to control their destiny. But when making this decision, probably one of the most important in this Parliament, it is surely important that we do so from a state of knowledge, and that we have a hospice movement and an NHS that are fully funded to care for our old people, so that we can assure all people that in this country—this civilised nation—we will ensure that everyone’s passing is as painless and peaceful as possible. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Edward Leigh, Rachael Maskell, Sir John Hayes, Danny Kruger, Sir Christopher Chope, Sir Julian Lewis, Lincoln Jopp, Martin Vickers, Dame Meg Hillier, Saqib Bhatti, Helen Grant and Sir Roger Gale present the Bill.
Sir Edward Leigh accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 December, and to be printed (Bill 136).
Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am proud of the unity that this House has shown in its support for Ukraine. This support has been steadfast since the onset of Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion in February 2022, regardless of the party in office, and it remains so today. We in this House recognise that while Ukraine is on the frontline, it is fighting for democracy and security across Europe. I want to make it clear that this Government stand, and will continue to stand, in unwavering support of Ukraine with our G7 allies.
On 22 October, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Defence Secretary announced that the UK would contribute £2.26 billion to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine scheme, the ERA. This landmark agreement will provide Ukraine with a total of $50 billion in vital additional funding, allowing it to continue to fight back against Putin’s war machine. Crucially, these funds will be repaid not by Ukraine, but from the extraordinary profits made on sanctioned Russian sovereign assets held in the European Union.
This Bill simply provides the spending authority for the UK to contribute to the ERA scheme, enabling us to begin disbursing funds to Ukraine. It is another important demonstration of the UK’s commitment to backing Ukraine for as long as it takes. It will unlock our £2.26 billion contribution to the ERA, funding which is additional to all previous commitments.
The UK has long been at the forefront of support for Ukraine. Our total military, humanitarian and economic support pledged since February 2022 already stands at £12.8 billion. We have often been the first mover on military support in particular, which ranges from training over 47,000 Ukrainian military personnel to providing a squadron of Challenger 2 main battle tanks. Earlier this year, the Government announced that the UK would continue to provide guaranteed military support of £3 billion per year to Ukraine for as long as it takes.
But while we can be proud of what the UK has already done for Ukraine, Members of the House need no reminding that Ukraine’s military, budgetary and humanitarian needs continue to be grave. Existing support is not enough; we must go further still to ensure that Ukraine wins this war. We must do this alongside our allies. The ERA is an ambitious scheme, and represents a united G7 pledge, with contributions from the United States, the European Union, Canada and Japan. Our £2.26 billion constitutes a fair and proportionate contribution to the scheme based on the UK’s GDP share in the G7 and EU.
Each lender will now negotiate a bilateral loan with Ukraine to govern how the funds are distributed and spent within a collective framework agreed by the G7. Repayments from the profits on immobilised Russian assets will be redistributed to the G7 lenders from the EU in proportion to our contributions. The EU regulation providing for this is already in place.
The Government have assessed that Ukraine’s most pressing need is for military support. The UK’s contribution to the ERA is therefore earmarked for military procurement to bolster Ukraine’s capacity for self-defence. This support will help ensure that Ukraine can continue to withstand Russian aggression and fight back against it. The UK is committed to ensuring value for money for both the UK and Ukraine, including through exploring the use of existing UK-enabled procurement channels for Ukraine to purchase the equipment that it needs. Our funding will be delivered in three tranches over three financial years, with the first tranche intended to be delivered in early 2025.
The Bill has one simple purpose: to unlock the UK’s contribution to the ERA. It consists of one substantive clause, which seeks the authority of Parliament to spend the money on the UK’s contribution and make good on our commitment. The Bill is not intended to be used for any purpose beyond that, and it will not be used to spend above the £2.26 billion figure that has been announced. Our figure has been agreed with the G7 and caps have been built into the scheme at a G7 level through the EU repayment mechanism.
Although slim, this Bill is essential. Royal Assent is required before we can begin disbursing funds to Ukraine, and before we can receive any repayments from the profits being held in the European Union. It is therefore vital that we pass this Bill as quickly as possible, so we can begin disbursement this winter, as Ukraine’s needs are immediate. I hope that I can count on the support of the House to achieve this, and help us get this vital money into Ukraine’s hands as quickly as possible.
The $50 billion collectively delivered through the ERA lays down a marker to show that we will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Collectively, we will pursue every available means of making Russia pay for the damage it has done in Ukraine. I am proud to present the UK’s contribution to the scheme today, which will make an immediate tangible difference to Ukraine’s capacity to defend itself. This Bill facilitates that contribution, and I commend it to the House.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Before I turn to the Bill, I just say that the Chief Secretary, in an earlier debate, kindly welcomed me to my new role, and I would like to reciprocate that welcome today. He and I have worked together as members of the Business and Trade Committee, which he chaired and of which I believe you were also a member, Madam Deputy Speaker. We had a shared desire to use Parliament to hold to account fearlessly, factually and, when needed, ferociously those who hold authority and power over our constituents. He now finds himself in such a position of authority and power, and I will hold him to account fearlessly, factually and, when needed, ferociously. However, today is not a day for ferocity.
We welcome this Bill. It is an important signal of the continuing commitment of the United Kingdom to the people of Ukraine, the defence of Europe and the achievement of peace through strength. We join the tributes to the people of Ukraine—the men and women who have had to leave behind their peaceful endeavours in order to stand shoulder to shoulder to defend their land and liberties. Today we are talking about financial contributions, but we should never forget that the greatest sacrifice is being made each and every day by members of the Ukraine military and civilians, upon whom Putin’s rockets rain down destruction each and every day.
Under the strong leadership of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the United Kingdom led the world in defending Ukraine, and since 2022 we have pledged more than £12 billion in overall support. We were often the first mover on vital lethal aid, from Storm Shadow missiles to Challenger and main battle tanks. We imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen, to cripple Putin’s war machine. We sanctioned around 2,000 individuals, companies and groups, and this economic pressure restricts Russia’s ability to prosecute its illegal invasion. More broadly, we built up a formidable sanctions regime during our time in office and brought in a major new sanctions strategy to deter and disrupt malign behaviour, and it is pleasing that the current Government are continuing those efforts.
On behalf of the United Kingdom, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) hosted the Ukraine recovery conference last year, raising over $60 billion for Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction. This Bill takes a further step forward in our commitments to Ukraine, and does so alongside our allies. It fulfils the United Kingdom’s part of June’s G7 mandate—confirmed by G7 finance Ministers in Washington last month—to disburse for the benefit of Ukraine approximately $50 billion from the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan, or ERA, as the Chief Secretary termed it. The United Kingdom’s share is £2.26 billion, and this is earmarked as budgetary support for Ukraine’s military spending. I understand that it will be in addition to the UK’s existing annual commitment of £3 billion of military aid. Each loan will be in the form of a bilateral loan, but will be based on common principles to ensure consistency and co-ordination between each loan.
We support the Bill and will support the Government if any other party seeks to divide this House, but I would be grateful if the Chief Secretary or the Minister could provide further clarification on several questions. The first is about disbursements to Ukraine under the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan. Point 5 in the annexe to the G7 statement says:
“Loans will be fully disbursed to the benefit of Ukraine between 1 December 2024 and 31 December 2027.”
The whole House will be aware of the current heightened levels of military activity and the urgent demands from Ukraine for assistance, including UK Storm Shadow missiles. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Defence about the timings and scale of distributions?
Secondly, I want to ask about the asset base. Can the Minister update the House on the total value of Russian assets seized by the G7, and on the total assets seized by UK jurisdictions? The last estimates we had were in March 2023, when the total was £48 billion, of which £18 billion was seized by UK jurisdictions. As the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan refers only to sovereign assets, will the Minister tell us what consideration was given to the inclusion of income streams from other seized Russian assets, and why it was determined that they should not be included? Do the commitments made by each G7 country relate to the amount of Russian assets seized or held by a jurisdiction, or are they done on some other basis? If so, what is the basis for those allocations? Can the Minister give some indication of the allocation of seized sovereign assets by type? As they are sovereign assets, I assume that many will be in the form of cash holdings, but there may be properties and other assets. It would be helpful for the House to have some understanding of the allocation of these assets by type.
Thirdly, I want to ask about the use of anticipated income streams from Russian assets to repay the loans. The Bill’s explanatory notes claim:
“The extraordinary profits on the immobilised Russian sovereign assets will then be divided between the G7 lenders in proportion to their contributions. This will happen as the extraordinary profits accrue, on a 6-monthly basis…in three tranches”.
I have three similar questions on this issue. Has there been any modelling of the future flows of anticipated income from seized Russian assets that will be used to repay the loans? Has the Treasury made an assessment of the expected period for their repayment? Can the Minister provide the House with a forecast or estimate for the anticipated revenues available for repayment in each of the tranches?
Fourthly, I want to ask about contingencies. There are five participants in the loan agreement: the UK, the USA, Canada, Japan and the EU. Can the Minister advise whether the terms of the agreement will still stand if one or more of the participants do not ratify it? In the event of a peace settlement, subsequent to disbursements being made, point 12 of the annexe to the ERA loan initiative says that
“the outstanding balances that cannot be covered by extraordinary profits shall be repaid by Ukraine to each lender.”
Can the Minister advise whether that is the case? In such circumstances, what priority will the repayment of these loans have compared with other loans made to Ukraine?
Finally, I want to ask about the Government’s overall defence expenditure. The Government’s Budget committed to setting out a pathway to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP at a future fiscal event. Since then, however, Labour Ministers have been unable to confirm whether it remains Labour’s ambition to meet that target by 2030. Can the Minister confirm whether it is still Labour policy to increase defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP, when that might be reached and whether the commitments contained in this Bill will be included in such estimates?
The principles underlying the Bill are sound. Our commitment to the defence of Ukraine is reinforced. Our prayers are with the people of Ukraine and the cause of peace and freedom. We support the Bill.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
We are now 1,000 days into the Russian invasion of Ukraine and we are entering a crucial period for Ukraine and its people, with the Kursk offensive and Administration change in the United States. I would first like to praise our Government for their evolving strong support for Ukraine, reflecting the needs on the ground. The United Kingdom was the first responder and supporter of Ukraine. The Government’s participation in implementing President Zelensky’s 10-point victory plan is very welcome. Ensuring that the war does not last indefinitely and ends on fair terms is crucial. MPs of all parties work closely on campaigns around aid, sanctions, seizure of assets and so much more.
There is the potential that Ukraine could lose 50% of its military aid support from its international allies. The UK and other supportive nations struggle to make up the shortfall from our own stores. If this remains the case, Ukraine will slowly lose the ability to defend itself. Russia will increase and intensify its atrocities across the country. Where will Russia stop? The increasing rhetoric from the Kremlin needs a robust response. It has been shown again and again to take advantage of perceived weakness. Now, 1,000 days into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we can take the first step in unlocking frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. I welcome today’s Bill, which will ensure that the loans made will be repaid with the Russian state’s assets currently frozen in the UK.
The G7 must act collectively on this. At the start of the war, approximately $300 billion of Russian central bank reserves were frozen in the west. We need a route to mobilise these reserves. We must understand how other states have been able to disclose the amount of Russian central bank reserves they hold. We need to know how many billions of pounds of Russian reserves reside in the City of London. Canada has passed the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations, which collects data on Russian assets, freezes them and publishes the value, which currently stands at 135 billion Canadian dollars frozen in Canada. Can the Government move to disclose the level of Russian assets held here in a similar way?
I also wish to call for the seizure of Russian central bank reserves to pay for the defence of Ukraine. Many Governments are seizing the profit generated from the frozen money and using that to back Ukraine. The US has passed legislation giving the President the power to do that, and I welcome this legislation, which will move us in the same direction. In the UK, we also have £2.5 billion frozen from the sale of Chelsea football club. If unlocked, it could create the second wealthiest charity in Britain, but it remains frozen in a UK bank account. Can the Minister outline what steps he is taking to immediately release this funding, which would provide much-needed humanitarian aid to Ukraine? In Ukraine, winter is not coming; winter is here.
We must decide on a route to mobilise the UK’s seizure of Russian assets. The estimated cost of reconstruction in Ukraine is at least $486 billion over the next decade, and growing every day. We must begin the process of confiscating the Russian central bank reserves in the UK with this Bill. Defending Ukraine’s democracy is defending our democracy. I look forward to the potential of this Bill to be a route to mobilising billions of pounds of Russian central bank reserves. Can the Minister clarify the position on whether the loans in the Bill today will be in the form of a recourse or non-recourse loan?
The Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill allows the UK to fulfil our commitment made in the June 2024 G7 loan agreement to Ukraine. The UK’s expected contribution under this agreement is approximately £2.26 billion, which Ukraine can decide to utilise for its defence. We have Russian central bank deposits in the Bank of England, as well as Russian bonds that have matured and the funds deposited in UK commercial banks. Can the Minister outline when we will legislate to seize these assets for the defence and reconstruction of Ukraine, as they dwarf the sums we are debating today? I conclude by again thanking Ministers in the Treasury, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence for their stalwart support of Ukraine. Slava Ukraini!
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, James MacCleary.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Yesterday, Ukraine entered its 1,000th day since the start of Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion, and it is about to enter its toughest winter yet. This Bill represents a significant and welcome step in providing much-needed financial support to Ukraine as it continues its courageous resistance. It will deliver tangible assistance during this critical phase of the conflict, providing a vital lifeline to our Ukrainian allies.
Before the war, my partner and I had the good fortune to travel in Ukraine, visiting both Kyiv and Odesa. We visited modern cities similar to any other in Europe, so the sight of ordinary Ukrainian families being forced, at the start of the Russian attack, to shelter in the Kyiv underground stations that we had both so recently used for sightseeing in that beautiful city was both shocking and moving for us. It also brought home why the UK’s unwavering support for Ukraine is so essential, not just for the brave people of that nation but for all of us. If liberal democratic nations do not stand together against tyranny and aggression, the tyrants will feel no constraint and the citizens of other European nations, including potentially the UK, might find that they are the ones forced into underground stations looking for shelter.
The Liberal Democrats support this Bill and its intent, but we are disappointed that it has taken so long to come to the House. My noble Friend Lord Purvis of Tweed raised this issue back in January, some 10 months ago, but now the Bill is finally here, we are pleased to see that it demonstrates a commitment to ensuring that those responsible for Ukraine’s devastation—Russia and its oligarch elites—should, at the very least, contribute financially to Ukraine’s recovery. However, we believe the Bill does not go far enough.
The UK should consider seizing all frozen Russian assets, not just their profits, and redirect them to aid Ukraine. With around £22 billion-worth of such assets currently held in the UK alone, the Government are missing a significant opportunity to amplify their support. Distinguished international lawyers have made a strong case for this step.
Although some economists have expressed concern about repercussions in the financial markets, we believe that, given the very specific circumstances of this conflict, the justification and the benefits far outweigh those concerns. Such action would provide an immediate and substantial financial boost to President Zelensky’s forces and Ukraine’s reconstruction efforts, while sending a clear message to the Kremlin that aggression against sovereign nations will have severe and lasting consequences. We therefore also back the calls for a special tribunal to prosecute those responsible for Russia’s war of aggression and to ensure accountability for the heinous crimes committed.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently called for the UK to lead by example in supporting Ukraine, extending it beyond financial assistance to include military, diplomatic and humanitarian measures. The provision of advanced weaponry, including longer-range precision arms, is critical to Ukraine’s success. We must also bolster British arms and ammunition supplies, work closely with our allies to replenish stockpiles, and maintain Ukraine’s defensive capabilities. It is essential that we co-ordinate effectively with NATO and the European Union to maximize collective impact, which is why I urge the Government to be bolder in their efforts to rebuild our relationship with the EU, including by deepening our security and military co-operation.
We urge the Government to build an international consensus for the proscription of the Wagner Group, whose activities represent a grave threat to international security. The UK must also take a strong stance against Russia’s continuing human rights violations and support anti-war activists within Russia, many of whom face persecution for their bravery. Offering asylum to such individuals and raising their cases in international forums is not only a moral imperative but a strategic means of undermining the Kremlin’s control.
It is vital to recognise that supporting Ukraine financially and militarily should not come at the expense of other nations in need. Restoring the 0.7% gross national income target for international development spending is a crucial step towards ensuring that humanitarian aid to Ukraine does not result in the neglect of our wider global responsibilities. The Government’s failure to meet this target undermines Britain’s reputation as a global leader in development and humanitarian support.
The Liberal Democrats also urge the Government to take robust action to close the loopholes in economic crime legislation that have allowed Putin’s allies to funnel dirty money through the UK for far too long. A Financial Times investigation published yesterday revealed that companies in British overseas territories exported $134 million-worth of goods to Russia in 2024, potentially breaching UK sanctions aimed at restricting access to military and high-tech supplies. I call on the Minister to give an undertaking that the Government will look to address these violations and close these loopholes.
The National Crime Agency must be properly resourced to tackle economic crime effectively, and Magnitsky sanctions should be used to target relatives and associates who attempt to evade existing measures. This is about far more than financial probity; it is about standing up for the rule of law and ensuring that our financial system cannot be used to bankroll aggression.
This Bill comes at a moment of uncertainty. The possibility of diminished US support for Ukraine, following the recent election and the imminent return of Donald Trump to the presidency, is deeply concerning. Should the United States falter in its support, Europe must step up. This should serve as a wake-up call for the UK Government to lead in Europe by seizing frozen Russian assets, reversing damaging cuts to our armed forces and strengthening co-operation with both NATO and the European Union on security and foreign policy.
With a hard winter ahead, time is of the essence. The UK must not waver in its commitment to Ukraine. This is about more than financial assistance; it is about justice, accountability and the preservation of international law. This Bill is a vital step forward, but it must not be the final word.
We must demonstrate bold leadership by acting decisively to ensure that Ukraine not only survives but prevails, and that the principles of sovereignty, freedom and democracy endure. Let this Bill be the beginning of a renewed and united effort to support Ukraine. By seizing frozen Russian assets, providing advanced military support and working closely with our allies, we can help Ukraine to secure a lasting victory and ensure a future of peace, stability and justice for Europe and beyond. Let us rise to this challenge for Ukraine, for Europe and for the values we hold dear.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Linsey Farnsworth to make her maiden speech.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to be called to make my maiden speech in this most important debate, and it is an honour to represent the people of Amber Valley in this House.
I am proud to be part of a Government with five missions, but my sixth mission is to put Amber Valley firmly on the map. Any Members who have had the misfortune to sit with me in the Tea Room will know exactly where Amber Valley is, because it is my practice to suffix its name with “in Derbyshire”. In fact, Amber Valley is known as the heart of Derbyshire, and deservedly so, because not only is it right in the middle of our wonderful county, but its people have the biggest hearts. They are among the most friendly people in the world, but they are also unyielding. It is no surprise that they are descendants of those involved in the last revolution in England, the Pentrich revolution of 1817, during which a group of constituents plotted an armed uprising, angry about the state of the economy and demanding parliamentary reform. Hon. Members will understand my relief at being part of a Government who are committed to making people better off and reforming the House of Lords.
Originally a mining area, the local economy has since developed a diverse industrial base. I am delighted we are driving forward our industrial strategy, so that businesses such as those headquartered in Amber Valley can thrive. Firms such as Thorntons Chocolates, Denby Pottery, Bowmer and Kirkland, Berry Recycling, National Gas and David Nieper provide employment.
The last of those companies lends its name to a school in Alfreton, which it oversees. That is a fine example of business supporting the local community. The school’s ethos is to ensure children can raise their aspirations, breaking down the barriers to opportunity. That is so important for our young people in Amber Valley. Youth services have been cut back, and the gap that has been left is filled by the hard work and dedication of local people, such as James at Ayup in Alfreton, and Chrissie and Mikey at Old Farm Bus in Ripley Marehay.
I am the fourth MP for Amber Valley. The first, Phillip Oppenheim, is credited for having brought the mojito to the UK. I cannot promise to do anything so exciting when I leave this place, beyond perhaps sampling one or two of those in our new bar in Alfreton. It is aptly named the Moot Bar, by virtue of its overlooking the marketplace, where moot hearings, which are believed to have led to the modern day jury system, were held to settle disputes and try offenders. It is a fitting place for a former Crown prosecutor such as myself to frequent.
The second MP was Judy Mallaber, of my party, who still makes a huge contribution to our community. Judy worked hard for the introduction of the minimum wage. I am delighted this Government are building on that legacy, increasing the national living wage and introducing the biggest improvement of workers’ rights in a generation.
Most recently, Amber Valley was represented by Nigel Mills. Nigel is a thoroughly decent man, who served as a dedicated constituency MP for 14 years. He is rightly proud of being the longest serving MP for Amber Valley. I wish him well.
We have heard mention in many maiden speeches of firsts—the first female MP, the first MP for a new constituency and even the first MP with a beard. In that spirit, I found myself looking for mine. Could I be the first Crown prosecutor to enter Parliament? Rumour has it that someone has beaten me to that particular accolade. I am relieved that you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I also found myself googling whether I am the first MP named Linsey. I hope that does not affect my chances of Mr Speaker calling me in the future. I am, however, the first Amber Valley MP to have been born in the constituency—technically. I was born in Ilkeston, a town now in neighbouring Erewash, but at the time Ilkeston was a constituency with my three towns, so I was technically born in the constituency, but perhaps that is a lawyer’s argument.
The Labour party was formed to give ordinary people a voice and to improve lives. My dad is David Farnsworth and he would say that he is an ordinary man. He also has a catchphrase: “Let me tell you a little tale.” To coin his catchphrase, I would like to tell the House a little tale about the Labour party through the life of that so-called ordinary man.
There has been much debate about what a working person is, but I know it when I see it: it is my dad. Originally a coalminer, like so many others he went into the dark so that his children’s lights would shine. I am pleased the Government are returning the pension fund to miners such as my dad and the 772 former mineworkers in Amber Valley. Righting that wrong was a manifesto commitment—and we are keeping our promises.
Our lives changed when I was 12 and my mum Margaret was diagnosed with cancer. She was one of the most caring people, always putting others first. Her late diagnosis was a result of her not wanting to be a burden on our already overstretched NHS. She died less than two months later. I do not want any family in Amber Valley to go through that. This Government will get our NHS back on its feet—we must.
After my mum died and the pits closed, my dad was out of work. The Labour Government gave him the opportunity to retrain as a bricklayer. He attended what was then South East Derbyshire College in Heanor, in a beautiful Victorian building. Long since closed and left derelict, it is now being refurbished and will house small businesses and provide community space. Together with the newly renovated marketplace, the Labour-controlled borough council is ensuring that Heanor town centre will be a welcoming place for residents to visit, while boosting our local economy.
My dad went on to build hundreds of houses and, had he not retired, I am sure he would be building his fair share of the 1.5 million homes that we have promised to provide within this Parliament. My dad would say that he is an ordinary man. I say “would say” because he cannot any more. Dementia has taken his voice. My wonderful stepmum Kate cares for him. She is one of the 5.2 million unpaid carers in the UK. I am glad that this Government are improving carer’s allowance, but we must go further and create a national care service.
My dad would say that he is an ordinary man. I say that he is extraordinary, for it is his values and guidance that have led me to this place. My upbringing instilled in me a drive—a drive to make society fairer. That led me to serve as a Crown prosecutor for 21 years, working to secure justice for victims. It was, until my election to this place, the greatest honour of my life. I intend to continue to fight for justice, to fight for those suffering injustice and to use my voice for the people of Amber Valley.
My goal to combat injustice extends particularly to the people of Ukraine. I visited Ukraine in September with fellow Labour MPs. We saw the human suffering of war: the homes destroyed, the children’s cardiology hospital bombed while young children were on the operating table, the cellar of a school where civilians were held captive by Russian troops in the most appalling conditions. Ukraine is defending herself, but she is also defending us, our values and our freedoms. We must do everything we can to support Ukraine both now and for the rebuild after the conflict is over, and I fully support the Bill.
We must deliver on our promises to rebuild trust in politics and show that it can be a force for good. My children have given me the affectionate nickname, “the vicious dictator”. I am not sure whether I am best placed to lead on this, but I shall try. I promise, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my home is not a dictatorship, but it can be seen through a political lens. My eldest son once made a placard at bedtime with the slogan, “We want another story and we want it now”. He was a strong campaigner even at the tender age of 10—he is now 17. My youngest son is an effective lobbyist, as his collection of trainers will attest. My stepdaughter is chief whip, managing to bring together the boys even in the most challenging of debates. My brilliant husband Martin makes a wonderful Speaker of our House, keeping order and holding it all together. We all know that politics is all-consuming and hugely onerous on families. The love, understanding and support that Martin and our children have given me has been integral to my being in this place.
No maiden speech for Amber Valley would be complete without mentioning Butterley Engineering, around which the town of Ripley was founded. Sadly no longer open, it leaves behind a blast furnace wall and an underground wharf, both now scheduled monuments. Friends of Butterley Ironworks Trust are hoping to turn this heritage into good use with a visitors’ centre. I will happily support them with that. Butterley Ironworks may be gone, but there is a reminder for me twice weekly, as I walk under the iron arches in St Pancras train station and pass the sign that reads, “Manufactured by the Butterley Company, Derbyshire, 1867”. The majesty of those iron arches is a constant link between representing Amber Valley in this place and the people responsible for sending me here, who I thank greatly and promise to serve in the spirit of the Amber Valley motto, “Per laborem progredimur”—"We progress through hard work”.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for her excellent maiden speech. She spoke movingly and touchingly about her father and about dementia, and it is a theme that we must come back to in this House. It is really profound. I also share her admiration for Nigel Mills, who was an excellent predecessor, and she was very magnanimous in her comments about him. I will be sure to see her in the Tea Room to hear more about Derbyshire. Hopefully, she will not be dictating that I drink a Mojito, because I cannot bear them.
I understand that the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill is being steered through the House by the Treasury—quite right too—but I think it would be worth my saying at the outset why the Bill is a positive development in security, defence and foreign affairs.
In December 2021, amid the build-up of Russian troops on the border of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin wrote two letters. He wrote one to the United States and one to NATO. His demands included a Russian veto on NATO membership for Ukraine and the implied removal of US nuclear weapons from Europe and the withdrawal of multinational NATO battalions from Poland and from the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. That would have been completely and utterly unacceptable, and we can only surmise why he might have wanted NATO to act in this way. It is because once ground is taken it is that much harder to take back. Offence is so much more costly than defence.
It is to the issue of costs that we must now turn. The purpose of the Bill is to support the $50 billion G7 initiative launched in June, which represented a co-ordinated effort by the G7 and the EU to support Ukraine. However, with Hungary potentially blocking concerted EU action, I welcome the provision in the Bill that will ensure that future financial assistance extends to any changes in subsequent arrangements, in case we can reach broader consensus later. It is crucial that we collaborate with our EU partners to swiftly advance the agreement.
The Minister talked about the UK being a first mover in this space, which is very welcome, although states such as Estonia, Finland and Czechia worked on it prior to us, and Canada has been a driver of it too. The UK’s £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 arrangement reflects our GDP share, but as a leader in supporting Ukraine, I feel we need to go beyond simply a proportional share. After all, doing so could provide support for Ukraine in place of some taxpayers’ money. It is welcome that the UK is contributing £3 billion annually, and the Government have pledged to maintain that for as long as it takes, but as Zelensky said, why should western taxpayers foot the bill when frozen Russian assets could be confiscated and given for use by Ukraine? The Bill is a positive step, but we should talk about not just future profits generated from frozen Russian assets, but the principle—the assets themselves. The approach set out today uses only a fraction of the $300 billion available, much of which is held at Euroclear central securities depository. To support Ukraine effectively, we must go further. We should repurpose all these assets—not just the profits, but the principle.
Some critics argue that confiscating the funds would pose legal risks. They talk about sovereign immunity—an argument that is also used by some who oppose the prosecution of leaders for the crime of aggression—but sovereign immunity should also apply when thinking about the sovereignty of states. Legally, we have to think about how Russia violated international law. It violated the UN charter and blatantly breached the charter’s principle of state sovereignty. It is estimated that Russia has already caused £400 billion worth of damage—that is what will be required to rebuild Ukraine—and Russia will ultimately have to pay to make good that damage, but what use will the frozen assets be to Ukraine if Ukraine no longer exists? The goal cannot be only to rebuild Ukraine from the rubble, but to help Ukrainians prevent their country from turning to ash.
Some argue that confiscating the assets could destabilise global markets, or deter other nations from holding reserves in western financial institutions in the future, but those fears are overstated, and need to be weighed against the risk of doing nothing. The dominance of western financial systems remains robust. Alternatives such as China’s renminbi lack the stability and scale of the US dollar. Cryptocurrencies are too volatile to be a viable alternative, so the risk of inaction should be thought of in terms of what has happened in global markets since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. There was a very wobbly period, including here in the UK with the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which was partly about supporting people with their energy bills. At the time, the Government felt that they had to provide such support because of the rise in the price of gas caused by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Again, we cannot just suppose that doing nothing will have no consequences. There are concerns that confiscation could reduce our leverage in future peace negotiations, but this war first needs to be won. This is not the Gulf war in 1991 when frozen assets were used to compensate Kuwait; this war is still not determined.
Other states considering investing in western institutions have nothing to fear if they have no intention of invading their neighbours. As things stand, Russia has shown little interest in meaningful dialogue. To simply wait and keep the assets as a negotiating tool is naive and defeatist. By repurposing the assets now, we not only support Ukraine’s immediate needs, but reinforce the principle that aggression must not pay and that nuclear sabre-rattling is completely unacceptable.
As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), said, the geopolitical context underscores the urgency of the moment. Trump commented in March that he sees US isolationism as attractive. When talking to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) on GB News, he said,
“We have an ocean in between some problems… a nice big, beautiful ocean.”
With the United States facing questions about whether its support for Ukraine could be reduced or even diminish, we need to think further about what more we can do with our European allies. Acting now to unlock the full potential of Russian assets would provide Ukraine with a financial lifeline insulating it from shifts in political will elsewhere in the world.
The Bill highlights the importance of collaboration with our European partners. As the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), pointed out, UK taxpayers have already contributed over £12 billion in aid to Ukraine since February 2022, but our absence from EU defence frameworks limits our ability to co-ordinate effectively with those European allies. We could use some of the confiscated frozen assets to support joint procurement, perhaps associating with some of the frameworks, such as the European Defence Agency. Shared management of those confiscated funds would ensure transparency, accountability and maximum impact. The future profit funds, suggested as a base for the Bill, are scheduled to be disbursed between December 2024 and 2027. That timeline does not match the urgency of Ukraine’s need.
Just last weekend, we saw Russia’s largest attack on Ukrainian infrastructure in months. Russia launched 120 missiles and 90 drones. Three weeks ago, the Finnish Government took a bold step by confiscating $4.5 billion in Russian assets, making Finland one of the first countries to take decisive action. The Finnish confiscation must surely be hitting Russia where it hurts, and we should follow the examples set by Finland, Czechia and Estonia, working together to confiscate those Russian assets—including the principal, not just the interest.
The stakes could not be higher: Ukraine’s fight is a fight for eastern Europe and the west more broadly. It is a fight for the principles of democracy, sovereignty and international law that underpin global peace and security. I welcome the Bill, but it is vital that the provisions align with the goal of confiscating all Russian assets to support Ukraine financially. Let us rise to the challenge, demonstrate solidarity with Ukraine, and show leadership on the global stage and unwavering friendship to our European allies. By collaborating with those European allies to confiscate Russian assets, we can help pave the way for an outcome that makes it plain to any Government who are watching that aggression does not pay.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have heard the beautiful maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), whose father must be really proud.
It is excellent to hear the details of the Bill, but Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine is absolutely terrifying. We must not buy into a narrative of peace on Russia’s terms; that would be tantamount to appeasement. A sovereign, democratic country ceding territory to an aggressive imperial country basically takes us back to world war two—an idea that I find absolutely terrifying. It would completely embolden Putin, and eastern Europe and the Baltic would be next on his target list.
It is completely right to say that defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. We are doing everything we can to support Ukraine. It was great to hear about the 50,000 Ukrainian troops who have been trained by the UK through Operation Interflex, and I am glad that that policy is being extended. It is excellent to hear about the military support that we are providing to Ukraine, including the Storm Shadow missiles that we are hearing about in the media at the moment. I trained on those weapons, and I hope that they can help to take the fight to the Russians. It is also excellent to hear that we are providing financial support of £12.8 billion, as well as an additional £2.26 billion from interest on seized Russian assets.
Unfortunately, 1,000 days since the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian economy is, despite sanctions, doing better than many of us expected at the start of the conflict. However, the Russians do face challenges, including the highest casualty rate since the conflict began, higher interest rates, and now a labour shortage in the Russian economy. We must sustain our support for Ukraine and increase the pressure on Russia, which cannot be allowed to succeed.
The Bill is an important step in sustaining our support for Ukraine. The £2.26 billion will help Ukraine to invest in air defence, artillery and other military equipment. I fully support the Bill, but I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What more can be done to seize frozen Russian assets? I think in particular of the £2.25 billion from the sale of Chelsea football club, and other assets that must be held in the City of London. We must use everything in our arsenal, and I would like the UK Government to do more to seize and use such assets, rather than using just the interest, as we are committed to doing at the moment. Will she confirm whether this is a non-recourse or recourse loan? It is important that, if the interest from Russian assets is not what we expect it to be, there is no expectation on the Ukrainians, given all the difficulties that they are facing, to repay the bill.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on her maiden speech. It was so lovely to hear about her family. I was encouraged to hear about her revolutionary constituents who were keen on parliamentary reform. They will certainly have plenty of support from Scottish National party Members in those ambitions.
I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill to the Chamber. We are now 1,000 days on from the full-scale invasion, but it has been well over 10 years since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine. I reassert First Minister John Swinney’s acknowledgment of that anniversary yesterday, and the continued commitment to Ukraine of my party and the Scottish Government. This issue cuts across the Chamber, and it is good to see so much unanimity on it.
Why is that important? Because the Ukrainians are fighting for each and every one of us who values democracy, liberty and independence across Europe. They are the frontline defending us and those we represent, as well as our friends and colleagues around Europe. Sometimes, it is easy to lose sight of that. The Bill is about aiding Ukraine, but it is also about investing in our own security. This is a national security issue, and it is a good investment for us.
Let us think for a moment about the consequences of not supplying, arming and providing finance to Ukraine. It would mean a collapse and one of the worst refugee crises that Europe has ever experienced. It would mean a hit to the rules-based system, which I suspect those of us who believe in that system would see as difficult to recover from. Bluntly, it would mean a broadening of the war. Vladimir Putin is not stopping in Ukraine in the same way that he did not stop in Georgia, Chechnya, Syria, Libya—you name it.
Although we are absolutely supportive of the Bill, which certainly has my party’s support, I will pick up on a couple of points that have been raised, on which clarification would be helpful. I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), who said that this Bill does not go far enough. From an arms and security perspective, we often provide supplies to Ukraine that allow it to fight and not lose the war, but not to win it. That goes for the arms and the finances being supplied.
I will pick up on a point made quite rightly by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). There are $300 billion-worth of frozen assets. I know that the Minister will not be able to pick up on this today, and it is not part of the Bill, but I encourage her to come back to the Chamber at some point and provide us with an update. She will find that she has support across the Chamber. I know that this issue is not easy and is about building links with other partners, and there will be some resistance to that, but the amount of money in the Bill, which I acknowledge is an important contribution, is dwarfed in scale by the amount of finances that it could provide by unfreezing those assets.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth also made a point about sovereign immunity. Russia gave up its sovereign immunity when it launched the full-scale invasion and therefore forced this war on the sovereignty of Ukraine. We also have the principle of the universality of certain crimes, and we have seen allegations about universal crimes committed in Ukraine, with very substantial evidence. That is obviously a matter for the International Criminal Court, but I encourage lawyers to look into the principle of universality on some of the issues in that area. I know that the Minister is sympathetic and that this is not entirely as simple as many of us would like it to be, but from the comments we have heard from across the Chamber, there appears to be a great deal of support for the unfreezing of those assets. It would be fantastic to see the UK Government provide leadership in that area.
I also point to the fact that we have seen fantastic leadership from the Czechs, Estonians and Finns. What makes their leadership so compelling is that they know what happens if we give in to Russian aggression. They know at first hand and have generational knowledge within living memory of what happens when we give in to this kind of aggression. I encourage the Minister to look into that and endorse the points made about the sale of the proceeds from Chelsea football club, which is also very significant. That $300 billion would be transformative in helping Ukraine to fight this war for all of us.
I also ask the Minister about the broader finance issue of the effectiveness of sanctions. We know that Russia has been able to get around sanctions, but we must redouble our efforts. I make reference to a report that I was involved in writing when I sat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which was on Moscow’s gold and dirty money. There were allegations about some of that money was going through London. I refer the Minister’s Treasury colleagues to have a look at that; it was a very good bit of work undertaken on a cross-party basis. This issue is crucial.
My final point is that our time is limited. We have a new Administration coming in in the United States in January, and we know that the signs are not entirely promising in terms of the support that we have seen from the United States in recent years. This war should actually have been a wake-up call to all of us in Europe 10 years ago. Given the fact that we have had this election in the United States, we are very late to the party on this issue, but we have a huge responsibility to pull together as Europeans. The Ukrainians are on the frontline and deserve our support. This is an investment in our own security. I absolutely support the Bill, but we need to go that little bit further.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on her fantastic maiden speech. She is a really powerful advocate for her constituents. She talked movingly about her father losing his voice, but she has certainly found hers in this place. I was with her on that visit to Ukraine in September, and I still find it incredible that in this day and age, in 2024, it is possible to visit the capital city of a fellow democracy on the European continent and hear air raid sirens and see civilians—women and children—heading for air raid shelters. That is the dystopian future that Vladimir Putin has set out for Ukraine in this terrible war, but also potentially for the rest of the continent if we do not get our act together.
Several times this afternoon, hon. Members have made the powerful point that this is an existential war for the people of Ukraine. They are not fighting for some unforeseeable future, but to ensure their national independence and preserve their sovereignty. Some 3 million Ukrainians are living under occupation at the moment, and the people of Ukraine know what the full occupation of their country would entail: the destruction of their national life and of their liberty. We know this because, despite Vladimir Putin’s mendaciousness, he has set out time and again his historical worldview—his perverted sense of world history and Russian revanchism. There is the essay that he published just before the invasion and the strange speech he gave on the eve of the invasion itself, in which he basically posited the idea that Ukraine was not a real country. Well, it has very much proved to be a real country, and it has defeated him in his evil ambitions for the past two years.
Because this war is existential and because it is crucial for the defence of this country, we have a duty to be realistic. I do not expect Ministers to comment on this today, but we in this Chamber are all very much aware that there has been a sea change in American politics, and that the comments from people who will either be part of the future Administration, or are likely to be part of it, suggest that the United States’ support for Ukraine might not be what it has been. That brings me to the issue that the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) mentioned, which is that we are running up against the clock. We have limited time. We have to be realistic: there is a new Administration coming in, so Europe has to pick up the slack and provide greater leadership.
However, we are also seeing massive changes in Europe. On the day that President Trump was elected, the German Government began to fall apart, and in France, we are seeing a presidency stumble towards the end of its term. The United Kingdom is the country that has to provide the leadership in Europe on these matters, as it has done since the start of the war, but we need to go even further.
The support that Ukraine gets at the moment is already subject to so many restrictions. It has been drip-fed to them over the past two years, rather than giving them what they need right away, which has potentially made the war longer. We have not given the Ukrainians the tools they have needed when they have asked for them. Ukrainians talk about the “long yes”, where European partners say “Yes, of course” and promise delivery of arms, but those arms take months or even years to arrive and make a difference on the battlefield. I wonder whether we would be in a different place if all the systems that have eventually been given to Ukraine had been given at the start of the war.
This Bill is absolutely crucial, as various Members have said, and I support it. I think it is extremely important, but Members have also talked about going further with Russian assets. I can completely understand why, a year or 18 months ago, it might have been rational to think that those assets could be used during the peace negotiations—that they could potentially be the source of funding for rebuilding Ukraine. However, as Members have pointed out several times, there may not be a Ukraine if this war is not won. That is why we have to give serious consideration to unlocking those funds and using them now for the defence of Ukraine.
The last time this country was fighting for its life, in 1940, there was also a presidential election. We were much luckier back then, because both the Democratic and Republican candidates were stalwart allies of the UK in its fight against fascism. This election has changed things, but going back to that time, when President Roosevelt announced lend-lease, he said that when your neighbour’s house is on fire, you do not haggle over the cost of the hose. You give them the hose—you give them what they need to put out the fire—and then you go back to the details later. That is the attitude European partners should have towards the defence of Ukraine.
Earlier today, I mentioned that one of the Defence Ministers has said that the world is becoming darker every day. If this war is not won, the world will be plunged into darkness, because it will send an incredibly dangerous message to other autocracies around the world about the rules-based order and “might is right”, and the refugee crisis that we see here in Europe at the moment will pale into insignificance as millions of Ukrainians flee the prospect of living under Vladimir Putin’s tyranny. As such, I welcome this Bill, but like many colleagues, I hope to see Britain’s leadership continue to grow and for us to go further, seizing Russian assets and giving the Ukrainian people what they need.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I, too, start by congratulating the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). Every time I hear someone give a maiden speech in this Chamber, I am really heartened by the passion and expertise of the new intake. As I said in my maiden speech, it is clear that we are going to have not just a good Parliament, but a great Parliament. I look forward to it very much. I welcome the Minister’s speech and the Bill. As is usual on Ukraine, there is agreement across the House. I was not quite expecting this degree of agreement on going further—on not just seizing interest or making loans, but going after assets.
This Bill fulfils the UK’s part of an agreement that the G7 made in June, and we of course want to fulfil our commitments. However, the commitment in that agreement was made before the recent election in the US. As many Members across the House have said, including most recently the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), the security calculus that Europe has applied for the last 80 years has now changed. We can no longer rely on an American security umbrella. NATO is the cornerstone of our defence—there is no disagreement about that in the House. The Government talks of NATO first, but NATO does not work without an American security guarantee, American logistics, or the American backbone that runs through it. It is the same with Ukraine. Since the outbreak of the war in February 2022, the United States has provided approximately 50% of the support for Ukraine. The UK led; that is something that the previous right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip got absolutely right. However, we now face a world in which that support may be withdrawn, and that is not just a supposition. President-elect Trump has said that the Russians can
“do whatever the hell they want”
in Europe. This is a huge problem. We should have woken up to this five or 10 years ago. The fact that we are dealing with it now—well, I hope we are—should arouse the interest of Members in the Chamber today.
I want to outline what the consequences may be of a withdrawal of US support from Ukraine. We may end up with a grubby little deal that would involve taking a marker pen and drawing through Ukraine on a map. The problem with that is that this war is not about territory; those who understand it to be about territory misunderstand it. It is about identity. Russia sees Ukraine as part of its imperial identity. If Ukraine exists as an independent country, then Russia does not exist as an imperial country. It is that simple. We are trying to define the conflict by way of territory, but that it is not how Vladimir Putin sees it.
We may end up with a grubby deal; in effect, the US will withdraw support, and Ukraine will be forced to come to the negotiating table. A line will be drawn on the map through Kharkiv, Donbas and Kherson. However, Vladimir Putin will not stop there. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are all allies of ours that the United Kingdom has pledged to defend through NATO, under article 5. If Putin took a bite from Lithuania, and Britain and France stepped forward to defend it, as we are pledged to do under article 5, we would have a huge problem if we then heard from Washington that the US would not follow us.
Even if we do not get a grubby deal that empowers Vladimir Putin, we could end up with the collapse of the Ukrainian frontlines, if the Americans withdraw their support and the Ukrainians decide to fight on. If I was Ukrainian, I would fight on, because of what the Russians did in Bucha and their kidnapping of Ukrainian children. The Ukrainians may fight on, but the frontlines may collapse.
The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) spoke about a refugee crisis. The UN in Kyiv recently carried out a study of the crisis that could follow a collapse of the Ukrainian domestic power system. As we know, the Russians are targeting it at the moment. The UN estimated that between 5 million and 10 million Ukrainians would leave and move into western Europe—and that is just on the collapse of the power system. What would occur if the frontlines collapsed and the murderous, genocidal Russian army started to rampage through western Ukraine?
If we step outside Europe and look at possible consequences of a Ukrainian defeat, we can see that the idea of nuclear proliferation being kept under wraps, which we have cherished for the past 50, 60 or 70 years, would be under threat. The lesson we learn from the conflict is that if a state has nuclear weapons, it can bully its way into invading other states. Iran and other countries will see this and think, “That is something we need to get.” Colleagues have mentioned other autocratic states. China is watching what is happening in Ukraine carefully, as well as the western, European and American response. If we lose in Ukraine, we can kiss goodbye to Taiwan.
This is an existential conflict for Ukraine, in which it must succeed. The Bill goes some way to helping with that, but not far enough. The west collectively has $300 billion of Russian assets. Some $200 billion of those are in Belgium in Euroclear. To put that in context, the US has to date donated or pledged to donate approximately $180 billion to Ukraine, so the total amount of Russian assets we hold is 50% more than the total spend so far from the United States on the war. Given that we may well be losing US support for Ukraine, with all the second-order effects that has for our security, why are we not considering much more carefully sequestering and using those assets for the defence of Ukraine? If not now, when?
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on her excellent maiden speech? I have heard that former Crown prosecutors can go far in this place, and I am sure that she will.
I rise to speak in strong support of the Bill, and I am grateful to colleagues for showing their support for it, because it is essential to the UK’s continued steadfast support for Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia’s illegal and brutal invasion. Through the Bill, the Labour Government will ensure that funds derived from sanctioned Russian sovereign assets—assets that were once used to fuel Putin’s war machine—will help Ukraine in its fight for freedom. That is not only morally right but in Britian’s national interest, as so many hon. Members have said. Supporting Ukraine means supporting the frontline of our democracy and our shared values of liberty and self-determination.
Most Members of the House recognise that it is critical to stand with Ukraine, but I am deeply disappointed that some question our unwavering support. Some have suggested that concessions should be made on both sides in this war, as if there is some kind of equivalence between Ukraine’s fight for its freedom and Russia’s criminal and illegal invasion. Let us be absolutely clear that calls for concessions send the wrong message to Ukraine, the world and future generations. These calls undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, reward Putin’s recklessness and disregard the horrific suffering that has been inflicted on the Ukrainian people.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention what the future holds. We all want peace, Ukrainians above all, but that peace must be based on justice, and we in this House must commit to that. The message from this House today should not be about the Ukrainians under pressure from Russian troops, but about our commitment in this House to them. We can influence the United States President to ensure that things look more positive for Ukraine. Does the hon. Member agree that that has to be the message that we send from this House?
Jacob Collier
I now have a parliamentary medal: I have taken an intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am grateful, and I agree with what he said.
Some of the views that we hear are a dangerous form of appeasement that only emboldens the aggressor and undermines the cause of peace, freedom and democracy. That weakens Ukraine, our position and the values that we in this House should defend. We must reject such defeatism and appeasement, and we must stand firm in the face of tyranny, for Ukraine and for the values that we hold dear in this democracy. To do anything less is to surrender our ideals, and that is not an option.
The Bill demonstrates that this Government are committed to doing the opposite. It builds on our already substantial support, including £3 billion in annual military aid and £2.3 billion in additional funding, drawn from immobilised Russian assets. It also enables the UK’s £2.26 billion contribution to the G7’s extraordinary loan scheme. This funding will directly support Ukraine’s defence by providing vital air defence systems, artillery and armoured vehicles. That support is vital, not only for Ukraine but for the security of the UK and the wider world. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury rightly highlighted, a safe and secure Ukraine means a safe and secure United Kingdom.
It is testament to our country’s leadership on the global stage, and a point of pride, that the issue has had cross-party support in this Parliament. The Prime Minister’s commitment to continued military aid, and the UK’s role in driving the largest sanctions package ever imposed on a major economy, reflect our iron-clad determination to hold Russia to account. Putin is now 1,000 days into a war that he thought would last just a few. His miscalculation has drained Russia’s economy; 40% of its annual budget is now consumed by the war effort. His forces have suffered their highest rate of casualties since the conflict began. This is no time for us to falter.
I pay tribute to the bravery of the Ukrainian armed forces, and the crucial work of the UK armed forces in training their Ukrainian counterparts. Let me say how proud I am of our troops’ vital contributions to Ukraine’s defence efforts—a pride that was reinforced by my visit to the 29th Regiment Royal Logistic Corps and the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines. Seeing their dedication at first hand was a reminder of the professionalism and commitment of our armed forces, who are making a tangible difference in Ukraine’s fight for freedom. The unity of this House, our Government and our allies is essential to ensure that Ukraine has the resources that it needs to prevail. Let us send a clear message today: Britain will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on her wonderful maiden speech—actually, I have actually shifted up to sit in her spot so that I can accept all the plaudits that are coming from others. Yesterday marked 1,000 days since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. One thousand days later, missiles and bombs continue to rain down on sleeping civilians, Ukraine’s critical energy infrastructure is targeted, and in the south and east of the country, approximately 3 million Ukrainians live in occupied territories, where their human rights are routinely violated. The Ukrainians living under occupation must be liberated. Ukrainians across the rest of the country must be able to move on with their lives in peace, without fear of being bombarded.
The Bill provides the Government with the spending authority to provide an additional £2.26 billion in financial assistance to Ukraine, paid for not by the British taxpayer, but through the extraordinary profits made on immobilised Russian sovereign assets. Many of my Rushcliffe constituents will welcome this very serious and sensible proposal, which gives Ukrainians more tools to defend themselves, and would join some of the calls today to look at ways in which we may be able to go still further.
I trust that the House will join me in paying tribute to the Ukrainian armed forces who are fighting so valiantly to defend their country and their democracy, and to the members of our UK armed forces who are involved in training Ukrainian armed forces in the UK through Operation Interflex, which has now trained more than 50,000 Ukrainian recruits. That includes Nottinghamshire armed forces personnel, such as Corporal James Noble of C Company 4 Mercian, who spoke publicly about the training. Describing its impact, he recalled:
“Completely out of the blue, a Ukrainian soldier came over to me with a picture on his phone and said: ‘This is my wife and this is my young child. Thanks to you and what you’ve done, I have a much greater chance of living to see them again.’”
In Rushcliffe, many of my constituents will welcome the Bill. Since the full-scale invasion started, over 300 Ukrainians fleeing the war have been sponsored by Rushcliffe residents as part of the Homes for Ukraine scheme. From a solidarity march in West Bridgford to a concert for Ukraine in Keyworth that raised £1,800, so many of my constituents have done what they can to support the Ukrainian people and they will welcome the Government using profits made on immobilised Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine during its darkest hour.
We have the opportunity today to progress legislation that will unlock vital additional funding for Ukraine to invest in more of the equipment that it needs to defend itself from Russia’s illegal invasion. That additional funding comes on top of the UK’s existing £3 billion a year for military aid for Ukraine. Our support for Ukraine is iron-clad, as it should be. I therefore support the Government and commend the Bill to the House.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I wish to associate myself with the comments of many other Members who congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on her wonderful maiden speech. She spoke particularly movingly about the impact that being in this place has on our families. I am sure that all of us will be thinking of our friends and family as we think back on that speech.
I am proud to speak in support of the Bill. I am proud of the additional money that is being provided for the defence of Ukraine and its people. I am proud that the sum of £2.26 billion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) said, is in addition to the £3 billion that has been committed each year. I am proud, too, that this House stands for Ukraine and democracy, and in opposition to Putin and tyranny. That position is shared almost universally across this House, and certainly universally in this debate.
In my early contributions in this place, I have spent much of my time decrying the legacy of the last Conservative Government. I dare say I will do that a few more times, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I certainly will not be doing that on Ukraine. One area in which the last Government deserve real praise is their support for the Ukrainian people. In their darkest hour, this House and this country stood as one—in defence of Ukraine, in defence of democracy, in defence of freedom.
At a time when the opinion of politics and politicians is low, I think it speaks well of the House that we can come together on issues of such great magnitude. The support for the people of Ukraine under the last Government and under this Government make me proud to be British, and proud to be a Member of this House, because defending Ukraine, its independence and its way of life, is also defending our way of life. It is drawing a line in the sand and saying to those who wish to tear up our democracy and subvert our society that we will not stand idly by. I am sure that I am not the only Member to have stood at his or her local cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday or Armistice Day and thought of those who are fighting right now for their freedom and for their loved ones in Ukraine.
At the same time, we must not think that those who are taking on Russian aggression are solely those on the frontline. This war is being fought with more than just bombs, bullets and missiles. It is fought by the families who keep on living despite the presence of a dictator who wishes to snuff out the existence of their nation. It is fought by those who are willing to say, in this House and anywhere else where speech is free, that Vladimir Putin is an illegitimate tyrant. It is fought by those inside Russia who stand—or seek to stand—in democratic elections, knowing that the elections in which they stand are neither free nor fair, but doing so anyway. It is fought through the dignity and defiance of those nations who also stand on the border of the Russian aggressor state, wishing only to remain free. We must stand with them too.
Across the UK, including in Gateshead and Whickham, people have taken Ukrainian refugees into their homes. They have made them welcome. They too are part of the fight for dignity and democracy. Today we take the next critical step in that fight, at a time when, as has been said, it is more urgent than ever. We do not know when this war will end, but we do know that it must end, and how it must end: with a peace that is just for the Ukrainian. Slava Ukraini: glory to Ukraine.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the final Back-Bench contribution.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sincerely hope to be last but not least.
Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on her first speech in the Chamber. I too, like many Members who are present today, am relatively new to the House, and I do not think I will ever forget the first time I walked into the Chamber with that real sense of awe that we have when we walk in here. We are faced with the history of this place which stretches back for centuries—the ideas that have been debated, discussed and decided in this room—but we are on the next page. This debate, and the debates that we will have over the coming months and years, are the next step on that journey, the next page of that history, and as we move forward we must continue to remember our place in the story—a story of the importance of democracy and the importance of ordinary people standing up, having their say and ensuring that ideas such as democracy, justice and self-determination are never forgotten, and are always close to the forefront of what happens in this place, in this country and around the world.
We should be proud of the history of this place in defending those ideals, as I am proud of this country’s support for Ukraine. I am also proud of the support from people throughout my constituency, in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages, who have thrown open their homes to welcome those who have been displaced from Ukraine. It is heartening to see how many people across the country have acted so quickly in saying, “These are our friends—these are people who are in need”, and making sure that there was a place for them to come and to be safe. Let us make no bones about it: the Ukrainians are defending our values. They are Europe’s eastern flank, and Europe’s bulwark against autocracy. The fight in which they are involved, the fierce fighting that is taking place, is not for some nebulous idea; it is not for drawing lines on a map; it is for something as fundamental as the values that we hold dear.
I think it is important for us to remember where we want to be when those next pages of the history of this place are written. What do we want it to say? I know that when I play my part in that, I want it to say that I was on the right side of history—on the side of our values, justice and democracy. That is why I support the Bill, so that we can provide support to Ukraine. More than that, I want to be part of sending a message—a G7 message, a NATO message, a European message—to Washington about the importance of supporting Ukraine, and part of sending a very strong message to Moscow, and its supporters in Tehran, Pyongyang and anywhere else that supports this illegal war in Ukraine, that it has to stop. But it can only stop with a Ukrainian victory. Slava Ukraini.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Front Benchers, starting with the shadow Minister.
Richard Fuller
I will respond briefly to the debate for the Opposition. First, I commend all the speakers, and particularly the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). It is rare for so many in this House to congratulate a Member on their maiden speech, but it was warranted because she spoke so nicely and kindly about her constituency, as well as with great generosity about her predecessor and very movingly about her father. She should take away the great support from all Members across the House, and we wish her the best of luck in her future here.
The Minister will be aware, having listened to the debate, of the comprehensive support for the Bill. She will have heard calls from some quarters to extend the provisions of the Bill to include seizing not only proceeds from the profits, but the assets. Such a move would be a very large step for the UK to take, and I do not think the official Opposition would support that without very strong convincing from the Government. But on all the other aspects, she will have seen the comprehensive support.
Stephen Gethins
On the seizure of assets and the $300 billion, we were trying to make the point that this needs to be explored very seriously. It would be transformative for the Ukrainian war effort and would therefore be transformative for our security. I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point that this is not easy and about the impact that it might have. However, will he join me in encouraging the Treasury to look at this and come back to us with further details about the possible implications and how it might take this forward, so that we can all, as a House, examine it in greater detail?
Richard Fuller
I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Treasury looks at these options on a continuing basis, but, consistently, the point of view held by the previous Government—and I would assume by the current Government—is that that is not the right step to take. But perhaps the Minister will update the House on her views on that in a moment.
Given the support, there was the opportunity for the Government to move forward with all stages of the Bill, so that it could proceed and be completed in this House today. Will the Minister say why that decision was not made and perhaps provide some sense of the timetable for when the Bill will be brought to the House for its concluding stages? But the Opposition’s general message is that we fully support the intentions of the Bill, and we will support it on Second Reading.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
It is a pleasure to close this debate on what remains a very important and pressing issue. As Ukraine enters yet another difficult winter, I am proud of the consistent support that this Government have shown through not just our £2.26 billion ERA contribution, but the long-term commitments we have made to supporting Ukraine’s capacity for self-defence.
I join the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, along with my hon. Friends the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) in saying how proud I am that there is unity across the House in standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine at this very difficult time. This is a complex issue, and I will try to answer the questions posed by the Opposition and my hon. Friends. If I have missed out anything, I am happy to write to Members.
Before I get into the nitty-gritty of the Bill, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for making such a powerful maiden speech. I think I am right in saying that her late mother Margaret, David, Martin and all her children would be extremely proud of their extraordinary daughter, mother, stepmother and wife. I very much welcome this “vicious dictator” to the House. We need more of them in the women’s parliamentary Labour party, so I am pleased to have her here.
The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire asked about the timing of the release of the funds. We intend to begin spending the funds early next year to ensure that the funding supports our Ukrainian allies as soon as possible. We intend to do so in three equal tranches over three financial years, starting in 2024-25, and the G7 has agreed that all ERA funds will be given out by the end of 2027. He also asked about how the UK will be repaid. We are providing the funding as part of the wider G7’s extraordinary revenue acceleration loan initiative, which means that the UK will be repaid via the extraordinary profits generated from immobilised Russian sovereign assets in the EU. The EU has already enacted the necessary regulations to operationalise the Ukraine loan co-operation mechanism, which will distribute the profits. That came into effect on 29 October, as he is probably aware.
The hon. Member asked about what will happen to the UK if the loan is not repaid. The repayment will rely on profits continuing to flow from immobilised RSAs into the EU over multiple years. The UK and the wider G7 have committed to ensuring that Russian sovereign assets remain immobilised across our jurisdictions until Russia ceases its war of aggression and pays for the damage that it has caused to Ukraine, and G7 lenders have worked closely together to design the ERA in a way that allows for repayment in a scenario in which profits cease and Russia pays Ukraine. I hope that answers his question, but I can write to him if he wants more detail.
On NATO’s spending target, there is a clear commitment from the Government to spend 2.5% of our GDP on defence, which has categorically not changed. The hon. Member will have seen in our manifesto that we will set up a path towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, and this will be done at a future fiscal event.
The hon. Member asked about the total value of assets and private assets. Between February 2022 and October 2023, £22.7 billion-worth of Russian assets were frozen due to UK financial sanctions regulations—a marked increase on the figure of £18.39 billion that was provided in the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation’s annual report in 2021-22. OFSI is currently analysing data on immobilised assets, and on the type and value of the assets.
Like many Members, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) asked about the involvement of the ERA in asset seizure. I have to make it clear that the G7’s ERA scheme does not represent the seizure of Russian sovereign assets in any way; it is about using the extraordinary profits that the EU has set aside to pay a series of loans to Ukraine. He and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) asked about seizing Russian sovereign assets in the UK. Russia’s obligation under international law is clear: it must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. The G7 agreement to use the profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets for the loan is an important step towards ensuring that Russia pays. Although we continue to consider all lawful avenues by which Russia is made to meet its obligation to Ukraine under international law, it is important that the UK and the G7 remain focused on delivering the ERA and the benefit that it will give to Ukraine right now, because we are very conscious of the situation in which the country finds itself.
A few other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), asked about the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea FC. The Government are working hard to ensure that the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend might know that the proceeds are currently frozen in a UK bank account while a new independent foundation is established to manage and distribute the money, but this is something that we are working on and we are trying to move it along as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) asked whether this was an unlimited resource loan. The negotiations remain ongoing on the details of the loan terms, but I am focused on ensuring that there is limited impact on Ukraine’s balance sheet. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) talked about the implications of the Trump victory for Ukraine. I cannot speculate on any policy decisions that the incoming Administration of President-elect Trump may make, but we have welcomed bipartisan US support for Ukraine, which has been key in the international effort. I feel that Ukraine’s security is vital for global security. If there are any other questions that I have not answered, I will write to Members. I am conscious of the time and I want to finish by thanking hon. Members across the Chamber for their contributions to the debate.
Richard Foord
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard her say that at this stage the Government intend to work on the profits rather than the seized assets themselves, but will she undertake to talk to ministerial colleagues in Finland, Czechia and Estonia to find out how they have gone about seizing and using confiscated assets?
Tulip Siddiq
I have listened closely to what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially with regard to other countries, and I am happy to have conversations with ministerial colleagues across different countries and find out what they are doing. This is our position for now, but this is an ongoing situation and things will move. I am happy to speak to Ministers from different countries who are using assets differently.
The ERA is an innovative scheme. It will ensure that Ukraine receives vital support throughout 2025 and beyond. It will take the money generated from Russian sovereign assets and use it to support Ukraine in the best possible way. This is further proof for us that the G7’s support for Ukraine will not falter, and that the UK will stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) in thanking the people of our country for all the support that they have shown Ukraine. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will indulge me for one minute while I say that my own constituents of Hampstead and Highgate have opened their doors for Ukrainian refugees, giving them their homes, community spaces and education spaces, and I particularly pay tribute to my local synagogue, South Hampstead synagogue, which is providing free English lessons for Ukrainian refugees. I was very pleased to meet those people in Parliament last week.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill:
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 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.
Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Treasury or Secretary of State for the purpose of providing loans or other financial assistance to, or for the benefit of, the government of Ukraine as a result of—
(a) the arrangements described as the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration Loans for Ukraine announced on 14 June 2024 at the G7 summit in Apulia in Italy, or
(b) any subsequent arrangements that are supplemental to or modify or replace those arrangements.—(Anna McMorrin.)
Question agreed to.
Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
Ordered,
That Marie Goldman, Leigh Ingham, Gordon McKee, Charlotte Nichols and Jesse Norman be appointed to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority until the end of the present Parliament, in pursuance of paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended.—(Lucy Powell.)
House of Commons Members’ Fund
Ordered,
That Holly Lynch, Sir Charles Walker and Peter Grant be removed as Trustees of the House of Commons Members’ Fund and Mark Tami, Chris Elmore and Dr Danny Chambers be appointed as Trustees in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 2016.—(Lucy Powell.)
Business without Debate
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Healthcare: Hampshire
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Whether I am door-knocking at the general election or reading my inbox, the NHS and healthcare services are, by a long way, the single biggest worry that people talk about. After 14 years of Conservative mismanagement of both the economy and the NHS, I have heard from many people about how they are struggling to access NHS services not only for themselves but for their children, which causes huge stress for the family and friends of those involved.
In 2019, Boris Johnson announced that Hampshire would have one of 40 new hospitals. In 2024 the sitting Conservative MP I stood against repeated once again that there would be a new hospital in Hampshire. It was frustrating, although possibly not surprising, to find out after the general election that not only had there never been any money assigned to the new hospital in Hampshire but that there is a £22 billion deficit that we had not previously known about.
Hospital managers, along with the chief executives of hospital trusts and integrated care boards, are trying to plan the future of healthcare in Hampshire, which becomes difficult when the goalposts keep moving and when they do not know whether there will be a new hospital. It is also causing huge stress for the residents around Winchester, especially those south of Winchester, who have been told that they might lose their accident and emergency department and their consultant-led maternity services as part of the new hospital plan. I have heard from thousands of people, including up to 30,000 who signed a petition, about the importance of keeping our A&E and consultant-led maternity services in and around Winchester. I have heard from many people whose lives were saved at Winchester and who are worried that they might have to travel further.
There has been a public consultation on the location of a new hospital, and it is currently being reviewed. Winchester residents are very concerned that none of the suitable potential sites in Winchester was included as an option. People had to choose between north or south of Basingstoke. This is not only a concern for people in Winchester, who will have to travel further for emergency healthcare; it is also a concern for the management of Southampton hospital, who are concerned that the further north a new hospital is built, the more that people will go to Southampton because it is closer. At the moment, Southampton hospital is operating at capacity and would need significant new resources if the hospital were built too far north.
When we look at the future of healthcare in Hampshire, we should seriously consider why we would build a new hospital so close to Frimley Park, which is going to be rebuilt because it has reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and is only 20 minutes away along the A3. Why would we have two new hospitals so close to each other? I would appreciate having a meeting with Minister to discuss the potential location of any new hospital, so that we can ensure everyone in Winchester can access healthcare in an appropriate place.
The location of any new hospital is key to the future of healthcare in Hampshire because it will provide healthcare for decades to come. However, we are aware that the proposed new hospital may not be included in the new hospital programme after the review, so we need to focus on our current hospital. The NHS staff at that hospital are fantastic, but we need to look at how we can support it now and in the decades to come.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman without notice; I appreciate him giving way. He outlined the case for a new hospital at junction 7 of the M3, but he is slightly muddling the argument. Clinical professionals recommended a location for that hospital, with replacement services that were being taken from Winchester hospital, while maintaining a Winchester hospital with certain services. Blue light times showed that there would be no significant difference in accessing healthcare for someone living in the north half of my old constituency of Eastleigh and someone living the part of his constituency that he mentioned. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend, the new hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), opposed the new hospital, so is it not a little bit awkward for him to say that the Government had no funding plans, when he opposed the location and that hospital being created? That meant there was a muddling of decision making because he and his colleague opposed that hospital being created in the first place.
Dr Chambers
We never opposed a new hospital—that was something the Conservatives were saying about us. We support a new hospital, we want a new hospital, and we want modern healthcare services in Hampshire. However, we were very concerned that the proposed location of the new hospital is not suitable when we look at how healthcare is delivered throughout Hampshire. Sites just north of Winchester were identified as suitable; when we look at a map of Hampshire, it is clear that those proposed locations would be much more suitable for people throughout Hampshire, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, to reach emergency services.
Our current A&E department, like other A&E departments, is hugely busy, especially as we head into winter. We know that many people attend A&E because they cannot get the primary care they need. Up to 20% of people who turn up at A&E are there because they cannot get a doctor’s appointment. People who are in a mental health crisis—many are often already on a waiting list—are going to A&E. They take up a huge amount of time and staff resources, often needing 15 to 18 hours of constant monitoring before they can be taken to a place of safety. We also have people turning up with dental issues because they cannot access an NHS dentist.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. While there are other hon. Members in the Chamber know the issues well, does he agree that the ability to bring healthcare into communities is vital, particularly for people in isolated communities who cannot hop on a bus every 15 or 20 minutes, or even every hour, to get to their appointments? Some areas simply cannot have centralised care or a new hospital; they do need localised facilities. If the hon. Gentleman is asking for that, then he is asking for the right thing.
Dr Chambers
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As a vet who has worked in public health programmes around the world, I know that it has been proven time and again that it is always more cost effective to treat people in their communities and keep them healthy, than to treat them in hospital when they get sick. We need to focus on that. I know the Government have said that they want to move treatment from hospitals into the community.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I suspect the hon. Member understands that I probably will not agree with him on the thrust of his argument about Basingstoke hospital. However, on the point about local community services, in my seat, in Whitehill and Bordon, there is a debate about whether we should keep the old Chase community hospital or build a new health hub. There are arguments on both sides, but the one thing that unites the two is the lack of communication from the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board. Does the hon. Gentleman find it as frustrating as I do that that ICB seems to not want to communicate with residents across the county?
Dr Chambers
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; when there is a lack of communication with residents, decision makers and any other interested stakeholders, that is when there are difficulties, such as rumours and unnecessary anxiety. Improved communication, whether in healthcare or in any Government Department, solves a huge number of problems.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about accessing healthcare when people live in rural areas, I have a story about Margaret, who lives just south of Winchester and who wrote to me saying that she had been given an appointment at Basingstoke for a particular type of X-ray. Her journey to Basingstoke hospital took well over an hour and involved multiple buses and a train, plus considerable walking time. Margaret has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and gets exhausted walking long distances, and she cannot easily afford a taxi all the way from Basingstoke back to Winchester. She asked me whether people without cars were to become second-class citizens and be denied access to decent healthcare options. We have to look at individuals’ situations, and that can include needing really good public transport. The more community care we have in people’s towns and villages, the quicker they can get there from their homes.
The other side of emergency care and A&E departments is social care. We have said many times that we cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care. We know that in the Hampshire hospitals NHS foundation trust, there are between 160 and 200 people at any given point who are well enough to be discharged and more appropriately cared for in the community with social care packages, but who are currently stuck in a hospital bed and cannot be discharged. That means that patients cannot be moved out of A&E and people cannot be removed from ambulances as quickly as they could be, which means that ambulance waiting times are longer.
When I spoke to the CEO of Winchester hospital, he said that the single biggest help they could get from Government would be another 160 social care packages. Although people ask where the money will come from, we know it is more expensive to keep someone in a hospital bed than to give them a social care package. We have winter pressures coming up—indeed, winter has already started—and the CEO has told me on more than one occasion that, to help with those winter pressures, more social care packages would probably be the single biggest intervention that would make a huge difference. Local authorities struggle to afford social care packages and the NHS trusts have to fund some of those packages out of their NHS budget, which is primarily meant for treating people in hospital.
One of the biggest concerns raised by Winchester residents is the potential removal of consultant-led maternity services at Winchester hospital. That means that if a woman were to haemorrhage or require an emergency C-section during labour, she would need to be transferred. To put that into perspective, in April 2024, 22.7% of births were performed via emergency C-section at Winchester hospital. It is clear that surgical interventions are not an unusual eventuality, but something that will affect more than one in five mothers.
An emergency transfer in such a situation would inevitably put the lives of some women and babies at serious risk and, tragically, some could be lost. A constituent wrote to me about her daughter, who had recently haemorrhaged badly after giving birth to a baby who was in a breech position. The blood transfusion and lifesaving surgery to remove her placenta needed to happen within minutes, and it is unthinkable what would have happened had there been no consultants on hand. As someone who has performed many emergency caesareans—on animals rather than on humans—I know that time is of the essence, and anything that delays surgical intervention can make a huge difference, not just to whether the person and the baby survive but to whether the baby has potential brain damage and other life-changing complications.
As the Liberal Democrat mental health spokesperson, I see this debate as a chance to highlight how desperately we need more resources put into mental health, alongside a more holistic approach to treatment. When speaking to residents in Winchester, one of the most common concerns is the difficulty in accessing mental healthcare, and that is especially true for parents who are struggling to access mental healthcare for their children.
I spoke to a constituent near Swanmore who was struggling to access the mental healthcare and support they needed for their child who was anorexic and had an eating disorder. They had been informed that their child had to reach a lower BMI to qualify for the threshold to get treatment, because resources are so stretched. That would not be considered even remotely acceptable for any other disease. A person with cancer would never be told that they needed to reach stage 4 before they qualified for treatment. We know that outcomes with delayed treatment for mental and physical health disorders, of which eating disorders are a combination of both, will be much less successful and much less cost-effective, requiring longer and less successful treatment the longer that the condition is left. I urge the Minister to look with particular concern at the mental health of young people and children. Delays in mental health treatment for anyone can be catastrophic, but a three-year delay for someone who is only 13, 14, or 15 is a huge chunk of their life.
As part of that, we urgently need to invest in primary care. Failing to address this will only place greater pressure on our already overstretched hospitals. I have spoken to people who have spent extended amounts of time in hospital beds, because they cannot get the mental healthcare that they need.
Similarly, the lack of NHS dentists often forces patients to turn up to hospital, sometimes needing a general anaesthetic, to sort out tooth root abscesses, which costs more than providing NHS dental care. It seems as though all the dentists I speak to say that their current contract for performing NHS care is not fit for purpose. I urge the Minister to look at this as an urgent priority, because so many people are not receiving the dental care that they need. It seems as though this whole issue will not be resolved until the NHS contract is looked at.
The other issue that affects people getting healthcare in their communities, especially around Hampshire, Winchester and the Meon Valley, relates to struggling pharmacies. The situation for pharmacies seems to be very similar to that of the dentists in that their arrangement with the Government for providing prescription services does not seem to be fit for purpose. It seems to be costing pharmacies money to provide prescription drugs, and they are telling me that their businesses are no longer viable. The more pharmacies that we lose, the further people will have to travel to not only collect drugs, but get medical advice and vaccines.
In conclusion, I wish to pay tribute to NHS staff. I imagine that they dread the winter coming up. Every year, it is a stress for them. Every year, they are overworked. And every year, we know that both clinical and non-clinical staff will work longer hours than they are contracted to do. I know that they will be bracing themselves right now. They will be busier, and they will be putting themselves at risk from getting things such as flu, covid and the other respiratory diseases that we see in the winter. One thing that we can all do, both as the public and the Government, is to encourage everyone to get vaccinated ahead of these winter pressures. Anything we can do to prevent a trip to hospital will make their job easier and make it less likely that they will get sick.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman speaks eloquently on a wide range of healthcare challenges in Hampshire. Does he agree that our shared integrated care board for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight must do all that it can to make the best of the situation, particularly in relation to NHS dentistry and funding for hospices across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight?
Dr Chambers
The hon. Member makes a good point about hospices in particular. Only about a third of hospice funding is provided by the Government. It is a hugely emotive subject, which affects not only the people in the hospice but the whole family, who are trying to care for a loved one who often has only weeks or months left to go. We have two hospices in Winchester, one of which is a children’s hospice, Naomi House. Some of the most moving visits I have ever done have been to hospices, where the staff and patients are incredibly brave. We have a debate coming up on assisted dying. We will really have to look at palliative and hospice care and how it is funded, and how we make it sustainable and fit for purpose. I thank him for that important intervention.
Many constituents write to tell me about the excellent care that they receive in hospitals, and how much they appreciate the hard work of NHS staff. A Winchester resident called Owen wrote to tell me that he honestly does not believe that he would be alive today were it not for Winchester hospital. Owen sadly suffers from a brain tumour in the pituitary gland, and has needed many emergency treatments. Owen lives five minutes from the hospital and has managed to have lifesaving treatment there on multiple occasions.
We need to avoid the trap of cutting short-term costs, such as by not investing in social care, which has ended up costing the state so much more money in the long run. We need a comprehensive plan to give people adequate local healthcare throughout their lives, and escape the endless cycle of crisis after crisis. We know that winter is coming this year, and coming next year. What are we doing to ensure that we will not have an NHS crisis in Hampshire next winter as well?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on securing the debate, and echo his thanks to all health and social care staff who do incredible work in very difficult circumstances. We know that our NHS is broken. Whenever MPs from across the House come to me with issues affecting their constituencies, I repeat the same mantra: this Government will be honest about the issues facing our NHS, and serious about tackling them. Lord Darzi has already completed his review of the current state of the NHS, and his report laid bare the true scale of the challenges facing our health service.
We will not sugarcoat the problems faced by the health service in each and every part of the country, because colleagues from across the House are right to raise issues with me, and we will fix them together. We have already launched our national conversation on the future of the NHS, and we want patients, families and staff to join that conversation and make their voices heard. If Members have not already been to the website, the address is change.nhs.uk. Please let us have some sensible suggestions—not firing the Secretary of State out of a cannon.
In her spring Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an extra £22.6 billion to protect NHS day-to-day spending. Every penny of that investment will come alongside vital health reforms; they are two sides of the same coin.
As the Secretary of State outlined last week, this Government intend to publish a league table of providers, allocating the best talent to the most challenging areas and ensuring that there are no rewards for failure. Where necessary, we will remove failing managers, and we will reward senior leaders who successfully improve performance.
Paul Holmes
On failing organisations, just before the general election a cross-party group of MPs, including Labour MPs, had a meeting with the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), about the performance and management of Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB. Members of Parliament from across the political divide have serious concerns about its leadership, communications and funding—not Government funding, and I welcome the increased funding, but the way that it is distributed to services in Hampshire. Frankly, I do not think the leadership is up to running that ICB. Will the Minister agree to meet me and other Members from across the House to discuss the urgency of the situation? Will he find out from his civil servants where the request for a two-week action plan went and come back to Hampshire MPs?
Andrew Gwynne
I am sure the officials in the Box will have noted the concerns the hon. Gentleman rightly raised about his ICB. I will ensure that that is communicated back to the Minister for Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), so she can look in more detail at those concerns and communicate with the Hampshire MPs. If a meeting is necessary at the end of that, I am sure she will be more than willing to meet him and his colleagues.
We want to ensure that every part of our NHS is working as well as it can and, as I say, good performance will be rewarded as part of our reforms. Alongside a college of executive and clinical leadership, that will ensure the NHS continues to develop and attract the best talent to top positions, bringing the best outcomes for patients and taxpayers alike.
Let me turn to some of the specific issues that the hon. Member for Winchester raised. On local hospital provision, patients deserve to have safe, compassionate and personalised care in a fit-for-purpose environment. That is why this Government have committed to building and refurbishing hospitals across the country. The new hospital programme includes a new hospital for north and mid Hampshire and a major refurbishment at Winchester to provide specialist and emergency care. As part of the proposal, I am aware that the local trust explored changes to the current obstetrician-led maternity services at the Winchester site. I know the hon. Member has been a strong champion of that, having raised it with the Prime Minister in October.
As announced in the Chancellor’s autumn Budget, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will set out further details of the review of the new hospital programme in the coming months, alongside a new and realistic schedule for delivery. The Hampshire hospitals scheme is in scope of the review, and I acknowledge the local concern over the proposal and the impact on the Winchester site and on maternity services.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
My constituents use both Winchester hospital and Basingstoke hospital, as well as others, such as Frimley Park, the Queen Alexandra and Guildford. I understand that a clinical assessment was made about urgent treatment and services at Winchester, but there is a need for a new hospital in or near Basingstoke. In what the Minister said about a review of the new hospital programme, I accept he says a statement is coming soon, but will he confirm that it is about timing and that he or a colleague will come forward to the House soon with the certainty that people in Hampshire need?
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely. I will try to be as unpartisan as I can, but the hospital programme that we inherited from the right hon. Member’s Government did not have anything like the money it needed to back it up. Conservative Members can shake their heads, but it is true. It had nothing like the money needed to bring forward those hospitals. As I have said, we will review that. Our intention is to bring forward those schemes, but that has to be done in an achievable programme, with the finances to back it up. When we announce to the House how we will schedule the hospital programme, I expect that all the answers he wants will be there. We intend to introduce the hospital building programme, but it must be done with money—we cannot build them with fresh air.
Dr Chambers
any potential new hospital is decades away, while the hospital we have needs to be maintained and improved. The quickest way forward is to provide 160 new social care packages for Winchester hospital. Will the Minister meet me and the chief executive officer of Winchester hospital to work out how we can deliver those packages as quickly as possible, and provide good A&E, hospital and social care services for everyone in and around Winchester?
Andrew Gwynne
It is crucial that we have the best possible health and care services in place for today’s needs while we plan for the future. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I will ensure that they are communicated back to the Minister for Secondary Care, so that she can consider them. I will ask her to report back to him on that. Ultimately, all decisions are best made locally, so that they can cater to local interests, and are clinically led. This is no exception. I know that the hon. Gentleman’s trust will consider all feedback from the public consultation held earlier this year, including from those who will access the new facilities, as well as wider bodies of evidence. The result of the public consultation on location and services will be put to the local integrated care board, and we look forward to hearing the outcome of that.
Dr Chambers
I apologise for intervening again so soon. One of my main concerns about the public consultation is that the NHS had assessed sites in Winchester as suitable, but they were not then included in the consultation. The people of Winchester want to know why those suitable sites were not included in the consultation. Can the Minister assure me that that will be addressed by the ICB, and anyone else publishing the consultation?
Andrew Gwynne
As I said before the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, ultimately these are local decisions, and they must be clinically led. If the trust has decided that certain outcomes that he would like to see are out of scope of the consultation, we must take it as read that there are sound clinical reasons for that. If he thinks otherwise, I am sure that he can bring that up with my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care, but ultimately we must be guided by the clinicians. They know, more than we Ministers in Whitehall will ever know, what the better outcomes for their areas are.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned primary and community care. We know that patients nationally and in Hampshire find it increasingly difficult to see a GP. We are committed as a Government to fixing the front door to the NHS, to ensure that patients receive the care that they deserve. If patients cannot get a GP appointment, they end up at accident and emergency, which is worse for them and more expensive for the taxpayer. That is why we will shift the focus of the NHS out of hospitals and into community. One of our three big shifts is from hospital to community; the others are from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention. Those three things, taken as a whole, could be quite transformative in how we deliver primary care.
Gregory Stafford
I agree entirely with the Minister on the shift from hospital to community. I do not want to labour the point that I made when I intervened on the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), but in the Hampshire part of my seat, we have a debate about whether we will still have Chase community hospital or a new health hub there. They are both essentially local services. The ICB is dragging its feet and will not make a decision on which it will be. Local people do not know what will happen, and decisions are being kicked down the road by the ICB. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) said, the leadership of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB is not fit for purpose. Will the Minister meet us and them to ensure that we can get this moving?
Andrew Gwynne
I hear loud and clear what Conservative Members say about the leadership of their ICB. I hope that the ICB management will obtain a copy of today’s Hansard and read not only those comments, but the Minister’s reply. I expect them to make decisions in a timely fashion, so that there is some certainty for the local population about the new make-up of health and care services in that area—not just for the sake of patients and the local population, but staff. As we redesign services and change towards more preventive, community-focused care, some parts may become obsolete, and it is absolutely crucial that we take the workforce, as well as the population, on that journey of change in services. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman’s ICB leadership will have heard the message from the Minister at the Dispatch Box, which is that they really need to crack on, make a decision, communicate it and work with Members of Parliament, the public and staff on whichever changes they propose.
I return to primary and community care. As I said, our manifesto commits to moving towards a neighbourhood health service, with more care delivered in local communities, so that problems are spotted earlier. We will bring back the family doctor by incentivising GPs to see the same patient, so that ongoing or complex conditions are dealt with effectively. In doing so, we will improve continuity of care, which is associated with better health outcomes for patients, and our plan will guarantee a face-to-face appointment for all those who want one; we will deliver a modern booking system that will end the 8 am scramble. That is crucial in improving access to general practice.
The hon. Member for Winchester rightly raised the huge problems with dentistry in his area, which are not that uncommon across the whole country. I do not believe that the previous Government’s dentistry recovery plan went far enough; too many people were still struggling to find an NHS appointment. We are working to ensure that patients can start to access additional urgent dental appointments as soon as possible, and we will target the areas that need the most—the so-called dental deserts. Integrated care boards have started to advertise posts through the golden hello scheme. This recruitment incentive will see up to 240 dentists receive payments of £20,000 to work in the areas that need them most for three years. The common reason why children aged five to nine are admitted to hospital—this is absolutely shocking in the year 2024—is tooth decay. We will work with local authorities to introduce supervised toothbrushing for three to five-year-olds in the most deprived communities. These programmes are proven to reduce tooth decay and boost good practice at home.
To rebuild dentistry in the long term, we will reform the dental contract with the sector, with a shift to focusing on prevention and the retention of NHS dentists. To be fair, this has been an issue for all Governments, going back to the Labour Government who introduced the dental contract. They did so for the right reasons, but in 2010, we recognised that the dental contract was not working in the way we envisaged, and that it had to change. It is shocking that 14 years have passed since then with no real action having been taken—we are determined to fix that. At the same time, we will not wait to make improvements to the system to increase access and incentivise the workforce to deliver more NHS care. We are continuing to meet the British Dental Association and other representatives of the dental sector to discuss how we can best deliver our shared ambition of improving access for NHS dental patients.
I have to say that the statistics for Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board make sorry reading. Only 36% of adults were seen by an NHS dentist in the 24 months to June 2024, compared with 40.3% across England, and 54% of children were seen by an NHS dentist in the 12 months to June 2024, compared with 56% across England. In 2023-24, there were 46 dentists for every 100,000 people in the hon. Gentleman’s trust, whereas the national average across all ICBs in the same year was just under 50 dentists, and in 2024, the general practice patient survey success rate for getting an NHS dental appointment in the past two years in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB area was 72%, compared with 76% nationally. They are not great statistics nationwide, but they are certainly not brilliant in the ICB of hon. Members present, and we look for real improvements there.
Turning to the pharmacy sector, we want to take pressure off GPs by increasing the services offered in community pharmacies. There is so much more that our pharmacists could and should be doing to deliver basic healthcare services on the high street and in the community, as part of the shift from hospital to community. That would free up thousands of GP appointments in cases where people do not really need to see a general practitioner for their condition. We are committed to looking at how we can further expand the role of pharmacies and better use the clinical skills of pharmacists as more become independent prescribers—that is where the potential gets really exciting. Now that the budget for Government has been set, we will resume our consultation with Community Pharmacy England shortly. I hope Members will understand that I am unable to say more until that consultation has concluded. Suffice it to say that Pharmacy First and community pharmacies have a huge role to play in improving health outcomes in the community.
Jim Shannon
In my former role as an Assembly Member back home, we had a very close relationship with pharmacies. The consultation process that the Minister is outlining for England would be very much welcomed in Northern Ireland, so can I ask the Minister a favour? When that consultation concludes, will he share his findings with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and particularly with the Minister in Northern Ireland? What the Minister is hoping to achieve is what we would also like to achieve.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. No part of the United Kingdom holds a monopoly on wisdom, and if we are doing something good or if there is innovation in one part of the United Kingdom, it is incumbent on Health Ministers across the devolved Administrations and here in Whitehall to share best practice—to work together and, where possible, take a four-nation approach. I hope I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that since this new Labour Government came into power, we have really tried to reset our relationships with the devolved Administrations and with the various Ministers. I have had several meetings with Mike Nesbitt on a range of health issues that appertain to the whole United Kingdom on which we want to ensure there is consistency of approach. I am more than happy to communicate further with Mike Nesbitt and colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive on how we reform our health and social care services in England to see whether things can be taken by them in Northern Ireland. Vice versa, if there are good ideas from Northern Ireland, I am more than happy to consider them in how we transform NHS services in England.
The hon. Member for Winchester mentioned social care, and he is right to raise winter resilience. I have spoken about fixing the front door to the NHS through primary care reforms. We also have a serious job to do to fix the back door and ensure that patient flows through the system are not held up because of a lack of social care. On winter resilience, I hope he will understand that we are working to ensure that there are no crises and that we tackle the issues of social care. Getting beds in appropriate places is a key part of our plan.
In the long term, there are no quick fixes. The Dilnot reforms were announced by the previous Government, but it is fair to say that, when we came into office, we found that the money apparently set aside for the Dilnot reforms had already been spent on other NHS pressures. Laudable though it may have been to spend that money to try to get waiting times and waiting lists down and to fix some of the problems that that Government had created, it left us with a bit of a social care issue, given that the reform money had gone, had disappeared and was no longer there to be spent.
Over the next decade, this Government are committed to building consensus on the long-term reform needed to create a national care service based on consistent national standards, including engaging across the parties. It is good to see the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), in his place, and I am sure he will be very willing to work with us, as indeed will the Liberal Democrats. We genuinely want to make sure that we get cross-party consensus on the future of our adult social care, so that we can finally grasp this nettle once and for all, and to fix it without it becoming such a contentious issue, as it became, sadly, in 2010 and 2017. Neither of the two main parties has a good story to tell on this, because we have both shamefully used it as a political football from time to time. It is now appropriate that we set aside those politics and get on with fixing social care. I hope that, in due course, we will be able to move forward on that agenda.
I assure the hon. Member for Winchester that we are acutely aware of the problems with mental health services. We both agree that waiting lists are unacceptably high. Indeed, the people of Hampshire and most of England are not getting the mental health care they deserve. He has spoken previously about Lord Darzi’s report, which has shone a searing spotlight on the waiting lists that young people face, in particular. I am immensely proud that this Government are intent on tackling the issue head on, with specialist mental health professionals in every school in England. That is our aim. These NHS-funded mental health support teams in schools and colleges will work with young people and parents to manage mental health difficulties and to develop a whole-school approach to positive mental health and wellbeing.
Damian Hinds
Can I just check whether I heard the Minister correctly? Did he say there would be a mental health specialist in every school in England?
Andrew Gwynne
Yes, that is our manifesto commitment. There will be mental health specialists for every school in England. In Hampshire, there are mental health support teams assigned across the area, including schools in Winchester, Eastleigh, Andover and Havant. In addition, we will introduce young futures hubs in every community and recruit an additional 8,500 mental health workers across children and adult services. We have also set aside £26 million in capital investment for new mental health crisis centres, and we are expanding NHS talking therapies, alongside individual placement and support schemes.
This Government are committed to fixing the NHS so that patients, including those in Hampshire, can access excellent care when they need it. It is true to say that every Labour Government have inherited an NHS in a far poorer state than that which they bequeathed to their successors. It turns to this Labour Government to fix our NHS once more.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Martin McCluskey (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The draft order was laid on 21 October 2024.
I welcome the new shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), to his place.
Martin McCluskey
Yes, just in time. I also pass on the apologies of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is appearing before a Select Committee.
The order is the result of collaborative working between the two Governments, in Scotland and Westminster, and supports the Scottish Government’s decision to implement the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023. The order will be made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, in consequence of the 2023 Act. A section 104 order is the most common type of Scotland Act order, and is used to make technical amendments to UK reserved legislation to facilitate the policy aims of an Act of the Scottish Parliament or secondary legislation made by Scottish Ministers. Scotland Act orders demonstrate devolution in action, and I am pleased that this is the fourth Scotland Act order put to the House by this Government.
I will explain the effect and provisions of the order. Extradition proceedings take place in summary courts, which are magistrates courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and sheriff courts in Scotland. Were there changes to the legal framework for bail considerations in those courts, that might impact on extradition cases. That could happen in this instance, and both Scotland’s Governments agree that that would not be appropriate, so we using the order to prevent it. The order does not make changes to extradition law across the UK or affect policy and legal frameworks for extradition in any way. It will ensure that courts in Scotland continue to be able to consider flight risk as a ground for refusal of bail in the context of extradition proceedings, in line with the rest of the UK.
The order will ensure that a limitation on the court’s ability to remand persons at risk of failing to appear in court, under the new test for bail in Scottish summary courts, does not extend to extradition cases. That will mitigate the risk of a person wanted for extradition being granted bail under the new regime when it would not have been granted under the previous regime. Without the order, individuals accused of serious crimes who are wanted for extradition could be granted bail under the new regime because the courts would not retain their current discretion to consider flight risk. That would create a risk that the requested person absconds and evades justice.
The Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act was passed by the Scottish Parliament in June 2023. It seeks to ensure that, as much as possible, the use of remand for domestic criminal cases within the Scottish criminal justice system is a last resort, reserved for cases where public safety requires it, or where there is a significant risk of prejudice to the interests of justice. The Act amends sections 23B and 23C of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to limit the circumstances in which the court, in summary proceedings in Scotland, can refuse an individual’s bail application.
In particular, the amendments to section 23C include a new subsection that limits the extent to which a court may take into account any substantial risk of a person absconding or failing to appear when it is determining whether there is a good reason for refusing bail in summary proceedings. That would remove sheriffs’ ability to consider whether an individual may abscond from further proceedings, unless the individual has already failed to appear in a Scottish domestic criminal court case. It should be noted that the restrictions would not apply to judges who are considering whether to refuse bail in solemn proceedings, which are the equivalent of Crown courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Extradition Act 2003, which applies across the whole UK, prescribes that the cases of individuals arrested, subject to an extradition request from an international partner, are to be overseen by a specialised extradition judge—in Scotland, that is the sheriff of Lothian and Borders. When hearing extradition cases, the sheriff has powers available in relation to bail as if the case were summary proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the person. Cases proceeding by way of summary proceedings in Scotland involve less serious crimes than extradition cases typically do.
Under existing Scottish bail legislation, the sheriff considering bail in an extradition case can consider the question of flight risk from the outset of the case. That is important, as the nature of extradition means that the individual may pose a substantial risk of absconding or failing to appear. The order ensures that sheriffs retain their discretion to decide whether those subject to an extradition request are remanded in custody while they wait for hearings.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Mrs Harris. I thank the Minister for his kind remarks in welcoming me to this post. I am glad that I made it just in time for this Delegated Legislation Committee.
The Committee will be pleased to learn I intend to keep my remarks brief. We will not oppose the draft Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2024, although the issue it seeks to rectify is one that perhaps should not have arisen in the first place. None the less, we want to ensure UK-wide consistency, because this is clearly an important area of the law, with real-world consequences.
We want the parameters for granting or rejecting bail in extradition cases in Scotland to be in line with standards elsewhere in the UK. It cannot be right that, under that the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act passed by the Scottish Parliament last year, sheriffs hearing extradition cases in Scotland would no longer be able to remand an individual accused of an offence on the basis that there is a high risk that they will abscond, unless said individual had previously failed to appear in court for that offence or one of the charges in the live case is one of failure to appear before a court.
Flight risk should be a serious consideration, and a situation in which courts in Scotland are more limited in that respect than those in other parts of the UK would not be right, not least because people accused in extradition proceedings are often considered at risk of flight. Maintaining the integrity of the Extradition Act and of the UK’s broader extradition system is therefore a priority, for our own sake and that of countries with which we have extradition arrangements.
I note that the UK Government have not held a formal consultation on the order, but they have put on record that they consulted the Scottish Government. Can the Minister shed any further light on those discussions and on how we might avoid similar circumstances arising in future? To conclude, however, we do not intend to stand in the way of the order.
Martin McCluskey
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his contribution and welcome his support for the order. Obviously, I agree about the need to maintain the integrity of the UK extradition system.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question regarding how we avoid such circumstances in the future, there has been quite a collaborative process between the Scottish and UK Governments, and it was started under the previous Government, in which he served. It is important that the consultation that happened at the time was robust. This is not something that would ordinarily be relevant for a public consultation. I do not necessarily agree with the shadow Minister that there is a problem here; there was a robust discussion before, and the issue was flagged and discussed. We came to the conclusion that the order was the way to proceed. As part of resetting our relationship—as the Scottish and UK Governments are doing—we are having ongoing discussions on a whole range of issues to ensure that we have a close working relationship with the Scottish Government in future.
We welcome the shadow Minister’s support for the order. This statutory instrument demonstrates the UK Government’s continued commitment to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland. On that basis, I commend the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Heidi Alexander)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. This is my first Delegated Legislation Committee as a Minister. In fact, this is my first speech in this House since the general election. It is somewhat of an unexpected pleasure to be speaking on the subject of judicial pensions.
The draft statutory instrument amends a number of the judicial pensions regulations, and specifically the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017, referred to as the FPJPS regulations; the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, referred to as the 2023 FPJPS amendments; the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2022, referred to as the JPS22 regulations; the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015, referred to as the JPS15 regulations; and the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 (Judicial Offices) Order 2015, referred to as the judicial offices order. I hope the Committee is keeping up.
The judicial pension scheme is made up of a number of historical pension schemes. Since April 2022, the only scheme open for pension benefit accruals is the judicial pension scheme 2022. All preceding judicial pension schemes closed to further accruals on 31 March 2022, but the older schemes are still relevant, as the majority of judges have service extending across multiple schemes.
The FPJPS regulations established the fee-paid judicial pension scheme. The JPS15 and JPS22 regulations established the judicial pension scheme 2015 and the judicial pension scheme 2022 respectively. The amendments in the draft regulations will make a range of changes to improve and, where necessary, correct the running of those schemes, in line with statutory requirements and actuarial advice.
By their nature, the draft regulations are highly technical. In essence, the amendments to the existing schemes do the following. First, they provide for an employer cost cap in the judicial pension scheme 2022, following the completion of the scheme valuation in February 2024. Secondly, they add further eligible judicial offices to the appropriate pension scheme, where that eligibility has now been determined. Thirdly, they extend a number of deadlines for member elections under the fee-paid judicial scheme. Fourthly, they extend powers to reconcile amounts that were paid to judges whose pre-2000 service must now be taken into account as a result of the O’Brien 2 litigation, in respect of those new, pre-2000 entitlements, with their formal entitlements for that period. Finally, a number of technical changes are required to facilitate the smooth running of the pension schemes. I shall cover each of those points in more detail.
The amendments provide for inclusion of a cost control mechanism—CCM, for short—in the JPS22 regulations. That is a statutory requirement under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 for all public sector pension schemes. That must be included by 6 February 2025, one year on from the first actuarial valuation of the scheme by the Government Actuary’s Department.
The CCM is designed to ensure a fair balance of risk with regard to the cost of providing public service defined-benefit pension schemes between members of those schemes and the Exchequer. That is partly achieved through setting an employer cost cap. If, when the overall CCM is tested, costs have increased or decreased by more than a specified percentage of pensionable pay compared to the employer cost cap, member benefits and/or member contributions in the relevant scheme are adjusted to bring costs back to target. That could mean, for example, that a member’s contribution rate could go up or down. However, the mechanism is designed with the intention that that would be triggered only by “extraordinary, unpredictable events”.
The amendments also add a number of judicial offices into the FPJPS, JPS15 and JPS22, where their eligibility for a judicial pension has been determined. That will allow those members to accrue pensions in the correct scheme for their office and, where applicable, to have access to retrospective entitlements in JPS15 and JPS22, enabling members with service in those offices to access the benefits they are entitled to and to make the correct contributions to the scheme.
A number of deadlines are also being extended for member elections in the FPJPS. Following the O’Brien 2 judgment, the scheme was amended in 2023 to take into account eligible service prior to 7 April 2000, in order to mirror pension entitlements for the salaried judiciary. The 2023 amendments set deadlines by which eligible members must make an election concerning their FPJPS pension provisions and purchase additional pension benefits that they were entitled to following the O’Brien 2 judgment. We are now extending those deadlines to allow more time for the scheme to engage with eligible members, in order to give members the time and information needed to make an informed choice.
In advance of the FPJPS regulations’ being made, the Ministry of Justice made interim payments in lieu of pension, known as PiLs, to eligible judges, to provide an approximation of the remedy they would likely receive once the legislation was in place and operationalised. The regulations included a power to reconcile those payments with the actual amounts of pension owing. The power allowed the MOJ, once the regulations were in force, to either recover any excess PiLs payments made, or pay out further pension where PiLs had been underpaid.
Following the O’Brien 2 litigation, this power was extended by the 2023 FPJPS amendments to permit the MOJ to reconcile PiLs paid to judges in relation to their pre-2000 service, where those amounts were paid before 1 April 2023, the date on which the 2023 FPJPS amendments came into force. However, exact pension entitlements could not be calculated immediately from 1 April 2023, due to operational constraints, so payments continued to be made on an approximated basis after that date, albeit that they were paid as pension rather than PiLs. Therefore, the amendment regulations before us extend the reconciliation powers to permit MOJ to continue to reconcile the approximated pension payments made to judges from 1 April 2023 in respect of their pre-2000 service.
Finally, a number of further technical amendments to the FPJPS and to JPS22 correct typographical errors and cross-references to ensure that the regulations reflect the policy intention. Additionally, the FPJPS regulations included a voluntary fee-paid judicial added benefits scheme when it came into force; this was amended in 2023 to reflect the O’Brien 2 remedy. The scheme is highly technical, and in operationalising it we have identified the need to amend the scheme again to simplify its structure, make some clarifications and corrections, and include updated actuarial factors for determining cost and conversion values for added units of benefit. This will allow the scheme to run more smoothly and will better reflect the original intention to mirror the provisions available to relevant salaried comparators
I turn now to the consultation that we have undertaken on these amendments. On 19 February 2024 the MOJ opened a consultation on the proposals, which closed on 14 April. There were six responses, which were of a technical nature, with no objections to the content of the amendments. On 14 October the Government response was published, setting out that no further changes to the amendments were needed to address the responses.
Officials in the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have been kept apprised of the development of the amendment regulations, in particular in relation to the offices whose jurisdictions are in those countries, and their views have been reflected in the drafting. The Secretary of State for Scotland was also consulted.
Subsequent to the consultation, the MOJ identified the need for additional amendments to extend the reconciliation powers and to further extend certain deadlines. It engaged the senior judiciary on these matters, which also resulted in no objections to the amendments.
In conclusion, I assure Committee members that the amendments set out in this statutory instrument are necessary to improve and correct the running of the judicial pension schemes, to meet our statutory duty to insert a cost cap mechanism and, together with other measures on judicial pay and pensions, to help ensure that we can continue to support our outstanding independent judiciary.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. As the Minister explained, this legislation is somewhat technical, so I do not intend to add anything beyond the minimum necessary to the time that colleagues are required to be here. I know that the Prime Minister is a particular fan of pensions law and is lucky enough to have his own one, but I do not think he expects his colleagues to be equally enthusiastic about it.
As the Minister said, the Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2024 make essential updates to our judicial pension schemes. Those changes originate from the previous Government and were always expected to garner cross-party support. The regulations are a crucial part of the ongoing reform process and are aimed at ensuring not only fairness, clarity and efficiency in the pension system for judges, but compliance with legislative and actuarial recommendations.
The regulations address several key areas in the judicial pension schemes. To reiterate, the first is the introduction of an employer cost cap, which is a critical measure required under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. Importantly, that mechanism will trigger adjustments only in response to significant and unpredictable changes, ensuring that alterations to the pension scheme are made cautiously and only when absolutely necessary. The second is the extension of eligibility for pension benefits to additional judicial officers within the FPJPS. That ensures that judges in newly clarified or newly created judicial roles can now access pension benefits in a way that properly reflects their service. The regulations also address the complex issue of the transfer of service between different pension schemes, ensuring that judges receive their full and correct pension entitlements.
In addition, the regulations extend the deadlines for member elections within the FPJPS. The additional time provided will allow judges to make informed choices about their pension options, ensuring that no one is rushed into a decision without understanding the full implications. There are further measures, but I need not repeat them as the Minister has outlined them.
In conclusion, the regulations represent a significant step forward in the reform of judicial pensions. The judiciary plays an absolutely vital role in the functioning of our justice system, and it is imperative that we continue to support and incentivise talented individuals to join and remain in the judiciary. The regulations will ensure that our pension system remains attractive, fair and sustainable, offering security to judges in their retirement, while also protecting taxpayers. I am conscious of my pledge to be brief, so I can confirm that the Opposition support these changes. I have nothing further to add.
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to the shadow spokesperson for his support and brevity, and I am sure all members of the Committee endorse that comment. With that, Mr Betts, I hope you agree that this statutory instrument is necessary, and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. This order was laid in draft before the House on 17 October 2024. I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This straightforward instrument relates to protective awards, which can be made by an employment tribunal when an employer does not meet its collective consultation obligations. Those obligations currently apply when an employer is proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees within any 90-day period at a single establishment.
Schedule A2 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 sets out the list of claims for which an employment tribunal can make a 25% adjustment to compensation if one of the parties has unreasonably failed to comply with a relevant code of practice. Collective consultation requirements apply, among other things, to dismissal and re-engagement scenarios involving 20 or more employees. The code of practice on dismissal and re-engagement will be a relevant code of practice in such cases.
The change will mean that when an employment tribunal is making a protective award in a case where the code applies, and it appears to the tribunal that the employer has unreasonably failed to comply with the code, the tribunal may increase that award by up to 25%, increasing the deterrent effect of the code. In other words, if an employer dismisses and re-engages employees but does not meet its collective consultation obligations and unreasonably fails to comply with the code, it will be liable for a greater payout. The order will therefore give the tribunal greater discretion to take individual behaviours into account when making an award. It will add a key potential claim in dismissal and re-engagement scenarios to the list of awards that can attract a 25% adjustment for non-compliance with the code.
As Committee members may be aware, a version of this order was debated and approved in the House earlier this year; however, because the election was called and Parliament was dissolved, it was not debated in the other place. That is why we are here debating it again. If the order is approved in both Houses, it will come into force in January 2025.
The Government are committed to going much further than is set out in the code. We have brought forward the Employment Rights Bill within our first 100 days of government, as we promised; that will end the unscrupulous fire and rehire practices that we believe have no place in a modern employment market. In the meantime, before the Bill completes its passage and comes into force, we have decided to continue with the previous Government’s code of practice, which came into force earlier in the summer. Although we recognise that it is inadequate on its own, it does offer some additional protections to working people.
The code sets out employers’ responsibilities when seeking to change contractual terms and conditions of employment. As I said, the order will mean that there could be a 25% uplift in the award if an employer has unreasonably failed to comply with the code. But we will go further by ending the unscrupulous use of fire and rehire. We are consulting on reforming the law to provide effective remedies against abuse and will replace the statutory code with a strengthened code of practice. We have launched a consultation to gain views on increasing the cap on the protective award for scenarios where employers have not complied with collective redundancy rules; and on adding interim relief to collective redundancy and fire and rehire scenarios. Increasing the protective award would mean that the small proportion of companies that flout existing rules could end up paying significantly more per employee. The consultation also seeks views on whether interim relief should be available to employees who bring claims for unfair dismissal in fire and rehire scenarios and for breaches of collective consultation requirements.
I will not say any more about this straightforward regulation. I conclude by highlighting the Government’s ambitions on the “Make Work Pay” plan, which sets out an ambitious agenda that will strengthen the rights of workers, address the fragmented labour market and support workers in balancing responsibilities outside work. In so doing, “Make Work Pay” will help people stay in work, make work more secure and family-friendly, and improve living standards, putting more money in working people’s pockets.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
As the Minister said, this draft statutory instrument was largely consulted on and prepared by the previous Conservative Government, so clearly the Opposition will not divide the Committee this afternoon. I congratulate the Department for Business and Trade, however, on managing to update the explanatory memorandum, unlike a Department for Transport statutory instrument that I responded to the other week, which still listed Guy Opperman, a Minister in the previous Government, as having signed off the declaration.
The measures in the draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (Amendment of Schedule A2) Order 2024 build on legislation passed under the previous Government. The memorandum that accompanies this statutory instrument directly references historical concerns about fire and rehire tactics, which—I put it to the Committee—the last Conservative Government addressed through the establishment of a statutory code of practice. I gently suggest to the Minister that that should be reflected in the Bill that comes to Committee next week.
In government, we were clear with employers that they must not use threats of dismissal to pressurise employees into accepting new terms, and that they should have honest and open-minded discussions with their employees and representatives. In accordance with the code of practice, businesses must consult with employees in a fair and transparent way when proposing changes to their employment terms.
The Conservatives took the initiative to uphold and secure employment rights. Meanwhile, the Government—this is where some contention sneaks in—seem content with their disastrous national insurance jobs tax on employers and employees, the latter shouldering 76% of the cost according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, and to see businesses struggle and in many cases risk failure all together. There cannot be employee protections without employees in the first place.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I had wondered whether it was necessary to speak, but given some of the comments I have just heard, I feel compelled to do so.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the Employment Rights Bill, on the back of the “New Deal for Working People”. The Bill will be the single and foremost change to working people’s terms and conditions in this country for more than a generation. It is long overdue. When I first saw this order, however, I got quite a shock. I thought, “Is this it?”, although I suppose a 25% uplift is better than nowt. But of course it has not come from our Front Bench, thank goodness; it is something we have inherited.
I want to look at this draft measure through the prism of fire and rehire—actually, not fire and rehire, but fire and replace—that we came up against in P&O Ferries and Peter Hebblethwaite. I was a member of the Business and Trade Committee that heard evidence from that chief executive. He made it abundantly clear that he was quite prepared to break the law of the land on consultation periods and to price it into the compensation, the pay-off, of his workforce.
All we got from the then Government was a wringing of hands, a condemnation and very little else. The draft order seems to be the sum total of their response to that travesty. I have to tell the Committee that the 25% uplift would be a doddle to the likes of P&O. It would not be impacted one jot. I am delighted that the Minister mentioned interim relief; when we go forward with our excellent Employment Rights Bill, I am sure we will discuss what that will look like.
I gently say that if we are going to be able to stop another P&O, we will need injunctive relief because trying to bring out interim relief after the horse has bolted will be no good whatever. I also gently suggest that the sorts of financial penalties that need to be imposed on the egregious behaviours of the likes of P&O will have to be significantly higher. There was discussion about unlimited fines being visited on those who had deliberately prepared to break the law for their own ends. We have to look at those issues very carefully.
In addition, now that we have the opportunity we have to reflect on the appalling record of enforcement across the piece. The number of tribunal awards that are not paid out by employers is legion, and the ability of people to then pursue their enforcement is sadly lacking. It is critically important that we should have rights and protections for our workforce and the powers to have those enforced. I will close with that; I just express my relief that we did not bring the measure forward—
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
You are bringing it forward—that’s what we are doing here!
Andy McDonald
I get the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but the legislation did not originate from the Government side. We are taking this first step, but I put the Opposition on notice that it is simply a first step.
Justin Madders
I welcome the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, to his place. I fear we will be seeing a lot more of each other. No doubt we can pick up some of the wider points he made during our consideration of the Employment Rights Bill, which we will be debating over a number of weeks.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s critique, I gently point out to him that this is a significant step forward. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East said, even the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, when asked to respond to the measure, said that it might not always present a significant deterrent when calculated against the financial costs and risks of an alternative approach. So even ACAS, whose job it is to reduce employment disputes, does not believe that it goes far enough. The Government are clear that we do not believe it goes far enough, which is why we are consulting on measures such as removing or doubling the cap for protective awards, and possibly introducing interim relief. All Members are invited to respond to the ongoing open consultation.
I am pleased that we have agreement across the board about the measure. It is a small step forward—an interim step—but it is not the final destination. The Government are clear that we want to ensure that the likes of what happened at P&O can never happen again. I commend the measure to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Derriford Emergency Care Centre Plymouth
Dolphin Inn Grampound
Westminster Hall
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Blind and Partially Sighted People: Employment Support
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered employment support for blind and partially sighted people.
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am really pleased to have secured this debate on what I and others—judging by the number of Members here today—believe is an incredibly important issue. I thank the many organisations that provided briefings ahead of the debate.
In October, the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment, which I chair, published its “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report, which looked at employer attitudes towards blind and partially sighted people. I thank the secretariat—the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Thomas Pocklington Trust—all those who responded to the written consultation, and especially those who shared their experiences at the oral evidence sessions, which I will discuss shortly.
We wanted to know why the number of blind and partially sighted people in employment is still stubbornly low at a time when there are about 900,000 job vacancies, despite the Equality Act 2010, a wealth of diversity and inclusion policies, and more than a decade of welfare-to-work programmes from various Governments. In November 2023, the APPG commissioned YouGov to carry out polling to look at employer attitudes. The findings were shocking, and prompted the APPG to launch its inquiry to look at the issue in more detail. To my knowledge, it is the first parliamentary inquiry to look solely at employer attitudes. We held a series of oral evidence sessions, put out a call for written evidence and held a number of one-to-one meetings with employers, including Apple and Channel 4. We heard from a range of employers, sight loss organisations and, most importantly, blind and partially sighted people themselves.
We found that 48% of employers said that they did not have accessible recruitment processes, so for many the online job application was not accessible, and in many cases it was not compatible with assistive technology. That obviously prevented many people living with sight loss from applying for those jobs in the first place. Some employers were not willing to make reasonable adjustments where possible, for example for psychometric testing, which is part of the recruitment process for many grad schemes, so many of those platforms were also inaccessible. Most worryingly, about a quarter of employers said that they would not be willing to make workplace adjustments or adaptations in order to employ blind and partially sighted people. The problem stems partly from a lack of awareness of where to access support or funding, or just advice and information, but there is also a pattern of outdated attitudes towards visually impaired people.
During the oral evidence sessions, we heard powerful testimony from many blind and partially sighted people. Many expressed a deep sense of frustration and anger at the job market because employers do not understand the importance of ensuring that their recruitment and interview processes are inclusive. Websites were not accessible, and application forms were not provided in alternative formats. Many respondents had to face the dilemma of whether to disclose their disability, or even ask for reasonable adjustments during the interview process.
I know that from my own experience. I have always been in the camp that chooses to declare their visual impairment at the start, but not everybody has the confidence to do that, based on their experiences. Others referred to the time it took to complete applications and said that their request for a reasonable adjustment of extra time had not been granted. One respondent reported that an interviewer seemed more focused on their blindness than their qualifications; they said that it felt as though the assessment of their ability to do the job was treated as a secondary factor, rather than the primary objective.
Although I am speaking a lot about the recruitment process—applications and interviews—many respondents shared their frustrations about being in work and acquiring their sight loss, or being in work and wanting additional aids or adaptations. I hope hon. Members do not mind my speaking from my own lived experience. Throughout my working life—I will not show my age by saying how long that has been—I have known the challenges that many have faced. I have been a Member of Parliament for seven and a half years, and to this day I still face challenges with technology, which cause a lot of stress and worry. There are days when I am not able to do my work as an MP because my IT kit is not working. Recently, I had to go further and lodge a formal complaint. I hope that by doing that I will finally be able to get all the kit I need to do my job and represent my constituents, just as my colleagues can.
Why do we need action and change? The employment rate for people living with sight loss is 42%, compared with 82% for non-disabled people. The disability pay gap is around 17%, which equates to us working unpaid for 54 days a year. The disability employment gap has remained at around 29% to 30% for more than a decade. I think that is hugely disrespectful. Actually, it is a disgrace. Employers are missing out on a wealth of talent. One of the respondents at our oral evidence session, who is quite senior in their workplace, said that they found that their visual impairment became less of a barrier the more senior they became. That is absolutely the right thing, but it should start at the entry level of any job.
We know that not getting the right support has a negative impact on health and wellbeing. There is clear evidence that good work improves health outcomes across people’s lives and protects them against social exclusion. Employment can bring not just better incomes but financial stability, security and a greater sense of purpose, which in turn can lead to healthier diets, increased exercise, higher living standards and, most importantly, better mental health outcomes.
Our report contains some excellent examples of best practice, and I will share a few. Roger told us that in his corporate workplace, screen-reader software and ergonomic equipment enabled him to perform his tasks efficiently, and that having a supportive team who understood his needs made him feel valued and included in his workplace. Another person told us that about a member of an interview panel who guided a visually impaired person through the process, taking them to the interview room and explaining its layout; then, as they sat down, the panel described themselves and gave information about who they were. Those are examples of small adjustments that can be made. They are not complicated or costly. As one respondent put it,
“It’s not just about providing the tools; it’s about creating a supportive environment where blind and partially sighted employees can thrive.”
Our “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report makes a series of recommendations that aim to fix what we believe is a broken system. The key element is the need for a disability employment strategy that sets out measures to improve employer attitudes and increase the number of blind and partially sighted people finding and retaining work. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that we need a clear strategy, and that this must be a watershed moment in how we improve employment opportunities and support?
Another recommendation is for the Government to partner with sight loss organisations to develop best practice on recruiting blind and partially sighted people and supporting them to enter work, as well as on supporting them in work. I hope that the Minister will agree to look at how he can do that. Other recommendations include reviewing the Equality Act to ensure that it is fit for the 21st century and our modern labour market. This is not just about the Government taking action; it is about employers taking action. We want them to take practical steps to ensure that their workplaces are inclusive, including by preparing documents and information in accessible formats. Naturally, we need to address the issues in the Government’s Access to Work scheme, including the delays and backlogs. When Access to Work is working efficiently, it is probably the best form of employment support.
I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the recommendations in the report, which I know he has had sight of. I welcome the fresh approach from the Government, who are taking a serious look at this issue, and thank the Minister for agreeing to meet me later today—it is interesting that the debate came on the same day. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, who gave a speech at the report launch. She said that it was an opportunity for “big change”, which was
“needed so that all blind and partially sighted people can play their full role in society”.
She kindly said that the report would be considered as an early submission to the upcoming employment White Paper, so I look forward to seeing what the White Paper includes in relation to a disability employment strategy.
Does the Minister agree that this issue is not just about the Department for Work and Pensions? We need a cross-Government approach that incorporates the Department for Business and Trade, the equalities office and others to ensure that we have a strategy that helps to shift employer attitudes. Will he commit to working with the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that we take an approach that truly supports employers to snap up all the amazing talent that is waiting for them and that they are currently missing out on?
The report recommends looking at practical steps to ensure that workplaces are inclusive. However, there is already brilliant guidance and best practice available, so in many cases this is not about reinventing the wheel, but about working collaboratively with other organisations. At the moment, we subscribe to accessibility standards for online spaces. I am keen to know whether the Government will look at legislating to ensure that all websites meet an accessibility standard requirement.
Finally—I raised this issue previously—will the Government look again at the Sense charity’s recommendation for a jobcentre technology fund? Such a fund would equip jobcentres with specialist assistive technology, such as screen-reading software, so that some disabled people are able to look for work in jobcentres. At the moment, no computers in jobcentres have specialist assistive technology. The recommendation seems like a nice, quick fix that could ensure that those spaces are inclusive for people who are looking for work.
I look forward to working with the Minister and his colleagues in implementing the recommendations and ensuring that Labour will deliver for all disabled people. At the end of the day, ensuring that recruitment practices are accessible and workplaces are supportive is not about charity; it is about doing what is right and just. It is also about helping employers and our economy to benefit from the skills and talent they are missing out on.
I will end by quoting an individual who appeared before the APPG. They said:
“The more blind and partially sighted people there are in the workforce, the more public assumptions and attitudes will be challenged. This will benefit blind and partially sighted people of all ages, and ultimately change…attitudes, which is the biggest barrier to thriving for all.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak. Then we will work out the order of who is going when.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq; I always look forward to it. I commend the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for setting the scene so very well on a subject that is of great interest to all hon. Members present and to me personally. It is only fair to put on the record my thanks for her leadership of the APPG on eye health and visual impairment. In the time we have known each other, I have always supported her in these debates; she used to be on the Opposition side of the Chamber, but has now been elevated. We look forward to working strongly alongside her and others in the years ahead, if God spares us.
There are currently 57,500 people across Northern Ireland with sight loss, and the figure is expected to rise by over 25% by 2032. Today’s debate sets out the problem, but it also gives us an opportunity to think about what we can do to reduce that figure. Some 50% of sight loss is preventable, and it is that preventable 50% that I want to talk about.
The message must be clear that eye tests are as necessary as any other health check. I work very closely alongside the opticians in Newtownards in my constituency: they come to me regularly with their ideas, and I always convey those ideas to the Health Minister in Northern Ireland and to the Secretary of State or Minister at Westminster. I cannot remember the technical term for it, but the opticians in Newtownards have the most up-to-date machinery for checking people’s eyes—it is phenomenal.
My question to the Minister, if he does not mind my asking it at the very beginning, is what has been done to ensure more opticians’ tests, even for people who may think that they do not need one. I do not want to make them mandatory, because that would be wrong, but they should be made more accessible and available.
I will give two examples of the importance of opticians’ tests. A gentleman I know quite well once came to see me. I said that he did not look very well—he was very pale—and he said, “Jim, I have an absolutely splitting headache.” I said, “Have you been to the doctor?” He said, “I have, and the doctor gave me some headache tablets.” I said, “Where are you going now?” He said, “I’m going to the opticians.” I said, “You go to the optician and tell him about your headache.” The optician took that man’s details and sent him directly from Newtownards up to Ulster hospital in Dundonald. He had a tumour the size of an apple in his head. Immediate surgery saved that man’s life.
Another person I know quite well had been having headaches and blurred vision for some time. She would come to see me about benefits, and I would say, “Look, I think you should go and see your optician.” She did, and fortunately she had a tumour removed. It saved her sight and saved her life.
What more can we do? We—when I say “we”, I mean the Government—can prevent eye loss. If the Government can get people to make appointments early, I believe we can see great things happening for the 50% of sight loss that is preventable. Back in June, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland launched two new guides to support adults with sensory disabilities in Northern Ireland. As always, I will give some examples that I hope are helpful for the Minister to take on board.
The new resources, known as care pathways, map out the care and treatment that users can expect from professionals and support organisations to help them to manage their conditions. I welcome the excellent initiative to make a pathway to care and a future free from red tape and obstructions. My goodness! I know that there is red tape to get through—we understand that—but sometimes it becomes so burdensome that people just turn off.
The guides were released in tandem with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and other charitable groups. The support provided for blind and partially sighted people by those in the charitable sector is phenomenal. They should be thanked for stepping up and filling the breach, as they so often do.
I read recently on the RNIB’s website that it has a scheme called “SkillSET RNIB (2023)”, a Northern Ireland-based pre-employment initiative that offers opportunities for people who are seeking to gain employment for the first time or who are unable to continue in their current job because of sight loss. The hon. Member for Battersea has described the problems she experiences in coming to work and how technology lets her down; schemes such as these, in tandem with the Government Department back home and with the RNIB, can come up with ideas to address those issues directly and helpfully. They can enable people to find work and can encourage them in everyday life.
I am also aware that the Department for Work and Pensions has the Access to Work scheme, which is operated through the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland. Access to Work can contribute towards any supplementary employment costs that result from a disability. Sometimes we come and present cases, but there are things that Governments do, both back home at the Northern Ireland Assembly and here. I believe that the DWP’s Access to Work scheme is available for any paid job, part-time or full-time, permanent or temporary.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My hon. Friend talks about what needs to be done on pathways to work. Does he agree that potential employers need to understand two things? First, they could be in breach of the law if they engage in activities that prevent partially sighted or blind people from getting employment. Secondly, they could be overlooking better-qualified candidates for employment. Either way, they will lose unless they take account of this very worthwhile debate and of the need to ensure that they comply.
Jim Shannon
As always, my hon. Friend adds important evidence that takes the debate forward, and I thank him for it. Hopefully the Minister is listening as well.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The hon. Member has rightly mentioned the importance of Access to Work and how it can make a real difference in supporting disabled people, including blind and partially sighted people, to secure and retain employment. One of the challenges is ensuring that there is enough provision and that enough employers are aware of Access to Work. Does the hon. Member agree that it is important to ensure greater awareness of Access to Work and more opportunities for that support?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I know that the Minister is an assiduous Minister who is here to help, and that the staff and civil servants behind him are taking notes on all these matters, so hopefully when he winds up the debate he will satisfy our requests. I also welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), to his place; I wish him well in the role and look forward to his contribution.
The Access to Work scheme has no minimum number of hours for eligibility for support, although people are generally expected to reach the lower earnings limit. Access to Work aims to help if someone needs support or adaptations beyond the reasonable adjustments; it helps pay towards them. What we have in place is excellent, but as the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) says, people need to know what is available. The scheme is a great one, but the onus is firmly on the employers’ shoulders. That is where we are we are failing. There needs to be a pathway for our young people throughout schooling and into employment. We need to tell people who have not worked before, “It is not impossible. It can be done. It is within your reach to use your talents, intelligence and abilities and work as your peers do.”
Debates like this one raise awareness, which is wonderful, but we need to ensure that any person who has a diagnosis of sight loss understands that they are not alone or expected to sit at home. They are part of this community, and there is a space for them and a role for them to play. The charities seek to hammer home that message and they do absolutely marvellous work, but we all need to do more. My hope is that this new Government will achieve that. I have known the Minister for years and he has always shown sympathy and compassion, so I know that he will be able to respond in a positive fashion and help people to do better. We have that opportunity, and the Government have that opportunity. Let’s do it.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) not only on securing this debate on such an important topic, but on her skill and commitment in leading the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment.
The APPG is such an important group for ensuring that the voices of blind and partially sighted people are heard in this Parliament. Having been for many years a member of the cross-party group on visual impairment in the Scottish Parliament, I am delighted to find that the APPG here is also an effective forum for advancing key policy areas for people with visual impairment. Changing employers’ attitudes and increasing employment opportunities for blind and partially sighted people is vital, for all the reasons that my hon. Friend set out in her excellent opening speech and that the hugely important “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report highlights.
As an MP for a Scottish constituency, I am keenly aware that this is as important an issue for people with visual impairment in Scotland as it is in the rest of the UK. In his excellent speech, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was quite right to point out that there is also important work for the devolved Administrations to do. Only one in four blind and partially sighted people in Scotland is in paid employment. Research by RNIB Scotland shows that there are about 9,000 registered blind and partially sighted people of working age in Scotland, of whom only about 2,000 are in work. As many as 78% are not employed, so for blind and partially sighted people in Scotland the disability employment gap is particularly acute.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea rightly highlighted the disability pay gap and the inequality that it creates in our society. There is a huge opportunity cost not only to people with visual impairment who want to work and cannot find work, but to our society as a whole. In my career before my election to this place, I was fortunate to work at the charity Sight Scotland. A number of our services employed blind and partially sighted people. They were valued members of our team, not only as experts by experience but because of their individual skills and their knowledge. They would be assets at any workplace where they were employed.
During my time at the charity, we conducted research into the social isolation that is experienced by too many people with visual impairment. Our research showed that 90% of our respondents had experienced loneliness. It is important to recognise not only that increasing employment opportunities helps to counter low income and poverty, which still affect far too many blind and partially sighted people, but that being in work, having a workplace to go to and working alongside colleagues helps to tackle isolation, promotes inclusion and improves the quality of life for people with visual impairment in so many other ways as well. It is vital that we create far fairer access to employment for blind and partially sighted people and ensure support is in place for them and for potential employers to achieve that.
In my constituency, the charity Seescape supports more than 4,000 people each year through rehabilitation and through aids, equipment and accessible technology. Those kinds of support are essential to achieving inclusion in the workplace. Seescape’s work is transformational for so many blind and partially sighted people, not only in Glenrothes and Mid Fife but throughout the whole Kingdom of Fife. It is hugely valued by our community.
I very much welcome the recommendation in the “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report that the UK Government should partner with sight loss organisations to develop best practice on recruiting blind and partially sighted people and supporting them to enter the labour market. They are the very organisations with the right expertise and knowledge to achieve that goal.
I also endorse the substantive and practical recommendations in that report for the Government and employers. Those recommendations come at an important time, as we look towards the “Get Britain Working” White Paper and the £240 million that will be invested by the Government to promote employability. Following our conversation at Mr Speaker’s excellent event to celebrate Disability History Month, I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister, who I welcome to his place, is seized by the opportunity that the White Paper offers to increase disability employment and to set out an effective strategy.
Sadly, in the last few years, there have been cuts in funding for employability at both the UK level and the Scottish level. Not enough has been done to promote opportunities through Access to Work, a scheme that can make a real difference when it is effectively delivered. We need to change that situation by ensuring that the White Paper leads to an employability strategy that actually works for blind and partially sighted people.
In Scotland, employability programmes such as Fair Start Scotland have certainly not had enough success in including people with visual impairment. That needs to change and it can change. We know what works in promoting the employment of blind and partially sighted people: changing attitudes and changing the approaches of employers, in line with the practical recommendations made in the “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report and more broadly in relation to disability.
I also commend the work of the commission led by Lord Shinkwin for the Institute of Directors and its report, “The Future of Business: harnessing diverse talent for success”. That report makes a series of recommendations to Government to create the most favourable conditions for businesses and directors to flourish, with specific reference to gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability.
One member of that commission was Dr Theresa Shearer, the chief executive of Enable, where I worked until I was elected to this House; I declare that interest. The All In programme, led by Enable Works, has formed employability partnerships across Scotland that have brought together specialist third sector organisations so that they can collaborate. Those partnerships have had great success in securing training and employment for many people who face barriers to employment, including blind and partially sighted people. Indeed, they have secured three and a half jobs for every one job delivered by traditional employability schemes.
There are many factors involved in improving employment opportunities for blind and partially sighted people; indeed, we could have a separate debate on education and transitions into employment. However, the many important recommendations in the “Changing Attitudes, Changing Lives” report will result in real progress if they are adopted. The first recommendation is essential, namely that we establish a disability employment strategy that sets out measures to improve employers’ attitudes and increase the number of blind and partially sighted people who find and—crucially—retain work.
I commend that report and its recommendations, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea on all she is doing to ensure that its ambitions are fulfilled. Fulfilling them is vital if we are to achieve genuine inclusion for blind and partially sighted people in our society throughout the UK.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Our final Back Bencher, before we move on to the Lib Dem spokesperson, is Lee Pitcher.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
It is great to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on securing this hugely important debate.
I speak today from personal experience. My lovely wife has retinitis pigmentosa, a degenerative eye condition that has no cure or treatment. Julie has reached the stage where she uses a white cane and eventually, like her mum and uncle, she will probably need a guide dog to assist her. Those who watch “Strictly” may know that retinitis pigmentosa is the condition that comedian Chris McCausland has. Like Chris, Julie is an inspiration, not a gimmick, having recently learned to ski blind.
Julie has never let her disability define her; instead, she excels with the abilities that she does have. What we have learned together over 30 years, as our careers have progressed, is how those abilities can allow her to thrive, and I have to say that her workplaces have been enormously supportive of her.
I will focus on the use of technology and the importance of awareness, because the use of artificial intelligence is a game changer. Apps such as Seeing AI can narrate the world around the user. It harnesses the power of AI to open up the visual world, and describes nearby people, texts and objects. In the world of work, it supports people to identify colleagues and helps to facilitate a team culture. As long as those colleagues do not take offence at being taken for a 55-year-old man, as happened to me when the camera was held up to my face—I am in my mid-40s—it is an absolute gem of a research project.
Maximising the use of existing functionality is also important and remarkably useful. Adobe will read out pages of text, and people can ask ChatGPT to find those texts with a simple verbal instruction. My one ask is that when people use hashtags, they should use a capital letter for each new word because that ensures that the hashtag makes sense when read out.
The ability to work from home has opened up a world of opportunity, as meetings and conferences can be accessed from an environment that does not require travel. Although I often witness the kindness of the majority of people when Julie travels on buses or the underground to visit me or work in London, I also witness people who just barge into her as she gets on to an escalator slowly, or who tut because they cannot get past her. I get upset by that. Julie takes no notice because it has become her norm.
There is a broader need in society for people to better understand disabilities, and that starts with education and awareness in school. Will the Minister speak to the relevant Education Minister about how that can be raised as part of the curriculum review?
Future transport technology is also exciting. It may be that when we travel in future, we will jump into our own driverless vehicles and travel to our destinations. When Julie and I visited San Francisco, we saw a driverless taxi for the first time. At the moment, that can be a scary thought, culturally, but it offers a different kind of hope for travel independence in the future, and we should start to embrace what is out there across the globe.
It is great to have all those technologies and the ability to work from anywhere in any part of the world. It is also great to hear that the world is changing.
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech, and I am pleased that he is talking about technology. Does he agree that many technology companies have cottoned on to the fact that if they make their products inclusive, it is better business for them? Companies such as Apple, Microsoft and others are leading the way by ensuring that their apps and devices such as iPads are accessible, which will help not just blind and partially sighted people, but disabled people in general into work.
Lee Pitcher
I could not agree more. There is a whole world of innovation out there, involving companies such as Apple and Microsoft, and we need to embrace that and find a way to channel it into everyday society and use.
As I was saying, it is great to have those technologies, but having them out there is not enough. We need to find a way for people to know about them and use them. The amazing work of organisations such as the RNIB, Guide Dogs, and the Partially Sighted Society in my area of Doncaster is just incredible. They make us aware of what can be done at home and at work through the use of technology.
The challenge for us, and for the 2 million Julies out there in the UK, is how to amplify the work of those organisations to improve employment support for blind and partially sighted people even more, to help employers to understand the technologies and processes that give opportunities for all and allow everyone to thrive. I ask the Minister how he might raise awareness of AI use in the workplace to support adjustments to maximise those opportunities.
I finish with this: I ask you, Dr Huq, to imagine Julie on that slope for the first time, carefully traversing the snow, the ice and the undulations with her white cane, then ditching that cane for ski poles, and hurtling down the mountainside with skill, talent and ability. The “Wow!” that you see on our children’s faces says it all. She is a role model and an inspiration. Anything is achievable with determination and the right support and resources. Let us make sure that everyone gets the opportunity to apply those abilities at home, when travelling to and from work, and at work. I want to see a world where that “Wow!” is visible every day in the workplace.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Thank you for your sterling chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for securing this debate on an issue that is extremely important, particularly in the light of the recent report. It is extremely helpful that we have the opportunity to debate this matter and engage with the Minister. As the Liberal Democrats work and pensions spokesperson, and as someone who is registered blind, I hope I can bring something to the table.
I am sorry to say that, as has been said, there is sadly still significant discrimination against blind and partially sighted people. Taxis, hotels and restaurants are pinch points where disabled people going about their business often hit hurdles. Hon. Members have alluded to the kindness of strangers, however, and before I had my guide dog, I would occasionally try to use the underground in London. My belief in humanity would always be reaffirmed, as there was much kindness from strangers—the milk of human kindness is out there.
As the Liberal Democrats spokesman, I endorse the findings of the report that we are debating. The most important thing is to ensure that we do things with people, rather than to people, so co-design is extremely important. Tackling discrimination must be part of our agenda, because sadly it is alive and well, and we must strengthen the legislation on it.
Part of the challenge is the legacy of more than a decade of Conservative-led Governments, who have not tacked these issues. Mental health is a particularly challenging area. People who are blind or partially sighted face challenges and hurdles in their lives, so we need to be alive to the fact that the black dog of depression and mental health issues may not be very far away from them. Enhancing our mental health services as part of our general approach would be a real step change in support.
Once upon a time—in the ’80s—I went to the Royal National College for the Blind in Hereford, so I belong to the 1980s Royal National College Facebook page. When I became aware that this debate was coming up, I reached out to people who had gone to the college to see how the world treats them now that they are 50-something, as I am. Although a number of them had positive employment experiences, others had experienced real challenges. Somebody in their 50s told me that they had had less than a year’s gainful employment during their life, which is shocking. They said that they were able to find voluntary work, but that there were blockages in the way to longer-term employment.
Access to Work is a significant issue, as delays to it have doubled to more than 55,000. We must tackle that issue to drive the positive change that we want to see. People from the Royal National College also spoke to me about the Disability Confident employer scheme, as they are not sure whether it is just virtue signalling and not worth the paper it is written on.
Marsha De Cordova
The hon. Member touches on the Disability Confident scheme. Does he agree that for the scheme to be worth the paper it is written on, it needs to have proper quality frameworks in place, so that those who become Disability Confident employers actually employ disabled people? Currently, some employers with that status do not employ a single disabled person.
Steve Darling
The hon. Member has clearly been reading my notes, because my next point was that someone cannot be a Disability Confident employer and not employ anyone disabled—she is spot on. I have made some inquiries in this area since getting elected in July, and the problem is that the Government do not measure Disability Confident employers. When I went to my local jobcentre, it said that it did not have to report up to top shop at all, and the Library was not aware of any monitoring by the Government. If we do not measure it, it does not count, so that is a real issue.
Going back to my trip down memory lane to the Royal National College for the Blind, one of the issues I heard from former college friends was that we should not have to go out and champion the Access to Work scheme ourselves; Government should be doing that. It should not be one of Government’s best kept secrets, but sadly it sometimes is. People also described it as an overcomplicated system that had resulted in their not being able to employ support workers as agents. They said it was too complicated and there were too many delays in obtaining support through that scheme.
I represent Torbay, and a resident there tells me that after 30 years of solid work for the national health service, she decided to change employment to Devon in Sight, an outstanding local charity that supports blind and visually impaired people across Devon. Sadly, though, it took three months for payments to come through from Access to Work, which left her with significant financial liabilities. Fortunately she had flexibility in her own finances, but if the next person was coming out of a period of employment and faced financially straitened circumstances, it could have resulted in their not being able to continue with their employment.
I am also aware of a lady from the midlands who was recently made redundant by a large national charity, for which she was a rehabilitation officer. She is now looking to change to a local charity undertaking similar work, but Access to Work is only offering her a support worker one day a week. That is impacting on her personal wellbeing, as she is having to take up the cudgels and battle the scheme over what seems a bizarre offer of help. I would like to challenge the Minister on how we ensure that, when we design new schemes, we are working with people; I would welcome some assurances on that.
I would also like assurances around a project plan for Access to Work. I mentioned that there are 55,000 people in the backlog. I would welcome assurances from the Minister on how we are going to tackle that, with a project plan to do so within a reasonable length of time. Have they done the sums around that? What assurance can the Minister give that it will be up to a 28-day turnaround? Finally, I would like some assurances around Disability Confident, so that it can be a scheme that is valuable, drives positive change and, most of all, drives positive culture change in our society, so that people who are blind or partially sighted can play the active part in our communities that they should be undertaking.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for his powerful testimony about the enormous opportunities and barriers in this space, and particularly to the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for the work she has done on this topic during her time in Parliament. She serves her constituents and this community very well.
I was struck by the interesting speech by the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) about the opportunities of AI, which opened my eyes to the huge barriers that blind and partially sighted people have suffered and how technology is helping to overcome those barriers. I pay tribute to his wife: learning to ski with partial sight is a tremendous achievement, so all credit to her.
I echo the points made by other hon. Members about the imperative to overcome and reduce the barriers that blind and partially sighted people face in gaining work and progression in the workplace. Doing so is an absolutely necessary matter of justice to those people themselves; it is entirely wrong that people are discriminated against, directly or indirectly, because of their disability. We therefore have a moral imperative to act. As the hon. Member for Battersea stressed, we also need to reduce barriers to employment for blind and partially sighted people for the sake of the economy; when we exclude blind and partially sighted people from employment and progression in work, the country is denied an enormous wealth of talent.
Finally, addressing remaining barriers to employment and work progression for blind and partially sighted people is necessary for the sake of the taxpayer and the public finances. Our country’s disability benefits bill is simply unsustainable. It has risen sharply in recent years and is projected to rise to unsustainable levels over the course of this Parliament. On the current trajectory, spending on health and disability benefits will rise 56%—an additional £27 billion—over the course of this Parliament if change does not happen. Overall, spending on incapacity and disability benefits will rise from 2.4% of GDP to 3% over the course of this Parliament. If we could ensure that people who are currently excluded from the workforce can gain employment and reduce dependence on benefits, we could spend much of that money better in other spaces. I therefore support what the Government aim to do in this space and their plan to get activity back to pre-pandemic levels—a noble aspiration, which my party will support.
There are two ways to approach this question, as has been touched on in the debate so far. The first is the role of the Government themselves in getting the law, benefits system and incentives right in the fiscal, legal and welfare spaces. I am proud to say that my party led the way in ensuring that we as a country tackle discrimination against people with disabilities. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, introduced by William Hague, required employers to make reasonable adjustments to facilitate the employment of disabled people, and it remains the great landmark and a vital step in this space. We also introduced Access to Work grants, which have been discussed today. I am pleased to say that last year saw the highest number of Access to Work grant applications awarded for over 15 years—68,000, of which 3,000, I understand, were for blind and partially sighted people. That is encouraging.
Nevertheless, we clearly need to go further with Access to Work, as we have heard today. Some innovations were introduced towards the end of the last Parliament, including health adjustment passports, which aim to reduce the time that it takes people to apply for and receive an Access to Work award, by allowing people to take the statement of their disabilities and necessary adjustments from one employer to another. As I understand it, that helpful and practical innovation is now in force. The last Government was also introducing an enhanced Access to Work package, which gave employees more support than they got under the existing scheme, as well as ensuring that employers received support if they were helping to facilitate access to work. Clearly, the process remains onerous and complex—that is a condition that applies across the benefit system with its complex, difficult application process. It only recently went online and it has just become possible for all people to apply for Access to Work digitally. Improvements clearly need to be made.
I am concerned about the extent of the backlog in the application process, which began in the previous Parliament and continues. In September 2023, 22,000 applications remained outstanding; in May 2024, there were 37,000; and in October 2024, 56,000. There are significant problems in processing these applications. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on why that is and what can be done to reduce the backlog.
We need to ensure that the conditionality and incentives in the benefit system and employment support are robust and sensitive. I look forward to the forthcoming White Paper to see how that will be achieved. The hon. Member for Battersea recommends a review of the Equality Act and I welcome contributions there. It will be interesting to see what is suggested to improve that legislation.
I am concerned, however, about proposals that rely on tightening laws—strengthening the stick side of the arrangement, as it were. As the hon. Lady said, there have been a lot of laws and programmes introduced to support blind and partially sighted people—people with disabilities—into employment, yet there are still significant problems helping them to access and progress in work. Rules will only take us so far. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme talked about the role of technology, it struck me that technology will also only take us so far.
There is a danger in looking to technical solutions, whether in the law or technology, that let us off the hook for what really needs to be done. I gently point out the phenomenon of crowding out: the danger that statutory action can diminish the voluntary action that needs to be taken, in this case by employers, to do the right thing. That is the second approach that is crucial to this space; I am pleased that that was the focus of the hon. Member for Battersea’s report and today’s debate. We need to look at the attitude and culture of employers, more than the obligations and systemic responses that Government can make. Of course, Government can significantly influence the attitude of employers but, to quote the Royal National Institute of Blind People:
“There are no hard and fast rules”
when supporting disabled people at work. We should avoid making assumptions about what blind and partially sighted people can do. That is why we need a flexible approach, in which employers use their imagination and intelligence, in consultation with employees, to develop access for blind and partially sighted people in the workplace.
The way to do that is to stress the opportunity, the benefits that employers will reap and, frankly, how easy it is. I was struck by the hon. Lady’s story of what good looks like in the workplace. It sounds like human beings being human towards each other, being genuinely inclusive, ensuring that people help their colleagues literally to navigate the workplace. One can imagine the enormous benefit to that workplace and all employees when there is a culture of inclusivity and generosity, as the hon. Lady described.
The key is awareness. Many of the changes needed to make workplaces accessible are not difficult; they just need to be done deliberately as part of the policy of the Government. I welcome the practical recommendations in the hon. Lady’s report, and I look forward to seeing what the White Paper will do to implement them. I respect the Minister and his colleagues, who are genuinely dedicated to improving employment and employability. I am pleased to see what has been trailed for the White Paper, with a focus on skills, devolution, empowering local communities and opportunities for young people.
I very much hope that the White Paper will work with employers in the spirit of the report we are debating, rather than against them, but I am concerned by the policies that the Government have announced so far with respect to employers. The national insurance rise will result in thousands of pounds of taxation on every job, and new burdens on employers are being created through the Employment Rights Bill. Those are not good portents of an employer-friendly approach. Nevertheless, on this issue we agree about the direction of travel that needs to be taken, and I very much hope that my party works with the Government to progress the very helpful recommendations that the hon. Member for Battersea has made.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on securing this important and illuminating debate, and on the way she introduced it. She has a very deep commitment to this issue, as I know from her long-term work on the all-party parliamentary group. I commend her for that, and I also commend RNIB and the Thomas Pocklington Trust, which support that group by providing the secretariat.
It was welcome to hear hon. Members share their personal experiences. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) was absolutely right to remind us of the continuing problem of discrimination in work. It has not gone away and still needs to be addressed. It was great to hear about Julie’s experience of skiing—my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made his point very powerfully. I visited the Paralympics in Paris for a couple for a couple of days in the summer, and it was inspiring to see the accomplishments of people who are disabled and how much potential they have to contribute. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to do more to realise that potential in our economy and our society.
We all know about RNIB, and I am also familiar with the work of the Thomas Pocklington Trust thanks to my former constituent Helen Mitchell, who is one of its trustees. She arranged for me to pay a very useful and informative visit to its headquarters last year. I pay tribute to it for its work.
As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) said, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out, in a speech in Barnsley in July, our plans to reform the Department for Work and Pensions: rather than being the Department for welfare, it will be the Department for work. Our ambition is an 80% rate of employment, which would be the highest we have ever achieved in the UK. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire is absolutely right to remind us that the current rate of economic activity is still less than it was before the pandemic, so we still have a good deal of ground to make up.
To achieve that ambition, we have to do much better at supporting disabled people, including blind and partially sighted people, into work. We will not achieve our ambition without that. We want people with visual impairments, who, as we have been reminded, have great skills and talents to offer, to have equal chances to enter and thrive in the labour market. We cannot continue with the 40% visual impairment employment gap, which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea mentioned, and is spelled out in the APPG report. We will collaborate with visually impaired people and organisations advocating for them to work out how we can meet their needs and support them better.
We do not want people with visual impairments to have to give up work, as is too often the case. The hon. Member for Torbay helpfully told us about the experiences of people he was at college with in the 1980s. We want people to be able to stay in work and not have to give it up. If they lose their job, they should be able to get back into work. Having gone into work, they should be able to progress and do well.
As announced in the King’s Speech in July, in the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill we will fulfil our manifesto commitment to tackle the disability pay gap, which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea highlighted and which other Members also referred to. Additionally, our “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which will indeed be published soon, will announce crucial reforms to employment support. We will change the way that we measure success. For example, we will focus not simply on getting people into a job, but on ensuring that they can stay in work and can progress to higher earnings in the future. We want to support people in the longer term.
We will also overhaul jobcentres. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme made an interesting point about the importance of assistive technology in jobcentres. We will introduce a new youth guarantee, so that in future nobody will be left on the scrapheap when they are young.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea was absolutely right to point out that to achieve all that, we need healthy and inclusive workplaces. There are many employers who excel at creating inclusive workplaces in relation to health and disability, and it was very good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme about his wife’s positive experiences with her employers. However, the APPG’s report points out that many other employers recognise the value of providing an inclusive workplace and would like to provide one, but they need support to do so; at the moment, they do not feel in a position to do so.
Consequently, we are considering what more we can do to help, because preventing people from leaving the workforce and enabling more people to return to work after absences is a good thing. It is definitely good for the individuals concerned; it is good for their mental health and their sense of fulfilment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker), and the hon. Members for Torbay and for East Wiltshire, reminded us. However, it is also good for businesses and wider society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife referred to the work of Lord Shinkwin for the Institute for Directors. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of that work and I look forward to meeting Lord Shinkwin and discussing some of these issues with him in the near future.
The Disability Confident scheme, which has been referred to in the debate, is a very important resource that we already have. It featured in Lord Shinkwin’s report, my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife mentioned it, and the hon. Member for Torbay dedicated a good part of his speech to it. That scheme provides a strong platform, with more than 19,000 employers participating in it. It promotes good, inclusive employment and recruitment practices. It supports employers to deliver them and to become able to attract, recruit, retain and develop disabled people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea was absolutely right to underline the importance of accessible recruitment processes in making sure that people are not barred from applying for jobs in the first place. In the Disability Confident scheme, there are many committed employers who are enthusiastic about making recruitment processes accessible and who are determined to do well in that regard. However, I agree with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Torbay that the Disability Confident scheme can do more. I have had some encouraging recent conversations about that, for example, with the Business Disability Forum. Working with both employers and disabled people, we will examine how we can make the Disability Confident scheme more robust and how it can achieve more of its potential. I am convinced that potential is there, but we must realise more of it in future.
We also support employers with a digital information service and in increasing access to occupational health services, which the previous Government rightly recognised was important.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution, I outlined some of the things that we are doing in Northern Ireland. Obviously, that was to help the Minister with ideas that could be used here on the mainland. The Minister has outlined a number of things that are happening here. Does he intend to contact the relevant body in the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we can work better together, share ideas, do things better and make life better for the people we are here for?
Sir Stephen Timms
I certainly welcome opportunities to do that. We need to learn from all the devolved Governments in the UK. There are interesting things happening in Scotland, for example, on social security, and in Northern Ireland, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to a number of those. I am keen to pursue that further.
Disabled people and those with health conditions are a diverse group. The right work and health support in the right place at the right time is key. The contribution of Jobcentre Plus work coaches and disability employment advisers, who play an important role in jobcentres, is vital to this topic. I pay tribute to the dedication of those who are working on this at Jobcentre Plus. We will join up health and employment support around the individual. That will be through, for example, employment advisers in NHS talking therapies—seeing the NHS increasingly embrace the importance of supporting people into work—and individual placement and support in primary care.
My hon. Friends the Members for Battersea and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife, and the hon. Members for Torbay, for Strangford and for East Wiltshire, all spoke about Access to Work, rightly reflecting its crucial importance. The scheme provides grants for workplace adjustments beyond what is provided by the employer. Let us be clear that Access to Work does not replace an employer’s duty under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) pointed out in his intervention. There are clear statutory obligations here that need to be delivered. Access to Work, however, can provide funding for support workers, specialist aids and equipment, personalised support and workplace assessments, travel to or in work, and mental health support.
The hon. Member for Torbay referred to it as one of the best kept secrets, but demand for Access to Work has been growing fast. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire rightly reported that nearly 68,000 people had Access to Work support approved in the last financial year, an increase of almost a third on the previous year. It is now growing rapidly. As he said, it supported 3,850 people who reported their primary medical condition as difficulty in seeing. That is about 8% of the people who are supported by the scheme. Customers with difficulty seeing as their primary medical condition received a bigger proportion—13% or £33 million—of the total expenditure. Access to Work is making an important contribution.
We are committed to reducing the waiting times for Access to Work. Delivery of the support has been streamlined. We have more staff processing the claims. Customers starting a job within four weeks are prioritised to ensure that they get help in time. Since April, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire pointed out, all the core parts of the scheme are now online. However, I agree that more needs to be done. I welcome the engagement of all Members who have taken part in the debate and their continuing pressure to ensure that Access to Work delivers on its potential.
As has been highlighted, the APPG report rightly referred to the importance of technology in enabling visually impaired people to be in work. The report specifically mentioned text-to-speech software. Last week I visited Sense College Loughborough, a facility originally developed by RNIB. A visually impaired student there showed me the ZoomText application—which I was not aware of previously—using it to magnify the text he was looking at on a screen, and to manage a document over two screens. He commended its helpfulness to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme is absolutely right to point out just how big a game changer AI can be. We must realise that opportunity.
Access to Work can help provide assistive tech, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea pointed out in her intervention, suppliers such as Apple and Microsoft are increasingly bundling assistive tech with their standard products, partly because, as she said, it helps all users and makes the products easier to use for everybody. The technology is coming on in leaps and bounds. It is moving very fast, and we need to make sure that people have access to it. I am looking at what the Government can do in this area to make the technology better known, because a lot of people who have it on their devices do not know that it is there; to make assistive technology more readily available, where it is not bundled in with the standard product; and, maybe on occasion, to commission research to tackle a specific accessibility problem. We are thinking about this, and I welcome ideas and suggestions from Members about what more we can do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and others are absolutely right to point out how much more we need to do to support blind and partially sighted people into employment to enable them both to achieve their aspirations and to make their full contribution to our society and economy. That is in their interest and in all our interest. I am encouraged by what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, said about this. I hope that, when hon. Members read the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, as they will soon be able to do, they will agree that we are taking the right steps towards reaching that goal.
Marsha De Cordova
First, I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions. That includes the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) and for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger).
I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability on his response to this important debate. His commitment to this issue really came across, as did his drive to make the change. It has been a good debate; every contribution brought something different and important, particularly on the opportunities of technology. I am a big advocate—forgive me—of Apple. Apple changed my life. When the iPhone and the iPad came out, they enabled me to read newspapers, finally. There are other providers out there, obviously, but it did really change my life.
Making use of AI is also important. I recently met representatives of a company called Be My Eyes, and I was bowled over by how its AI worked: you put these pretty swanky glasses on and look down, and the glasses read everything in front of you or describe what is around you. That will be game changing once they are available to everybody.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme for his skiing tips. I will have to have a proper chat with him, because I have always wanted to ski, but I was held back. Hearing that my hon. Friend’s wife is doing it, I am absolutely up for it now.
On a more serious point, it is a shame that, in 2024, we are still debating this issue. However, after 14 years, it is truly amazing that we now have a Labour Government who are committed to changing the experience, not only of blind and partially sighted people, but more importantly of disabled people as a whole, when it comes to engaging with the labour market.
I thank the Minister for Social Security and Disability. He is a friend, and I know he is a good listener, because I talk his ear off on these issues a lot. None the less, he is also a man of action, so I look forward to working with him and his colleagues.
I want to press my final point: this is not just about the Department for Work and Pensions; it is about working cross-Government, in particular with the Department for Business and Trade, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, so that we can bring about the transformative change that will lead to changing attitudes and, most importantly, changing lives.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered employment support for blind and partially sighted people.
Global Plastics Treaty
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I will call Dr Simon Opher to move the motion and I believe there will be one other small speech before the Minister responds. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up on this occasion, as this is only a 30-minute debate.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Global Plastics Treaty.
I thank you, Dr Huq, for chairing this debate, and the Minister for attending. Plastic pollution is putting all of Earth’s systems under stress. There is no corner of the world, from the top of Mount Everest to the bottom of the ocean, that is untouched by plastic pollution. Microplastics are accumulating in our bodies, in our vital organs, and in breast milk and placentas, and current levels of plastic production expose us to more than 16,000 harmful chemicals daily and to increasing volumes of microplastics.
Plastic pollution is putting the Earth’s ecosystems and natural processes under serious strain, worsening climate change, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification and land use—and if you think the situation is bad now, it could be much worse in decades to come. Plastic production, which is already far too high for our planet’s systems to cope with, is set to triple by 2050. The impact on climate change will be monumental. In its current state and with its current growth trajectory, plastic production will make achieving net zero impossible.
Plastic production already has a global warming impact four times greater than that of the aviation industry, with 90% of emissions coming during the production process. By 2050, half of global oil demand will come from petrochemicals. Plastic production is out of control, and everyone agrees that there is a problem. In 2022, 175 countries agreed to come together to hammer out a global treaty to address plastic pollution, but after two years and with four out of five scheduled rounds of negotiations completed, we are still in the dark about what the treaty will really look like.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this important debate. The last Government oversaw soaring rates of plastic incineration, and delays to modest waste reforms such as deposit return schemes, while also refusing to support proposals to cut plastic production by 40% by 2040, which were put forward at the last round of the treaty negotiations. Does the hon. Member agree that the new Government must raise their ambition levels, and that the best way to do so is to deliver a global plastics treaty that meaningfully cuts plastic production?
Dr Opher
I certainly do agree with you, and it is one reason that I am delivering this speech; thank you for that.
It might seem obvious that plastic pollution cannot be addressed without significant cuts to the production of plastics, but that is the most controversial and politically challenging aspect of the treaty. Those involved want us to believe that we can recycle our way out of this crisis—something we know not to be true. Plastic can be recycled only a finite number of times, simply delaying the inevitable moment when it is burned or dumped in landfill, or even escapes into our environment. The fact is that oversupply of virgin plastics at ever lower prices is undermining the UK’s ambition to create a circular economy here in the UK.
Earlier this week, the BBC reported that a recycling site in Avonmouth, near Bristol—which is near my constituency of Stroud—is closing down due to low recycling rates and challenging market conditions. Last month, the industry body Plastics Recyclers Europe raised the alarm about a downward trend in plastics recycling as a result of the global glut of cheap virgin plastics. Flooding the world with cheap plastic allows no space for reuse and refill systems, and the recycling industry, to develop.
Here in the UK, we deal with an excess of plastic waste by burning it and dumping it on poorer countries that do not have the infrastructure to deal with it. Both practices were allowed to increase under the previous Government, as the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) said, and the public are rightly outraged. That is why many of my constituents have written to me about plastic pollution, and more than half a million people have signed a petition calling for a strong global plastics treaty.
Earlier this year, over 220,000 people decided to take part in the Big Plastic Count—a massive citizen science project where individuals count every piece of plastic waste that they dispose of for a week. The results showed that the UK throws away 1.7 billion pieces of plastic each week, with 58% of that being incinerated, producing toxic fumes and greenhouse gases. Incineration is the UK’s dirtiest form of power generation, and incinerators are three times more likely to be placed in poorer neighbourhoods, as was the case with the one built recently in the Stroud area.
Fortunately, the new Government have taken bold steps to tackle plastic pollution. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made zero waste one of the Department’s core missions, and has set up a circular economy taskforce.
Sarah Dyke
My constituent Catherine Conway is the founder of GoUnpackaged, the world’s first modern zero-waste shop, which is hugely reducing the use of single-use plastics. She is also part of the Refill Coalition, which is developing and testing a standardised solution to deliver refills at scale in store and online. Does the hon. Member agree that zero-waste solutions such as these have a big role to play in accelerating the transition to a more circular economy that maximises the recovery, reuse, recycling and remanufacturing of products?
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. The Clerk is telling me that “you” is not usually used to refer to other Members, only to the Chair. The Clerk keeps telling me to say this; I have restrained myself so far, but it is one of the conventions of this unusual workplace.
Dr Opher
I do apologise, Dr Huq. I shall try to do better.
As I was saying, the Environment Secretary has made zero waste one of the Department’s core missions, and has set up a circular economy taskforce. This is a good move and will create jobs in repair, rental and recycling, as well as will significantly reducing CO2 emissions. The reuse of plastics, and not just recycling, is also incredibly important. It has perhaps dropped down the agenda a little, and we need to emphasise the point, so I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton for her intervention.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Member agree that these treaties are great in theory, but that support is needed to reach the targets, and that that support must not simply be in the form of help for developing nations? The steps needed are understandable and necessary, but they must start at home at the local council level, with additional funding to allow our nation to pull up our own socks and make meaningful differences to our plastic production and use.
Dr Opher
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. I do believe that green initiatives and recycling have to begin at home; we have to do our own bit first and then spread the word.
The Government signed the Bridge to Busan declaration, joining over 40 countries in reaffirming the need for plastic production cuts to be included in the final treaty. The treaty needs to go further; we need a treaty that delivers a strong global target to cut plastic production, that is ambitious about the level of cuts to global production, and that is specific about how much to cut production and by when, with a global target that is legally binding.
The plastics treaty is the third time in quick succession that this Government’s international climate and nature leadership has been tested. The UK demonstrated our ambitions at the biodiversity COP in Cali, Colombia, and was one of the only countries to announce a genuinely ambitious nationally determined contribution at the COP29 in Baku. The plastics treaty is another vital opportunity for the UK to demonstrate once again that it is a progressive actor on the world stage, prepared to face down polluting industries and to put the brakes on the climate and nature emergency. That leadership role is needed now more than ever, particularly in sustainable energy and in recycling.
Other countries are looking to the UK, reinvigorated by our new Government, to give the treaty process the injection of impetus and ambition that it needs to get over the line. My ask of the Government today is this: are they willing to demonstrate international leadership and commit to doing everything possible to bring the treaty over the line?
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this important debate ahead of the fifth session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee on plastic pollution, which begins next week in Busan, Korea. He mentioned the all-important biodiversity COP in Cali, Colombia. I was proud to be part of the UK’s cross-party official delegation making the case for climate and nature at that important gathering.
I have heard from many constituents in Stratford and Bow who are deeply concerned about the environmental harm caused by plastic waste in our rivers and oceans. They want to see ambitious action here at home as well as on a global scale, and they want the UK to be a global leader. According to the UN Environment Programme, 1 million plastic bottles are purchased every minute, and half of all plastic produced is designed for single-use purposes—it is used once and just thrown away.
We have long known about the harm that plastic pollution causes. Microplastics are prevalent in our natural world, where they damage environmental health and our rivers and canals and impact our oceans’ carbon sequestration. My hon. Friend set out the effects on our bodies: 77% of people have microplastics in their blood, and the most commonly detected plastic is PET, which is used to make single-use plastic bottles.
Why am I, the Member for Stratford and Bow, speaking in this important debate? East London is where Alexander Parkes invented the first thermoplastic in 1877, but nearly 150 years later it is the proud home of innovative work to end the harm caused by single-use plastic. Earlier this month, I visited Notpla, a world-changing start-up based in my constituency. In 2022 it won the Earthshot prize for its work on creating an alternative to plastic made from seaweed and plants. Notpla has already replaced 13 million single-use plastic products with its technology, which biodegrades as fast as orange peel. It is not just changing how we use and dispose of plastic waste, but seeking to end our addiction to single-use plastics altogether. It is just one example of the creativity and ambition that already exists, which is needed to support the Government’s commitment to reduce waste by moving to a circular economy. But we need to go further and faster, and I think that that is something we all agree on in this room.
Alongside such innovation, global interventions and collective effort are needed to control and prevent marine plastic pollution, to safeguard human and ecological health and to defend against biodiversity loss. Next week’s meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating committee is a pivotal moment. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and my constituents in Stratford and Bow in calling on all member states present at Busan to push for legally binding instruments based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastics. This is a huge opportunity for climate and nature leadership on the world stage, and an opportunity to guarantee a safer, cleaner planet for all of us and for future generations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Dr Huq. It is lovely to see you here. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this really important debate, and Members on both sides of the House for their valuable contributions. This is an important topic that people really care about.
This week, I had the most effective lobbying I have ever had; I was lobbied by 12 primary school children who came with a message in a bottle—they literally brought a bottle with a message and a petition from Greenpeace calling on me to do everything I can to secure plastic reduction. They too had taken part in the Great Plastic Count, and even the youngest, who was only seven years old, told me about all the plastic that they had. I just wanted to give a special mention to those children from Bonner primary school. This is Parliament Week, when we encourage young people to get involved in politics and understand how Parliament works, so it is a good time to engage with everybody across the country on this important issue.
Sarah Dyke
Carymoor Environmental Trust in my constituency runs fantastic plastic sessions and has educated over 58,000 children in Somerset about the environmental impact of plastic and about ways to avoid single-use plastic. Does the Minister agree that the best way to avoid single-use plastic is to deliver a global plastics treaty that meaningfully cuts plastic production?
Emma Hardy
Absolutely. The global plastics treaty, which I will talk about in more detail, is crucial, and it is really encouraging to see how everybody is getting behind it.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Minister talked about being lobbied by children, and we all know how effective kids are when they lobby their MPs. I also want to mention the education work that The Deep in Hull does with children on plastic pollution, which is impressive, to put it mildly. On the topic of education, the University of Hull has recently carried out research showing that 8 million tonnes of plastic ends up in the sea, making up 80% of the debris in our oceans.
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend. I am not meant to show bias, but The Deep is fantastic; we should all go and visit it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it does incredible work in educating children about ocean conservation, nature and plastic use. It is an amazing asset for the constituency I represent, and its work is highly regarded internationally.
I move on to talk about the treaty in more detail. After two years of negotiations, we are approaching the fifth and final scheduled meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating committee, which starts on 25 November. The executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, Inger Andersen, has referred to this treaty as
“the most significant environmental multilateral deal since the Paris accord.”
We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to agree an ambitious treaty to end plastic pollution, and that is why an agreement at Busan this year is critical. If we are to stop plastic entering the environment at an increasing rate, we need a treaty that provides actions at all stages of the plastics life cycle. We are proud, as a country, to be a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution. That coalition includes more than 60 countries, and calls for an ambitious and effective treaty that will end plastic pollution by 2040. In September, the High Ambition Coalition published a ministerial statement calling for an ambitious treaty that covers the full life cycle of plastics, including design, production, consumption and end of life. Then, on 24 September, the UK signed the Bridge to Busan declaration, which makes the case for an ambitious treaty that includes upstream measures to ensure the sustainable consumption and production of primary plastic polymers.
It is critical that the new treaty on plastic pollution takes action across the entire life cycle, including production and consumption. The evidence is clear that we cannot solve the problem of plastic pollution unless we take action at every stage. Global plastic production is projected to double by 2050, reaching 800 million metric tonnes annually. Evidence shows that on current trends, waste management infrastructure will not be able to keep up with the pace of plastic production and consumption, and the level of mismanaged plastic waste will continue to rise. That is why the UK supports binding provisions in the treaty to reduce the production and consumption of primary plastic polymers to sustainable levels, and to enable the transition to a circular economy.
To end plastic pollution, we need all actors in the plastics value chain to act. That includes national and local governments, and the private and financial sectors. We need to bring everyone along with us. That includes the marginalised, undervalued and unrecognised waste pickers, most of whom are women. They handle more than half the world’s plastic waste for recycling, so it is important that their voices are heard.
We have partnered with the Ocean Plastics Leadership Network to run the UK treaty dialogues ahead of each round of negotiations. The dialogues include actors at all stages of the plastic value chains, as well as from academia and environmental non-governmental organisations. Those dialogues have helped us understand the views on the treaty to inform our approach to negotiations.
On 6 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I, in conjunction with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, hosted a plastic pollution treaty roundtable for business leaders, retailers and financial institutions. We discussed the importance of agreeing an ambitious, legally binding treaty to end plastic pollution. Participants also signed a statement setting out the key elements that the treaty must include in order to end plastic pollution by 2040.
Many businesses and organisations are leading the way already. An example of this is the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, which has been joined by more than 85 organisations, including major global businesses, financial institutions and NGOs. The UK scientific community is also world-leading and playing an active role in ensuring that the treaty negotiations are grounded in science, as well as developing the solutions and innovations that will help us take action on this issue.
However, we also recognise the importance of mobilising support for countries most in need, in order to implement the treaty, and this is an essential element of its effectiveness. We can end plastic pollution only through globally co-ordinated action and by mobilising and aligning financial flows from all sources, including all actors and stakeholders across the full plastics value chain at both the global and the local stage. The UK supports the use of the Global Environmental Facility to support the implementation of the treaty. It has established a track record of supporting environmental agreements on climate and biodiversity.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I can answer that, actually. It is only a 30-minute debate, so it is very bare bones and there is no opportunity for the mover of the motion to respond and no Opposition spokesperson. It is not that they did not turn up.
Emma Hardy
I have to say that this is one thing on which I believe there is cross-party consensus. There seems to be an awful lot of support for the treaty, and I hope that that unity continues, especially as we are going into incredibly difficult negotiations. It is really important for us as a country to stand united behind the treaty and what it means if we are not only to seek an agreement, but to ensure that it is fulfilled. I would like to hope that everyone agrees on how important this is, but I am an optimist—what can I say?
The UK is already the largest donor to the Global Plastic Action Partnership, which brings together Governments, businesses and civil society to tackle plastic pollution and increase investment in circular economy approaches in countries eligible for official development assistance.
I was asked what we are doing as a country to reduce plastic packaging. We plan to lay regulations on a deposit return scheme for drinks containers in England and Northern Ireland before Parliament in late 2024—hopefully before Christmas—for them to come into force in early 2025, assuming that parliamentary time allows. The planned launch date of the scheme is October 2027. If we are going to argue what other countries need to do, it is important that we are seen to be taking action ourselves. I really appreciate that companies—my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) mentioned one in her constituency—are promoting innovative and more sustainable solutions to plastic pollution, especially from single-use plastics.
Plastic pollution is one of the greatest long-term global challenges we face, and the UK is committed to working with the chair and members of the intergovernmental negotiating committee to reach an agreement. All parties are committed to seeking to conclude negotiations on the treaty by the end of 2024. We need to secure a robust, ambitious treaty to accelerate action at pace and scale, and that is what the UK team will be pushing for in Busan.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud again for securing the debate, and I thank everyone else who has supported it.
Question put and agreed to.
Apprenticeships and T-Levels
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered apprenticeships and T Levels.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher.
UK productivity is well below that of the United States, Germany and France. That is not a new thing; it has been true in every year I have been alive. If we were able to fix that productivity gap, we could have higher living standards, lower tax and more tax revenue. There are multiple reasons for the gap and much academic literature has been written on it, but the level of skills in an economy is fundamental to productivity and therefore to growth. How we run our skills system is also important, because there is a cadre of young people who are less orientated towards pure academic study but have talent and flair in technical pursuits, and they deserve just the same opportunities and life chances as those who take the academic route.
In this country, although we are famous for aspects of our education system, including for our higher education—our universities—and increasingly for aspects of our school system, we are not, I am afraid, famous for technical and vocational education and training. When foreign Ministers come to Europe to look at vocational education, they tend to go to Germany, and if there is one thing we do not like in England, it is losing out to Germany.
It is right that successive Governments have been troubled by this situation and sought to fix it, but perhaps sometimes they have been a bit too quick to look for a fix. The story of our organisational infrastructure for technical and vocational provision is not one of stability. We have had industrial training boards, the Manpower Services Commission, the Training Commission, and training and enterprise councils—TECs. But those TECs were different from another TEC—the Technician Education Council, which existed alongside the Business Education Council, BEC. The two would eventually merge, of course, to give us BTECs. There were national training organisations; the Learning and Skills Council; sector skills councils; the UK Commission for Employment and Skills; the Skills Funding Agency, or SFA, which would later be the ESFA—the Education and Skills Funding Agency—and, most recently, local skills improvement plans and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.
The infrastructure has been mirrored by a panoply of qualifications and awards. We have had traditional apprenticeships and then modern apprenticeships; the youth training scheme; the City & Guilds system; the technical and vocational education initiative; the National Council for Vocational Qualifications; NVQs, which are still in use; and GNVQs, which evolved into BTECs and diplomas. There were the 14 to 19 diplomas, which were not quite the same thing as the Tomlinson diplomas; the skills for life programme; and traineeships. Altogether, today, there are somewhere between 100 and 200 recognised awarding organisations, excluding those that only do apprenticeship end-point assessments.
Now, just at level 3—the equivalent to A-levels—we have the following qualifications: tech levels as well as T-levels; applied generals; level 3 ESOL; level 3 NVQ, and access to higher education diplomas. There is a level 3 award, a level 3 certificate and a level 3 diploma—or someone might prefer a level 3 national certificate or a level 3 national diploma. There is also an extended diploma, a subsidiary diploma, and a technical introductory diploma. There is no official count, but by the mid-2010s someone had counted up what they could find and said that, together with other, non-level 3 courses available to 16 to 18-year-olds, there were at least 13,000 possible qualifications that someone in that age group could do. It is not surprising that when the Independent Panel on Technical Education was created in 2015-16, it found that vocational education and training had become “over-complex”.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for securing this important debate. Some 6.9% of young people in Somerset are believed to be not in education, employment or training, which is higher than the national average of 5.5%. Does he agree that the Government should not only improve the quality of vocational education, but strengthen the careers advice and links with employers in schools and colleges, to enable more young people to get into education on the right courses?
Damian Hinds
Indeed—the hon. Member is absolutely right. Part of the point of careers advice is knowing which course to take and which qualification to pursue. The panel that I mentioned found that if someone was considering a career in plumbing, for example, there were 33 different qualifications that they might seek to take. It also found that in general the various qualifications were not providing the skills needed; they had become divorced from the occupations they were meant to serve, with no requirement, or only a weak requirement, to meet employers’ needs in those occupations.
The panel’s report, which came out in April 2016, became a blueprint for a major upgrade of technical and vocational education in this country. The panel was determined to address both the productivity gap and very clearly also the social justice gap, whereby some young people were being left behind. I stress that although the report was a blueprint, it was also a “redprint”: the panel was chaired by the noble Lord Sainsbury, the distinguished Labour peer. The report called for “a fundamental shift”, with
“a coherent technical education option…from levels 2…to…5”.
There would be 15 clearly defined sector routes, covering 35 different career pathways. Three of those routes would be available only through an apprenticeship; the other 12 would be available either through an apprenticeship or a college track, and there would be common standards for both. Both the apprenticeship and college-based routes would result in
“the same or equivalent technical knowledge, skills and behaviours”
to take into the workplace. The report said that this path
“needs to be clearly delineated from the academic option, as they are designed for different purposes. But, at the same time, movement between the two must be possible…in either direction”.
The report also recommended expanding the then Institute for Apprenticeships into an Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, so as to cover both apprenticeship and college tracks. It added:
“Specifying the standards…is not a role for officials in central government but for professionals working in…occupations, supported by…education professionals.”
It recommended that there should be improvements to apprenticeships and a new, largely college-based qualification, which would become known as the T-level.
With T-levels, the knowledge, skills content and required behaviours are set not by somebody at the Department of Education but by employers. There is the core technical qualification, but there is also content in English, maths and digital. Crucially, there is a 45-day industrial placement. There are also more college hours than with traditional vocational qualifications and indeed more taught hours per week than for A-levels.
For the upgrade that we needed in our country, in both productivity and opportunities available to all young people, T-levels had to become the principal college-based option—not the only option, but the principal or main college-based vocational qualification. And the T-level could not be grafted on to a market that already had thousands of qualifications; there was an incumbency advantage and even commercial interests attached to some of those. It had to replace a number—a lot—of qualifications. Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, has been speaking about this quite recently.
The other thing that was always going to be difficult about T-levels was finding enough industry placements. Lord Sainsbury found that we might need up to 250,000 industry placements for 17-year-olds, and that, of course, is hard to achieve. We could say that it is too hard and give up, but if we did that we would be giving up on advancing our competitiveness.
The alternative is that we change culture in our country and say to companies that if they want to be a great success in their sector, and their sector to be a great success in our country, and our whole country to be a success in the world, we all have to invest both the resource and the time in the next generation.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I do not disagree with the right hon. Member on that point; I just wanted to highlight that in my constituency of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes there is an apprenticeship provider called CATCH. Local businesses have come together to invest in a brand-new welding apprenticeship facility that will deliver 1,000 apprentices over the next few years. Is that the kind of partnership working that he envisages, which works well for local communities, young people and business?
Damian Hinds
I am sure it is. I will come to apprenticeships in a moment, but I was just talking about industry placements in T-levels.
From speaking to young people who are doing T-levels, colleagues will know that their most popular feature is probably the fact that young people get to do a real role in a real workplace. The placements are also popular with the employers that provide T-levels: first, the employers are investing in the next generation and helping develop all the things the lack of which they sometimes complain about—soft skills and workplace skills—and secondly, the placements are the most fantastic, longest-ever job interview, when employers get to see the people who may come and work in their company over an extended period. I appeal to Ministers to carry on the great work of shouting about T-levels and talking about these great opportunities and the upgrade they represent.
There were two big changes to apprenticeships. The first ensured that there were minimum standards. Previously, as colleagues will recall, some apprenticeships were so thin and flimsy that the apprentices did not know they were on one. After minimum standards came in, apprenticeships would last at least one year and involve at least 20% of time off the job. As with T-levels, there would be an end-point assessment, which would feature standards set by employers.
The second big change was the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. That has always been controversial with some employers, but it was there to do two things. First, it raises the funds needed to pay for a big upgrade in apprenticeship provision. Secondly, it deals with the free rider problem, with which we will all be familiar: some companies in a sector have always strongly invested in young people, but three years later those young people leave to work for another employer that can offer to pay more but has not made the investment in the first place. The apprenticeship levy deals directly with that free rider problem, as economists call it, so that every sizeable company contributes properly.
The new Government plan to change the scope of the levy and to introduce two new types of apprenticeship, which it is fair to say we do not know a huge amount about: foundation apprenticeships and shorter apprenticeships. There is an argument that we already make the word “apprenticeship” do a lot of work—it covers a wide spectrum. Arguably, there are three types of development of self and training, which have different needs: someone may be a career starter, career developer or career changer, and the specifications of the courses and qualifications are different. For example, a 50-year-old who is changing career does not need to learn as many things about what it is like to enter a workplace for the first time as an 18-year-old does. In truth, only one of those types of training is what a normal member of the public associates with the word “apprentice”: we think typically of people who are young and starting out on their working journey.
It is totally legitimate to look at changing what the levy covers, and it is good to refocus on young people—career starters. It is also reasonable to say that the levy could cover some things that are not apprenticeships, such as management development or traineeships, but there is huge value in maintaining integrity around what we mean by the word “apprenticeship”, and keeping a minimum length and quantity of college or off-work content.
Whatever the Government do with the levy, they need to find a way to deal with the free rider problem. The Government will always be lobbied by companies saying, “We should be able to use the levy for this, that and the other”, but if “this, that and the other” means training that they would have paid for anyway, then the levy will not have achieved its goal. It has to be something that creates a net increase in the amount of training and development available.
That brings me to Skills England. Now, Ministers like shiny new things, and some people will always lobby for things to change. A sweet spot is found in public policy when the two coincide: Ministers get lobbied to do something, and they think they have come up with a shiny new thing that sounds like it will achieve those ends. Skills England is one of those things; I am afraid that, without major design change, it is doomed to failure. I have no doubt that plenty of people who lobbied the Government when they were in opposition said, “We need a different approach to skills. We need to think about them across Government, take the long view, listen to employers, listen to young people and have an integrated approach.” The Government have come up with this thing called Skills England, which they think will do that.
Skills England will be the 13th new skills agency in five decades. If all it took to solve our skills and productivity problem was a change in the machinery of government, do the Government not think that one of the previous 12 might already have managed it? The instinct in difficult circumstances is to break glass and reach for a quango, but Skills England is not even a quango; it is nada—not quasi-autonomous, but a non-accountable departmental agency—and there is no reason to think it will be any better at working across Government, let alone across the economy, in solving these issues.
If the Government were serious about creating something new to join together the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade, the DFE and everybody else, they would put it in the Treasury or perhaps the Cabinet Office. They would not just make it part of the DFE management structure. Worse than that is the loss of independence compared with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.
There is legislation currently going through the other place that ostensibly creates Skills England, but it does no such thing. All it does is abolish the independent institute and move all of its powers into the Department for Education. The Secretary of State will now have responsibility for standards for T-levels. Imagine if that were the case for A-levels. If it is not all right for A-levels, why should it be all right for T-levels?
Damian Hinds
If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will continue.
There is also no guarantee that business will continue to be involved in setting those standards. I am afraid that public and business confidence is set to be eroded—rightly, because everybody knows that the easiest way for the Government to increase the numbers of people doing anything in education is to erode standards to get more people through.
I believe the Sainsbury report was—and still is—a good blueprint. Of course, the Government are entitled to evolve it, but they should recognise that the principles remain sound. With T-levels, it was always going to be hard to get sufficient industry placements and to overcome powerful objections that we need to change the system rather than just add to it. With apprenticeships, there will always be, as there always have been, firms that try to game the system. We can argue about what the levy should or should not cover, but it is a good thing and it needs to be designed and maintained to encourage a net increase in investment in this area and to deal with the free rider problem.
There will always be some cost and downside when the bar of minimum standards is raised, as we did. We need to remember where we started, with the need to increase productivity and have higher expectations for all in the interests of social justice. We need to maintain those minimum standards to keep apprenticeships and T-levels equivalent, with the same levels of knowledge, skills and behaviours.
Finally, the independence of the body that sets the standards, working with and for business, is key. The Government will obviously keep Skills England, but I ask the Minister to build into its design proper, full independence from her Department, and a proper, full guiding role for the businesses these occupations need to serve. I want Ministers not just to say that, but to write it into the legislation.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure and an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this important debate on the pivotal role of apprenticeships and T-levels in our national industrial strategy.
As we face a significant skills gap, particularly in science, technology, engineering and maths fields, those pathways are critical for equipping our workforce with the expertise needed to drive innovation and economic growth. T-levels and apprenticeships bridge the gap between education and the workplace, combining classroom learning and practical experience. T-levels provide substantial industrial placements, while apprenticeships enable individuals to earn while they gain real-world skills. Together they address shortages in key sectors, such as manufacturing, construction, healthcare and beauty, ensuring that students are job ready from day one.
Dudley College of Technology in my constituency exemplifies excellence in this area. The college offers a wide range of T-levels across many disciplines, blending academic and practical learning. Its commitment to apprenticeships is equally impressive, with over 4,000 apprenticeships supported through strong partnerships with local businesses. Those collaborations ensure that training meets industry needs and contributes to regional economic growth.
The STEM sector remains the heart of the industrial strategy but continues to face persistent skills shortages. Apprenticeships and T-levels are vital to addressing those challenges and building a workforce equipped for careers in science, technology, engineering and maths. Institutions such as Dudley Tech play a key role in closing the gap, but we must focus on diversity in STEM. Women make up only 27% of STEM workers, but 52% of the country’s wider workforce. Meanwhile, only 12% of STEM workers, compared with 19% in the wider workforce, come from ethnic minority backgrounds. We will not see improvement unless we address this matter head on and break down barriers to apprenticeships and T-levels.
Measures by the previous Government were ineffective, with females aged 16 to 29 making up only 29% of the STEM workforce—a mere 1% more than the generation before them. Under-representation of women, minorities and those from disadvantaged backgrounds remains a barrier to unlocking the country’s true economic and technological potential on the global stage. Making apprenticeships and T-levels more accessible will attract a broader range of talent, enriching the STEM workforce and fostering innovation.
In conclusion, we must make apprenticeships and T-levels more accessible to attract a broader range of talent, particularly in STEM, and further promote their uptake to diverse audiences. By fostering partnerships between educational institutions such as Dudley Tech and industry, we can create a more skilled environment for all.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate on such a critical issue for our young people. Today, I want to highlight a major concern among college staff and students: the need for certainty about the potential defunding of BTECs in favour of T-levels.
For years, BTECs have served as a trusted form of level 3 qualification, providing students with practical and theoretical skills in a format that staff are experienced in delivering. I have heard from teachers about the pride and joy they take in teaching BTECs and watching their students thrive as they apply themselves to often very practical subjects. In many cases, it is the first time that those children have ever felt passionate about learning and excited to go further. It gives them the chance to finally start down the path—a path I imagine all of us in the Chamber want young people to take—towards realising their full potential. That is why so many are concerned about the replacement of BTECs with T-levels, and why I hope that the Government address those concerns when they publish the findings of their review of the policy next month.
I have heard from teachers who say they will struggle with the suggested rapid adoption of new course structures and unfamiliar theoretical components across the whole range of non-A-level subjects. Staff at South Thames Colleges Group, which serves many of my local students, have expressed concerns about how those sweeping changes will be implemented effectively. Currently, around 58 courses are at risk of being defunded.
Melanie Onn
Is some of the concern coming from colleges not also about the timing of those decisions? Franklin college in my constituency has said that the earlier it knows, the better it can plan. It is already receiving parents and young people in for open days for courses next year.
Luke Taylor
The hon. Lady makes a point so good that I will be getting to it shortly—I completely agree.
Staff worry about having to adapt their curricula to align with the new T-levels, which will involve updating course content, revising teaching methods and redesigning assessment strategies to meet the new required standards. There is no way to do that without enormous, time-consuming upheaval, which they will need as much notice as possible to prepare for. Teachers deserve a definitive answer on what will happen next.
It is not just teaching staff; students have been left in the dark, too. Approximately 380 students planning to enrol at a college in the South Thames Colleges Group are affected by the confusion surrounding the implementation of T-levels. Those currently completing GCSEs and planning for their post-16 education face uncertainty about what their courses will look like in September 2025. They fear the removal of the element of choice in the system.
BTECs formerly offered the option of a professional placement, but T-levels are geared specifically to placements. That leaves those who may not be academically suited to A-levels but do not wish to begin a T-level course, 20% of which is effectively a job, with no real support. On a visit to Carshalton college, I was told that there were 120 applicants for a diploma in childcare but only seven for a T-level in childcare. That could create a shortage in qualified staff coming through the system. The impact is felt disproportionately by those with special educational needs and disabilities, many of whom need extra support to explore their options before entering adult life, and for whom entry into the world of work may not be the right option so early in adulthood.
Nobody is denying the merit in reviewing periodically the way we train our young people for the future, but forcing students to choose exclusively between A-levels and T-levels could represent a narrowing of their options. I fear that this is a poorly managed top-down change for teachers to implement, and a gamble with the opportunities of a generation of young people who, let us not forget, have already had their education severely disrupted by the covid pandemic. With September 2025 rapidly approaching, I urge the Government to provide clarity to all those affected so both students and staff can plan for the change ahead. The Government must also think again, and give colleges and students flexibility to choose the appropriate qualifications for them and their communities.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
Making sure that our young people have access to a wide range of educational opportunities that can lead them on to high-quality, well-paid and secure employment is vital to the health of our economy. In fact, it is critical to towns like Mansfield, which are to some extent facing a brain drain due to poor investment in employment opportunities and a weak private sector. They also have the difficulties with productivity and gross value added highlighted by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds); those are a real challenge in constituencies like mine.
In July, I was elected with a mandate for change locally. I stood on a platform to focus on five local missions that I thought would have a significant impact. One was to do everything I could to facilitate a stable and growing local economy and good-quality jobs for everyone in my constituency. Of course, a critical part of that is ensuring that there is a wide range of high-calibre academic and vocational education opportunities. I therefore welcome the debate.
Without a highly skilled workforce, areas like mine cannot attract the investment we need, and we know that investment brings prosperity for our communities. I am delighted that the Government made additional money available in the Budget for further education and have announced reforms to the apprenticeship system, with a new growth and skills levy. I welcome the progress and know that the Government have aspirations to do more over the coming months and years. I want Mansfield to be part of that conversation.
I have had a number of discussions with West Notts college and Nottingham Trent University about their funding streams and ways they feel they can work together more effectively to bring exactly those types of opportunities in the further and higher education sector to young people and adults in my constituency. As part of that, we have seen a £6.5 million education investment from Nottingham Trent University in my constituency, which is delivering specialist teaching and learning facilities to support local people to upskill and to access and retain employment in the local area. That includes really important opportunities in nursing, aligned with the local health authority, and in engineering, business, criminal justice and sports science. I congratulate both those parties on their work to enabled all of that to come to fruition.
I see latent potential to build on that collaboration between HE and FE in my constituency, which might be called “the Mansfield model”, across further education. By cutting red tape and streamlining the effectiveness of funding, like in the West Notts college and Nottingham Trent University joint campus in my constituency, it would be possible to unleash the power of further education provision. Given the success in my local area, I recently wrote to invite the Secretary of State for Education to Mansfield. I would be delighted to host a Minister from the Department, so that they can see directly how the local model could be used as a blueprint to improve skills and attract important private sector investment into towns like mine.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this important debate. While I agree with him that much more needs to be done to encourage apprenticeships and technical education, when I think back to what I was deciding to do after secondary school, I envy the choices available to young people today. I left school in the era when, under Tony Blair’s target, 50% of young people were expected to go to university. That is what I did, but it simply was not the right route for me. On-the-job training, with the promise of a full-time job at the end, is a fantastic way for many young people to kick-start their careers. I am pleased that the previous Government did so much to increase the opportunities available to young people, with 5.8 million apprenticeships created and the overwhelming majority of occupations now able to offer the apprenticeship route.
I am proud of the work taking place in my constituency of Broxbourne as part of that. Hertford Regional College offers a wide range of post-16 professional and technical programmes and apprenticeships, with nearly 3,000 young people going on to these courses and getting the skills they need for their careers. At the end of their course, they are going on to full-time employment or further education at above the national average—we are very good at getting people into full-time employment after they go to the college. I am pleased that, from September 2025, free schools in the Broxbourne constituency will offer T-level pathways, but there is still much more to do.
Too many students are embarking on low-quality university degree courses, with little prospect of finding good employment opportunities relating to their degree when they graduate. Industries from hospitality to the trades are rightly calling for greater flexibility in the delivery of apprenticeships and more freedom in how the apprenticeship levy can be spent, enabling more employers to offer better opportunities for young people. I want to see wider changes to the education system, so that it is much more geared towards preparing students for the world of work.
The Government claim to want economic growth, although their actions are not exactly matching their words at the moment. To achieve a faster-growing economy, we need to get more people into work and have a laser focus on developing the next generation of entrepreneurs. Young people need to know that there are routes other than university to success and full-time employment. I know that inspirational former apprentices are spreading the word to students across the country, but let us make it easier for them to make the case for apprenticeships. Let us make sure that every young person can choose the right path for them.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I commend the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate. There are no ifs or buts about it; we just have to get further education right. I want to confine my remarks to three areas. First, we need more teachers. Secondly, we need more space. Thirdly, we need reform of both T-levels and apprenticeships.
We are running out of teachers in further education. Courses are closing, waiting lists are growing and colleges cannot pay enough to attract people from industry—the Association of Colleges calculates that there is an average pay gap of £9,000. Would the Minister consider presenting a medium-term plan to improve pay and conditions to get teachers into our class spaces? Furthermore, will she extend teacher workforce planning to further education, as the previous Education Committee advised?
Colleges do not have the space to train young people, so we need sustained capital funding in skills infrastructure. I feel blessed to have been able to visit the Poole campus of Bournemouth & Poole college, where so much more could be done to teach clean energy skills if there was investment in the right space. The college knows what space it wants to build the facilities in; it just does not have the sustained capital funding to make that happen. Will the Government appraise the needs of colleges and support them to access the spaces they need to provide apprenticeships and training in the skills that will fuel the growth of our economy, given that growth is our Government’s No. 1 mission?
I look forward to the Government confirming what the qualifications landscape will look like for school leavers, following the very welcome commitment to pause and review Conservative plans to defund unpopular qualifications such as BTECs, which rival T-levels. T-level courses, particularly in education and childcare, may include a substantial work experience placement. That might be a good idea in principle—I have been very lucky to visit Bournemouth & Poole college and learn about its world-leading health T-level—but just over one in 10 construction and engineering T-level students could not complete the required work placement. Student numbers are lower than planned; drop-outs are high; announced courses have been cut or thrown into doubt before they started; courses have not been funded for young adults aged 19 to 24, when our country needs them to be educated and in training; and the Conservative Government, which this Labour Government replaced, botched the roll-out. Will the Government increase support to employers taking T-level students?
There are high hopes that the reformed growth and skills levy and the lifelong learning entitlement will give workers access to high-quality training in higher-demand sectors. I invite the Minister to visit Bournemouth & Poole college—particularly the Bournemouth campus—where we have 2,000 apprentices in training, and an outstanding achievement rate of 8.4% over the national average. Huge economic differences are being made to local employers such as Sunseeker, which, together with the college, has launched a training initiative to address a national skills shortage affecting the marine industry. Its Skills Academy provides fully paid 12-week intensive boatbuilding skills courses across five specialisms. Following training, students join colleagues at the shipyard to achieve a nationally recognised qualification over 12 months. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked whether we need Skills England. The example of Bournemouth & Poole college working with Sunseeker shows how an organisation can find and fill gaps at a national level, and co-ordinate the funding and frameworks to grow our economy.
Octopus Energy is ensuring that we create more than 4,000 skilled jobs, including qualified heat pump installers, by 2030 to help our Government to meet their clean energy by 2030 mission. With the launch of the first employer-provided low-carbon heating apprentice scheme, Octopus is demonstrating how employer providers can create high-quality apprentice programmes. We need to ensure that apprenticeship funding rules requirements and the accountability framework reflect the needs of employer providers, rather than focusing mostly on the needs of colleges and training providers. Will the Minister consider creating employer provider-specific funding rules in order to streamline the reporting responsibility? As part of the reform of Ofsted, which I welcome, will she support joint working between technical experts and Ofsted inspectors so that the inspectors better understand the technical requirements during inspections? That is particularly key for Octopus Energy’s pioneering approach of developing skills driven by rapidly developing technology.
For years, the same thoughts have been swirling through my mind and the minds of many of my constituents, whose doors I have been knocking on over the past two years. It all comes down to this single question: why can Bournemouth and Britain not do better? Why can we not have the things we are entitled to? Bad things are not inevitable; they are the result of political choices, such as those that have been made over the past 14 years. We want to make different choices in Bournemouth and in Britain. We want young people to get on and have decent, well-paying jobs that mean presents under the tree, a meal out with loved ones, a new home and a new car in the driveway, and a sense of purpose and mission in the careers they choose. I very much welcome the Minister coming to this debate, and I look forward to her response. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire for calling this important debate. I really call for a turning of the page, because for too long, too many people have been held back.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Before I call Jim Shannon, I will just say that there are five people wishing to speak and 20 minutes, so you can do your own calculations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am not a great mathematician, but I know that that means four minutes. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on leading this debate. I know he undertook a lot of work on apprenticeships and T-levels in his time as Minister, and he did exceptionally well. He is in a different role now but he still shares his advice and experience.
We must do all we can to expand education and employment opportunities for young people across the United Kingdom. In every debate I give a Northern Ireland perspective and speak on the things we do well back home. The Department for the Economy has released its yearly statistics on the uptake of apprenticeships, and it is good news that there has been a rise. As of October ’24, there were 1,756 people undertaking an apprenticeship in the electrotechnical field, 500 in health and social care, and 700 in plumbing, which the right hon. Member referred to in opening the debate. In addition, 10,500 were studying for a level 2 award and 3,700 for a level 3 award.
I have spoken before about the importance of apprenticeships and the role they play in teaching young people a unique skillset after leaving school. However, it is crucial that this is properly reflected in their pay. I know this is not the Minister’s responsibility, but we have to ensure that apprenticeship pay encourages young people to stay on and finish their apprenticeships, as their colleagues and friends might be earning much more for stacking the shelves in Tesco or Asda. That is just one example. Apprenticeships are important, but young people need the time and money to get through them.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire has spoken before about ensuring parity of esteem between academic and vocational routes. There must be an understanding that the university route does not always appeal to young people, and an option to encourage them to get out into the world of work. I believe that the Minister is committed to that, so it would be interesting to get her thoughts.
From July to September 2024, there were some 513,000 unemployed people aged 18 to 24 in the UK, which is an unemployment rate of 13.7%. Unfortunately, that is a rise on the 11.6% in the previous year. Again, apprenticeships are critical to that. Let us get young people into apprenticeships and reduce that unemployment rate.
I hear what the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said about T-levels. There is no doubt success with this option. In 2022, the first T-level results were announced. Out of 1,029, there was a 92.2% pass rate, which is excellent. As far as I am aware, the T-level system is for England and does not apply to the devolved nations, so it would be great to know what the Minister can do to exchange thoughts with the devolved Administrations and see how we can extend that success.
Apprenticeships are a fantastic way to earn while learning and they allow for people to be fast-tracked into the working world. Apprenticeships are available in numerous sectors across the UK. We must encourage young people to see them as an option after they choose to leave school. Many associate the word “apprenticeship” with male-dominant fields such as mechanics, engineering or plumbing, but there are endless opportunities out there in a large range of sectors for people of all ages and with all interests, man and woman. A lady can do a job equally as well as a man. That should never be discredited in any way.
Job creation is an important issue for the entirety of the UK. To get individuals into the job market, encouragement and prospects must be there from school age. We must do more to encourage young people to think about their careers and futures. More importantly, we must make them aware of the options for what they want to do when they leave school. I look to the Minister to see if engagement is possible on expanding T-level qualifications to Northern Ireland and Scotland. Will the Minister commit to undertaking future discussions on this with the Department for Education back home? Equal opportunities for all young people should apply across the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate.
Hartlepool is very lucky to be served by some outstanding providers, including Hartlepool College of Further Education, under the inspiring leadership of its principal Darren Hankey, Hartlepool Sixth Form College, where I was privileged to once chair the board of governors, and the Northern School of Art, with its international reputation. Diminished funding and demographic pressures have too often resulted in providers being in competition rather than collaboration. My first point to the Minister is that we must create an environment where providers in towns such as ours can collaborate effectively to deliver for young people.
On the 2017 reforms that were mentioned by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, part of the issue is that the levy, and its spend-it-or-lose-it mentality, meant that there was often a rush to spend it, rather than thought being given to proper workforce development. Indeed, £700 million ended up being top-sliced by the Treasury. The Association of Employment and Learning Providers said that this was money raised for skills but not being spent on skills. I welcome the new growth and skills levy and its greater flexibility, because the money it raises has to go into developing the skills of our young people, and too often in the past it did not.
We have to think about the parity of esteem. In principle, with T-levels I genuinely support the idea of creating that parity of esteem. The problem in places such as Hartlepool, which has already been referenced and acknowledged, is that we do not currently have the economy and the industrial placements to effectively support them. In the words of the principal of Hartlepool College of Further Education, the 2017 reforms and the rush to T-levels taken together have actually resulted in fewer opportunities for younger people in constituencies like mine. Unfortunately, Hartlepool has one of the highest levels of those not in education, employment or training in the country.
Another point has to be raised, but it is a difficult one. While I absolutely understand the principle of the functional skills element in those qualifications, there is a genuine concern in industry that the element is acting as a blocker to some of our young people’s accessing the skills, training and careers that they would like to have, because they feel unable to get past that barrier. I ask the Minister to give that some consideration.
In the round, we have to think about the agenda from an immigration perspective. I marvel at the fact that the FE college in my constituency, which has seen a 10% cut in funding, trains bricklayers, and yet we are importing bricklayers from abroad. I have a constituency with one of the highest levels of unemployment in the country. It is not hard to square that circle. Let us train our own and fund our skills properly, so that we do not have to rely on immigration from abroad.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire made the point extremely well that in this country we have been obsessed with supply-side reform for far too long, with the numerous different qualifications and the constant changing of what offer there is. We have to move to a demand-side approach. If we get industry and jobs into places such as Hartlepool to drive the industrial growth that we want to see, the skills will follow. That is the change that we have to see, and I would like to see it delivered in constituencies like mine.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am immensely proud of my upbringing in a modest town in Northamptonshire. I grew up in a single-parent family with my mother, and she instilled in me the work ethic and morals to learn more, to find out more about the community, and to get a trade or skill—to give me the aspiration to succeed. That is what really interests me in this debate. I believe that apprenticeships, technical training and on-the-job training does instil the aspiration in individuals to better themselves, their community and their families. That is why I am so interested in this debate.
From personal experience, working from an early age brings countless benefits. It is a disgrace that Governments have allowed NEETs to increase to the current level. How can it be right that we have 900,000 people aged between 16 and 24 not in education, employment or training? We are watching the next generation not pursuing their next step in life, which is to aspire to something better for themselves and their families.
The default answer from Governments over the last 20 years has been to funnel young people through higher education. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned the arbitrary targets, such as that set by the Blair Government to get 50% of school leavers to go to university. But there is another option: apprenticeships and on-the-job training. I am immensely proud of the success of the Conservative Government, who delivered 5.8 million apprenticeships across the country. Those apprenticeships offered young people opportunities for employment. Indeed, 70% of those young people were placed in occupations after training. I also agree wholeheartedly with our manifesto commitment to create 100,000 extra highly skilled apprentices every year over the next Parliament.
However, what has gone wrong? While there have been many achievements, it is disappointing that there has been stagnation in that area over the past few years. The challenges that have been outlined in concerns about the Budget will, sadly, not help the situation.
I have had representations from bodies such as EngineeringUK and Multiverse, explaining that the crux of the issue lies with the apprenticeship levy. The standards involved in setting up apprenticeships are far too cumbersome, and the funds from the levy are being redirected from employers to classroom training and assessments. It is no wonder that those bodies are moving away from that type of scheme towards academy-based training in-house, in their own companies and organisations.
What should we be doing instead? Much concern has recently been expressed, particularly by Opposition Members, about changes to national insurance contributions. I do not see those changes helping the situation. I believe we should be encouraging employers to take on more employees, including by the apprenticeship route, so that when they finish their apprenticeships they can stay within those organisations. Recently in my constituency, a number of small and medium-sized employers expressed to me concerns about the changes in employers’ national insurance contributions, saying that they would incur thousands of pounds in extra costs. They will have to consider that sort of thing when they look at their forward planning and recruitment.
Mr Bedford
No; I have limited time. I urge the Government to reconsider the proposals.
Finally, I think the tone needs to change from the top. Over many years, there has been a perception, at least, that apprenticeships and technical training have not been on a par with university education or other academic routes. I went through the academic route and my brother went through the apprenticeship, work-based training route. He is now earning far more money than I am. He left school without any qualifications, but he went to night school, trained himself, got an apprenticeship and went through the right route. He learned a skill and is now very successful.
In conclusion, I hope the Government take on board the arguments I have put forward.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, in an incredibly important debate about the future of our young people. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on his tenacity on the issue. I remember his time as Secretary of State for Education in the Government of Mrs May, and he had a genuine passion for the issue. To see him still banging the drum many years later is testament to his character.
I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Gentleman has said over the many years that he has been talking about the importance of technical education—that is, about the need to understand that technical education is not the younger sister of A-levels and academic qualifications. It is not the less important member of the family of opportunities presented to young people.
I declare an interest. I am the governor of a sixth-form college in my constituency, which provides T-levels—one of the outstanding providers in the west midlands. I also have a daughter who will soon be thinking about GCSE options for next year, so where she goes and what she does is very much on my mind.
As the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) said, it is incumbent on us all to say to young people who are looking at their options that whatever they choose to do, the routes available will help them to be the best they can be—whether through A-levels, T-levels or the remaining applied general qualifications, once the pause and review process is finished. We sometimes find ourselves in a false dichotomy of talking about academic studies on one side and vocational and technical studies on the other. Actually, we present a breadth of opportunity to our young people, in a simplified and accessible way, which will be the determination of whether they are successful or not.
I have two colleges in my constituency—City of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college and Stoke-on-Trent college. Under the leadership of Mark Kent and now Lesley Morrey, City of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college provides region-leading qualifications, including T-levels, BTECs and A-levels. Under the former leadership of Lisa Kapper, and now interim principal Antoinette Lythgoe, Stoke-on-Trent college demonstrates what can be done at all levels of potential learning.
A city like Stoke-on-Trent—not that dissimilar to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash)—is a city that has challenges. The opportunity provided to young people at FE can be the greatest social mobility driver there is—it can unlock their potential—but there is a challenge in making sure that they are on the right path.
T-levels have been excellent for my city—again, I commend the right hon. Member for East Hampshire on the programme that he brought in when he was Education Secretary. That is about not only the uplift in funding for each young person, which better reflects the necessity of the work from the excellent staff, but the capital funding available for those institutions in the first wave to take T-levels up, which has allowed us to expand our college to create new and incredible facilities that mean that the learning experience for those young people is brilliant.
I believe that the Government are right to continue looking at this breadth, but I would say to the Minister—I have written to her noble Friend in the other place, Baroness Smith of Malvern, about this—that, while the pause and review is doing a job of work in looking at what BTECs are available, the colleges in my constituency are now trying to plan what they can offer in September 2025, much as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). They do not currently know what they can offer. They have been asked to submit their projected T-level enrolment numbers now, but they do not know whether they will be offering an equivalent BTEC for the same course. Therefore, they are having to either overinflate their numbers and worry about in-year clawback, or worry about lack of lagged funding for the AGQ. I would urge the Minister to take that back to the Department.
In the remaining time that I have left, I will say that, while this debate has been excellent for talking about young people, there is a conversation that we have to have as a nation about adult education and ensuring that people in places such as Hartlepool and Stoke-on-Trent having to change careers because of changes in the way that industries work have the same opportunities as others to retrain, get new skills, get those well-paid, secure and hopefully unionised jobs that come with that, and make a meaningful contribution to where they live and to our country.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Sir Christopher. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), whose speech was really interesting. I also praise him for his tenacity, expertise and seriousness on this subject.
I will restrict my remarks to the issues of T-levels and apprenticeships in tourism and agriculture, which are two huge employers in my constituency and around the rest of Cumbria—some 60,000 people in Cumbria work in tourism and there are 1,500 farms in my constituency alone. Those are hugely connected, without a doubt. For example, something like 20 million people visit the lakes every year, and we know that many of them come because of the beauty of the landscape, which is maintained by our farmers.
In terms of our workforce, 80% of the entire working-age population living in the Lake district already work in hospitality and tourism. Therefore, if we do not do something to bring people in, to create more affordable homes, to build our workforce, or, specifically, to train and retrain our young people so that we do not carry on losing over a third of them every single generation, we are in serious trouble.
When it comes to T levels, there is no doubt whatever that employers in the tourism economy of Cumbria strongly believe, as I do, that T-levels are an important potential source for boosting the pipeline of skilled workers, and that offering level 3 qualifications will enhance young people’s employability and enable progression to higher education, linking, for example, with the University of Cumbria’s excellent graduate apprenticeship programme.
Those employers recognise, and strongly believe, that the previous Government delayed and took too long to introduce the T-level in catering, and are pressuring this Government on that. I met Baroness Smith of Malvern just last week to raise that point directly with her, and I ask the Minister to look at this issue again. Please will she consult employers within Cumbria to make sure that the T-level in catering, and other equivalent level 3 and level 4 qualifications, is made available so that we can qualify our children for this important area of work? Some 85% of employers who host T-level students—when that is available—report improved access to skilled talent, so I ask the Minister to take this seriously.
I will quickly switch over to apprenticeships in the agricultural sector. The total number of apprenticeship starts in agriculture in Cumbria for the year before last—the last year that we have data for—was 140. Only 70 were completed and no higher-level apprenticeships, at level 4 and above, were accomplished. We have 1,500 farms; that is far too few people coming forward as potential entrants. We have had all the discussions this week about succession, which is so very important, but the decline in new farm entrants threatens the sector’s long-term viability.
The future of the farming sector is also exacerbated by the loss of educational infrastructure. The previous Government failed to intervene to save Cumbria’s agricultural college, Newton Rigg, and although Kendal college and other FE and HE institutions around the county are doing their best to fill the gap, we still seriously feel that loss.
The UK provides 55% of its own food. Apprenticeships and succession in farming are crucial to our food security. The agricultural policies of this Government and the previous one have disincentivised farming production, which is fateful and foolish. This week we have seen the complaints, quite rightly, about the inheritance tax changes, which will lead to more farmland moving into ownership of equity and large corporations, and not being used for food production. Our failure to grow the workforce is also enormously significant.
I ask the Minister to look closely at higher-level apprenticeships in agriculture, to address the gap in advanced agricultural training at level 4 and above, and to develop leadership skills among future farmers to sustain the sector and the rural economy as a whole. Will she also introduce agricultural degree apprenticeships, in partnership with the University of Cumbria and local colleges, to create a pipeline for agricultural leadership? I will leave it there at four minutes.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for introducing it. I am sure we all agree that we owe it to our young people to ensure that they have access to all education and training options, and that those options are of the very highest standard. That is not always the case in the present system, which is having an impact not just on young people and their futures, but, as has been said, on the country’s economic development and prospects.
Apprenticeships, vocational education and skills are all vital if the Government are serious about their growth mission and breaking down barriers to opportunity. I think we all share those ambitions, but the system needs reform across the board, starting right at the beginning by ensuring that all young people are fully aware and informed of all their options—many thousands, as it may be—post 16 and post 18. We need to see an improvement in the quality of careers education, information, advice and guidance in schools to support them making those decisions.
Clive Jones
Many residents in my constituency of Wokingham are concerned about the uncertainty around T-level courses and other existing level 3 qualifications. Students in Wokingham have been looking at courses and colleges to apply to, and some colleges are currently unable to confirm existing level 3 courses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the current lack of clarity about the implementation of T-level courses is causing unnecessary stress to parents, students and teachers?
Ian Sollom
I absolutely agree, and I will come back to that point later.
The services that inform and offer guidance need to be informed themselves about the local and national job market, which industries and sectors are growing, and which skills are in demand in order to support students into top-quality jobs. We know that there are skills shortages, and giving higher-quality, useful information will be essential to plugging that skills gap.
On apprenticeships, the Lib Dems recognise that we not only need more apprenticeships, but that they need to be more attractive to young people. Guaranteeing that an apprenticeship pays at least the national minimum wage would be a good place to start. The Chancellor announced a welcome increase in the apprenticeship wage in the Budget last month, but even after those changes, that amount is still only just over 60% of the national living wage. That is quite a disincentive for young people to take up an apprenticeship.
We have also heard today that the apprenticeship levy is not working as well as it should, and that employers often cannot get the funding they need to train staff. In 2023-24, the levy raised £3.9 billion for the Treasury, but the apprenticeship budget, which is separate, awarded only £2.7 billion. Although £500 million goes to the devolved nations under the Barnett formula, as it should, that still leaves a shortfall of £700 million, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash). That money has been paid in through the levy, and therefore to the Treasury, but does not reach employers; as was said, it is raised for skills but not spent on skills. That is at a time when the Government say they are keen to encourage businesses to invest in skills. We need that to be directed to skills.
Furthermore, the system was designed so that levy payers do not spend all their levy funds and so that small businesses can access the levy to fund apprenticeships. That said, 98% of the apprenticeship budget was spent each year for the past three years, and if large employers spend all their levy funds, there would be no apprenticeship funding remaining for small businesses. We know that small businesses are crucial to the apprentice system. Non-levy-paying employers recruit more apprentices each year than levy-paying businesses: last year, that was 42,000 apprentices under 19 compared with 35,000 by larger recruiters—a difference of 7,000. We are waiting for more details on the Government’s new growth and skills levy, but if they are serious about pivoting the apprenticeship system towards young people, they need to sort out apprenticeship funding.
On T-levels, the Liberal Democrats welcome the ambition to achieve equal value between academic and vocational routes—that has been a common theme across many parties for a considerable time—but we do not agree with the previous Government’s decision simply to scrap dozens of BTEC courses. Those qualifications are a middle pathway that allows many students, including those who find the T-level entry requirements simply too high, to benefit from a combination of academic and applied qualifications. Research indicates that BTECs significantly improve university entry rates for both white working-class and black students.
Many parts of industry are concerned about T-levels. For example, the hospitality sector prides itself on having no barriers to entry to those with no industry experience, and opens its doors to people with low educational attainment. That encourages a more diverse, inclusive and accessible workforce. However, the hospitality T-level requires 16 to 18-year-olds to have 5 GCSEs of grade 5 and above. That excludes a whole host of young people with many non-academic skills and talents, who could make successful careers in hospitality. It is important that we keep BTEC routes for those people.
As other Members have mentioned, there have been problems with the roll-out of T-levels, and concerns have been expressed by education providers and employers about their ability to deliver industry placements. A report by the Education Policy Institute this year highlighted issues with student retention, with nearly a third of first-year health and science T-level students dropping out of their programme. Until the new T-levels are well established, understood by students and employers, and proven to be successful, rolling back BTECs, which are successful, would be a huge mistake. The Government’s decision earlier in the year to review the defunding of BTECs was welcome. Now, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) pointed out, the delay in the outcome of that review is affecting planning for the next academic year and the opportunities available to young people. So, I urge the Government to get on and publish the outcome of that review.
Finally, with a lot of issues around skills at the moment, it seems that the answer is “Skills England”. I will echo the words of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire in his opening remarks that the King’s Speech referred to a Skills England Bill, whereas the Bill that is in the other place does not refer to Skills England at all. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss Skills England when we consider the actual legislation.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this super-important debate. All Westminster Hall debates are equal, but some are more equal than others, and when I saw the title of this debate and that it was being led by my right hon. Friend, I knew that it would be a good one.
I have not been disappointed at all, nor have I been disappointed by the excellent speeches by the hon. Members for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), and for Mansfield (Steve Yemm); by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and by the hon. Members for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Hartlepool (Mr Brash); by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) and by the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). There was also a rare appearance in Westminster Hall by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), which I am sure we all savour. [Hon. Members: “More!”] More indeed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire did a superb job in giving us the fruit of his many years of experience and his multiple periods of service in public life, including two stints in the Department for Education, regarding this issue. He talked about the alphabet soup of organisations and qualifying bodies, the traineeships, the apprenticeships, the modern apprenticeships, the City & Guilds, the GNVQs, the NVQs, the Skills for Life, the diplomas, the BTECs and now the T-levels. The question now is this: will T-levels just be another element added to this alphabet soup, or will we actually realise the vision of what we have called the Sainsbury routes and rationalise the system? My right hon. Friend asked big questions about where the Government are going with traineeships, the apprenticeship levy and Skills England, and it will not surprise him that I will pick up on those questions.
I have several questions for the Minister. First, do the Government have a forecast for the number of apprenticeships that will start over the course of this Parliament? Such a forecast has certainly existed in the past; I saw one when I was in government. Do the Government have such a forecast? If so, will they publish it? What is the forecast number of apprenticeships that will start over the course of this Parliament? I ask that question because unless we know that baseline, we cannot ask sensible questions such as “What will be the impact of the growth and skills levy on the number of apprenticeships?” Without the baseline we cannot have a debate about the trade-off between one desirable thing, which is more flexibility for businesses, and another desirable thing, which is more apprenticeships.
Is it still the Government’s policy to allow 50% of levy funds, rather than a specific number, to be spent on non-apprenticeships, or will it be perhaps another percentage now? What is the impact of the national insurance increase, first, on the number of apprenticeships —that is why we want to know the baseline number of apprenticeships—and, secondly, on the FE sector more generally? The national insurance increase is focused laser-like on lower-income workers, which particularly hits apprentices and people in the FE sector, so there is every reason to think that it will be particularly impactful for those two groups. Will the FE sector be fully compensated for the national insurance increase, or not?
I echo some of the excellent questions that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East asked about college funding. As the Minister knows, colleges are now classified as part of the public sector, but unlike other parts of the public sector they are not exempt from paying VAT. Is it the Government’s intention to change that situation or not?
The other day, Baroness Smith of Malvern said that college staff were “rightly” disappointed that they were not given the same pay increase as schoolteachers. She implied that the Government would seek to close that historic gap; it has existed for many decades. I am not asking for miracles from the Government; this is a very long-standing challenge that everyone says is a problem. It has become slightly worse in the first pay round under this Government; the gap has grown a bit more. Is it the Government’s long-term aspiration to close that gap between sixth-form college teachers and teachers in schools? I am interested in whether that is the direction of travel.
Will the Minister also answer some structural questions? The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill is obviously going through the Lords at the moment. We have already raised the question about Skills England and—as the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire said—the powers are being taken not into a new independent body but directly into the Department. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said, it would be pretty extraordinary if the Ministers set their own standards for A-levels, so why do we think it would be okay in technical education? What is the Government’s game plan after the IfATE Bill? What is the plan to restore independent standards setting, rather than having it in what is only an agency of the Department?
I also want to ask a really specific question. This is a genuine question because I do not understand the decision. Why did the Department refuse to share the terms of reference for the short review of 16 to 19 qualifications with the wider world? I know that FE Week certainly put in a freedom of information request to get it, which is a pretty extraordinary thing to have to do. Normally, when there is a review, the terms of reference are published. That review is not a secret. We know what the Government are looking at—a known question about BTECs and what will happen. Why did the Government not publish it and will they now?
On one last structural question, my sympathies are entirely with the Minister and the Government as there is a big question here, and this is not a straightforward challenge. We have heard the case for BTECs from various Members—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made a passionate case in favour of them. I should declare an interest as I worked on T-levels before they were called T-levels, when they were still called the Sainsbury routes. Lord Sainsbury, Gordon Brown, Nick Boles and others did a huge amount of work to bring them to that point in trying to rationalise this alphabet soup. T-levels are our best hope: they are a more demanding qualification, they have a higher level of funding and they use a lot more time in industry. They are a better qualification that is bringing parity of esteem and higher quality to the FE sector, and they are our big chance to rationalise this issue that everyone agrees is a problem. How far will the Government go towards replacing some of the existing qualifications, and what is their overall strategy and vision for how this will pan out?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
It is a privilege to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate, and I thank him for sharing his wide and comprehensive knowledge of past and present qualifications and awards. I am also grateful for the challenge that he and many other Members have brought to this debate. This Government are ambitious for young people, and we are excited and optimistic about what can be achieved.
As Members have rightly stated and spoken about, apprenticeships, BTECs and T-levels can offer incredible opportunities for young people. We have heard from many Members about the superb colleges and students in their constituencies, such as the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Dudley (Sonia Kumar). My hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) both mentioned an invite to their respective colleges, and of course I will pass those on to my noble Friend the Minister for Skills.
Gareth Snell
Will the Minister also take back an invitation to Stoke-on-Trent to our noble Friend?
Janet Daby
Very smart and clever indeed—I will of course pass on that invitation to Stoke-on-Trent as well. We have also heard from the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford)—it was great to hear about his brother’s achievements, so I thank him for that. There were contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones), and the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien).
Members have spoken about many issues in this debate, such as greater diversity in the workforce, including both women in STEM and the representation of people from diverse backgrounds. Concerns have also been raised about BTECs, apprenticeships and T-levels—for example, the apprenticeship levy, the teaching of further education, the reform of qualifications, and colleges needing certainty in the future about specific courses. I hope to address as many of those and other remarks as time allows, including the points raised by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire.
It is this Government’s mission to drive and increase opportunity for young people across the country. Working with Skills England, it is also this Government’s mission to support employers to train people up and identify and develop the skills they need to grow, helping to kick-start economic growth. Early investment in young people pays off for employers. We want young people to be enthusiastic, energised and passionate about learning and developing in their work. That will benefit employers, industry and our wider economy, which will be galvanised by a new generation who are willing to work hard and progress in their careers.
It has been concerning in recent years that young people have seen their apprenticeship opportunities disappear. We ask ourselves, “Why is that?” It may be helpful to remind the shadow Minister that following apprenticeship reforms made by the previous Government, including the introduction of the apprenticeship levy in 2017, apprenticeship starts by young people under 25 fell by almost 40% according to the Department for Education’s published data. It is also concerning that so many workers and employers have told us that they find it difficult to access the skills they need. UK employers report that more than a third of UK vacancies in 2022 were due to skill shortages. That is what we have inherited.
According to a stark statement from the OECD, 26% of the UK workforce are underqualified for their job, compared with an OECD average of 18%. There are widespread skills shortages in areas such as construction, manufacturing and health and social care. We desperately need workers in those areas. That is why meeting the skills needs of the next decade is central to delivering our Government’s five missions, which, I remind everybody, are economic growth, opportunity for all, a stronger NHS, safer streets and clean energy.
This Government will create a clear, flexible, high-quality skills system with a culture of businesses valuing and investing in training that supports people of all ages and backgrounds, breaking down the barriers to opportunity and driving economic growth. We are bringing forward legislation to enable Skills England to work with key stakeholders. Skills England will make sure that we know where our skills gaps are to ensure that a comprehensive suite of apprenticeships, training and technical qualifications is aligned with those skills gaps and the needs of employers.
I have heard concerns that Skills England will not have the independence or authority it needs. I would like to dispel those concerns today: Skills England will have an independent board that will provide leadership and direction, as well as scrutiny to ensure that it operates effectively and within the agreed framework,
Growth and skills are essential. We have listened to employers, who have told us that the current apprenticeship system does not work. We must do more to support them in accessing the training they need to fill their skills gaps and spread opportunity. Our growth and skills offer will provide employers and learners with greater flexibility and choice and create routes into good, skilled jobs in growing industries aligned with our industrial strategy.
Janet Daby
I am going to make progress, and then I will take some interventions if I can.
We are introducing new shorter-duration apprenticeships and foundation apprenticeships as a first key step towards greater flexibility that will benefit employers and, indeed, students. We recognise that some roles need less than 12 months’ training and employers are currently locked out of offering apprenticeships. We want to support sectors that make use of fixed-term contracts or have seasonal demands or specific recruitment timetables. We will engage with employers via Skills England and introduce that flexibility where the justification is clear. Our new work-based foundation apprenticeship will focus on ensuring that training is directed towards real vacancies. It will offer young people broad training with clear and seamless progression into other apprenticeships. Unlike the last Government, we will work closely with employers and providers. This Government will make sure we get it right.
Neil O’Brien
The Minister talked about introducing flexibility where appropriate—it sounded like perhaps only in some sectors. Is it still the intention for all employers to be able to use 50% of their apprenticeship levy for things that are not apprenticeships?
Janet Daby
The area the shadow Minister mentioned is currently being reviewed. As that information comes out, I am sure we will make him aware of it.
To open up the growth and skills offer and to deliver opportunity where it is most needed, we will ask more employers to step forward and fund level 7 apprenticeships themselves, outside the apprenticeship budget. Of the 2.5 million workers in critical demand occupations, the vast majority—more than 80%—require qualifications lower than degree level, so it feels right that we focus our support on those at the start of their working lives, rather than those already towards the top of the ladder.
The Government believe that all young people should have access to high-quality training that meets their needs and provides them with opportunities to thrive. That is why we are committed to making a success of T-levels and extending the opportunity they provide to as many young people as possible. We have introduced three new T-levels this year, opening up more opportunity for young people in the areas of craft and design, media, broadcast and production, and animal care. It was great to see an overall pass rate this year of nearly 90% and to learn that 83% of T-level students who applied to higher education secured a place.
At the end of the last academic year, more than 30,000 young people had taken a T-level, and we want to ensure that many more have the opportunity to study them, but we know that some changes are needed if we want to make that a reality. That is why we are looking at the delivery of current T-levels to ensure that more young people are able to enrol and succeed in them. Our review of post-16 qualifications reforms will ensure that there is a range of high-quality qualifications at level 3, alongside T-levels and A-levels, to support the skills needs of employers and the needs of learners.
Neil O’Brien
Will the Government agree to publish the terms of reference of that review?
Janet Daby
I have heard the shadow Minister mention that already, and I believe he has already received a response. [Interruption.] No, the shadow Minister has already received a response.
Janet Daby
I am sorry—I have already answered.
Last month’s Budget saw a good settlement for further education and skills, including £300 million revenue funding for further education and £300 million capital investment to support colleges to maintain, improve and secure the suitability of their estates.
Each one of us here knows the importance of high-quality skills training for young people, and I am grateful for the considered contributions of everyone who has spoken. When we look at the statistics, it is clear that for too long, young people have been locked out of the opportunities that can benefit them most. The actions I have outlined today will give us a real sense of how to make a difference for learners and employers. That is at the heart of the Government’s mission to spread opportunity and drive economic growth across all parts of our country.
Damian Hinds
It has been a good debate. I thank everyone who took part for bringing their own perspectives. There is just one thing I want to say. We cannot legislate for parity of esteem; we can only earn it. High-quality apprenticeships and T-levels can do that, because young people know that the standards have been set by employers, and they are right for the levels necessary for success in those sectors. Crucially, to have confidence in the integrity of qualifications, they need to be set independently and, in the case of these qualifications, they need to be set with business. The Minister has an opportunity with a Bill going through Parliament at the moment. When the IfATE transfer of powers Bill comes to Committee stage in the Commons, please will the Government table an amendment to write that independence and the involvement of business into law?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered apprenticeships and T Levels.
Government and Democracy Education
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered government and democracy education in schools.
It is appropriate that I have secured this debate during Parliament Week. I want to put on record my praise for the education and engagement team for their brilliant work. Unsurprisingly, I am going to argue that there should be more education about government and democracy in our schools. I am not the first to make that case and I will not be the last, but of course it would be great if I were.
Making this case fits into the category of not needing to be a rocket scientist—namely, it is obvious that for a democracy to function well its citizens must understand how their government and democratic system works. As with many things, though, just being obvious is not enough to ensure that it happens.
Why is this important? The House of Lords Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement put it well in a report in 2018:
“By underpinning democratic engagement and reinforcing the effective working of civil society, active citizenship contributes to a healthy and functioning society.”
In my view, we should teach about government and democracy for the same reason that we teach other subjects: to equip our young people with the skills, knowledge and attributes that will enable them to be the architects of their future, and not merely inhabitants of a future designed by others.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for holding this important debate on a subject that I agree with wholeheartedly. Ahead of COP29, I held a student conference of the parties with three high schools in my constituency, where the students passionately debated climate issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that initiatives like that underscore how integrating government and democracy education into the school curriculum can empower young people to become informed, active citizens who are engaged with the challenges we are facing?
John Slinger
I agree. I will come to that when I complete my remarks. We are talking about empowering our young people to set the agenda in their schools and, we hope, in their lives.
Learning standard subjects, such as history and science, enables young people to develop core skills, imbibe relevant knowledge and hone the powers of critical analysis that will empower them to thrive in future, whether in study or work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. I agree that it is important for young people to have an understanding of democracy at an early stage, especially in schools. My youngest staff member studied government and politics. There were 28 students in their class in the first year, but that went down to 11 in the second year. They then did a further course comprising 14 students, which included only two girls. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a disconnect between young people and the political system that needs to be addressed, possibly as a mandatory module through learning for life and work?
John Slinger
I agree that we need to embed this learning in our system in a far more concrete fashion.
To truly empower young people we must go further than merely teach standard subjects. We must ensure that they both understand and value our government and democratic system. For example, young people draw on their knowledge of standard subjects at work, but an enhanced understanding of government and democracy would make them aware of how the economy, and hence their job, is affected by the decisions that politicians take in this House.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with his time. He will know that one of the most successful areas of the economy and politics in this country is co-operatives and mutuals, but it may also be the case that within the wider subject, it is the area about which knowledge is lowest. The Co-operative party and the co-operative movement are keen to see co-operatives as part of young people’s political and economic education. Does he agree that that could help young people to meet their potential to learn about different models of ownership and of democracy that can help our communities thrive?
John Slinger
I should state that I am a proud member of the Co-operative party. Indeed, should more learning about our democratic system take place, I would hope that it would include more information about the co-operative movement and the co-operative models that I believe will help us to build a better Britain.
To add practical experience of our democratic system would be a catalyst for increasing the agency of our young people. In its submission to the Government’s ongoing curriculum review, the Association for Citizenship Teaching sets that out clearly:
“Citizenship education fosters critical competencies, such as information evaluation, deliberation, advocacy, and oracy, which are vital for civic engagement.”
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
I declare a deep interest: I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on political and media literacy, and I believe these issues are very important. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about the education of young people in and of itself, but about how people go on to engage in our democracy later in life, and that that is about not just voting but engaging with confidence and clarity with elected representatives? For example, as a new Member of Parliament, I have reflected on the fact that a number of residents say to me, “I’m not sure who to go to—is it you, a councillor or somebody else?” Would enhancing political and democratic education not serve to enhance our entire political system, ensuring that people get the support they need, from the person they need it from, when they need it—and that they do so with confidence?
John Slinger
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is a point I had to excise from my speech because I did not think I had the time, but it is very important. As new Members, constituents often bring issues to our attention that would be better dealt with by a councillor or another arm of the state, so it is an important part of the process that we clarify, educate and inform better than we are doing at the moment.
I will complete the quote from the Association for Citizenship Teaching, which goes on to say:
“Re-prioritising this subject in the upcoming review is vital, as it contributes directly to the health of national democracy and the wellbeing of citizens.”
We have a long way to go. Electoral Commission data shows a lack of democratic engagement and understanding among younger audiences, and at a time when the Labour party has pledged to introduce voting at the age of 16, only 16% of 16 and 17-year-olds are on the electoral register and 19% of 16 to 24-year-olds are not confident that they know how to register to vote. Some statistics from the commission are staggeringly worrying: 39% of 16 to 24-year-olds say that they are not interested in politics, and 33% say they do not know very much or anything about politics in the UK.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
Those who measure trust in politics tell us, as we regrettably know, that that trust is at its lowest point in over 40 years. Part of rebuilding that trust is very much about engaging with the curriculum and ensuring that people know who we are, what we do, what the media who report on us so much do and how those institutions work. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the current curriculum and assessment review is a fantastic opportunity to ensure that steps to improve political literacy are built into our future education system?
John Slinger
I will come to that point, because I think that the review is a golden opportunity.
The commission confirmed what I and others here know: too many young people do not understand how to participate in our democratic processes, and their lack of motivation is due to a lack of knowledge about parties and candidates. If we want young people to engage more in elections, for their sake and ours, we must work harder to ensure they understand and value our democracy.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that this is UK Parliament Week. Last week, I was delighted to visit Great Baddow high school in my constituency to speak to students who were preparing for a debate that they would be taking part in as part of UK Parliament Week. They asked me lots of wonderful questions on diverse subjects. I have often been into local schools to talk about government, but it often becomes apparent that students do not know anything at all about local government, and yet local government affects their lives on a day-to-day basis—sometimes much more than this place. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that local government, alongside central Government, should form part of this education?
John Slinger
I wholeheartedly agree. It is critical that we educate our young people about the different tiers of government and the responsibilities of elected representatives within them.
I will touch briefly on the history of citizenship in our education system. Since 2002, citizenship has been a statutory foundation national curriculum subject at key stages 3 and 4. Luke Brown, a teacher at Lawrence Sheriff school in Rugby, told me:
“A big concern is the increasingly limited time given to Citizenship and, therefore, politics.”
Citizenship remains a non-statutory programme of study at key stages 1 and 2—or primary, to use the old parlance—where, as teachers tell me, a similar situation ensues, and other priorities all too often drown out citizenship. According to the 2018 Lords report, citizenship peaked between 2009 and 2011, and declined particularly under the last Government’s curriculum review in 2013. The report found that
“citizenship was never fully embedded into the education system”.
The same happened with other subjects that were, in my view, wrongly regarded by the previous Government as subsidiary. The English baccalaureate, introduced in 2010, did not include citizenship. Furthermore, there has been a substantial decline in the number of students studying the citizenship GCSE and the number of specialist teachers.
With our new Government’s curriculum review, we have a golden opportunity to put that right. Like all MPs, I make a big effort to visit as many primary and secondary schools as I can. The biggest privilege and—dare I say it?—challenge of being an MP is not speaking in Chambers like this one but answering questions from young people in schools. When I visit schools, I find that young people are generally interested in politics. For example, the children of Paddox primary school in my constituency were hugely excited about the competition that staff are running about politics, with the prize being a tour of Parliament. A constituent of mine, Ian Dewes, the CEO of the Odyssey Collaborative Trust, said that Parliament’s education team “were fantastic” and pointed out that such visits helped to
“break down class and social barriers.”
When children of Long Lawford primary school welcomed me and the early years Minister for a visit, it was clear that their teachers had educated them well about the political system. Those are exemplars of best practice, but they should be standard across the whole country.
I would be grateful to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about how her Department will ensure a more coherent, better resourced system that gives these subjects the higher priority that they deserve. I hope, first, that she will consider confirming citizenship as a statutory subject in the national curriculum at all stages, not just key stages 3 and 4; as with literacy, the younger we start, the deeper the understanding. Secondly, will she provide guidance to all schools about what they are expected to teach and resources to do so, including lesson packs and training for non-specialist teachers? Thirdly, will she ensure coherence and common standards across the entire maintained sector? Fourthly, will she reform progress 8 to ensure that any new system of measuring schools gives the same value to citizenship as to other national curriculum foundation GCSE subjects? Finally, will she take action to incentivise the training of specialist citizenship teachers?
Another part of learning about government and democracy should, of course, be participating in it within school and the wider world, as other hon. Members have said.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
As part of UK Parliament Week, I visited Ormiston Maritime academy, John Whitgift academy and Phoenix Park academy, and what struck me is that young people are very engaged in their local community and raise really important issues that reflect the society they are experiencing. They have an awful lot to tell us about the kind of country they want to grow up in. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we can be more responsive in this place, it will give them a much greater connection to the changes they can make and the influence they can have on their local representatives?
John Slinger
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend and thank her for that point. It is vital that we do everything we can in this place, and indeed in our constituencies, to listen to young people and empower them. We must not just listen to them but act on their concerns. Anything we can do, we must.
Primary and secondary schools that I have visited often run democratically elected school councils, which demonstrate to young people democracy in action and its role in enabling them to shape their environment. We must give our young people as many opportunities as possible to engage in that way. I will soon be holding a “pitch your policy” event in my constituency to encourage such engagement.
The importance of this topic cannot be overstated. We are fortunate to live in a secure but not invulnerable democracy. I met MPs from Moldova this week and asked about this topic, given the threats that their democratic system faces. They told me that it does feature in their curriculum and that they have school councils that are all about
“encouraging people to acknowledge their own power”.
These changes are about more than just a matter of curriculum rejuvenation, important though that is. If made, they can play a significant part in a democratic rejuvenation in our country. More broadly, to reinforce our system of democracy and government, we must have a campaign of education that goes far beyond our schools, with billboards, social media and mailshots.
I will end with some quotes from the most important people of all: young people. Austin Morris in year 11 said:
“Democracy isn’t just something we learn from a textbook; it’s a lesson we live every day at Rugby Free Secondary, where diverse voices, collaboration and fair decisions shape our school, and therefore shape the next generations of democratic society.”
A child from Paddox primary school said:
“Learning about democracy at school helps you to express your opinions and teaches you about wider topics related to what is going on in the world.”
Another said:
“It is also important to be able to have your voice heard in things that are important both at school and in the ‘real’ world.”
Another said:
“It is important for girls to vote in elections because they had to fight hard to get their vote in the first place.”
Finally—I like this one in particular—another said:
“If you don’t vote, you shouldn’t complain about things that happen because you didn’t use your democratic vote.”
I am sure that hon. Members will concur with that. Let us be inspired by those words and many others like them from schools up and down the country. Let us make sure that citizenship learning is a force that nourishes and defends our democratic system, and empowers our young people with the confidence to engage in it for the benefit of all.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) on securing this timely debate on an incredibly important subject. He inspired us with his speech and the words of young people in particular. I know that education is a subject close to his heart, as he demonstrated clearly in his speech today. Having previously been a school governor and a trustee for Warwickshire Young Carers, I know that he shares our vision for ensuring that young people receive the right support to succeed in their education and to lead happy, healthy and productive lives.
I say that this debate is timely. It has been mentioned that we are celebrating UK Parliament Week this week, which is an incredible opportunity to get young people across the country to engage with Parliament and learn more about our democracy, our political system and how our country works. This Friday, I will be going to school assemblies across my constituency to speak to children about what I do as their MP and how they can engage in and shape their world. I am sure that many hon. Members will be doing the same. I had so many invites this year that it has been a real squeeze to fit them in. There are 35 schools from Newcastle upon Tyne North engaging in UK Parliament Week this year—I am not going to all of them—and it is fantastic that so many are getting involved.
From my own experience, some of the most powerful and persuasive engagement that I have had in my time in Parliament has come directly from children and young people in my constituency. I have lobbied previous Governments on their behalf on many different issues—the significance of now being on the receiving end of those requests is not lost on me. They have brilliant ideas that they express powerfully, so it is important that their voice is heard and their engagement supported.
Melanie Onn
The Minister is exactly right. In my visits so far this week, young people have raised serious and current issues, including knife crime, vaping and their impact on health. The idea that young people are divorced from the realities of society is not bearing out, but their connection with the political system is very separate. I am interested to hear her views on improving citizenship in schools.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The last Labour Government recognised the importance of citizenship and participation in our education system, which is why they introduced citizenship education to the national curriculum at key stages 3 and 4 for maintained schools. They set up a framework to prepare pupils to play an active part in society and a platform to discuss issues that are important to them, from conflict to poverty, climate change, crime and security in our society.
Although it is optional for primary schools—my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby raised that as a concern—they are supported by non-statutory programmes at key stages 1 and 2, and the teaching of democracy forms a central part of the citizenship curriculum. That requires that pupils are taught about parliamentary democracy, the key elements of the constitution of the United Kingdom, the power of Government, how citizens and Parliament can hold Government to account, and the different roles of the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary, and of course the free press. Pupils learn the skills of active citizenship through practical opportunities to address issues of concern to them and their wider community.
The Petersfield school in Hampshire and the Association for Citizenship Teaching delivered a joint parallel election project using real-life examples from the 2024 general election and involving nearly 30,000 students across 413 schools. It gave students hands-on experience of a democratic process—for example, asking them to work in teams to simulate election parties. It mirrored a real election, from analysing party manifestos to organising voter registration, holding hustings, holding elections and comparing the school results in the local constituency. Aside from that particular project, many schools will have engaged in the ’24 election in a similar way, which is fantastic.
It is right that schools have a statutory duty as part of a broad and balanced curriculum to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development. The 2014 guidance supports schools in delivering that requirement. It acknowledges that people might hold different views about what is right and what is wrong, but a school’s ethos and teaching should support the rule of English civil and criminal law, and that means embedding those fundamental values of democracy, rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of people of different faiths and beliefs.
Schools embed those values most successfully when they do it right across the breadth of their provision. Whether they are taught specifically as part of a curriculum, reflected in behaviour policies, reinforced in assemblies or deepened through engagement opportunities—for example, experiencing the democratic process—we know that real experience can help young people to develop, engage in and assume those values in their own lives.
High and rising school standards are at the heart of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. We know that is how we can deliver the best life chances for every child, but we also know that too many young people go through their whole school lives without developing the communication and critical thinking skills that are so important for them to develop that democratic engagement.
That is why we are delivering our manifesto commitment with the independent curriculum and assessment review, as already mentioned. It is a good opportunity to look at how we deliver a curriculum that ensures young people feel represented, and helps them to develop the knowledge and skills required to thrive as citizens throughout their life. The review will look at the key challenges to attainment for young people and the barriers holding them back from opportunities and life chances. In particular, it will look at breaking down barriers for those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged or those with special educational needs and disabilities.
The review has put out a call for evidence, which closes this Friday, so this is a good opportunity to encourage anyone with an interest in the issue to feed back as part of the review, because we are interested in views and we want to hear from as many people as possible. Anyone can also join live events on gov.uk and have their say in the curriculum and assessment process. Live events are being held around the country, so I encourage people to engage. The review will not decide what to recommend formally until after the call for evidence closes. An interim report will be produced in early 2025 and the final recommendations will be published in autumn 2025.
Generally speaking, schools have the flexibility to organise the content and delivery of their citizenship curriculum to meet the needs of their pupils. That might include a whole range of issues, ideas and materials, including challenging or controversial subjects, but they need to ensure political balance. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby made a specific point about the co-operative movement. Political movements and parties are not listed as part of the current citizenship curriculum, but schools can choose to talk about them as part of their democracy discussions.
The Department currently provides a range of support to the sector, particularly through the Educate Against Hate website, to help teachers discuss some of the really tricky issues. Support for curriculum delivery also comes from resources from the Oak National academy, which launched new curriculum sequences for secondary citizenship earlier this month. Obviously, there will be a full package of support in autumn 2025.
UK Parliament does fantastic work running educational tours for pupil, youth and community groups to see how Parliament works in action. It also produces resources, which can be downloaded or ordered for free and tailored to different age groups. This really is Christmas for UK Parliament. I thank staff for the work they do all year round, but particularly this week as we celebrate the level of engagement. I encourage all schools to engage and make use of the resources for young people.
On supporting the teaching workforce, the initial teacher training and early career framework sets out the entitlement of every trainee to get the necessary knowledge and skills. It is vital that teachers get support to do that important work of engaging and teaching young people about these issues.
I will take my hon. Friend’s comments on board, and I thank him again for bringing forward the debate. It is great that it happened in this week of all weeks. I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions. It is vital that pupils have a sound understanding of the fundamental values upon which our society is founded and operates, including democracy, and their relevance to the rights, responsibilities and opportunities of living in modern Britain.
Schools clearly have a critical role to play in supporting pupils to develop those skills and attitudes. We know that many schools really embed an understanding of democracy, but we also know that the curriculum and assessment review is an opportunity to see how we can do that even better. I will finish by thanking my hon. Friend again for his fantastic opening speech. In giving a voice to his constituents, he is clearly embedding democratic values within his local area. I am sure that every MP will take the opportunity to do the same during UK Parliament Week.
Question put and agreed to.
Flood Preparedness: Norfolk
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered flood preparedness in Norfolk.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am delighted to have secured this important debate on flood preparedness in Norfolk, and I am pleased to see colleagues from across the county and across the parties. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) has long championed the issue, and I am pleased to join him in the fight. The challenges that we face are so significant and have such an impact that we have to come together to tackle them. I am pleased to be able to facilitate that today.
Norfolk’s seas and waterways are one of our country’s greatest treasures. Our rivers are enjoyed by many for swimming, paddling, kayaking and canoeing. The Norfolk broads are a much-loved national park: a unique waterway that nurtures flora and fauna, and keeps alive a great tradition of sailing and navigation. Our coastline and seas are precious for local residents and drive our tourism economy. They even brought a visit from the Liberal Democrat leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who enjoyed a dip in the sea in Sheringham with me during the election campaign.
Norfolk’s landscapes are also low-lying and flat, filled with farmland and floodplains. While that combination of waterways and low-lying land contributes to Norfolk’s being the most beautiful county in the country, it presents a perfect storm for flooding problems. Hundreds of years ago, the Norfolk broads were simply a huge estuary. Work over the centuries has tamed the waterways into what they are today, but without continued work, nature will simply return our area to the North sea. In the words of my local water management director, we have to “make maintenance sexy!” The Romans began the work, and it would be a tragedy if this were the generation that finally gave up. Not on my watch.
There are very few areas of Norfolk that are not afflicted by flooding concerns. I hear worries from residents all over my constituency, from councillors and colleagues around the county, and from the agencies that work so hard to alleviate such problems.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
My constituency is a long way from my hon. Friend’s, but it is criss-crossed by rivers. Last month my residents suffered an inundation, when we had a month’s rainfall in one day. Does he agree that one of the challenges is the lack of co-ordination between the multitude of agencies that have responsibility for this area? Does he also agree that the legacy of the last Conservative Government was the underfunding of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and of local planning authorities, which affected their flood prevention activities?
Steff Aquarone
I agree with both of my hon. Friend’s points, and I will speak about them in a moment. My hope is that by solving the issue of joined-up working in Norfolk, we can transport that model to his constituency and elsewhere.
A key motivation of mine in securing a debate on this issue at this time was the important public meeting I chaired recently in Hickling. Nine different agencies sent their representatives to share the work they are undertaking to prevent flooding in the area. They also told us of their personal fears and frustrations. They spoke of the challenges with the funding system and our changing climate, and of the regulations and responsibilities that are stymying their ability to make change.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. He is right that there are a multitude of agencies that have partial responsibility, creating a network of overlapping duties and responsibilities. We are lucky in Norfolk that we have the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance, under the capable directorship of Henry Cator, a constituent of mine. Will the hon. Member take this opportunity to congratulate the alliance and Mr Cator, and will he focus on the absolute importance of strategic dredging, particularly in the Norfolk broads?
Steff Aquarone
I thank the hon. Member for his work on flood prevention, and I absolutely echo his sentiments. I will be quoting Henry Cator in just a moment. He was on the panel I mentioned, and I pledged to him and others that I would support them in tackling all of this. That meeting allowed the agencies to hear directly from local residents about their experience and knowledge of the area, developed over decades, and to factor it into their plans and ensure that the community and relevant agencies work in lockstep as they bring forward a more flood-resilient future for the affected broads villages.
Residents of North Norfolk have endless stories of how flooding has impacted them and their community. I heard from a business owner in the boating industry who has spent £40,000 fixing the impact of flooding on the marina that she manages. Another local business estimates that it lost out on £140,000 of revenue during a period when it could not operate because of flood damage. Even the most basic things are made harder: one resident apologised to me that their response to my invitation to the meeting I mentioned was delayed because their driveway was flooded and impassable for the postman.
In the short term, we must look at the fundamental issues across all levels of government that have allowed the situation to get as bad as it has. The agencies I met with are working incredibly hard, but they can only work with what they have. A major issue that many of them face is that their funding settlements are rarely delivered more than one year ahead.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I also live far away from Norfolk, but Somerset obviously has a record of flooding—in fact, it is named Somerset because it was the county where people lived in summer. Environment Agency data shows that 2,692 properties in my constituency are at risk of flooding, and unless basic maintenance is conducted on drainage and flood-defence systems, the figure will continue to rise. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for the Environment Agency to have a £34 million deficit in its maintenance budget?
Steff Aquarone
I totally agree. Lots of money is already there, not to mention the stuff that is missing, but we have to use it in a more joined-up and strategic way. I could go on, but I will return to my speech.
The projects that need to be undertaken to make a real difference will take time, but they will have a huge payoff. Being forced into short-term thinking means that the responsible agencies cannot make secure plans to take the strategic actions they need to. I hope that the Minister will consider changing the arrangement to give the responsible agencies the ability to set longer-term budgets. That would be a huge boost to their medium and long-term planning, and could get off the ground so many vital flood-alleviation projects that are being stalled by the current funding set-up. As the chair of the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance succinctly put it to me:
“Prevention is a lot less expensive than flooding.”
In fact, every pound spent on prevention prevents a further £14 of damage. I hope that the Minister will seriously reflect on that, particularly in the light of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke).
Frustratingly, in many cases, it is not just the money that is lacking, but the necessary power to make change. The responsibilities and powers are broken up and siloed across councils, agencies and statutory bodies; all of them have expertise and experience, but it cannot be easily shared between them. I ask simply but kindly: why does it take nine months and two public meetings to decide what to do and how to spend the money we already have? I would love to tour my constituency bringing the kind of meeting I mentioned to every community, but that is simply not the most effective way of delivering the action that residents are crying out for.
The Netherlands has a Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management: a clearly responsible Department with the power to tackle an issue that is fundamental to that nation. We must accept that Britain floods—it always has done. A joined-up approach, with a clearly responsible body, is the only way we can ensure that powers are collected sensibly to allow for funding and direction decisions to be made in the best interests of communities.
Let us take a look at how flood prevention actually functions in the area that I and my Norfolk colleagues represent—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a Norfolk county councillor. Norfolk county council is the lead flood authority, but it does not have the money to tackle the issues that it reports on. The council’s scrutiny committee considered that just yesterday, and concluded that there needs to be a focus on legislation to make it fit for purpose. After every serious event, it writes useful, sensible and impactful flood prevention reports, which outline how to prevent flooding from happening again, but once it finishes its reports, it has nowhere near the necessary money to implement any of its own recommendations.
That set-up would be utterly farcical if it were not so serious. It seems that my residents need all the stars to align to make anything happen, and that will not cut the mustard as water pours into their front rooms and destroys their belongings.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving some excellent examples, particularly from the Netherlands, which is wonderful at water management. Like him, many across my constituency have to deal with the impact of flooding year after year. Does he agree that to tackle flooding, we must improve the management of land upstream, including the restoration of peatlands, heathlands and native woodlands, and that our farmers are great allies in this quest?
Steff Aquarone
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. In my experience as a county councillor over the past seven years, I have seen changing attitudes in the farming community, with farmers having moved from wanting to get the water off their land and into the river system as soon as possible, to wanting to build attenuation methods upstream and upland to help prevent flooding further downland, but they face planning barriers and all sorts of other hurdles that make that practically unviable.
I want to touch on the issues faced by our farmers in North Norfolk. As well as talking to me yesterday about inheritance tax changes, many farmers raised concerns about how flooding impacts their land. Access to the farming recovery fund seems, to my farmers and me, to be scattergun and confusing; the restrictive criteria mean that some are receiving payouts for land that has hardly been touched by flooding, while not receiving anything for land that has spent months underwater, simply because they are either lucky or unlucky with DEFRA criteria and algorithms.
William, a farmer in my constituency, told me yesterday that he had 30 acres of potato crop waterlogged for months on end, and totally unharvestable. He lost £100,000-worth of potatoes, but received no payout because he was told his land was not eligible. We know that our farmers operate on the slimmest profit margins to feed our country, and flooding is yet another challenge hammering them and their businesses. Norfolk’s farmers feel that they are being punished by the quirks of the system, and are in the dark about how to get the help that they need.
The Minister has heard me raise a lot of problems so far, but I want to reassure her that the Government can achieve some quick wins. There are some things with simple solutions. First, we need to ensure that the insurance landscape for flooding is viable. I am appreciative of the Flood Re scheme, but we must ensure that it will achieve its mission to create a risk-reflective pricing model by the time it exits the market in 2039, and that it covers all types of flood risk, including coastal erosion, which rapidly eats away at the North Norfolk coast.
I also feel that we need to place a greater duty on our insurers to carry out the actions in flood prevention reports after incidents occur. Insurers currently put properties back to the state they were in before the flooding, rather than being required to support residents to ensure that the flooding cannot happen again. For example, why are insurers replacing ankle-height sockets in properties they know could flood again, when logic would dictate that they need to be moved higher up to protect them in the future? My residents have been left in a scenario where they know what needs to happen to prevent future flooding, but the actions are not forthcoming. It is totally unacceptable, and I hope the Minister will indicate that she is open to reviewing this area of law, if that is the reform we need to fix these issues.
There is a very real human impact of the failings of this set-up. I have spoken with one of my constituents who has been flooded twice, forced to move out of her home for months, and still struggles to secure the changes she needs to avoid yet more flooding. Anglian Water is responsible for increasing the drainage capacity, the highways department is responsible for trying to redirect the water flow off the road away from her property, and her insurers have to help her piece her life back together again. All those agencies and organisations have been unable to secure funding or have been limited in their powers. She will want to hear from the Minister today an assurance that she will not carry on falling through the cracks and being a repeat victim of predictable problems, and will finally receive the long-lasting solution she needs and deserves.
Whenever we discuss damaging floods, which are becoming all the more regular, we must address the elephant in the room that is man-made climate change. It is no coincidence that we see more extreme weather events, storms and flooding when our climate is being so drastically damaged. If we do not deviate from the course of climate crisis, resilience measures will become obsolete as the emergency worsens. The current modelling on what we need to prevent and alleviate flooding looks backwards at data and trends from the past, but climate change is bringing extreme weather and flooding that we have never seen before. If we cannot handle what has gone before, we do not stand a chance of tackling what has yet to come. We have to incorporate the climate emergency into our thinking on this issue far more realistically.
Norfolk is proudly at the cutting edge of the green energy transformation that we need to fight climate change. We are proud to be playing our part in saving the planet, but if the homes of those working on these projects, and the businesses and suppliers for them, are flooding, and the infrastructure itself is at risk of flooding, we cannot help. We want to play our part and we need the support to do so.
I hope the Government can think holistically when tackling the challenges of flooding. It is not just an environment issue; it impacts our local economy, our emergency services and our health systems. I fear the cost of failure here simply is not understood, but I can assure the Government that they cannot afford it. While we are talking about Norfolk today, improving flood preparedness across the country will positively impact so much more than just the people whose homes and businesses are flooding today.
This challenge is immediate. The time for waiting around and delay has long passed and we are staring down the barrel of a tough—and possibly disastrous—winter. This is not about just protecting the highest possible number of chimney pots, but preserving a beautiful, historic natural landscape and a way of life that has served Norfolk for generations. I hope that as the Government listen to the contributions in this debate and consider their future actions as a result, in the forefront of their minds are the affected residents and business owners, villages such as Hickling and Potter Heigham, and the communities begging us not to carry on with the status quo.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this debate. Next door in Suffolk we share the same coast and many of the same problems, being so low-lying. I am sad to say that in Lowestoft we are not adequately protected against severe flooding such as we experienced, to devastating effect, in 2013. Prior to the installation of flood wall protection measures last year, Lowestoft was the only coastal town without any formal tidal flood defences, and we remain very much at risk.
We had a flood barrier project ready to go, one that would have protected 1,500 residential properties and 800 businesses and was an excellent example of partnership bidding. However, East Suffolk council was forced to abandon those plans earlier this year because the Conservative Government had delayed and delayed a funding decision for so long that it was no longer possible to continue. They avoided paying £100 million to complete a project that would have protected our town for 100 years and seen a return of £700 million a year in gross value added. The previous Government ran out the clock on the scheme and kicked the can down the road, as they did with so much else. With Lowestoft due a flood on the scale of 2013 every 20 years, residents are rightly worried. Resurrecting that scheme immediately is sadly not possible, but I am determined that we find a viable way forward.
Without our flood barrier, the advanced plans we have for the regeneration of the area around Lake Lothing are jeopardised, hugely increasing costs for the redevelopment of the former JELD-WEN factory site, which would help us to meet the Government’s ambitious house building targets by adding up to 500 homes. However, the growth benefits of flooding protection measures are not reflected in how our flooding funding formula works. The formula as it exists now effectively protects wealthier areas and leaves poorer areas such as ours to fend for themselves. As such, it essentially bakes in inequality.
I would be grateful if the Minister could look into a review of the current flooding funding formula. We need to factor in the potential for growth, for unlocking house building and for industrial progress when it comes to allocating funds. If we are able to do that, not only can we save what we already have, but we can build for a better future.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on bringing this debate to the House. It is great to see so many colleagues from all parties. If ever there was an issue that unites us all, it is this. At the beginning of my fifth Parliament, I have never seen so many all-party parliamentary groups set up or seen them so well attended—most struggle to find enough Members to be quorate. I have been to four, each with about 30 people from all parties in the room. I welcome what the Minister has said about properly reviewing and getting to grips with this issue and wish her well. She will find a lot of parliamentary support for bold reforming action, which is long overdue.
For me, this began in the inland constituency of Mid Norfolk—the clue is in the name. It has no coast and is largely Breckland; it should be dry. So why am I leading the charge on flooding? It is because in 2020, I and many of my constituents spent the Christmas period using mops and buckets in our houses as great rains swept through. In so many parts of the country, areas that have not traditionally been affected by flooding suddenly are. We set up the Mid Norfolk Flood Partnership with 13 villages, and we set up the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance. I pay tribute to Lord Dannatt, who set up the alliance, and Henry Cator, who now runs it very well. We were in the process of convening Norfolk’s first inland flood summit, which was postponed because of the election. It is very important.
There are 36 organisations in Norfolk alone tasked with and sharing responsibility for dealing with flooding. None of them are able to take responsibility properly. I will be kind, but the buck gets passed. People have had enough. We need a summit in which we, the representatives of the people of Norfolk, can gather with those agencies and get on top of where the flooding is happening, where it is becoming more intense, what is being done about it and prioritised for our county, and the short, medium and long-term plan.
I have prepared a private Member’s Bill to support the Minister; I will be introducing it shortly and I hope it will contribute to the reforms that she is considering. I hope it will be good enough that she decides to incorporate it into her reforms. I will speak in a moment about what that Bill sets out to do but, as with so many public policy problems, it is worth being clear about what the problem is and what is causing it.
First, I want to suggest climate change. Earlier this year, we had the wettest seven months on record, and we have had the wettest past few years on record. That is what is driving the problem.
Secondly, in my part of the world, that problem is compounded by a huge amount of housing. The boundaries changed because about 10,000 extra houses have been built in Mid Norfolk in the past 14 years. Many of them are built on the outskirts of villages, without proper drainage infrastructure, which has meant plugging modern drains into Victorian village drain infrastructure. When there is intense rain, it all merges and sewage starts rising through people’s gardens and lavatories.
Thirdly, I mention riparian rights: we have seen huge confusion about who is actually responsible for maintaining ditches. Fourthly, there is contract farming, or an increase in outsourcing farming to contractors. In the old days on our family farm, in quiet months we would clear the ditches and mend the fences. These days, that kind of stuff is not always in the contract. Ditches are being neglected because of the reality of modern contract farming.
Fifthly, Anglian Water has been focusing—and I will be kind—on supplying water to the east and on mitigating leakage. It is investing billions. Ten years ago, the problem was loss of water, and that is still the case in the summer months. However, in winter, we have a massive problem. We need to make sure that our water companies are investing in the problem in the latter half of the year, as well as dealing with the shortages in the summer. Of course, catchment geography, habitat, and water maintenance and retention link those two issues.
Sixthly, there is huge confusion about responsibilities. Nationally, the responsibility sits with the Environment Agency, and I think its budget is just over £2 billion a year. However, try ringing the Environment Agency about a problem in Norfolk—or, I dare say, in Suffolk; it is lovely to see the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) sneaking into a Norfolk debate to support us. I am talking about organisational responsibility at the top, in an agency that has many other responsibilities, some of which directly go against the interests of getting water off the land and down rivers fast. I am also talking about the situation on the ground. Responsibility for dealing with, mitigating and handling flooding is unfunded, so the local flood authority really has no budget in Norfolk. It has a few powers, which it cannot enforce, and no budget to do it properly.
Seventhly, the real heroes of flood management in this country are the internal drainage boards, who—as you will know, Sir Christopher—have been successfully doing proper local watercourse management since about the 15th century. They have seen their powers reduced and their funding removed. As is so often the way in modern Governments, powers go upstream, to higher and higher levels, with less and less real, practical support on the ground. Those 15 or 16 areas—district councils that are most on the frontline of flooding—are now having massively to support internal drainage board infrastructure investments. We are charging taxpayers hugely in the high flood areas to pay for infrastructure that we are all funding. An Association of District Councils special interest group has been set up to tackle that, and it is helping me with my Bill.
Eighthly, the IDBs are funded by precepts, which is not appropriate for the scale of infrastructure that we need today. Ninthly, there is a huge lack of proper monitoring: one of the things that we will find at the first Norfolk flood summit is that we do not have a map—or certainly no live digital map. Where are the flood hotspots in our county? We are not properly capturing the data, which means that the Minister will not have proper data to support her policy making and the Cabinet Office resilience unit does not have proper data on where that growing inland flood risk is.
There is then flooding on the ground, as we had last year; I will cite one example, at Mill lane in Attleborough. Four people who live next to a culvert have been flooded every year for the past 10 years, and their lives are misery. Last year, for the first time, 100 other houses were flooded because the culvert has been allowed to silt up gradually. Anglian Water handed over its riparian rights when no one was looking about 12 or 15 years ago, and no one was aware that those rights now sat locally in the town. The land-use practice upstream meant that the water was not being captured properly on the farm, and with a whole lot of new housing and climate change, there was then a big problem. It has taken a huge amount of work to set up the local Mill lane flood prevention group, and the community has cleaned out the ditches and dredged the river, with 70 tonnes of stuff taken out. It has been a huge project, for which I pay tribute to the local councillor, Taila Taylor, and others.
We cannot afford to do that in every single place around the country; far better to invest in prevention in the first place. Of course, people who have suffered flooding then hit the next problems: how do they insure their houses? How will we compensate people who cannot sell their houses? How will we ensure that, as others have said, the Flood Re scheme is fit for purpose? This is a huge issue and I know the Minister has gripped it. My Bill sets out four main clauses and four main reforms—I believe I have sent the Minister an early draft, but I will send her a better one. I thank all those colleagues who are helping with it.
Clause 1 sets out responsibilities and makes clear that we need to cascade them down to the ground, as well as making it clearer who is actually responsible for prevention and mitigation. Clause 2 looks at funding and says that some of that £2 billion-odd with the Environment Agency has to cascade down, and we have to support the IDBs and the local flood authorities properly. Controversially, clause 3 looks at liabilities. I want to suggest that, when house builders dump large quantities of housing on the outskirts of villages, it is not good enough just to pipe the drains into the old Victorian architecture. They have to upgrade it, and I think the only way they will do so is if they are on the hook for any downstream flooding that might occur. Clause 4 looks at data monitoring and accountability.
I close by sincerely welcoming the Minister’s very quickly committing to reviewing this issue properly. As well as listening to her officials, who I know will have 101 reasons to take it gently and to be cautious and steady, I urge the Minister to listen to colleagues across this House. I think she will be a hero—there will be culverts named after her for decades to come. I hesitate to suggest this, but it will be one of the biggest issues of this Parliament for our constituents, and the Minister has the chance to grip it right at the beginning and put right something that has been neglected for several decades.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this hugely important debate. I have had the pleasure of serving alongside him not just here in this place but in Norfolk county council, of which we have both been members for a number of years. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as both a serving Norfolk county councillor and a Breckland district councillor. The issues are the same—we are talking about flooding in this case—but the setting is somewhat different.
Flooding is a significant concern in Norfolk, as has been mentioned, and I have been left so frustrated about flooding incidents in my local communities. The time taken to look into some of the causes of flooding and the recommendations for mitigation is woeful. In some cases, it can take up to two years, and often residents are repeatedly flooded before we have seen the reports on the initial incident. It must be said that local councils are woefully under-resourced. They must be given additional resources and powers to respond to the increasing flood risks. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for mentioning internal drainage boards, which I have already raised in Parliament, because they are an increasing concern for many councils.
In my constituency, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council now contributes the equivalent of 43% of all its council tax income to funding IDB levies—that is incredible. I am delighted to say that, since Labour has taken office, we have seen progress, with additional funding of more than £250,000 for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council alone. I also welcome the new flood resilience taskforce launched to turbocharge flood preparedness and the delivery of flood defences. I was delighted last week when an extra £50 million was announced for internal drainage boards, which have been neglected for far too long. I am pleased that the Government recognise their vital contribution, which shows Labour’s commitment to the challenge.
I pay tribute to Welney Flood Watch in my constituency. The team play a vital role, helping residents to know whether the A1101, which is appropriately named the Welney Wash Road, is passable. I was delighted to meet one of the volunteers, Ken, yesterday in Parliament. Without that intervention, residents often get caught out by the changing and unpredictable water levels in that area. That is a fine example of community spirit, but we cannot leave it solely to volunteers to fix the cracks that are so evident in the system and that will become more common because of climate change.
I believe that we in this room have a moral obligation not to leave the planet in a worse state than we found it in. We must protect the here and now. Failure to tackle the root causes and the imminent threats of flooding will cost us socially, economically and environmentally, as has been pointed out. We need only look at areas such as Valencia over the past few weeks to see the devastating impact of flooding, the damage to livelihoods and housing and, in that case, the tragic loss of so many lives.
I know that the Minister understands the importance of the issue; I have spoken to her about it on several occasions. The task at hand could not be clearer. The Environment Agency states that up to one in six UK properties are now at risk of flooding, and it is going to get even worse. It cuts across numerous constituencies, and not just in Norfolk. I am in South West Norfolk, the county’s furthest constituency from the coast, but it is still a huge challenge.
After 14 years of Conservative neglect and underfunding and the forgoing of the scientific warning signs, communities up and down the country have been left unnecessarily exposed to flood damage. The previous Government slashed resources for the Environment Agency, the key agency tasked with flood preparedness and response, by two thirds from 2010, leaving families and businesses to pay the price of extreme floods.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Norfolk for securing this debate and raising this important issue. It is now up to Labour to protect our local economy and the national environment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. I will have to call the Front Benchers at 5.10 pm, so I hope that the two Norfolk Members who are standing can share the remaining seven minutes between them.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Thank you, Sir Christopher. I hope that other hon. Members understand the need to prioritise Norfolk Members in this debate on Norfolk flooding, though I know we share concerns about the issues. I will try to summarise my remarks.
I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this crucial debate and for highlighting the underlying issues to be tackled, including maintenance and understanding the climate risks and the reasons for these problems. I also thank the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for his comments; I look forward to the first Norfolk flood summit.
Like other hon. Members, I have countless examples in my constituency. On Mill Lane in Needham village and in Shelfanger and Winfarthing, residents have been significantly affected by flooding in recent years; some have been unable to return to their home since Storm Babet. There were 14 homes badly flooded in a single night, which highlights the extreme impact. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) will be pleased to hear that I also have examples from the Suffolk part of my constituency, because we need to ensure that we look at the issue region-wide.
To expand on other Members’ contributions, I will focus on nature-based solutions, which have a big part to play in addressing the issue upstream. Slowing down, capturing and storing rainwater brings additional benefits, improving biodiversity, sequestering carbon, enhancing soil life and creating valuable wildlife habitats.
The River Waveney Trust in my constituency is doing fantastic work on projects in places such as Diss and Gissing. It is using funding from DEFRA to carry out work that restores floodplains, plants trees, creates ponds and installs leaky dams. Such things are having a practical impact in reducing flooding and flood risks, but at the moment those works are often carried out by excellent but small charities fighting over pots of money that are not big enough. The DEFRA funding of £25 million needs to be much bigger if we are to tackle the problem at scale across the country. I know that the Minister is committed to addressing the issues and is listening, so I am looking for more funding.
I highlight my private Member’s Bill, the Nature-based Solutions (Water and Flooding) Bill, which would require public bodies and water companies to allocate at least 10% to 25% of their budgets to nature-friendly management schemes, ensuring more widespread adoption of nature-based solutions. I hope that the Minister will consider it among the reforms that are being looked at, and that it will get some support from colleagues in Norfolk and beyond.
To ensure that others can speak, I will conclude. I hope that the wide-ranging concerns that have been raised today are taken seriously, that adequate funding is put in place, that we ensure that there are joined-up solutions to addressing maintenance, that there is no more buck-passing, and that nature-based solutions get proper focus and attention.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this debate. My constituency has a magnificent coastline, as well as some of the precious chalk streams that our country is lucky to have, and we face significant flood challenges that need to be addressed. Sadly, with the record-breaking rainfall that we have had, many villages, homes, gardens, streets and businesses across North West Norfolk have felt the awful impact of flooding. Last winter, I helped many constituents in the Burnhams, the Creakes, Pott Row, Roydon, Grimston and many other villages. The high water levels and groundwater levels mean that that risk is here once again.
Dealing with the problem needs better co-ordination. As we have heard, Norfolk county council is the local lead flood authority, but it cannot direct anyone; it does not have the funding. It cannot even require people to co-operate with it or deal with the culverts and riparian issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) mentioned. That means that even when they have the equipment and are ready to step in to do the maintenance work, they cannot do so, for legal reasons. That is why I supported the creation of the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance, which is doing good work.
I helped to get multi-agency groups set up to deal with some of the issues in the villages that I have named. That has seen investment in dealing with the infiltration and inundation that causes the flooding and the unpleasant consequences. We need more of that investment to deal with the issues, to improve pumping station capacity and to make other improvements, and there is a need for far greater clarity. That is why I will strongly support the Bill that my hon. Friend will be introducing imminently.
We also need to make better use of local knowledge. When I am out with constituents, they understand the way the rivers and the flows go together. That can be very helpful, particularly when the Environment Agency does not have many people on the ground or who understand the catchment. That is something that can be tapped into more broadly.
An area that has not really been touched on is our need to improve the welfare support when things go wrong. I have been to the homes of elderly and vulnerable constituents who have been unable to use their toilets, sinks and showers for many weeks, and all they have been offered is a portaloo at most. That is completely unacceptable. Far better co-ordination is needed. My constituents do not really care who is responsible; they just want people to take responsibility. The Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance has put together a working group to look at that, but obviously it is an issue that can be dealt with across the country.
Finally, I want to touch on the importance of coastal flood defences, particularly in the area of my constituency between Snettisham and Heacham, which is made up of a natural shingle bank and stretches of concrete defences. The Environment Agency has begun a review of the Wash East coast management plan, which is there to protect the properties, the holiday homes and the agricultural land, which is very important. I recently met the Environment Agency, because there is concern locally that it says that it does not need to do the periodic recharging project and that, if it did, it would not have the funding or technical capability to do so. We cannot accept the managed decline in this area. We need to hold the line; that should be a common cause. There need to be funding and support for the shoreline management plan for 2025 and beyond.
Fundamentally, these issues are about working together. The inaugural flooding and drought summit in January, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk referred, will provide a forum to do that. I very much hope that the Minister will accept the invitation that I believe has been extended to her to come and hear about Norfolk and the plans that we have to solve these problems.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Thank you, Sir Christopher, for chairing this important debate on flood preparedness in Norfolk. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech highlighting the many challenges to flood preparedness in Norfolk and across our region. Indeed, I congratulate all hon. Members from Norfolk and our region, and from other places in the country, on their speeches and the points that they have made. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in which I note that I am a member of East Cambridgeshire district council.
This debate highlights the region’s ongoing struggles with flooding, which are compounded by its low-lying landscapes and extensive waterways, and the impacts of climate change. The area’s rivers, broads and coastline are rightly cherished. When managed well, they mitigate and reduce flooding, but when under-managed they contribute to significant flooding risks. This issue, which has existed for centuries, requires sustained, co-ordinated efforts to prevent further damage, but without adequate long-term funding, local authorities and agencies are unable to implement effective long-term solutions.
Many Members have raised their constituents’ personal experiences, including the substantial financial losses faced by local businesses as a result of flood damage, and the stress facing people at risk of flooding. They have highlighted systemic issues, including the limited funding for agencies, which is allocated on an annual basis, preventing them from planning long-term projects. This debate stresses the need for a number of changes in Government policies, such as moving to multi-year budgets for flood prevention efforts and closer co-ordination between responsible bodies.
The fragmented approach to flood management, with responsibilities spread across various councils and agencies and some private individuals, is another significant barrier. Members have pointed out the inefficiencies and lack of co-ordination, calling for a more unified approach, much like that of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management in the Netherlands. We have even heard that Norfolk county council, despite being the lead flood authority, faces the absurdity of crafting detailed flood prevention plans without the financial backing to implement them.
The difficulties faced by local farmers, who struggle to access flood relief funds because of confusing and restrictive criteria, have also been raised today. Farmers already operating with slim profit margins face further hardships as flooding damages their crops or even prevents planting or harvesting.
Beyond the financial and logistical challenges, the mental health impact of flooding is significant. The constant fear of future flooding takes a toll on residents and on the workers involved in flood management. I share Members’ calls for more holistic support for both flood-affected communities and the people working to mitigate these issues.
As we have heard, the last Conservative Government slashed flood protection plans for homes and failed to invest in flood defences, leaving communities to fend for themselves. The Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to bring forward £5.2 billion of flood defence spending to ensure that flood defences are built more quickly, and to ringfence funding allocations for flood risk management that works with nature.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It heartens me to hear Members across the House acknowledging the impacts of climate change on flooding in our constituencies. Will my hon. Friend join me in asking that the Government’s national planning policy framework accounts for areas prone to flooding, keeping our remaining floodplains undeveloped?
Charlotte Cane
I agree that we need to make sure that as we are planning and building, we take flood risk into account and ensure that we are properly mitigating it.
In her 2024 autumn Budget, the Chancellor committed £2.4 billion over the next couple of years for flood defences, but she added that significant funding pressures on this Budget meant that it would be necessary to review the plans for 2025-26. It is crucial that this funding is committed in the long term to allow communities to create sustainable flood preparedness plans for years to come.
The Liberal Democrats support the Climate and Nature Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), because it will restore the natural environment through the large-scale restoration of peatland, heathland, native woodland, salt marshes, wetlands and coastal waters. That will absorb carbon, protect against floods, improve water quality and protect habitats. The Liberal Democrats would also implement new planning powers to require sustainable drainage systems to be installed.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. I cannot order the hon. Lady to sit down, but we should comply with the convention for one-hour debates: Opposition spokesmen should have five minutes each and the Minister should have 10 minutes to respond.
Charlotte Cane
I am sorry, Sir Christopher. I will draw my remarks to a close.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this important debate and Members from both sides of the House on all their contributions. There is a large degree of cross-party consensus on this issue.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the importance of a joined-up approach to this issue and said that prevention is much better than treatment. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) has shown great leadership in this area with his Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) talked about the importance of welfare support for victims, and that was echoed by the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) when it comes to the mental health impacts of flooding.
As we face more extreme weather, it is right that we discuss the Government’s role in flood prevention, preparedness and management. In the last 12 months or so, we have seen the terrible effects of Storm Babet, Storm Ciarán and Storm Henk all within a few weeks of each other. I sympathise with anyone who has ever been flooded. We know the huge impact it has on people, homes, businesses, farmland, animals and so much more. It is heartbreaking. We must not forget that the mental health impacts on at-risk communities are huge, from the anxiety about being flooded to the trauma of being flooded itself.
We must support our communities long after the floodwaters have subsided and the blue lights have left. I pay tribute to the amazing efforts during floods of Environment Agency staff, the emergency services, first responders and local volunteer groups. In serious floods, I have seen at first hand the importance of all that these folk do to help people in awful and sometimes tragic circumstances.
I also pay tribute to the mental health charities that Members present will be familiar with: You Are Not Alone, or YANA, in East Anglia, as well as RABI, Yellow Wellies and the Farmers Community Network. I ask the Minister to set out the steps the Government are taking to provide the holistic support that flood victims need to get back on their feet, and particularly to address the mental health consequences that flood victims face, too often in silence.
The last Conservative Government had a strong record on flood preparedness. They published a policy statement to make England more resilient, with 40 actions and five ambitious policies stemming from it. Between 2015 and 2021, the last Government invested £2.6 billion in flood defences, which better protected 314,000 homes all over England. Furthermore, in March 2020, it was announced that the flooding budget would be doubled to £5.2 billion over the next six-year spending period, to deploy more flood schemes.
While the new Labour Government have sadly shown their hand and cruelly disregarded farmers with their heartless family farm tax, the previous Government backed the farming sector and introduced several schemes to introduce climate or environment benefits and to compensate farmers simultaneously. Environmental land management schemes paid farmers to increase our resilience to flooding through nature-based solutions and natural flood management techniques such as tree planting or re-wiggling rivers. That rightly rewarded farmers with public funding for providing public goods, on which we all rely. I urge the Government to move forward in these areas.
The last Government also provided £50 million to expand the farming recovery fund to ensure that farmers on farms of all sizes across the country who are hit by flooding and exceptional wet weather receive support. The Labour Government have been very slow in getting some of that money out. I know that things have moved in the past few days, but I urge them to get that money out the door. We have to reward our farmers both for producing food and for their stewardship of the environment. Yesterday’s protests in Westminster showed the passion of our farming communities. I urge the Government to think again and reverse their cruel family farm tax.
As we have heard, the flooding budget is under review. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will not cut it when they review it in the coming years? We must invest in flood defences, given climate change and the extreme weather events that are upon us.
The Minister will be familiar with the Flood Re scheme. There are concerns that it supports homes and not businesses. I urge the Government to consider expanding it, because many people who live above their businesses are not covered. We have also heard about the importance of the IDBs. I urge the Government to ensure that that vital service is maintained.
In summary, communities at risk of flooding need certainty and holistic support. They need prevention measures and response when flooding arrives. I hope the Minister will outline how this Labour Government will provide that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate and in particular the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing it in the first place. We are in danger of an outbreak of unity, which is always quite dangerous in Parliament, but I must say that every contribution has shown the importance of tackling flooding and why it means so much to each and every one of us.
A number of Members mentioned mental health. To be honest, one of the reasons I was so attracted to this brief to begin with is that I represent an area that suffered tragically from floods in 2007. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), is quite right to point out that, long after the flood water has receded and the blue lights have left, the mental health impacts continue. I should also welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. I have listened to his contributions to debates on environmental, farming and rural affairs issues, and I recognise his expertise, especially on veterinary issues, so it is a genuine pleasure to see him on the Front Bench.
A few Members mentioned the tragic situation that we have seen in Spain, which is a sobering reminder of how devastating flooding can be. I also thank the Environment Agency and everybody involved in addressing flooding.
I have been scribbling frantically, so I hope that I will cover as many points as possible and do that dangerous thing of actually answering some of the questions that have been asked. To begin with, am I going to make maintenance sexy? Well, I will do my best to make it sexy, and one thing we should look at is the flooding formula. We published a written ministerial statement just last week about how we allocate money for flooding, one aspect of which is looking at maintenance. Previously, the focus has been on the number of new properties protected, such that maintenance has, I think, been neglected. I urge hon. Members to look at that statement if they have not already seen it.
When we talk about the budget, I am very keen to talk about building new defences and maintaining existing defences. As for natural flood management, I love it. One way to get on my good side is to start talking about SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—or natural flood management, so I am feeling very happy now. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) is quite right about how they deliver in terms of affordability, nature and flood protection. I am a huge fan.
The Environment Agency will shortly publish an update to “Working with Natural Processes—Evidence Directory”, which will provide access to information that explains the benefits of natural flood management. The Environment Agency is also working to develop a natural flood management benefits tool that aims to provide a nationally consistent way of assessing both flood risk and the wider benefits of NFM projects. In the past, one of the difficulties in getting these flood projects off the ground has been in calculating the benefit of NFM. If we can agree a consistent approach to how NFM will work, hopefully we can encourage more people to get involved with it. The Environment Agency plans to publish the high-level method and assumptions on which the tool is based soon, so watch this space.
Insurance has also been mentioned. I urge the hon. Member for North Norfolk to look at Build Back Better, because people who frequently have to claim on their insurance should be able to receive an extra £10,000 from their insurer through Build Back Better. If someone’s insurer is not offering that, because they are in an area that is frequently flooded, their insurance is probably underwritten by Flood Re, and therefore they should be entitled to that.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Homes built since 2009 are excluded from the Flood Re insurance scheme, leaving many people without affordable insurance or indeed any insurance at all. When the Deputy Prime Minister talks about unlocking house building, the Minister will understand why my constituents are concerned that that means they will see more building on flood plains. Does the Minister agree that that would be farcical?
Emma Hardy
Well, no, because the Government are currently updating a lot of the planning rules for building homes. SUDS, which I mentioned earlier, will ensure that when building new homes, there is not increased flood risk either for the new homes being built or for existing homes in the area. That is why SUDS are so crucial.
Build Back Better should not just be available for people who have Flood Re; rather, it should be available for all insurers or people who are getting insurance. I want to make this mainstream. One of our concerns is that not many people know that they are able to claim this money or how to claim it. There are difficulties around some of the products, but the example that the hon. Member for North Norfolk shared—about why we would put plugs back in a low place when the property will get flooded again—is exactly where the Build Back Better money could be used: to put the plugs into a different place. I am more than happy to give more details on that.
We have mentioned the importance of mapping. I have good news. [Interruption.] Again, Sir Christopher, there is an outbreak of unity. The good news is that fairly soon we will launch something called NaFRA2, which is basically maps for the whole of England that look at the flood risk for all different types of flooding, including, for the first time, surface water flooding—previously, it has just been river and tidal. Importantly, it will look at future flood risk—so not only the risk of flooding right now, but how the flood risk will change according to climate change. That is incredibly important, so watch this space.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). She has met with me a few times, championing the needs of her constituents, and I know how welcome they will find her consistent lobbying. I hope that she will look at the flooding formula review and how it can impact areas such as Lowestoft or areas that have coastal erosion, and feed back to me on that.
I agree with the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) that if there was ever an issue that unites us, it is this—how good to hear that. I am quite interested in having a look at his Bill, and definitely at catchments as well. The independent review will have a look at catchments. It will look more at water quality but, of course, looking at a catchment solution helps with flooding. I will come back to internal drainage boards. I have been promised a culvert named after me if I do something good on this—
Emma Hardy
Sorry, I have been promised multiple culverts. I have two challenges then: I need something named after me and I need to make maintenance sexy. This is indeed a good debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about the importance of drainage boards. I spoke at the Association of Drainage Authorities conference recently, and I was pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned the £50 million we are giving to them. We recognise that they would have been unable to spend the £50 million by April, so we are splitting that money over two years, which is one of the things that the IDBs wanted to pursue. We are also looking at how internal drainage boards are funded—a piece of research is currently looking into that. I agree that they are incredibly important. I was interested to hear about the Welney Flood Watch team, which was a great example of what volunteers can offer and how much they do in this space. A number of Members mentioned the importance of volunteers.
I have not been able to use the speech I wrote, but never mind. I would encourage people to please get in touch with their local area directors from the Environment Agency. If people give their personal phone number, I promise that they will not be spammed, but the agency will get in touch. If there is a flood, it is guaranteed to be at 8 pm on a Friday night, when people have had a glass of wine, so please pass that on and make sure that they can get in touch.
I want to reassure Members about funding. We are investing £2.4 billion over the next two years to improve flood resilience by maintaining as well as repairing and building flood defences—so maintaining is in there too. I reiterate that the Government are committed to delivering the oversight and long-term strategy needed to ensure that flood resilience is effectively delivered.
We have already taken decisive action by allocating additional funding for asset maintenance, as well as £50 million to internal drainage boards and £60 million to eligible farmers. The really good news for farmers is that the money should be arriving in many of their accounts tomorrow. That is a positive message to take away. We are taking the first steps to review the outdated funding formula and creating the new multi-agency flood resilience taskforce. I am afraid I do not have time to speak about the flood resilience taskforce, other than to say that many different agencies are involved in the taskforce to co-ordinate preparation ahead of the winter flood season.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered flood preparedness in Norfolk.
Written Statements
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence Programme Developments
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I have today made an oral statement setting out how our new Government are addressing the challenges facing UK defence. This written ministerial statement provides fuller detail about the decisions I have taken on certain defence programmes.
We face increasing global threats—war in Europe, growing Russian aggression, conflict in the middle east, and technology changing the nature of warfare. As a result, defence needs increased resilience and readiness for the future. We also face serious financial pressures in the defence budget. Our Government have taken immediate action, confirming an additional £2.9 billion for the defence budget in 2025-26 to help start fixing the foundations of UK defence. And we will set a clear path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence.
To ensure that Britain is kept secure at home and strong abroad in a changing world, defence needs to make changes, too. Difficult decisions are required. As I set out in today’s oral statement, this includes the retirement of ageing equipment as we transition to new capabilities and make our armed forces fit for the future. These decisions will deliver better value for money and ensure we are in a better position to modernise and strengthen UK defence.
I have halted the current refit of HMS Northumberland, a Type 23 frigate, which will now be retired from the fleet in March 2025. As a result of service well beyond the original Type 23 out-of-service date, the structural damage discovered during refit makes her uneconomical to repair. There will be no impact on current operations, and the ship’s company has already been assigned elsewhere for the refit period. The Type 23 frigates will be replaced by the most advanced anti-submarine warfare frigates in the world: the Type 26, the first of which, HMS Glasgow, will be delivered by 2027.
HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, the Royal Navy’s two amphibious assault ships, will be retired from service by the end of March 2025. Both are currently held at lower readiness, having not been to sea since 2023 and 2017 respectively. On current planning, neither was due to go to sea again before their planned out-of-service dates of 2033 and 2034. They had, in effect, been mothballed, but were still costing the taxpayer around £9 million per year to maintain. Almost all crew have been reassigned already, and the rest will be reassigned once the ships are retired. They will be replaced by planned multi-role support ships. In the meantime, the Commando Force will continue to be supported by the three Bay-class auxiliary landing ship docks and RFA Argus.
The Wave class auxiliary oilers, RFA Wave Knight and RFA Wave Ruler, will be retired from service by the end of March 2025. They have not been to sea since 2017 and 2022 respectively. They are currently in extended readiness and are not due to return to sea before their planned out-of-service date in 2028. All crew have been reassigned already. The fleet’s operations and training will be unaffected, with the more modern Tide-class auxiliary oilers fulfilling all requirements.
The Army’s Watchkeeper Mk 1 uncrewed aerial system will be retired from service from March 2025. Watchkeeper Mk 1 was introduced in 2010. Since then, drone technology has advanced at a rapid rate, accelerated by prolific use throughout the war in Ukraine. A modern army must self-evidently have a modern drone capability, able to operate in the most challenging environments. Following the retirement of Watchkeeper Mk 1, the Army will rapidly switch to a new advanced capability, drawing on the most recent operational lessons and technological developments.
The Chinook helicopter has been a workhorse for the armed forces since it first entered service in the Royal Air Force in 1980. Over the years, it has been upgraded many times. Fourteen of the most modern variant, the highly capable H-47(ER), will enter service with the Royal Air Force from 2027. Ahead of this arrival, decommissioning of the oldest 14 aircraft will be accelerated as they reach their next deep maintenance period over the next four years. Current personnel will be unaffected and will continue to train, ready for the introduction of the H-47(ER).
The Puma helicopter has similarly served the Royal Air Force for a long time, having been first introduced in 1971 and extended several times. Puma will be retired in March 2025 when its current support contract expires. Pumas currently operate solely in Cyprus and Brunei, where they will be replaced by the new Airbus H-145 from 2026. During this short gap in capability, a commercial or military solution will be used for firefighting on our sovereign base in Cyprus, and alternatives to Brunei will be used for some elements of jungle training.
These ships and aircraft have provided a valuable capability over many years, but we must look to the future. I recognise that they will mean a lot to many who currently serve, and have served, with and in them during their deployments around the world. All personnel will be redeployed or retrained.
These are not the only difficult decisions we will need to make, as a new Government, to deal with the fiscal inheritance, but they are decisions which secure better value for money for taxpayers and better outcomes for our military. They are set to save the MOD up to £150 million in the next two years, and up to £500 million over five years—savings that will be retained in full in defence. My decisions are all backed by our military chiefs and taken in consultation with those leading the strategic defence review. Allies have been informed, and we have constant dialogue with NATO. I am announcing this now in order to maximise the associated savings, which will be invested back into defence.
[HCWS239]
World Children’s Day 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
Today is World Children’s Day, marking the 35th anniversary of the date that the UN adopted the convention on the rights of the child, setting out the fundamental rights held by each and every child across the world.
This new Government will be a mission-led one, and one of our five missions is to break down the barriers to opportunity. The Government are determined to break the unfair link between background and success once and for all.
Our ambition is to create a society in Britain where the life chances of every child are front and centre and where every child and young person believes that success belongs to them.
We are taking swift action to improve the lives of every child. Our new policy statement, “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive”, sets out ambitious proposals to fix children’s social care so that it provides help and protection to our most vulnerable children; and we will seek to legislate to enact these proposals when parliamentary time allows. Action on child poverty is being driven by our new Child Poverty Taskforce, which was established within weeks of the new Government taking power and is co-chaired by the Secretaries of State for Education and for Work and Pensions.
With the support of our stakeholders and by actively listening to children and young people, we are determined to deliver profound, lasting change for all children and young people, and particularly those from disadvantaged and deprived backgrounds. We will continue to place children at the heart of our ambitions.
[HCWS237]
Independent Review of the Physician and Anaesthesia Associate Professions
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
The Government have commissioned Professor Gillian Leng CBE to lead an independent review into the physician and anaesthesia associate professions. This will consider how they are currently used and how they can be integrated safely into health teams to deliver the best possible care.
The review will consider the safety, cost-effectiveness and efficiency of roles, alongside the lessons that can be learned from how they have been deployed in the NHS. The conclusions of the review will inform future reforms, which will be vital to the delivery of the 10-year health plan. This review marks an important step: to reset the discussion by stepping back and taking stock of the evidence.
The review will report in spring 2025 and will gather the available evidence and data on the physician associate (PA) and anaesthesia associate (AA) professions from the UK and globally, engaging with these professionals, patients, the public, doctors and other professions, employers, and researchers. It will review the safety of the roles, patient experience, the contribution the roles can make to more productive use of professional time in multidisciplinary teams, and whether these roles deliver good quality, efficient and safe patient care in a range of settings.
PAs and AAs support doctors to manage patients, increasing the capacity of health care services and freeing up doctors to focus on specialist cases. The roles should always work under the supervision of a doctor, but concerns have been raised by the medical professional about blurred lines of responsibility and whether, in some cases, PAs and AAs are being used to replace doctors. The public has every right to be confident they are seeing the most appropriate healthcare professional.
Regulation of PAs and AAs by the General Medical Council will begin in December 2024 and will help to ensure all PAs and AAs meet the high standards we expect of every healthcare professional. However, we do not have a comprehensive view of how these roles are being deployed, or how effectively, and the review will address this gap. The conclusion will provide clarity to patients and healthcare professionals and inform our 10-year health plan.
Terms of reference for the review will be published on www.gov.uk in due course. Following completion of the review, we will publish our findings and update the House on next steps.
[HCWS236]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: 1 June to 31 August 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of their TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force (as of 31 August 2024) 2 Number of new TPIM notices served (during this period) 1 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 31 August 2024) 2 TPIM notices extended (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revoked (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices expired (during reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revived (during the reporting period) 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices (during the reporting period) 0 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused (during the reporting period) 1 The number of subjects relocated under TPIM legislation (during the reporting period) 2
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM Review Group keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. TRG meetings were convened on 15 August 2024.
[HCWS234]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: 1 March to 31 May 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of their TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force (as of 31 May 2024) 1 Number of new TPIM notices served (during this period) 0 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 31 May 2024) 1 TPIM notices extended (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revoked (during the reporting period) 1 TPIM notices expired (during reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revived (during the reporting period) 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices (during the reporting period) 0 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused (during the reporting period) 0 The number of subjects relocated under TPIM legislation (during the reporting period) 2
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM Review Group keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. TRG meetings were convened on 13 and 22 May 2024.
[HCWS233]
Local Government Best Value
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
All hon. Members will recognise the importance of having well-functioning local councils that provide essential statutory services local residents rely upon. Government will continue to work directly with a small number of councils in difficulty, and this should be done in a way that is not punitive and is based on genuine partnership to secure improvements. Today, I would like to update the House on the statutory interventions in Slough and Woking.
Slough Borough Council
On 22 October 2024, I announced to the House that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), was minded to issue new directions to Slough borough council, and that I was seeking representations on a proposal. I also announced that if I implemented this proposal, I would reappoint the current three commissioners, and also appoint the interim chief executive, Will Tuckley, as managing director commissioner.
The proposal was to require the council to take actions that are consistent with the priorities that the commissioners have set for the council; provide for commissioners to continue to be able to exercise council functions relating to governance, finance and appointments; and to extend the timeframe of the statutory intervention until 30 November 2026. This followed the publication of the fifth report from commissioners, which, as I outlined on 22 October, provided evidence that there are still a substantial number of areas that require further improvement at the council, and there remains volatility in the council’s overall financial position. In my view, the report provides considerable evidence that the authority is not complying with its best value duty, as outlined in the Local Government Act 1999 and best value guidance published in May 2024.
Following consideration of the two representations that were received, and noting the support from the council for the proposal and the concerns raised about the pace and impact of the intervention to date, the Secretary of State and I have decided to implement the proposals announced on 22 October and issue new directions to the council, which come into effect immediately and will remain in force up to and including on 30 November 2026. The directions issued on 1 December 2021—updated on 1 September 2022 and 22 May 2023—are revoked with immediate effect.
I am therefore today confirming the reappointment of the current three commissioners, Gavin Jones, Denise Murray and Ged Curran. They will continue to work in partnership with the council to support its recovery. Alongside this, I have appointed Will Tuckley, the interim chief executive, as managing director commissioner. This will strengthen the relationship between the commissioner team and council and support the council to lead its recovery. The three reappointed commissioners have been nominated for the duration of the intervention and the managing director commissioner has been nominated for 18 months.
As with other interventions led by my Ministry, the council will be required to cover the costs associated with the commissioners. The fees for each individual are detailed in their appointment letters, published on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk. I am assured this provides value for money given the expertise that is being brought, and the scale of the challenge in councils requiring statutory intervention.
Woking Borough Council
As the House will be aware, in May 2023, the former Secretary of State (the right hon. Michael Gove) announced a statutory intervention in Woking borough council, following evidence of extensive best value failure compiled in an external assurance review. The review detailed the exceptional level of financial and commercial risk to which the council had exposed itself, and concerns regarding the quality of its strategic financial decision making and its commercial dealings.
Historic commercial mismanagement and major governance failures led to Woking borough council accumulating an extraordinary level of debt, far exceeding usual levels of borrowing for a council of its size. This is an extreme position for a council to be in, and will require unprecedented support from Government to resolve. Woking clearly requires a significant programme of change to ensure it is operating to the required standard. I am grateful to the commissioners for working with the council to improve its strategic financial management and governance, and in charting a path to reduce Woking’s debt as far as possible.
On 29 May 2024, the commissioners at Woking submitted their third report. I will be publishing this report, and my response, later today. It is clear from their report that Woking still faces significant challenges in its recovery, particularly regarding its financial position, but I am pleased that the council remains committed to working with commissioners to deliver fundamental change through its improvement and recovery plan. There are lots of obstacles ahead, but I am confident that the commissioners and council have a good understanding of the challenge and are beginning to deliver a robust plan of improvement.
I also join the council in thanking their auditor Grant Thornton for their recent public interest report on Woking’s historic investment practices, which the council will consider later today before issuing their formal response. The council has the full support of the commissioners in addressing the recommendations. I will also be reflecting on the public interest report and what lessons it can provide on the drivers of council failure.
I urge all councils to consider whether they could be doing more to ensure they are delivering the sound decision making that residents deserve, including considering the characteristics of a well-functioning authority as set out in best value guidance.
Conclusion
The Government are committed to working in genuine partnership with councils under intervention to support their reset, reform and recovery, making sure residents have what they need from their local council, including confidence in its governance, financial management and service delivery. I will continue to monitor progress over the coming months and ensure these councils get the support they need to secure sustainable continuous improvement.
I will deposit in the House Library copies of the documents I have referred to, which are also being published on www.gov.uk today.
[HCWS235]
Social and Affordable Housing
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
I am publishing today a consultation on reforms to the right to buy in England.
This Government are committed to the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation and to supporting councils to increase their capacity to build.
After more than a decade of marginalisation, we must once again assert the necessity and the value of social housing. It is a crucial national asset to be proud of, to invest in, to protect and to maintain.
We cannot achieve this while councils are losing homes quicker than they can replace them through the right to buy scheme. Nor can we achieve this while councils risk losing their investment in a newly built social home as soon as three years after completion. Between April 2012 and March 2024 there have been over 124,000 council right to buy sales, and in the same period fewer than 48,000 homes have been replaced.
Reduced access to affordable social rented homes has seen millions of low-income families forced into insecure, poor quality and unaffordable accommodation. Over 150,000 children are now in temporary accommodation and nearly 1.3 million people on social housing waiting lists. The cost of this has been borne not only by those low-income families unable to secure a social home, but by the taxpayer in the form of a rapidly rising housing benefit bill. This is unsustainable and represents a poor use of public money.
This Government remain committed to right to buy, which is why we are not proposing its abolition. It is an integral way for social tenants to get on the property ladder, many of whom may not otherwise be able to access home ownership. But crucially we also need to protect social housing stock to meet future housing need, to support councils to replace homes that are sold and to improve their confidence to scale-up delivery.
The scheme must be reformed so that it better protects the existing stock of social rented homes, provides better value for money for the taxpayer and ensures fairness within the system.
We have already taken significant steps to deliver this reform. In July, we increased the flexibilities on how councils can use the capital receipts generated by a right to buy sale to accelerate the delivery of replacement homes.
The Government, at autumn Budget, confirmed that councils will no longer be required to return a proportion of the capital receipt generated by the sale of the home to HM Treasury, which has totalled c.£183 million a year. This will ensure that councils are better able to build and acquire new council homes to meet local housing need.
The Government also confirmed at the autumn Budget the reduction of maximum right to buy cash discounts to their pre-2012 regional levels—ranging from £16,000 to £38,000—following a review conducted by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Secondary legislation was laid on 30 October and new discounts will come into force tomorrow. This is a crucial step in delivering a fairer, better value and more sustainable scheme. Reducing discounts will protect existing social housing stock, while ensuring long-term tenants can still benefit.
Through the same secondary legislation, we are increasing protections for newly built social homes from being sold under the right to buy, by increasing the “cost floor” period during which discounts can be reduced to account for money spent building or maintaining the property from 15 years to 30 years. This will give councils greater confidence to scale-up delivery of social homes for those who need them most.
But these measures are only part of the reform needed to achieve a fairer and more sustainable right to buy scheme. The eight-week consultation, which I am launching today, proposes the broader reforms necessary to ensure that the right to buy is sustainable and meets the needs of tenants who aspire to own their own homes, while also ensuring that the homes sold can be replaced. We are seeking views on:
Eligibility—we propose to increase the eligibility requirement (currently three years as a secure tenant) to support councils to rebuild the stock of council homes and to better ensure that long-term tenants who have lived in, and paid rent on, their social homes are able to own their home through the scheme.
Discounts as a percentage of the property value—we propose to amend the current percentage discounts to better align with the new cash discounts and propose that the same rules should apply to houses and flats.
Exemptions—we are seeking views on whether the current exemptions to the scheme are fit for purpose and whether new build homes should be exempt from the right to buy, for a given period, to better incentivise councils to invest in new stock. We also welcome views on how to protect council investment in retrofitting and improving homes to a high standard.
Restrictions on properties after sale—once someone has purchased a home under the right to buy, it is theirs to live in and enjoy, the same as any home purchased on the open market. We do not therefore propose to introduce covenants to prevent homes being let out, which we think would be restrictive and too difficult for councils to administer. We are seeking views, however, on whether the time period in which the council has the right to ask for repayment of all or part of the discount received should be increased from five to ten years.
Requirements around the replacement of homes sold under the right to buy—we are seeking views on the benefits of replacement homes being for social rent to support the Government’s ambition to increase the number of social rent homes and whether replacements should be, as far as possible, of the same size and in the same area.
Simplification of the receipts regime—we are seeking views on how the current system can be simplified and strengthened to support the replacement of homes.
Through this consultation, we will better understand what barriers there may be to the introduction of these proposals and to inform their design. Subject to views in response to this consultation, we intend to bring forward legislation to implement any changes when parliamentary time allows.
I can also confirm today that the Government will not be extending the right to buy scheme to housing associations given the substantial costs to the taxpayer and the reduction in social housing stock that is likely to result. Eligible tenants will, however, continue to be able to buy their rented home at a discount, ranging from £9,000 to £16,000 depending on where their rented home is located, through the right to acquire scheme.
Further, I can confirm that the Government will not be taking forward the policy on the sale of higher-value assets proposed under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which would have required councils to make a payment in respect of their vacant higher-value council homes and return some of the funds to the Government. The Government will repeal the provisions in the 2016 Housing and Planning Act when parliamentary time allows.
I look forward to continuing to work with all those with an interest in improving the system to make sure that these plans for reform are robust and deliverable.
[HCWS238]
Grand Committee
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I must make the usual announcement that, if there is a Division in the Chamber, this Committee will adjourn immediately and resume after 10 minutes.
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State under product regulations, when defining and regulating risks and determining what constitutes efficient or effective product operation.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1 and 80 in my name, and to Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. As noble Lords will know, I was not present at Second Reading, having only just assumed this position. I hope that the Committee will indulge me if I range a little more freely than I would normally in my remarks on the amendments.
Amendment 1 is necessary because Clause 1 provides such broad powers for the Secretary of State on product regulations. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee regarded this clause and other clauses in the Bill as “skeleton legislation”. I thank the Minister for his letter dated 24 October detailing the Government’s position in answer to the committee’s original report, which was published on 15 October. But I note that the committee maintained its original position after an evidence session with Ministers on 16 October, which concluded that Clauses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9
“are inappropriate and should be removed from the Bill”.
His Majesty’s Official Opposition agree with the committee, and we reserve the right to return to this at later stages of the Bill. For now, I have tabled a series of amendments designed to elicit more information.
The committee rightly pointed out that Clause 1 confers considerable discretion to legislate in critical areas, such as product marketing, efficiency and accuracy, via statutory instruments. This amendment aims to address those concerns by ensuring that any regulatory powers in this space are appropriately balanced and subject to full legislative scrutiny. Clause 1 grants wide- ranging powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations through statutory instruments, SIs, a process with limited parliamentary oversight. Such discretion risks undermining democratic accountability, as SIs are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as primary legislation. Again, I think it is worth quoting the committee:
“skeleton legislation should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances and where no other approach would be reasonable to adopt”.
The report goes on to state that the Government are, in effect,
“asking Parliament to pass primary legislation which is so insubstantial that it leaves the real operation of the legislation to be decided by Ministers”.
On these Benches we argue that it is all so insubstantial, that the Bill could lead to regulations that significantly impact businesses and consumers without thorough debate or consultation. It is so insubstantial that it does not give businesses the certainty and predictability they need to thrive. It is so insubstantial that granting considerable discretionary powers could lead to frequent unpredictable changes in regulations, creating compliance challenges on a ministerial whim.
Removing this clause would promote stability and confidence, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, which may otherwise struggle to adapt to rapidly changing environments. Clause 1(1)(b) on
“ensuring that products operate efficiently or effectively”
is surely something that can best be left to market forces. Consumers are going to purchase products that work better than others, and this will incentivise producers to provide products that work well. Why is this the business of the state?
On Amendment 80, we see that there are similar issues. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated that Clause 5 is another example of skeleton legislation. Clause 5(2) confers sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to dictate the quantities in which goods may be marketed and the units of measurement used. We will return to this theme in later amendments. Granting such broad discretion risks bypassing parliamentary scrutiny and undermining democratic accountability. Decisions affecting trade, business practices and consumer choice should be subject to thorough debate, not delegated to ministerial regulations. The power to use metrology regulations to replace and repeal primary legislation merits a full explanation and compelling justification, but the memorandum fails to provide this—something that the Government admitted in the sixth report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on 30 October.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his Amendment 133, which requires that regulation must be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses for review. The amendment aims to address a serious flaw in the Government’s approach to regulatory changes under this Bill. Specifically, it would ensure that regulations are subject to proper scrutiny by Parliament through a Joint Committee of both Houses, with further safeguards in place if significant departures from existing law are proposed.
By bypassing established mechanisms for scrutiny and relying heavily on statutory instruments, the Government exhibit a clear lack of respect for the legislative process and, indeed, the opinions of their own Attorney-General. As the Constitution Committee noted in its demolition of the Bill in its report on 18 October:
“We endorse the view of the Attorney General expressed at his recent Bingham Lecture on the rule of law: ‘[E]xcessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at … rule of law values … but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty. In my view, the new Government offers an opportunity for a reset in the way that Government thinks about these issues. This means, in particular, a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards’”.
This amendment would restore Parliament’s rightful role in scrutinising significant legislative changes—“proper balance”, in the Attorney-General’s words—reaffirming its sovereignty and its duty to represent the interests of the people. In short, I agree with the Attorney-General. The fact that two committees have slated the Bill suggests that it is not justified, so we support this amendment. We think Clauses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 should be junked. Does the Minister agree with his own Attorney-General? I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
If this amendment is agreed, I shall not be able to call Amendments 2 or 3 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 133, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has just spoken and to which I put my name. This evening’s inaugural Lord Judge memorial lecture in legal history will address the early modern practice of legislating by proclamation without Parliament. According to the advance publicity for the lecture, Professor Sir John Baker will say that this practice
“may be compared with those resulting from our ‘elective dictatorship’, Parliament having become an instrument whereby a modern Government can exercise more absolute power than that formerly attributed to the King’s prerogative”—
a point often made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, himself. The truth of those words is demonstrated by this Bill, about which the Constitution Committee remarked—with our customary understatement —that
“several powers in the Bill are widely drawn and could facilitate the making of law that goes beyond the updating of existing rules to involve the making of new policy”.
When the EU makes new policy, as it did with the general product safety regulation, which will come into force next month, the process is properly and appropriately democratic. A road map and a public consultation in 2020 were followed by a Commission proposal in 2021, the usual substantive reports by parliamentary committees, a provisional agreement between the Council and the Parliament, approval by COREPER and IMCO and, eventually, adoption of the GPSR by both Parliament and Council in 2023. The process was more extensive, but so is the end product. The GPSR contains a detailed list of factors to be taken into account when assessing the safety of products. It sets out the obligations of manufacturers, authorised representatives, importers, distributors and—a difficult one—online marketplaces. It outlines a traceability system and makes provision for market surveillance, reporting and recalls. Detailed powers, of course, are delegated to the Commission, but the guiding principles were decided on by the legislature at an appropriate level of detail for a legislature.
My point is not that we should or should not follow the substance of what the EU has done. It is that where such wide-ranging matters of policy are engaged, it is not appropriate for Parliament to abdicate its power to the Government as entirely as this Bill proposes to do. Matters that in Europe are decided upon by the Council and the Parliament are here reserved to unamendable and, in practice, unblockable statutory instruments under this Government as they were under the last.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, like the Constitution Committee, quoted the Attorney-General’s recent Bingham Lecture, in which he criticised excessive reliance on skeleton legislation and expressed the view that,
“the new Government offers an opportunity for a reset”.
I believe that the Attorney-General has talked the talk with complete sincerity about this issue, but his words do not sit happily with this Bill. The practical question is how are we going to walk the walk? A comprehensive solution would be to adopt the Hansard Society’s proposals for a new system of delegated legislation, a concordat agreed between Parliament and government to reset the boundary between primary and delegated legislation, and a new Act of Parliament to ensure that Parliament can calibrate the level of scrutiny to the content of a statutory instrument.
Limiting ourselves to this Bill, two other solutions are possible, short of the wholesale omission of clauses that was recommended by both the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee. The first would be to copy the amendments to what is now Section 14 of the retained EU law Act 2023, tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord McLaughlin and Lord Hamilton of Epsom, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and myself. These would have provided for a sifting committee of both Houses, or of the House of Commons, to identify proposed regulations that are particularly deserving of parliamentary attention, and for regulations falling into that category to be amendable by agreement of both Houses under a power modelled on Section 21 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Those amendments were passed by large majorities in your Lordships’ House in May and June last year, with the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition, and drew support from all parties in the Commons before eventually falling at ping-pong.
The second solution, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in his Amendment 133, is, by comparison, gentle indeed, and if the noble Lord were a fast bowler, he might describe it as a loosener. No power of amendment is claimed for Parliament. A joint sifting committee would simply have the authority to refer a statutory instrument to a process requiring parliamentary approval if the regulations made a substantive change to the law, or if they had not been consulted upon. A substitute for European levels of democratic engagement I am afraid it is not but a pragmatic improvement to the Bill it is, and I look forward to seeing whether the Minister sees merit in it or whether, as I fear, this is an issue to which we will have to return with renewed energy on Report.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I have an amendment in this group, Amendment 126, which I shall speak to. It is in my name and those of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, who cannot be in his place today, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, reflecting its cross-party support. It requires the Secretary of State to conduct,
“appropriate consultation on draft regulations made under this Act”.
Like other amendments in this group, it is all about more effective scrutiny processes for this Bill. As it stands, this enabling Bill allocates significant powers to the Secretary of State—too many, according to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee.
As this is the first time I am speaking in Committee on the Bill, I say that I support it and the need for it to improve the safety of UK consumers, as do most consumer-facing organisations in this country. However, the Bill, to put it mildly, has received a pounding from the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee. I quote paragraph 36 of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report. It states:
“We consider that … the Government have failed to provide a convincing justification for the inclusion of skeleton clauses in the Bill that give Ministers such wide powers to re-write in regulations the substance of the regulatory regime for products”.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in Committee. I begin by apologising on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lawlor, who is detained on a train. I am somewhat at a disadvantage in reading her notes but, naturally, I support the sentiments contained in what would have been her speech. I also begin by putting on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for being prepared to debate and discuss these issues since Second Reading, his willingness to correspond with noble Lords on key issues, for holding a meeting with his officials, which was much appreciated, and substantially corresponding with my noble friend Lord Frost.
I am going to take the easy part first, which is to speak to my Amendment 33. I think it is apposite to look at the broader context of the Bill, bearing in mind the admonition that we should not repeat Second Reading remarks. All the amendments that I, my noble friend on the Front Bench and other noble Lords are moving today are in the context of the Bill, which is an extremely wide-ranging Bill that gives significant sweeping powers to Ministers. For instance, the UK in a Changing Europe document published just last week, its UK-EU Regulatory Divergence Tracker, makes the very pertinent point that the Bill
“is a very significant legislative change, with the government giving itself a broad power to proactively align with EU regulations … The exact range of regulations in scope is ambiguous, but it is evidently broad, with the bill’s explanatory notes referencing product safety, as well as emerging sectors like online marketplaces”.
With that in mind, and the skeleton nature of the legislation, as deprecated by my noble friend Lord Sharpe, we need to see my amendment in that context. Clause 2(3)(h) is the most egregious example of the potential issue at the heart of the Bill, which is that even existing provision in primary legislation may be replaced by provision in regulations. Many parts of the Bill, particularly in Clauses 1 and 2, are unfettered by any requirement for consultation, for criteria to be met or for meaningful preconditions to be satisfied. Indeed, the Bill clearly cuts across the guidance for departments that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee provided in its report of 15 October. My noble friend referred earlier to skeleton legislation, as well as the excoriating reports of the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee.
I remind noble Lords that this subsection relates to categories of
“persons on whom product regulations may impose product requirements”—
with all the caveats that we must accept that secondary legislation cannot, by convention, be amended. That leads us to a broader problem with the Bill in many clauses, particularly this one, which is that we have a double whammy. In the use of ministerial fiat, there is in effect no proper scrutiny in our Parliament and no proper oversight, because statutory instruments are very unlikely to be amended. Therefore, given that we have no fora in which to look at the details of the regulatory regime and the statutory instruments that will arise from the Bill—we no longer have a European Scrutiny Committee in the other place and we do not have a similar body in this House; we have a European Affairs Committee, which has a much wider remit—not only will we not be able to exercise that proper scrutiny but, having left the European Union, should we decide to shadow or dynamically align with regulations we will have no input on their effect but will effectively be cutting and pasting them into our domestic legislation.
In effect, we will have no mechanisms for scrutiny should we agree these clauses. We do not know the methodology by which a value judgment is made on the efficacy of any of these regulations on alignment. We have no measurement of criteria and no way to monitor or review the regulations at present, because there is no effective consultation process at the front end. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to look carefully at my amendment. It is not far reaching; it would specifically removes paragraph (h).
With that in mind, and for reasons of time, I am not particularly predisposed to go into detail on my noble friend Lady Lawlor’s amendments, other than to say that her Amendment 8 seems extremely sensible. Given the nature of the Bill and the wide-ranging powers that Ministers are seeking to exercise, potentially across vast swathes of our economy, a de facto sunset clause, after a modest period, would test the effects of a government intervention in terms of its environmental and economic impact, and particularly—regarding what I said earlier—its political and constitutional impact. It is an eminently sensible and straightforward amendment, and I would be surprised if such a measure were arbitrarily repudiated by the Minister and the Government.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their forbearance as I was rudely interrupted by democracy.
I was somewhat remiss earlier for not also congratulating my noble friend on his position as Front-Bench spokesman for our party, so I welcome him, and I hope he will forgive me for that.
As I was saying, I believe that the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor should receive the support of all sides of the Committee because it seeks to ensure that there is proper, informed parliamentary scrutiny and approval in respect of Clause 1, which is a very wide-ranging clause; other noble Lords will no doubt wish to enunciate those issues later on. As the clock is against us, I will just finish by observing that I wholly support Amendment 128 in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Frost, which I have signed, and Amendments 80 and 81 on metrology and pints, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharpe.
I will just finish briefly on Amendments 40 and 41 tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor. Again, these go to the heart of the necessity to see the Bill, and particularly Clauses 1 and 2, within the broader context of a quite seismic shift of government policy. Indeed, the think tank UK in a Changing Europe, in its press release last week launching the latest quarter 3 regulatory divergence tracker, makes the quite bold claim, which I think is correct, that this Government are seeking a much closer relationship with the European Union by increased convergence and reducing any capacity for divergence, either deliberately or as a sin of omission. Whether you think that is right or not, that issue has to be looked at in detail by the legislature—both the other place and your Lordships’ House. On that basis, I support my noble friend Lady Lawlor’s amendment, which would insert “constitutional” into the Bill, because of the wider governance and constitutional issues arising from a Bill that some have described as Chequers 2.0 in legislative form—I know that some of my noble friends might not agree with that.
Finally, Amendment 41 would enable a review of the impact and effects of Clause 2 and the powers therein to be laid before Parliament, focusing specifically on how the decisions made by Ministers and the regulations laid have impacted business and commerce in this country and trade across the world, particularly with the European Union.
On that basis, I ask the Minister to look kindly on supporting those amendments. None of them is radical and none of them seeks to undermine the integral nature of what the Bill is hoping to achieve, but they are sensible additions that will hopefully improve the Bill in the course of its passage through this House and the other place.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this landmark Bill, and I welcome my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to their Front-Bench positions. I firmly believe that the Bill protects consumer rights. However, I declare an interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which scrutinises statutory instruments. In that respect, I refer to the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lady Crawley, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, which would require the Secretary of State to conduct appropriate consultation on draft regulations under the Act.
It is vital that we set out as we mean to go on. One criticism that our committee had of many of the statutory instruments is the lack of proper consultation, as well as inadequate memorandums and impact assessments. This amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Crawley is timely, and I urge my noble friends on the Front Bench to accept it. More effective scrutiny processes are required in legislation to ensure that the policy decisions made with the powers set out in the Bill can be effectively scrutinised as products and marketplaces evolve, particularly those that will evolve online. It is important that consumers are totally protected.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred to relationships with the EU. I hope that the Government are successful in resetting that relationship and that there is a closer relationship with the EU, because it is important not only for trade but for society and economic growth—and it is good for wider relations in this part of our global world.
Lord Frost (Con)
I shall speak briefly to my Amendment 128. I begin, like others, by congratulating my noble friend Lord Sharpe on his role.
My amendment is only a small one, and it is overwhelmed by the pretty savage surgery proposed in other amendments tabled by other noble Lords—a surgery that is well merited, on the basis of what we have seen so far. I shall save my substantive remarks on my main concerns about the Bill until the fourth group, where most of my amendments lie. I share the concerns about constitutional and democratic process expressed by other noble Lords so far. I would probably not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in advocating a very complex, process-heavy and corporatist EU-type process for the Bill, because I believe that speed and simplicity in legislation are also advantageous —but certainly, if any of the Bill survives, we need some sort of serious scrutiny-sifting process to make it work.
My Amendment 128 is just one tiny part of this. It would ensure that, if Clause 2 survived at all, the powers under Clause 2(7) would be exercised—if they were exercised—under the affirmative procedure. That, however, is really a minor part, when we look at some of the other proposals on the table. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will reflect, and I look forward to hearing his thoughts.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Sharpe on his appointment. I support his Amendment 1 and apologise for not having had the opportunity to be present at Second Reading, but I am a member of the Delegated Powers Committee and thought that I would make a few points that arise from our report.
I join my noble friend Lord Jackson in thanking the Minister warmly for the courtesy that he has shown us and the time that he has spared us over the past few weeks. When the Minister came to the Select Committee, I got the short—or long—straw and was given the questions to ask about European alignment or divergence, so I went back over the Second Reading debate. I have no intention of repeating the arguments there but, essentially, I saw that my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lady Lawlor and Lord Frost all suggested that the Government had a policy of alignment, while it was suggested by some on the Government Benches and Cross Benches that it would be better to have a policy of alignment rather than one of divergence.
I note in passing that UK in a Changing Europe has now produced a report which suggests that the Government are moving towards some form of alignment. If I heard the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, correctly in the Chamber during Oral Questions, that seemed to be the general flavour of his answers. My concern is not to get into the policy issue. It is simply to make the point that the Minister may be correct that the Government have no intention of having a policy of either alignment or divergence, but will simply take each regulatory decision as it comes. Even so, Ministers and policy can change.
What we have run across here is, as my noble friend Lord Jackson said, a gap in scrutiny that has arisen since we left the European Union and now that Bill Cash’s committee in the Commons, which used to examine European legislation, is no longer present. I say this in no spirit of party-political animus. After all, my party has been in government for a period since Brexit and has not corrected the position, but the Government now in office have a chance to correct it.
It might be worth quoting, as I close, what the committee said in conclusion about the powers that the Government propose to take under the Bill. It said boldly:
“In our view, the delegation to Ministers of law-making powers in this Bill involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent from the democratically appointed legislature to the Executive”.
We need some form of being able to scrutinise the decisions that a whole series of regulations may make, as well as to debate and decide whether they represent a policy of alignment or divergence, and to probe the matter. The solutions may lie in the ideas floated by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, a few moments ago or elsewhere, but there clearly is a gap. The committee has been concerned about similar gaps in legislation ever since it produced its Democracy Denied? report in 2021.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I too was unable to be at Second Reading, so this is my first occasion to make comment. I preface my further remarks by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his courtesy and for arranging what I can describe only as a very impressive array of his officials and Bill team members—much better than I think I really deserve.
I have spent nearly 50 years in practice as a chartered surveyor and a lot of that time has been involved in construction. I will not dwell on things that will come up later, on Amendment 46 in my name, but construction is one of the areas where there is an absolute fog of commercial relationships over products, their use and their assembly, which it seems important to raise at this juncture. It is a fog of commercial relationships, collateral warranties, responsibilities, product substitution, legislation and oversight of one sort or another—or a lack of it, as the case may be. Of course, the whole question of building safety has been very much in the news recently.
Turning to the report of the Select Committee on this Bill, I am taken by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, because she gets to the nub of the issue about consumer safety. Who are we doing this for? That must ultimately be the focus. Looking at the mural at the far end of the Room and noting Moses handing down the tablets, I get a sort of 10 commandments moment here, but I am not going to bore the Committee with 10 of them because I have only eight.
First, items should be of merchantable quality. There has to be a duty of care, especially to end users: those whom one can expect to have to use them in real life. Those who put them together may be a stage on the way but they are not the end user. Secondly, they have to be fit for the purpose stated, including their durability. Thirdly, they have to be correctly and comprehensively described, without descriptions that mislead or confuse. Fourthly, they have to be adequately and independently tested, and assessed for their purposes as intended—and where have we seen that fall down?
Fifthly, they have to be installed or assembled as recommended for their intended application, and there needs to be a clear audit trail for how that happens. The more complicated and risk-sensitive the outcome is—I suspect that in the case of buildings and construction, particularly residential buildings, that is a very high risk if you get it wrong—then it has to be assessed accordingly. Sixthly, there has to be adequacy of oversight. That is fundamental. Seventhly, there has to be effective enforcement, with clear responsibilities and duties and a means of making sure that that can be checked and regularly revisited. Finally, there have to be consequences for infractions and culpable non-observance, in the same way as there were some years ago for health and safety at work. A regime of strict liability with consequences at corporate and director level sharpened up everybody’s act no end and produced a substantial improvement in casualty and death rates, particularly in construction.
That is the analysis that should be involved in dealing with this Bill. If you have a paving Bill, you have to make clear rules. We still have the 10 commandments with us. What is it about “Thou shalt not bear false witness” that is not understood? These things have to be durable, they have to survive changes in political tone and international relationships, and they have to survive scrutiny at the level that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, will be familiar with; that is, of the courts and of people who are experts in examining these things.
At this stage, it is relevant to talk about these many amendments—I broadly support the thrust of what they are doing—and set them in the context of getting the simple arithmetic right because if we drill down too much into the detail, we will try to second-guess what a Secretary of State may try to do somewhere down the line when the circumstances are different. If we can get those core principles right, this will endure and be of genuine benefit and use for future generations.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I join the cavalcade of congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on his new role. We on these Benches look forward to working constructively with him; having witnessed what he did on at least one other Bill when I was opposite him, there is lots of room for us to build on that and work with him.
This is a Grand Committee but I will try to avoid grandstanding. I just want to lay out a modus operandi, if you like, from these Benches for how we shall take this Committee stage. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and others, we do not need convincing that this legislation is necessary. That is the starting point. We believe that this is an important Bill but we are disappointed—as I am sure the Committee has already heard and will hear again—about the choice of such skeletal, paving legislation to deliver it.
Like the relevant committees of your Lordships’ House, we believe that the balance leans toward the secondary legislation route far more than it should. I will not use the same socio-religious language that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, just used; I will use guard- rails rather than commandments. There need to be guard-rails in this legislation. There are other issues around alignment, which will come up mostly in the fourth group of amendments, but the bulk of our discussions will be on guard-rails—that is, what guidance should be in the legislation so that, when secondary legislation comes, it has some sense of purpose around what we are seeking to achieve. That will be our approach.
I shall now speak to Amendments 113 and 133; I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Anderson, for their support. I should say that, in a debate on a different Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, described me as a nuisance. Now, he has described me as a softie. I am not sure that I shall welcome his support in future, but the point is that we are trying to find a middle way. In a sense, I agree with some of what the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Anderson, said: we are somewhere in the middle with the amendment, so perhaps we are finding the right place for it.
As we have heard, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was very clear about this Bill; I have chosen different quotes from everybody else, thank heavens. The committee said:
“We recognise the need for this Bill to delegate some legislative powers”.
So do we. It continued:
“However … skeleton legislation should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances and where no other approach would be reasonable to adopt. This is because … it ‘signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive and entails the Government, in effect, asking Parliament to pass primary legislation which is so insubstantial that it leaves the real operation of the legislation to be decided by Ministers’”.
That is the guard-rail I was talking about.
We had this debate so many times in the previous Parliament. In a sense, it is disappointing that we are having it again. The DPRRC said that
“the Bill provides for almost all of the substance of product regulation and metrology to be provided for by Ministers in regulations under the new powers, and little or nothing to be settled under the fuller Parliamentary scrutiny given to Bill provisions”.
The DPRRC said that it remained concerned, and we have heard about those concerns, that
“so little of the policy is included in this skeleton Bill and so much is instead left to delegated legislation which will be subject to a much lower level of Parliamentary scrutiny”.
We know that, and have debated it many times. In some cases, some might say that it gets almost no real, meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, as long as statutory instruments cannot be amended. As the committee said:
“Parliament will be unable to amend that delegated legislation and the only options available to both Houses will be to accept it or reject it”.
We know that rejection, essentially, never happens.
We have also heard that the scope of these powers is not constrained by any requirements for consultation, for criteria to be met or for meaningful preconditions to be satisfied. That is why I am proposing Amendment 133, with the noble Lords’ support. I will say a little more about that shortly.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Is the noble Lord aware of the letter dated 28 October from the Minister, Justin Madders, of the other place, to the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, the chairman of the DPRRC, on these specific issues? It says:
“We recognise the Committee’s concerns that the powers in the Bill to amend or repeal primary legislation may appear as though we are intending to replace existing primary legislation with secondary legislation and accept that we should have given more provenance to the fact that our intentions are limited and specific and the powers in the Bill are limited accordingly”.
Does the noble Lord not think it unprecedented for a Minister to write about a Bill that is before this House?
Lord Fox (LD)
I am not a student of parliamentary history, so I do not know if it is an unprecedented letter, but that was a helpful intervention, and I thank the noble Lord for that.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
I believe that the sentence that was just read out was in the report from the Government to the Delegated Powers Committee as well. It is not unprecedented is what I am saying.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I feel that I am standing in the middle of a perfectly good debate between the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. Perhaps we can reconcile it in some other way.
Lord Fox (LD)
If they find themselves in the same Division Lobby, but that is rather unlikely.
For this reason—the reason that I spoke of some time ago—I am proposing Amendment 113, which seeks to remove Clause 9(4) from the Bill. In the view of the committee and of your Lordships, this is the main offending clause, as it essentially grants Ministers unlimited powers. That is why we are proposing that amendment.
Amendment 133 harks back to an amendment for which many of the Minister’s colleagues and of those on these Benches voted during the passage of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, as it is very similar to an amendment that was tabled then. It is relatively self-explanatory, and it was explained even better by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I suggest that it imports some sensible consultation into the secondary legislation process without overburdening that process.
That may be the Minister’s response. He may say that this is bureaucratic and a lengthy process, to which I would say, to some extent, “So what?” This legislation does not have to be a breathless process; it is supposed to get it right. Many of your Lordships will have witnessed statutory instruments that come back to correct previous statutory instruments. I know of one case when we got into three or possibly four statutory instruments before we were presented with something that was acceptable. A bit of time, consultation and reflection gives us a chance to make regulation that is better and achieves what is intended.
I do not think this is an overwhelming process; it is about careful, purposeful regulation and proper consultation during that process. To an extent, that goes some way to dealing with some of the issues in the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor—who has now made it from her transport system to her place—in fact in a rather more inclusive way, covering large portions of the Bill.
I will speak briefly to Amendment 132, also in my name, which I do not believe is controversial. Again, it continues the theme of the retained EU law Bill. As memory serves, one of the last things your Lordships did when sending that Bill back in the previous Parliament was to add a reporting requirement, so I suspect that there may not be much argument on either side of this against having a window on what is going on in the regulatory process. Indeed, it should provide a platform for us to have a discussion on a regular basis about the effectiveness and necessity of regulation, which I am sure many noble Lords would welcome.
My noble friend Lord Foster will not speak but has deputed me to speak on his behalf, which is a great honour and responsibility. He also signed Amendment 126 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. Amendment 129 in the name of my noble friend would ensure that an amendment that he will bring to the Committee later would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Like me, I think my noble friend would like to say that we do not think that the affirmative procedure is an adequate scrutiny measure, but it is marginally better than nothing.
Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, makes an interesting point. I would like to hear from the Minister about who and what they are seeking to address in Clause 2(3)(h), because it is very broad. What level of specificity should we expect, or is there none?
To close, there are substantive amendments in this group, and I suggest that Amendments 113 and 133 are two that should find their way forward with the Government’s help.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, we have been here before. When the Schools Bill was in front of us, I was very happily lined up next to Lord Judge in saying that this would not do, and I find myself in the same position today. We have a job to do in the House of Lords; it is the proper scrutiny of legislation. This Bill seeks to avoid that. Either the Bill needs to wait and rewrite itself in rather more detail when the Government know what they want to do, or we need some such provision as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson and others to allow us a proper view of what will actually happen under this legislation. I very much hope that the Government will rethink, in one direction or the other.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on his appointment. I look forward to working with him in the years ahead.
I thank all noble Lords for speaking on this group. Noble Lords across the Committee have raised a number of important issues relating to scrutiny. I reassure them, up front, that this Government take very seriously the importance of scrutiny, in particular facilitating parliamentary consideration of government proposals. However, we believe overall that the Bill strikes the right balance on the need for proper consideration of the important issues and the technical nature of many product regulations.
I start with Amendment 132. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has proposed the publishing of impact assessments of affirmative regulations laid every six months after the Bill’s implementation. The impact of any new regulations will be fully considered through the development of proportionate impact analysis. The Better Regulation Framework, as most noble Lords know, is the system that the Government use to manage the flow of regulation and understand its impacts. In line with the Better Regulation Framework, for regulations where significant impacts are anticipated —above £10 million per year—full impact assessments will be published. For regulations with lower anticipated impacts, a proportionate de minimis assessment impact analysis will be completed. These assessments will, as a matter of course, consider the impact of regulations on small and medium-sized enterprises. Therefore, the laudable sentiment behind these amendments is already covered.
A number of the amendments relate to the use of the affirmative procedure. There exists a process for scrutinising secondary legislation that will operate under this Bill, including by scrutinising committees. I recognise the Bill’s delegated powers have raised questions, including from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Rights, Minister Madders, and I appeared before in October. I remind noble Lords that the DPRRC stated and admitted in that evidence session that it saw the need for powers. The Government take seriously the recommendations of the DPRRC, and I plead mea culpa—we put our hands up that we should have been much clearer and could have done more to explain the reasons for the approach taken in this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the Attorney-General’s speech at the Bingham lecture. He is a fine lawyer and is a good friend of mine. I listen to him all the time. But he said in his speech that this Bill does not exceed excessive powers. Product regulation is very technical, and we have ensured the that the Bill allows for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, enabling this House to play the crucial role of scrutinising legislation. Existing secondary legislation runs to over 2,500 pages and covers everything from consumer products, such as toys and cosmetics to heavy industrial products like pressure equipment. We intend to use the Bill’s delegated powers to make targeted changes, on a case-by-case basis, to update and build on the large and well-established existing framework.
I should like to reassure all noble Lords on the specific point around EU law. The appropriate scrutiny procedure is provided by Clause 11, which applies the draft affirmative procedure to various regulations, including those making provision for a power of entry, creating a criminal offence or amending primary legislation, which will need to be debated and approved by Parliament before being implemented.
I turn to Amendment 133, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. This proposes a sifting mechanism whereby all regulations are preconsidered by a joint committee of both Houses. While we understand the need for oversight, a bespoke joint committee approach could cause delays. In addition, there is already a parliamentary process for statutory instruments made under specific Acts of constitutional significance where sifting is applied to ensure appropriate scrutiny. We do not consider that such a process is proportionate or necessary under this Bill, where regulations will often relate to routine minor technical changes—for example, a change in chemical content in cosmetics or toys.
I turn to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor—
Lord Fox (LD)
I think the Minister is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, this committee is so long-winded that important and breathless regulation could not be made and, on the other hand, the regulations will be so small and insignificant that this committee does not need to observe them. It is either one thing or the other—and if there are emergency regulations, I am sure that we can put in place a process to necessarily short circuit and get that before your Lordships’ House quickly. So, the idea that somehow this would hold up vital regulation that that the country is waiting for overnight is something of an overstatement of the process of regulatory development.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I said earlier that we will look at this on a case-by-case basis. Some regulations will relate to very minor technical changes, so it really would be taking up too much parliamentary time for that, whereas other regulations may need a full scrutiny, and we will have avenues for that.
On the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, although parliamentary oversight is crucial, requiring the sunsetting and renewal of regulations under Clause 1 would create legislative gaps and undermine regulatory certainty. This is particularly for essential product regulations that protect consumers or for products where their design, production and installation may take over a year. Ensuring consumer safety is a constant, ongoing concern. We also have to ensure that businesses have certainty. Having a sunset clause will not give certainty to businesses.
As I have explained, these are also highly technical regulations, covering matters as detailed as the formulae for measuring outdoor noise, for example, and I am not sure it would be a good use of parliamentary time to re-examine such specific matters on an annual basis.
Similarly, Amendments 40, 41, and 131 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, ensure that regulations incorporating EU law will be subject to parliamentary debate, with consideration of constitutional impacts. As Members of the House will be aware, a duty to assess the impacts of any new legislation on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain already exists, and the responsible Minister must make a statement considering any impacts on trade between Northern Ireland and the UK internal market. To provide additional assurances, it is considered that the powers set out in Clause 5(2) provide a proportionate and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny process, where the regulations will often be highly technical and routine in nature.
Noble Lords, including those on the DPRRC, have questioned the Government’s intentions as regards consultation on changes made under the Bill’s powers. Amendment 126, tabled by my noble friend Lady Crawley, for example, proposes to establish a duty for the Secretary of State to publish regulations in draft form, and consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
I fully appreciate the importance of consultation and industry engagement. My department and the Department for Business and Trade have excellent relationships with industry and consumer groups and will continue to engage regularly with any stakeholders before changes are introduced. Indeed, we currently have two calls for evidence in circulation seeking stakeholder input, one on the introduction across the UK of a common charger for all our mobile phones and other portable electrical and electronic devices, and the other on measuring noise from outdoor equipment.
We have not included a statutory consultation requirement to allow for proportionate engagement with industry and consumer groups depending on the significance of the changes. This ensures agility in responding to emerging risks or market developments to protect UK consumers, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. But I give a firm commitment to noble Lords that the Secretary of State will engage and consult with relevant stakeholders before legislating.
Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, refers to supply chains involved in products and the extent we need to regulate them. This can be complex, and it is important that we get it right.
Clause 2(3) sets out examples of the persons on whom product regulations may be imposed. However, this is not always clear. Depending on the nature of the product or its supply chain, product regulations may need to cover a whole variety of other actors involved in a product journey. For example, our regulations on the safety of lifts need to cover the people involved in their installation as well as their manufacture, and regulations on recreational craft cover private importers in addition to the usual supply chain actors.
We also need to ensure that rapidly changing business models cannot be exploited, allowing bad actors to exploit good business by defining themselves out of regulation. For this reason, Clause 2(3) is an inclusive list, not an exhaustive list, of persons on whom regulations can be imposed. Clause 2(3)(h) further clarifies that regulations can apply to anyone carrying out activities in relation to a product.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I beg your Lordships’ leave, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for taking over his amendment here, but the wording of Clause 2(3)(h) is
“any other person carrying out activities”.
All the other items refer to the activity of the sale and marketing of that product. This does not refer to it but any person carrying out activities unspecified. For example, if I were repairing a product, would I be in the scope of the Bill? I could be, but I do not think that that is the purpose of the Bill. There needs to be some modification of that language—I think the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is shrewd in putting that up—which focuses on the development and marketing of the product. Otherwise, it is any person doing anything to it.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that point. As I see it, it is the whole manufacturing of the product itself. For example, 3D printers are getting cheaper and cheaper on the market, and anyone can make anything from a 3D printer. So we need a regulation that covers someone who sells the printer, someone who supplies the plastic that goes into the printer and whoever makes that. Unless the noble Lord is mistaken, perhaps I and officials could have a private conversation with him and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson.
Lord Leong (Lab)
To conclude, I hope that I have been able to provide assurances on all these matters and I assure noble Lords that the Government have carefully considered—
Lord Deben (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I am very much in favour of most of the Bill, but this bit is very difficult. I have been around a long time, and I have known Minister after Minister explain that things are too technical for us to have proper parliamentary scrutiny, and I heard it again today. The fact is that there is some real concern, even from those of us who are, in general terms, in favour—I hope it gets as near to parity with the rest of Europe, which is our biggest market—as we want to be sure that Parliament has a say, but I am not sure that the Minister has given us a very good answer. Saying that it is very technical is the oldest story that civil servants have given Ministers since we have had civil servants and Ministers.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. If it helps, I have gone through some of our 150-odd existing product safety regulations—not all of them—and their technical nature includes scientific calculation and all kinds of other technical input. Are we saying that we want this in every instance of primary legislation? I think not. If noble Lords think that we should have every technical aspect in all primary legislation, we need to have a different debate entirely, but for this, for technical reasons, we need delegated legislation to ensure that we update the regulations.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I do not want to labour the point, but it is either feast or famine. We are being told by the Government that we cannot legislate everything to the nth degree, so we should just trust them on the secondary legislation—the permissive delegated legislation and statutory instruments. But then, with the paragraph that is the subject of my amendment, we are going to the nth degree of granularity and technical finesse while not actually, as it happens, defining what “activities” mean. Activities could mean looking at a product, by which you would therefore be caught by the regulations.
I gently say to the Minister that the substantive clause is not undermined by the removal of this paragraph, and he should seriously think about that.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. I shall take it away and speak to officials about this, but the purpose of the Bill is not to be too prescriptive, so that we cover most of the activities that can be described by various stages of production.
I want to conclude, if I may. I hope that I have been able to provide reassurance on all these matters and have assured noble Lords that the Government have carefully considered the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and sought to strike a careful balance. I therefore respectfully ask that the amendment is withdrawn.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I do not really have very much to say. I am partially reassured by what the Minister has tried to say, but we will have to study the contents of this debate, which has been fascinating and wide-ranging. It was remiss of me not to have thanked the Minister earlier for his engagement and that of his team, and I apologise. We reserve the right to come back to this, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for his willingness to engage with all noble Lords who have shown an interest in this Bill, and I thank his team for the support and help that they have given. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on his new role.
We have frequently described this Bill as being skeletal. In the two amendments that I am proposing, Amendments 2 and 27, I am offering some flesh to put on the bones of that skeleton. I am acutely aware that many of the regulations that will arise from the Bill will look at products in isolation, but there are many cases whereby products are intended for use when they are installed within some system or other, and it is usually an electrical system.
Amendment 2 suggests that, when considering the safety of a product, we should take into account, where relevant, its installation. Amendment 27 argues that, when the product is installed into a system, the system as a whole, including the product, should require third-party certification.
Let us take as an example something that is happening up and down the country at the moment—the installation of EV charging points, more often than not in individual homes. They are installed by electricians who, under current regulations, register the circuit and the changes made to the consumer unit, but who do not have to register the EV charging point itself. That means that the certification body is not tracking where those charge points are, not informing local building control and not doing any inspection or assessment of the charge points to ensure that they are compliant with building regulations or safety.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I begin by saying that, like others, I am grateful to the Minister for the time he gave to meeting me. However, the fact remains that our concerns about the Bill have not been assuaged. There are fundamental flaws, as others have said. We do not disagree with the aims of the Bill in general terms; the problem is that we just do not know what the specific policies are. We do not know what route will be taken to address the issues that may arise. It is simply too vague. There will be no opportunity for consultation on, or challenge to, the policies or regulations: policies will be produced by the Minister and that will be that. We know that policies should be in the Bill.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his thoughtful amendments and his commitment to addressing the significant issues raised by Clauses 1 and 2. These electronic developments, such as lithium-ion batteries and so on, are serious issues; they certainly need to be addressed. However, these amendments relate to Clauses 1 and 2, which have been identified by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee as fit only for complete removal from the Bill, for the reasons set out in their reports. Those committees have strongly criticised these clauses because they lack substance and give excessive discretion to Ministers; as I said at Second Reading, this is a Henry VIII Bill par excellence.
We must therefore now be told—we are still waiting—in much more detail what direction the Government think we should take on the matters of substance and importance that the Bill addresses. Ministers are to be empowered to legislate by statutory instrument on matters that are really important for businesses on the receiving end and for consumers, also on the receiving end—or not, if nothing is done—such as marketing, product regulation and metrology. Here in Parliament, we have been given no clear framework or policy direction.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s detailed report of 15 October, which of course came after Second Reading and after substantive objections had been raised by me and others, stated that the skeleton clauses, which include but are not limited to Clauses 1 and 2,
“contain almost no substance about the marketing and use of products but instead give Ministers very broad powers which confer considerable discretion to legislate in that area by statutory instrument”.
On 16 October, the same committee held an evidence session at which it discussed these concerns with the noble Lord, Lord Leong; Justin Madders MP, the Minister in the other place; Helen Le Mottee, deputy director legal for products, business and better regulation; and Tony Thomas, deputy director for product safety policy. The committee said:
“In the evidence session, the Ministers and their officials provided helpful additional information about … the existing legislation that could be amended by regulations made under the powers that the Bill confers; and … the need for the Bill to confer regulation-making powers that would allow detailed and technical provision to be tailored for different types of products and would give Ministers the flexibility to respond quickly and effectively to rapid technological changes and product safety concerns … That additional information could helpfully have been included in the Delegated Powers Memorandum provided by the Department for Business and Trade”.
The committee recognised the need for the Bill to delegate some legislative powers—I think we all understand that that is necessary. However, the committee stood by and repeated the essence of its 15 October first report, notwithstanding the improvement of approach. It said that
“skeleton legislation should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances”—
and we are not there; this is not Covid. We are not in another emergency situation—
“and where no other approach would be reasonable to adopt”.
That, it explained—and I make no apology for repeating this—
“signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive and entails the Government, in effect, asking Parliament to pass primary legislation which is so insubstantial that it leaves the real operation of the legislation to be decided by Ministers”.
Frankly, I say, if they do it with this Bill, they will do it with all future legislation. There was enough fuss in the last Parliament about what those on this side were doing, and now we are going straight down that route and extending it into the distance. As the committee said, the Government
“needs to explain why the Bill provides for almost all of the substance of product regulation and metrology to be provided for by Ministers in regulations under the new powers, and little or nothing to be settled under the fuller Parliamentary scrutiny given to Bill provisions”.
Without clear boundaries or principles, these powers could allow Ministers to fundamentally alter product regulation, metrology standards and even consumer protections with little notice or prior consultation. They can just do what they like if a Minister fancies it or a civil servant has a bee in his bonnet—I mean nothing personal about the civil servants sitting there. I think your Lordships all understand what I have in mind. People have idées fixes, their opportunity comes along, off they go and Parliament will be able to do absolutely nothing about it. This risks creating legal uncertainty, regulatory overreach and a chilling effect on business, stakeholders and consumers.
Clauses 1 and 2 as they stand must, we say, be either significantly revised or removed entirely, as recommended by both committees of which we have already heard rather a lot. Failing such improvements, we on this side of the House will move for the offending clauses to be removed on Report. The Government should understand that.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, before I address Amendments 2 and 27 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I need to make a clarification. The Attorney-General made a general comment about excessive reliance on delegated legislation; he did not comment on this Bill. We certainly do not believe this Bill contains excessive reliance on delegated legislation.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I almost want to say that the Minister doth protest too much. We have been given a whole range of examples that he says illustrate that it might be that they will take installation into account. It seems to me that there is a much simpler solution: to accept my amendment and put it in the Bill, since that is what he almost implies he wants to achieve. Clearly, we will have further deliberations. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
The Amendment ensures that regulations relating to the marketing of use of products in the UK may have the purpose of ensuring that products are safe.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 3 is part of group 3, which focuses on the safety of marketed products; we are focusing now on safety. In a sense, the debate on the previous group of amendments demonstrated why the skeletal nature of the Bill needs flushing out. Alongside the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and my noble friend Lord Foster, I hope we can investigate a little how we can flesh out the Bill on the subjects of health, safety and the environment.
Both Amendment 3 and Amendment 95, which is also in my name, seek to add some purpose to the Bill so that future regulations will be within the guard-rails we talked about earlier. Amendment 3 would simply insert safety as an objective for achievement for the regulations caused by the Bill. There are two purposes to this amendment: one is to try to ensure that, in future, the products regulated are safe, and the other is to allow the Minister to explain how reducing or mitigating risk works in the context of product safety. It seems to me that there is a glaring difference between the two, and I look forward to the Minister explaining how this legislation came to be written in this way.
Clause 1(4) goes on to define risk with language that implores the concept of safety, which is of course helpful. However, under the terms of Clause 1 as currently drafted, any danger to the health or safety of a person—or a domestic animal; the Minister knows that I am keen to know which animals are domestic and which are not, and why non-domestic animals should be subject to danger when domestic animals are not—needs only to be reduced, because Clause 1(1) comes before Clause 1(4). Surely the objective should be to eliminate risk.
If I was selling a trapeze kit for a seven year-old that was 30 feet from the ground, I could of course say that I had reduced the risk by including a mattress to put underneath it, but is this safe, and has sufficient mitigation been observed? I understand that there is no such thing as absolute safety. However, I contend that, if the purpose of the Bill is, first and foremost, risk reduction or mitigation rather than safety, it is pitching the objective of regulations too low. I hope that is an understandable albeit rather complex explanation as to why I am moving this amendment.
Amendment 95 also focuses on safety. It simply spells out some considerations for future regulations made under the Act—namely, that they
“must have regard for consumer safety and wellbeing, and environmental sustainability”.
How could anybody object to those aspirations? Looking forward, we could leave it there and deal with the second part of this amendment in a different way. We will certainly come back to some of this in other groups but, at this point, I chose to add the specific issue of the disposal of chemicals and lithium-ion products because disposal is an important part of—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, was in full flow. He may resume on Amendment 3.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I was not in full flight; I was merely jogging along the runway.
I have talked to Amendment 3 already. Amendment 95 also focuses on safety, and simply spells out some considerations for future regulations to be made under the Act—namely, that they must have regard for consumer safety and well-being, and environmental sustainability. As I said before, how could anybody disagree with that comforting thought?
Looking forward, we could leave it there and deal with the second part of the amendment in a different way, but I chose to add some specific points around the disposal of chemicals and of lithium-ion products. Given that this is Committee, I want to probe the Minister on how he regards the issue of disposal within the context of the Bill, which is why I included those parts. In a sense, there are two ways of looking at Amendment 95. One is the writing in of an undertaking that consumer safety, well-being and environmental sustainability will be a key part of future regulation. The other is to understand a little more how the Government regard disposal. There will be other times when bits of this are debated, but I am clear in my mind that we must consider the end of life of products that this Bill will eventually regulate. The hardest part of that is what happens to chemicals and batteries.
I hope the Minister will agree, but I fear he may suggest that this should be managed through regulation that we have not yet seen. It would be helpful at least to understand how the Government would go about these things. Regulation is where details lie. I come back to the idea that we need guard-rails to indicate how regulation will be developed and otherwise. That is what we would expect in primary legislation. The principles, in this case for the safety of marketed products, should be set out in primary legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment and the amendment that is still to be debated by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. The amendment that I propose is to strengthen and future-proof the Government’s ability to identify and respond to high-risk products on the UK market. It proposes a clear mechanism to flag high-risk products and then requires them to be subject to additional safety measures. Such products would have to be, for example, conformity assessed by a UK-approved body and marked with subsequent CE and UKCA marking.
The concept of high-risk products with special requirements applying to them is not new. Animals and animal products imported into the UK are classified under the border target operating model as low, medium or high risk. Each of those categories, including the high-risk category, has different requirements before entry to the UK is allowed. As noble Lords will be aware, fireworks, heavy machinery and some types of medical devices are already recognised and labelled as high risk. However, outside these types of products, the situation is less clear and, at present, far too discretionary. It may well be that the Government have plans for a clearer, less discretionary framework approach. But given the skeletal nature of the Bill, as we discussed in the first group of amendments, and given the limitations of consultation on secondary legislation, it seems that Parliament will have little say in what emerges in this area.
My amendment provides an opportunity for Parliament to have a say in clarifying and strengthening arrangements around high-risk products. It goes beyond that because it provides a way forward by making use of the fairly recently developed product safety risk assessment methodology, along with other logical approaches that are clearly listed within the amendment.
I will use the proposed way forward by illustrating it in reference to the area of lithium-ion batteries yet again, particularly in the respect of their use in e-scooters and e-bikes, which I have spoken about on a number of occasions. Many other examples could have been used to make my case.
Last month, a batch of imported e-bike chargers, intended for use with GIN e-bikes, was rejected at the border and destroyed by customs officials. According to the Office for Product Safety & Standards, the products presented
“a high risk of fire and explosion”
because of the poor build quality of the transformer and concerns about the fuse used, and the products did not meet the requirements of the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 or the Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1994 and were therefore rejected and destroyed.
Frankly, however welcome this intervention was—and it certainly was—it does not happen all the time. Just a couple of months earlier, the UK cycling sector, including industry trade bodies, e-bike brands, bike shops and charities, joined forces in an e-bike-positive campaign to boost knowledge of e-bike battery safety, helping the public to safely buy, charge and ride them. The e-bike industry is also developing a new scheme to highlight reputable, high-quality brands that thoroughly safety test their e-cycles and batteries. This suggests to me that the industry itself is currently having to act in the absence of clear regulations in respect of high-risk products in this sector. Recent figures sadly show the loss of life and property caused by e-bike and e-scooter fires, clearly showing that the current arrangements are simply not working.
Indeed, lithium-ion batteries in e-bikes and e-scooters are a textbook example of a high-risk product. Prone to catastrophic failure from poor manufacturing or improper use, they can, as we have heard on many occasions in your Lordships’ House, explode and catch fire, posing significant danger. ITV News has found that, in the past two years, e-bike fires have increased by 204%; Electrical Safety First found that over 180 constituencies have experienced an e-bike or e-scooter fire; the London Fire Brigade warned that e-bike and e-scooter fires are the capital’s fastest-growing fire risk and are responding to an associated incident once every two days; and, sadly, earlier this month, two people lost their lives in an e-bike fire in Coventry.
The charity Electrical Safety First has been campaigning for e-bike and e-scooter batteries and their associated chargers to be classified as high-risk and require third-party certification. Its campaign, which I have been supporting for a number of years, now has the support of around 100 major national stakeholders, from fire brigades to Which?, and over 500 parish and local councils, among many others supporting it. This amendment would meet those demands.
I sought to make the case with reference to lithium-ion batteries, but, of course, we must address all existing and future high-risk product safety issues. The Bill must set down robust precedents for the identification of safety risks coming down the line, given the ever-increasing developments in technology and consumer behaviour. I hope that this amendment achieves this by allowing the Government quickly to identify high-risk products and set subsequent additional safety regulations. Above all, it ensures that we have consistency, rather than the lack of consistency in the current arrangements.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and my noble friend’s amendment but I want to press the Minister briefly, because one of the key rationales for Clause 1 is to improve safety dynamically. I think we would all agree with that. Obviously, mention is made of the toy safety regime in the United Kingdom and in the European Union, as well as lithium batteries, artificial intelligence et cetera.
May I press the Minister on a genuine question? I have not found a rationale for why the only Schedule to the Bill excludes so many products not covered by the Bill’s potential regulations. It excludes:
“Plants, fruit and fungi … Feeding stuff”,
food generally and animal by-products, aircraft, military equipment and “Medicines and medical devices”. Maybe the Minister could say a little about which value judgments and what empirical data have been used to exclude those products from consideration in the Bill, perhaps seen through the prism of safety.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, which seeks to delete Clause 1(4). It is worth looking at that subsection. It says:
“For the purposes of this Act, a product presents a risk if, when used for the purpose for which it is intended or under conditions which can reasonably be foreseen, it could … endanger the health or safety of persons”
or of domestic animals—I paraphrase—
“property (including the operability of other products), or … cause, or be susceptible to, electromagnetic disturbance”.
That is a bit beyond my knowledge grade.
I looked at this provision and it really is very broad. Where does it end? We say that the provision must be removed because it provides excessively broad powers to the Secretary of State to address things we simply know nothing about. It comes, of course, under the skeleton legislation; I have already made my points about the problems with that.
The definition of risk here has the potential to be so expansive that nearly any product, except an aircraft or certain other things which my noble friend has just identified, could be construed as presenting a risk under certain circumstances. A motor car can be perfectly safe and wonderfully designed but, if driven too fast or just badly in some other way, it will of course endanger life. That happens every other day. The same applies to a whole raft of mechanical tools and instruments—anything one wants to think about. If misused, they will cause danger.
If we have at some time in the future a Government who feel very strongly about something which, at the moment, none of us object to, they will be able to address that by secondary legislation, which will not be ultra vires—outside the scope of the legislation. It can do almost anything. We can all think of almost anything that we use at home, such as a power drill or a stepladder. If you misuse and fall off that, you break your skull. It could be motor cars or anything. This is absolutely absurd and far too broad.
If the Government want to legislate to say that motor cars must have a speed restriction, or must have brakes which do this or that, they should do that with specific regulation under specific legislation directed at that target, because Parliament has said, “We’ve had far too many accidents of this sort. We’ve got to address it”. That is the normal process we have as society develops, but a clause of this sort is just extraordinary. It really is Brave New World stuff.
Our complaint is simply that the broad scope of this definition could, in future, empower regulators to impose unnecessary restrictions on products where the risks are minimal or purely hypothetical—and certainly not within the scope of the imaginations of those of us in this Room—because somebody comes along, or a Government come along, in five years’ time and decides that they want to deal with it. Rather than having an embarrassing and difficult debate in Parliament, the Minister just has his way. That is not how we proceed in this country. We are a parliamentary democracy under, as we have been told, the rule of law. We would suggest that the Government have already attacked businesses, high-street retailers and farmers. Will these relentless, unidentified attacks on businesses ever stop? This provision, like others, risks creating legal uncertainty and regulatory overreach. We really must put a stop to it.
I say again that Clauses 1 and 2, as they stand, must be significantly revised or removed entirely, or the promise remains that we will move for them to be removed on Report.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to respond to this particularly interesting debate. I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to his new position. I must say, the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Sandhurst, seem to have undergone a conversion, certainly since the former’s time in the Department for Business. I have not been able yet to count the number of regulations in primary legislation that the noble Lord took through but, given that he was a Home Office Minister and given the Home Office’s—how shall I put it?—productive record in producing legislation in Parliament, I hasten to suggest that it was quite a few.
Clearly, behind that is an important consideration about the shape of the Bill and why we need a regulation-making power. On the other hand, the Government would say to noble Lords that the intention is to use those regulations proportionately on the back of the policy consultation that has just taken place. We see here, in a sense, a tension between those noble Lords who wish to make sure that the legislation covers areas of concern—we have heard about the areas of concern for the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Fox—and those noble Lords who feel that the regulation, or the power given here to Ministers through regulation, goes too wide. Clearly, a balance needs to be drawn.
Lord Fox (LD)
There is no dichotomy. We do think that the powers are too wide but part of what we want to do is channel those powers by making the sort of suggestions to which the Minister just referred.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I was hoping to assure the noble Lord that the way the Bill is constructed should give him comfort in relation both to the issues he has raised around safety and to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. Clearly, we think that consumer safety is very important. It is central to the Bill and a key component of our product regulation.
The Bill as drafted seeks to uphold a high standard of consumer protection and guarantees that the risks associated with products are minimised; Clause 118 provides for this. Although some products have risks that may be reduced through improvements to the design or clear warnings, others may be so dangerous that they should never be allowed to be sold in the first place. Baby self-feeding pillows are an example of this. They were recalled by the Office for Product Safety & Standards in 2022 due to the fact that the risks they presented could not be mitigated.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to Clause 1(1)(a), which refers to “reducing or mitigating risks”. We believe that that wording puts safety at the heart of the Bill while permitting regulations to acknowledge the wider spectrum of risk. This concept of a wider spectrum of risk covers the point that the noble Lord was trying to make.
That really is the same response as the one to Amendment 10, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, referred—essentially, how the Bill explains the term “risk”. My noble friend Lord Leong explained how the Bill puts product safety, and reducing the risks associated with it, at its heart. That includes risks to the health and safety of persons, and Clause 10 makes it clear that “health” can refer to the physical or mental health of a person.
I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, was saying. He was concerned about the wide scope of the Bill, particularly Clause 1(4). However, in a sense, we have to capture in the Bill a definition wide enough to allow us to deal with some of the circumstances that noble Lords have raised. The aim is to be comprehensive but also proportionate. The noble Lord said that the Minister could just do this willy-nilly, but the fact is that regulations have to go through Parliament. He knows that in your Lordships’ House, one Member, even on a statutory instrument under the negative procedure, can ensure that a debate takes place. To come back to the words he used, at the very least for Ministers that can be a challenging and extensive process. A regulation will not be produced without full consultation as well. I would therefore argue that this is not an overweening power of the Executive; it is a sensible balance whereby we try to set out a broad enough definition to cover the kind of risks that noble Lords are concerned about. However, because it has to go through a parliamentary process and a consultation process before that, there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that any future Government or Ministers are not overriding in the way that the noble Lord suggested.
Clause 1(4) also ensures that damage to property is also included within the meaning of risk, meaning that regulations made under the Bill can be made for the purposes of mitigating risks to property, including the operability of other products. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, therefore, that the Bill captures the spectrum of risks that products may present to the health and safety of people and their property.
I also emphasise that not every element of our product safety framework is focused entirely on safety in the traditional sense. Our current regulatory framework covers a wide range of topics. This includes the use of radio spectrum, the ergonomics of protective gear and noise emissions from some outdoor machinery, such as concrete breakers and lawn-mowers. A number of our existing regulations, such as those covering fireworks and pressure equipment, also cover risks to domestic animals. By the way, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that that is why domestic animals are mentioned in the clause; it is also for this reason that we cover the interoperability of products and their susceptibility to electromagnetic disturbance, along with the risks to domestic animals, as I said.
Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, would create in the Bill a category of high-risk products where regulations can apply across the board. He worries that the Bill is too discretionary. I understand where he is coming from.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Just for absolute clarity, I did not say that the Bill was too discretionary; I said that the current arrangements were too discretionary and I want a change from that situation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am sorry if I misinterpreted what the noble Lord said, but I get his drift. We believe that the operation of our current product regulation framework already recognises the point that he made.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I apologise but I am not quite sure what the Minister’s concern about my amendment therefore is. It specifically suggests that we put into the Bill a power for the Secretary of State to choose to bring forward regulations that will enable the classification of high-risk products in the way that he has just described. They are all included, including the recently developed framework, as possible ways of doing that within the amendment. I genuinely do not understand the Minister’s argument. I am giving an opportunity for clarity—so that in all circumstances there is an opportunity to use that framework.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
If the noble Lord will let me explain, Clauses 1 and 11 grant powers to make regulations relating to product safety for a range of purposes, general or specific. The Government have set out in their response to the product safety review our intention in the months ahead to begin a process of sector reviews. They will consider whether any changes are needed to our existing regulation of higher-risk products to reflect modern challenges, such as those that the noble Lord has pointed out in two speeches this afternoon. We will also consider whether updates to the GPSR are necessary to ensure that cross-cutting and emerging risks are properly addressed, particularly where products fall outside current sector-specific rules.
Furthermore, in December 2022, the Office for Product Safety & Standards developed a product safety risk assessment methodology for GB regulators to use with non-compliant products. The methodology requires consideration of the tolerability of the risk identified. Where a risk is intolerable, a regulator can act robustly in relation to risks that may have a low possibility of occurring, but where, if they did, the outcome would be disastrous. A noteworthy example is the effort made by the Office for Product Safety & Standards to protect young people from the dangers of ingesting small, powerful magnets.
In Amendment 95 the noble Lord, Lord Fox, makes the sensible point that safe disposal can be a key part of protecting consumers and businesses. Clause 1(5) makes clear that regulations can cover safe disposal of products. We will consider whether particular products need specific regulation in this area on a case-by-case basis.
On the disposal of batteries specifically, the Government are committed to cracking down on waste as we move toward a circular economy. We shall have a discussion on the circular economy—I was going to say “in a few minutes”, but that might be a little hopeful. We are reviewing and propose to consult on reforms to UK batteries regulation before setting out our next steps.
Finally, regarding the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on the Schedule to the Bill, the things mentioned in the exclusions are covered by separate legislation. It is as simple as that.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I am grateful for the Minister’s indulgence; I have a straightforward question regarding Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. The Minister has answered it thoroughly but I still do not understand. What else would the Government be doing, in looking at the efficacy of product safety, that is not already in the amendment? Surely the noble Lord’s amendment merely formalises actions with regard to product safety that the Government themselves would do in analysing what they need to do to protect consumers. I cannot understand the Minister’s resistance to at least being a bit more emollient towards what seems to me quite a sensible amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I think that is surprising support from the noble Lord, Lord Foster. This is an iterative process in Committee, and we are certainly always prepared to look at suggestions put forward. My response is simply that we think the Bill as it stands, and the reviews that will take place, cover the points he raises. The Attorney-General’s advice also suggests that we should not unnecessarily add to legislation, but we will give it some consideration.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, as a fox, I take the subject of wild animals somewhat to heart. To some extent the Minister has covered my concerns, particularly around disposal, which is important, so I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.
Lord Frost
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes from the Bill a broadly-drawn power to align with EU environmental regulation.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4, I will also speak to my Amendments 6, 15, 36, 37 and 42. I thank the Minister for the constructive exchanges we have had in the previous two or three weeks, both face to face and in writing.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I will pick up where I left off. I was about to note that my six amendments in this group have a substantive purpose and, I guess, a probing, clarificatory purpose. I will begin with the substantive. My amendments are separate, but they all stem from the same broad thought, and they are designed to deal with the fact that the powers in the Bill give Ministers the ability to make regulations for products in the UK, or GB, in a range of areas defined by simple reference to existing EU laws; and, beyond that, to provide for those regulations to evolve dynamically —that is, when the EU changes its law, that change feeds through into our regulations.
Personally, I am not and have never been a purist in this area. I do not think it is necessary for GB to have its own defined sets of rules on every single thing, with the UKCA designation that covers everything—unless, of course, we were to drop the current approach to regulation entirely, which was, after all, developed in the last few decades under an EU law framework, and revert to a more traditional, common-law, objectives-based framework. That is possibly a step too far for the time being. Given that, it makes sense to look at other standards and whether they work for us. In practice, that is what happens now, in a limited way. For example, we recognise the CE marking for the EU while sometimes having the UKCA marking or our own rules in parallel, but there are two problems with this.
First, I do not see why that possibility of recognising other standards should be limited to EU law only. Of course, I do not really agree with the thrust of Amendment 17 in this group, which we are about to discuss, which would require alignment with EU law. We may want to use other standards from other territories with less prescriptive regulatory frameworks, and we may want to allow goods with different standards from more than one place to compete on our market to make the country open to the best standards globally. That is the first problem the Bill presents.
Secondly, I do not really think it is right for us in this Parliament to subcontract our lawmaking to another body. It must be clear what the law of this country is at any given moment; it must be properly on our books. It is not good enough to say to the question “What is the law on product X?” that the answer is whatever EU regulation number whatever says it is today. My amendments are designed to deal with these points, and I take them in logical, not numerical, order.
Amendment 4 deletes Clause 1(2). I propose this really to explore why it is necessary, in a Bill specifically on product regulation, to include the ability to import large areas of EU environmental law. I can see that it might be convenient, but the same could be said of lots of other areas too. If there is a more specific and persuasive explanation, I would be interested to hear it from the Minister.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Newlove) (Con)
My Lords, I must inform the Committee that, if Amendment 4 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 6 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 17 and 127 in my name. I also would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on moving from the calm waters of the Home Office to the much more exciting waters of his new role. I hope he will enjoy the turbulence that will be created, not least perhaps by this group of amendments.
I have tabled this quite deliberately with a cross-party group representing the three principal parties across the House. This is designed, frankly, to try to drain the politics and emotion from this particular issue. The Government have made it quite clear that their primary driver for this Bill is to encourage economic growth and, above all, sustained investment. Having spent 31 years serving all kinds of businesses, including some of the largest companies in the world, as a headhunter, I know that one thing companies hate above all is uncertainty. For the last few years, many of our businesses have lived in a state of more or less continuous uncertainty, which they are not very happy about. That partly reflects our economy not moving as fast as it should and levels of investment which are at the bottom of the league table against our primary competitors.
The recent attempts, since midnight on 31 January 2020, to try to create our own system of regulation have been repeatedly underwhelming. I suspect they have been extremely expensive. I do not know whether the Minister will ever be able to find out quite how much the UKCA exercise has cost. I suspect if he managed to get the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, into a bar and plied him with enough drink—possibly Scotch whisky—he might find out. I suspect it was a considerable and rather embarrassing sum.
That has created a state of uncertainty. This Bill gives us a change to try to calm the situation down. Above all, what I want to do, and what I persuade and implore all noble Lords to do, is to drain the emotional and ideological swamp around some of these issues, and to get away from arguments which, frankly, most businesses have very little time or respect for—however important they may seem to the people for whom it is important—about sovereignty and rule-taking, and all those things. Most businesses are as interested in those issues as the general public is in your Lordships’ House and what goes on here. Most of them have no idea at all and have very little interest. Frankly, that is the same attitude that most businesses have to some of the wrangling that has gone on around these issues. Above all, they want certainty.
To start, I quote the head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, Mr William Bain, on the Bill:
“We would encourage the Government to bring forward an indication of the policy it intends to follow under the bill in terms of whether it would be the default that there would be alignment with relevant EU measures in scope of this or whether they will look at it on a case-by-case basis. But the BCC in its report and surveys and evidence has the data from our members to say that they think for traded goods, having as much alignment as possible is beneficial for trade with the EU”.
Other bodies, such as the Engineering and Machinery Alliance, said the same. CHEM Trust said the same on chemicals and REACH. I think I can rely on the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to weigh in on the environment, and we have already touched on some sensitivities about trade with Northern Ireland and trying not to upset the Windsor agreement and the DUP any more—it seems to be in a state of habitual disarray and alarm, which I do not want to exaggerate.
Secondly, the Government themselves, in their Explanatory Notes on the Bill, say that it is
“ensuring that the law can be updated to allow a means of recognising new or updated EU product requirements”
including CE marking, where appropriate,
“with the intention of preventing additional costs for businesses and provide regulatory stability”.
At this point, I return to the theme of Scotch whisky. I thought it was interesting to find a paper from the Scotch Whisky Association, with which certain noble Lords may be familiar. It says that business certainty and consistency by transposing EU market legislation of relevance to Scotch whisky in the UK is of extreme importance and that:
“A pragmatic, non-disruptive transition will be fundamental”.
We are looking for a Bill that gives the degree of certainty that business is craving and looking for. The result of the recent election in the United States of America is a cause of some alarm for some businesses, with perhaps increased uncertainty. I would not be surprised if the President-elect does not again hold out the prospect of a glittering trade deal between us and the United States. I suspect it might never be forthcoming or, if it is, the price we would pay would certainly benefit America first and us last.
The amendments that we are putting forward are in no way, shape or form driven by ideology; they are driven by business pragmatism. I also point out that the Government recently published an industrial strategy Green Paper, from which I quote:
“This government believes it is our role to provide the certainty that inspires confidence, allowing businesses to plan not just for the next year, but for the next 10 years and beyond”.
In essence, this is what we are trying to encourage the Government to articulate during the passage of this Bill, in such a way that business will not have to read between the lines to understand what the Government understand, as it is straight up there—either in the Bill or in comments made at the Dispatch Box that make the Government’s hopes and intentions very clear.
I gently remind some of those who might perhaps take issue with these amendments that it was the new leader of the Conservative Party, in her previous role as a Cabinet Minister, who effectively blew the whistle more than once on some of the attempts by her party to put in place a variety of measures to try to replace some issues that affect trade and regulation with the UK. She found disfavour with some members of her own party for doing so, but I would be interested to know whether the noble Lords who find fault with these amendments have spoken to the new leader of their party to see what her view of this is.
I will finish by firing some questions at the Minister. They are mainly aimed at the Bill team, because I do not expect an immediate answer, but I would be grateful if the noble Lord could come back to us in writing.
First, what calculations have been made by the Government of the impact of divergence in product standards from the EU going forward on our exports and our imports?
Secondly, what engagement have the Government had with industry on the impact of aligning with the EU on product regulation? I know from a meeting that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and I had, thanks to the Minister, with him and the Bill team that there has been considerable engagement throughout the past year with all kinds of areas of business. It would be helpful to know how extensive that was and what level of detail it was able to go into.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I rise with no emotion in my voice—because, as noble Lords will appreciate, to be a Government Whip under Margaret Thatcher and John Major one had to leave emotion aside—to support Amendments 17 and 127, which bear my name. In doing so, I first want to speak to Amendments 6, 9, 15, 36, 37, 39 and 42. Obviously, I am against those amendments because they would fundamentally alter the purpose and practical operation of the Bill. If the aim of these amendments is to damage British businesses and our competitiveness on the world stage, noble Lords promoting them should say so. They should also be open with this Committee. If these amendments are simply a product of opposition to the EU or anything associated with the word “Europe”, they should make that absolutely clear.
This raises a critical question: who benefits from this approach? It is not British businesses. Our industries require clarity, predictability and coherence to thrive in competitive global markets. These amendments risk creating a fragmented system where businesses face the burden of navigating multiple and potentially conflicting regulatory frameworks. The UK has a proud history of robust safety and environmental protections. These amendments focus on what are termed “foreign laws”, without any clear guiding principle, and risk creating uncertainty about the quality and safety of products in the UK market. The outcome would be confusion for manufacturers, exporters and regulators alike. These amendments also prohibit the use of some dynamic alignment, a valuable tool for ensuring that our regulations remain relevant and competitive in an ever-evolving global market.
The European Union remains our largest trading partner. Its product regulations set a widely recognised global benchmark. Dynamic alignment allows us to align with the EU when it is in our interest to do so, ensuring that our businesses can access those markets while reducing additional costs or barriers. Denying this flexibility would leave the UK with an outdated and rigid regulatory framework to the detriment of businesses, workers and consumers alike. This introduces a potential free-for-all of standards with little clarity on how decisions would be made or who would be consulted. It is not the framework we need to build confidence in our regulatory system at home or abroad. These amendments represent a step backwards. They prioritise an abstract notion of flexibility over the real-world needs of businesses, consumers and our economy. They threaten to create a chaotic, fragmented regulatory environment that would disadvantage British industry and weaken our position in global trade.
I support the amendments I referred to that bear my name. I believe they offer a practical and balanced approach to regulating products in the United Kingdom. They would provide clarity for businesses by establishing alignment with EU product standards as the default position while, of course, maintaining the flexibility to diverge where clear benefits can be demonstrated. The EU remains our largest trading partner, as I have said, and its regulatory standards often set the tone for international markets. Aligning with those standards simplifies trade not only within Europe but globally; many third countries recognise those rules, and British businesses benefit from this de facto international benchmark. Diverging from EU standards risks isolating our industries, as I have said, and placing UK businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
The financial case for these amendments is equally clear. Without regulatory alignment, businesses face the double burden of not only having to navigate two distinct sets of standards but it not being bureaucratic. It is expensive: the Government’s impact assessment has shown that duplicating conformity assessments alone could cost businesses up to £1.6 billion over the next decade. There are many small and medium-sized enterprises that we should be particularly concerned about. These costs are insurmountable and may even deter them from exporting altogether. Our amendments would mitigate those risks by creating a framework of consistency and certainty.
I welcome the decision by the previous Government— my Government—to extend the recognition of CE marking indefinitely. This amendment would build on that precedent, turning an ad hoc decision into clear, predictable policy.
It has already been referred to but I draw your Lordships’ attention to the situation in Northern Ireland, where alignment with EU product standards is already a reality under the Windsor Framework. This approach would complement the Windsor Framework, ensuring that businesses operating across Great Britain and Northern Ireland have a consistent regulatory environment; reducing friction and confusion; and avoiding separate rules governing different parts of our country. I am sure noble Lords agree that that is desirable.
Our amendments are pro-business, pro-trade and pro-consumer. They reflect the realities of our interconnected world and would ensure that the UK remains an attractive place to invest, trade and innovate.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. Tempted as I am to follow his lead and comment on some of the other amendments in this group—other than the ones I put my name to, that is—I shall resist that temptation. My intention is to speak to Amendment 17 only and, even then, in a restricted way.
Before I do so, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on his new appointment. He and I have debated consistently and for a period a number of issues; I will miss those opportunities because it is unlikely that I will be back in this space, in policy terms, in future.
I do not intend to rehearse in any detail the arguments that have already been made. I just want to emphasise why this amendment is squarely consonant with the aims of this Bill and will increase our agility in providing British businesses with a greater degree of certainty. As my noble friend the Minister outlined at Second Reading, the Bill aims to underpin the UK’s position at the forefront of international trade and enable the recognition of EU product requirements where it is in the UK’s interests to do so. It is precisely in that spirit that I added my name to Amendment 17; in the short time I will detain the Committee for, I shall attempt to explain why I believe that this provision will smooth our path to accomplishing these goals. Perhaps most importantly, the Bill in general—and Amendment 17 in particular—aims to move beyond the wrangling consequent upon Brexit and to provide our businesses and industrial sector with the certainty they need and crave.
I have had occasion in other contexts to make the case that regulatory certainty does not diminish our economic strength but is a prerequisite for those businesses on which our economic strength depends. The certainty that Amendment 17 would provide will not inhibit economic animal spirits but will allow businesses to plan and co-ordinate their commercial activity with the same confidence that their competitors in the EU and elsewhere currently enjoy. It is for that reason that the 50,000 businesses represented by the British Chambers of Commerce, and those businesses belonging to the Engineering and Machinery Alliance, support the policy of dynamic alignment, which would be instituted by the adoption of this amendment. We have tried the inverse of this approach and ought to have learned the lessons.
The brave new world of a UK-only system for the regulation of goods and products was widely disregarded by domestic businesses, who overwhelmingly chose to continue to conform with the CE mark because it allowed them access to an exponentially larger market. Indeed, the previous Government’s own regulatory impact assessment in this area showed that some overseas suppliers stated their intention to limit product supply to GB if CE was no longer recognised. Overall, the then Government’s best estimate was that around 18,500 UK manufacturers were involved in affected industries and that the average annual value of all manufactured goods imported into the UK subject to UKCA or CE requirements was £110 billion, with around half of these imports from the EU. In 2019, products that were subject to UK or CE requirements represented around a quarter of all UK-imported goods. As we have heard, the previous Government’s own impact assessments of duplicative conformity and labour time, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, drew our attention, estimated total costs of up to £1.6 billion over the next decade. As your Lordships’ Committee is aware, in May 2024, after repeatedly extending the deadline to transition to the UKCA, the UK Government admitted defeat and indefinitely extended the recognition of CE goods in GB markets.
As I said at Second Reading, I have lost track of the number of Conservative Ministers I have seen in my 27 years in Parliament announcing their determination to kindle a bonfire of regulations, to take an axe to red tape, or some similarly strenuous deregulation measure. If that really is their desire, there are few things better calculated than this amendment to obviate the need for business to undertake rigorous conformity assessments and, consequently, smooth the path for frictionless trade. As such, this amendment preserves the intentions of the Bill to update our regulations according to a calculus of national self-interest, giving our businesses regulatory certainty while still allowing us to diverge from EU regulations when it is to our advantage.
At the risk of repeating an element of my remarks from Second Reading, we have seen a parallel scenario emerge in respect of our chemical regulations. The last Government decided to leave REACH, the EU’s body dictating the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulations, to set up a parallel organisation. Since then, we have not adopted a single registered restriction on a harmful substance, compared with 10 new protections offered by EU regulation, including on harmful microplastics deliberately added to products. While REACH has regulated PFAS in the EU, not a single river or water body in England is in good chemical health. Since we left REACH, the EU has initiated 23 risk assessments related to harmful substances, while we have initiated just three. It may be that this is a function of a more vibrant, freebooting approach, or that we have superior data or a more effective methodology, but I fear it may just be that our duplicate body has simply proven less effective, which in turn imperils the safety of people in this country.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in my name and primarily that of my noble friend Lord Frost, particularly Amendment 4. It would not be fruitful to relitigate the Brexit wars, and certainly, those of us who have tabled these amendments do not wish to do so. We are looking at this Bill and its proposals. It is notable to remember that it is not the Government who are moving Amendment 17 and its consequent later amendment, but other noble Lords.
I shall just specifically talk about the amendment to Clause 1(2). It is actually quite a loose and opaque concept to talk about tabling an amendment to the Bill which talks about mitigating or reducing the “environmental impact of products”, because there is quite a degree of confusion about that specific phrase. There is also a significant question as to why there is a specific carve-out for this in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Frost raised this issue specifically with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, in his letter of 16 October, and asked why it was necessary to have a separate provision to deal with this. My concern about this clause is that there is the prospect, if it remains in the Bill, not only that we may replicate very narrowly drawn product safety regulations as regards the environment, but that, due to mission creep, it can develop a lot of other particular areas. That may be music to the ears of the noble Baroness who represents the Greens, but it may extend to a supply chain’s due diligence, or to vehicle standards, artificial intelligence or deforestation. Those are all very wide areas where there would be a significant impact from what looks like a pretty innocuous clause. Therefore, I would like the Minister to address that particular issue, because it is very important.
To go back to the clause that is referenced in the amendment from my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I am not sure that they have been witnessing the same situation with the regulatory regime and this Labour Government since 4 July. We are already seeing de facto alignment. We are seeing alignment on a common charger for electrical devices, the vote to leave the energy charter treaty and rules on organic pet food. We are seeing delayed divergence on Section 6 of the retained EU law Act, which is about paying due regard to European Court of Justice decisions vis-à-vis the UK courts; recognition of CE-marked construction products; the suspension of mandatory recycling labels; changes and delays to the implementation of the Windsor Framework; delays to the border target operating model; regulation on deforestation-free products delayed; and entry and exit schemes delayed.
The idea that this Government are presiding over a mass large-scale divergence is completely not the case. For a speech that was meant to take the political heat out of the debate, I think it was quite a political speech by the noble Lord, partly relitigating the long battles over Brexit we had. I do not think it is an ignoble aim for us, in laying these amendments in Committee, to make a point about the geopolitical changes in the United States with the election of President-elect Trump and the focus on deregulation and fewer and more flexible regulations. There are economic difficulties in the European Union, particularly in Germany, which has had some significant encumbrances in terms of all manner of economic data. To tie our regulatory regime to just one market—the European Union, where we have no control, no say and no voice—in a Bill in which there are huge numbers of Henry VIII and discretionary powers to be exercised by Ministers that are effectively unamendable is a risk. That is the risk, and it is the risk of this amendment.
The fundamental flaw of this amendment is that it is asymmetrical and unbalanced. My noble friend Lord Kirkhope used the word balanced. I do not think it is balanced; it is incongruous because there is an inherent presumption—a requirement in this amendment —for us to accept dynamic alignment. At least the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, was honest that it is dynamic alignment. It is Chequers 2.0. In this amendment, we are being asked to support Chequers enunciated in primary legislation. I believe that is wrong.
The reason I think that there is a flaw and that it is incongruous is that if noble Lords look at Amendment 17, in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause there is a requirement to lay a statement before Parliament within 14 days about why a decision not to replicate EU law under proposed new subsection (2) is necessary. Funnily enough, there is not a similar requirement to lay a statement if it is decided to diverge from European Union regulations. I say to my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that the amendment would have been a lot stronger and a lot more robust to criticism by this side and perhaps even Ministers if that had been in the amendment. It is not, and for that reason it is a regrettable amendment. It seeks to tie us to a shrinking market which, by dollar denomination, will be about 14% of world trade within the next 10 or 12 years. That is not something we can put in the Bill. For that reason, I will not support it.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I shall quickly respond to the noble Lord. One of the reasons why I asked the Minister for some detail about the breadth and depth of the consultation his department has had with business was to find out what business really thinks. I would say, in riposte to the noble Lord, that the key thing that should drive decisions on whether we align with the European Union or any other jurisdiction should primarily be what business is telling the Government. Businesses have a far better idea of the economic state, presently and potentially, of the markets they do business with. In fact, they have a much better idea than either Ministers or civil servants. From my point of view of trying to speak on behalf of business, listening to them on what they think should be the priority would seem the sensible thing to do.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his generous allocation of time the other day to discuss some of the issues; I am very grateful for that and to his officials. I apologise for missing the debate on group 1 because of train delays for hours, but I rise now because my Amendment 6 cannot be called if Amendment 4 is agreed. I will speak to Amendment 9, which would disallow regulations that disadvantage the UK under its trade treaties. I will highlight the CPTPP and the UK’s main bilateral trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand. I support Amendments 15 and 37 in the name of my noble friend Lord Frost, and I add my Amendment 39 to prevent dynamic alignment with the EU.
The aim of these amendments is to ensure that the UK can help shape and promote free trade globally to the benefit of free trade under a rules-based agreement at international level. That is inconsistent with locking the UK into the EU’s protectionist arrangements, even on a case-by-case basis, I fear. They are different; they are under code-based legal systems and they are shaped by different legal thinking from that underpinning UK law, which is more pro-entrepreneurial and innovation-open. I do not believe we should saddle UK producers and consumers with the cost of complex EU protectionist law rather than be open to the best and most similar arrangements elsewhere—foreign laws—or our own laws that can benefit our economy.
I shall give an example of what I mean by protectionist and inward-looking EU law and then look at how it affects growth figures and jobs; I disagree with noble Lords who suggest otherwise. One illustration comes from the EU’s digital commerce and AI sector. The damage was annotated in a September 2024 study, Rules Without End: EU’s Reluctance to Let Go of Regulation, by two EU-friendly economists, Guinea and du Roy. They concluded that,
“the EU rulebook added 562 new pages and 511 new articles on Data & Privacy; as well as 271 new pages and 247 new articles on E-commerce and Consumer Protection”,
amounting to nearly 2,500 new restrictions for data and privacy and 1,200 for e-commerce and consumer protection. The cost was highlighted former MEP Luis Garicano, who concluded that this coincided with a 50% drop in the number of new apps coming onto the market. Meanwhile, the report said, a study by the Bank of Spain,
“found that each additional regulatory provision was associated with a 0.7 percent decline in the employment rate of the affected sector”.
Other noble Lords with whom I disagree have tried to draw our attention to employment rates. The Ernst & Young investment monitor for 2024 indicated that the UK had the largest number of jobs created by FDI in 2023. The UK was at 52,000, France was at 40,000 and Germany was at 14,000. Project numbers in the UK were increasing; in France and Germany, they were falling.
The other indicator to which I would like to draw your Lordships’ attention—I hope the Minister will look sympathetically on these amendments—is GDP share. The EU’s declining share of global GDP is mirrored in its recent growth figures. Whereas UK growth in the year ending June 2024 was 0.7%—yes, that is disappointing—the eurozone’s was behind that, despite having three G7 members among its number. In the third quarter—that is, since June—figures for UK growth are up by 0.5% and the eurozone’s by a disappointing 0.2%. For those reasons, there is a strong economic case for not locking us into the EU’s protectionist arrangements. Despite the best will in the world in Brussels to move out of them, the EU seems to get stymied each time by ever greater protection, as these studies suggest.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, with the explicit kind invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I rise to provide an environmental perspective and broadly support Amendments 17 and 127. Since it is the first time I have spoken in Committee, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to his new role. Given the range of subjects I cover, we have discussed many things before and we will have new subjects to cover. I also apologise to the Minister: I was aware of the long time that he devoted to consultation; like the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, however, transport interfered with my attendance. There is a lot of it around, I am afraid.
I will comment broadly on the amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and others on this side of the Committee. I am not in favour of all those amendments. I suspect it will not surprise many people to hear that but I suggest respectfully to the noble Lord that he might be picking the wrong battlefield when it comes to tethered bottle tops. I am not sure that being the noble Lord in favour of litter is something that he would like to adopt, given that if you look, for example, at a marine conservation study from 2023, bottle tops were the third most littered item found on beaches. Indeed, the NGO Seas At Risk found it was the third most common plastic item in the seas, causing damage to wildlife. So I suggest a small, practical and sensible measure. If the noble Lord is finding it difficult to manage these new bottle tops, there is a TikToker whose handle is @andreilifehack. He has 8 million followers and a neat little trick of how to manage a tethered bottle top. I should be happy to share that link with the noble Lord.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I am going to take a moderate, practical approach to this. Picking up the point he made about the advantages to businesses, we particularly look at small and medium enterprises in the UK, which have suffered enormously and lost a huge amount of trade following Brexit. Regulatory confusion and uncertainty does not help them, whereas larger businesses may be able to cope. The certainty that his amendment could help to provide would be useful to those small and medium-sized enterprises.
Picking up on environmental health and, indeed, more broadly, the one-health aspect of this and being pragmatic—the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, focused on chemical regulation and as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has amendments on that later in the Bill, I am not going to get into the detail of that now—harmful chemicals and industrial processes are damaging public health in the UK. We have huge problems. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to the state of our rivers, then there is air pollution and the contamination levels in our food. All these things have big impacts on public as well as environmental health. Again being pragmatic and thinking about the fact that both the two largest parties in your Lordships’ House often reflect on the number of people who are not in employment because of ill health and who are not contributing to the economy as a result, taking steps to improve public health, and environmental health as part of that, is an extremely pragmatic step. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, we are trailing significantly behind the EU in important areas of that.
I said I would be brief, so I will stop there because I have more to say on these areas in the next group.
Lord Fox (LD)
As noble Lords can probably imagine, I have been looking forward to this group for ages, and I thank noble Lords for not disappointing. I put my name to Amendments 17 and 127 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and tabled my own Amendment 94. I think the valedictory remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about leaving this Bill may have been premature because Amendment 16, which is group 9, explicitly deals with the REACH issue, which I know he is so passionate about. I would like him to join me in probing the REACH elements of this, so I hope he can put off his exit from the Bill.
The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and others have stated that they wish to re-engage with our largest market, which is the EU. Their aim, and our aim on these Benches, is to remove friction to make life easier for British business. Thereby costs will be kept to a minimum, markets will be more accessible and growth, which we all agree is vital for our future, can be more easily achieved. I was delighted today when the Treasury spokesperson, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, endorsed the role of this Bill in helping the Government make those moves to re-engage with the EU. It was reassuring that he sees the importance of this Bill in that process. That is a very good mark to put on what we are doing.
We heard some excellent speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord Browne and Lord Kirkhope, in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. The UK Government are introducing legislation to guide the future regulation of standards for thousands of products when they are sold in the UK market. It should go without saying that creating different standards for UK businesses hoping to sell in both the UK and the EU works counter to this. Consistent standards that apply across both markets will give business the ability and certainty to sell in both those markets.
Never mind the dolphins. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, brought up the issue of tethered bottle tops. As far as I am aware, there is no regulation in this country to require tethered bottle tops. The reason we have them is because business knows how costly it would be to have two forms of a drink being sold in one market here and one market there. Business understands, even if some noble Lords do not, the true cost of having two different regulations. When it can do without them, it does, and the one it chooses is that of the biggest market, which is very rarely in the United Kingdom.
This legislation is an opportunity for the Government, if they move in the right direction, to reduce the red tape and the bureaucracy that the current version of Brexit has created for British business. We should be under no illusion that Brexit has made it much harder for businesses to export into the European Union.
The wording of this amendment does not bind the hands of Government. As noble Lords have observed, there is absolutely the opportunity to diverge and move away from the regulations in the European Union, if that is to the advantage of the United Kingdom. This is a common-sense amendment that provides regulatory certainty for UK businesses by requiring a default of alignment with EU regulations and a process for parliamentary scrutiny, if or when Ministers determine that divergence from such regulation would be in the best interests of the UK. That is what business tells us it wants—and I hope that the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, asked will continue with that. It also seems to be what the public wants. A poll published today in the i newspaper says that when people were asked where was more important to Britain economically, 57% opted for Europe, with 34% opting for the US, for example. There are lots of good reasons for the Government to support these amendments, because they provide a foundation for economic growth by ensuring that businesses can plan and invest with confidence about where the regulatory regime is going and what kind of regulations are going to apply in the United Kingdom.
Before I come very briefly to Amendment 94, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I could not help but be lured into addressing some of the comments made by the noble Lords seated just behind me. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, were very interesting. His comments about the environment and how appropriate it is to take into consideration things such as deforestation were interesting, and I shall be interested to see whether the Opposition Front Bench endorse the comments that he made, or whether they will distance themselves from them—because I think that is quite important.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
For someone who is usually very astute, who listens to my views and is very kind in saying that they are interesting, I think that the noble Lord may have got the proverbial wrong end of the stick. I was not making a value judgment on whether it was appropriate to put environmental standards in this Bill. The substantive kernel of my comments was that it was unclear as to what the definition of environmental standards was—it was not saying that they were good or bad for things such as deforestation.
Lord Fox (LD)
I may have misunderstood—I shall certainly look at Hansard afterwards. But it would be useful for the Opposition Front Bench to explain where they sit in that regard.
I always listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, carefully, but I was confused on a couple of issues that she used as examples. The first example was a very long discussion of digital regulation in the European Union—but digital regulation is not a part of this Bill. The second example was the CPTPP, which we all know is not designed to have mutually enforced standards—standards are not a part of the CPTPP, so I am not sure how this Bill reflects on that at all. This is probably a conversation that we can have outwith this debate, because I am speaking to the point—the point being that we can have trade deals with all sorts of places, multilateral and bilateral, with or without taking into consideration alignment with the EU. However, we cannot have trade in the EU if we do not have the right regulations. That is the point on which I wanted to end, in that regard.
I turn briefly to Amendment 94, which is simply a probing amendment to understand how the Government will monitor and approach the developing international standards. To some extent we have heard about issues around whether we should adopt those standards, but we should certainly understand them—that is my thing—and we should know what standards are governing the products that are coming into our country and how they relate to our standards. Clearly, we are importing a lot of things from a lot of places that are not in the EU, from around the world, and we really need to understand under what level of governance those international standards are maintaining the sorts of things that we care about within product regulation.
To close, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has done this Committee a great service in tabling his amendments; I am very pleased to be one of their co-signatories.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
May I clarify something? I specified that e-commerce was part of this study, in line with other digital arrangements. Many producers sell their goods through e-commerce.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, before I start, I thank all noble Lords, who have been incredibly generous to me this afternoon and this evening. I am immensely flattered.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that, having been on the wrong end of a couple of punishment beatings by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I am a changed man. I have seen the light. I am reformed. I urge the Government to follow my lead and reform themselves.
This has been a most interesting debate. I thank all noble Lords for introducing their amendments and points of view with such admirable clarity. I thank in particular my noble friends Lord Frost and Lady Lawlor for their amendments. I have signed Amendments 4, 9, 15 and 42; I will explain why.
These amendments would ensure that we maintain our competitiveness on the global stage without being governed solely by EU standards. Amendment 4 seeks to remove a broadly drawn power that allows the Secretary of State to align UK product regulations with EU environmental laws. The provision, as currently drafted, could potentially lead to extensive regulatory alignment on environmental standards without proper parliamentary scrutiny or oversight. I am sorry to harp on about this but the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has expressed significant concerns about this clause, stating that it grants
“Ministers maximum flexibility to choose the direction that the law will take”.
Specifically, the committee warned that this could allow Ministers to align UK law “completely” with EU regulations, even when that may not be in the best interests of the UK or its regulatory framework. Through an overreliance on EU standards, we risk locking ourselves into a regulatory framework that does not necessarily reflect our national interests; of course, we acknowledge that it also might.
Amendment 6 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lawlor and Amendments 15, 36, 37 and 42 in the name of my noble friend Lord Frost are critical for positioning the UK as a global leader in product regulation and consumer protection. They would allow the UK to benefit from the best practices in product safety and environmental regulation from across the world, including from the US, Canada, Japan and other advanced economies. By allowing broader access to international standards, we would ensure that the UK can adapt to global trends and provide consumers with high-quality products. There should be no reason for the Government to oppose such an amendment—unless they are looking for dynamic alignment with the EU.
Amendment 15 is an excellent amendment that would ensure that the UK’s trade agreements with key partners are not undermined by regulations introduced under Clause 1. Those agreements represent some of the most dynamic and rapidly growing economies in the world; ensuring that we do not disadvantage our position with these treaties is crucial to the future growth and success of our global trade. This amendment is about maintaining and strengthening the UK’s competitiveness on the global stage.
The countries involved in these trade agreements, such as those in the CPTPP, are the fastest-growing economies in the world. In ensuring that regulations do not undermine our standing in these markets, the UK is better positioned to take advantage of these growing economies. If we align rigidly with Europe in this way—this is not an ideological point but a practical one—we risk missing opportunities in these markets, where growth is happening at a much faster pace than in the EU.
My noble friends Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor hinted at this, and I also looked at some of the figures. To put things into perspective on the US versus the EU, in 1982, US and European Union GDPs were broadly similar. However, fast forward to today and the US’s economy is now roughly 45% larger than the EU’s, both in nominal terms and on a per capita basis. Those figures are from the World Bank. Purchasing power parity in the US is 38% larger than in the EU. The US has outpaced the EU significantly in its economic growth. I am not saying that this is due solely to differing regulatory regimes—of course it is not. These numbers encapsulate many varying factors, but it cannot be denied that regulation plays a major part in economic development. The simple conclusion is not that we should slavishly align with the US, just that we should retain flexibility.
The argument is clear: the EU is not the only partner with which the UK should align. We are seeing stronger growth opportunities in markets such as the US, Japan and Australia, with countries that are part of key trade agreements such as the CPTPP and in other areas. Given that the Government have talked extensively about boosting the UK’s growth prospects post Brexit—arguments with which we wholeheartedly agree—it is difficult to understand why they would not support an amendment that protects the UK’s position in these high-growth markets.
If the UK is to remain competitive, it must have the flexibility—which I do not believe is an abstract notion, as claimed by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope—to engage with the most dynamic global markets, rather than being rigidly shackled solely to the EU. There is no logical reason to oppose this amendment, unless there is an ideological fixation on aligning solely with the EU.
This amendment gives the UK the flexibility to take advantage of the best international practices without being locked into EU-centric frameworks that might not be in our best interests in the long term. I urge the Government to accept Amendment 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord Frost.
I will speak briefly on Amendment 17. I have great respect for the arguments made by all its proponents—my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord Browne and Lord Fox, and others. In fact, I agree with their reasons for proposing the amendment, but it is perfectly reasonable to arrive at different conclusions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who is no longer in her place but who, in an earlier debate, said that we should reset our relationship with the EU. Of course we should but, for the reasons that I have outlined, this is the wrong way to do it.
I oppose Amendment 17, which proposes to replicate EU law in relation to relevant product regulations. The notion of mandating such alignment with EU regulations post Brexit is not only inappropriate but, we believe, detrimental to the UK’s ability to independently shape its regulatory future. The amendment, by insisting on replicating EU law as the default position, undermines the very essence of the UK’s independence post Brexit. It will inevitably involve importing aspects of EU law that do not suit this country’s future. The entire purpose of leaving the European Union was to take control of our laws, regulations and trade policies. This amendment would force us to retain EU regulatory alignment, unless Ministers could justify divergence—a process that still places undue reliance on the EU framework. Our focus should be on maximising global competitiveness and exploring new trade opportunities, not tying ourselves to EU standards that might not be in our best interests while also accepting that they might.
Finally, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that the new leader of the Opposition is well aware of what we are doing. I urge the Government to accept the amendments that I have signed, as I believe they are pro-business, pro-trade and pro-consumer.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness for their amendments in this group. Products in the scope of the Bill are used by every person in this country, covering nearly all manufactured products. We estimate that at least 300,000 UK businesses, employing several million employees, with an estimated market turnover of £490 billion, must adhere to product safety legislation.
The product safety review call for evidence in 2020 and 2021 received something like 158 responses; 126 responses were received in response to the product safety review consultation in 2023; 53 engagement events were held, reaching about 400 stakeholders; and, throughout last year, my department undertook 46 round tables with more than 300 stakeholders, both domestically and internationally. I want to set the picture so that all noble Lords know that we undertook reviews before the Bill was brought to Parliament.
Many businesses and consumer organisations support the Bill, seeing it as a common-sense approach to ensuring that the existing body of product regulation is fit for purpose in the face of technological and other changes. I emphasise again that the Government have been very clear that the UK will not rejoin the EU single market, customs union or freedom of movement. It is important to reset our relations with our nearest friends and neighbours, but that does not mean a return to the arrangements of the past.
Let us not forget that the bulk of UK product regulation is derived from EU law. This is precisely the reason the legislation explicitly references that jurisdiction and not others. If the UK makes a sovereign decision to mirror EU provisions, the Bill provides the mechanism and flexibility, on a case-by-case basis, to do so. This would avoid primary legislation each time technical changes are needed and would increase the certainty that businesses are crying out for. I hope noble Lords will support this pragmatic approach.
However, it is not our default position that we will mirror EU requirements. The Government will be guided by the needs of businesses and consumers, which may differ. Nothing in the Bill prevents the UK diverging from EU requirements. The Government’s approach, whether to mirror or diverge, will be driven by evidence, subject to industry engagement, as discussed earlier in group 1, and support our mission to drive economic growth and provide consistency and certainty to businesses.
I turn to the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. The Bill provides powers that will give the UK greater flexibility in setting and updating its own product-related rules. It also enables the UK to choose to recognise relevant EU product requirements where it is in the interest of our businesses and consumers to do so. The Government have strong relationships with stakeholders, including industry, trade associations and consumer groups, and will continue to engage with them before any regulatory changes are brought to this House.
Amendment 4 proposes removing the powers in the Bill that would allow us to update regulations that address the environmental impact of products where similar provision exists in EU law. Amendment 6 proposes broadening these powers to update UK regulations to mirror any international jurisdiction. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, talked about environmental impact, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her contribution which leaves me with very little to say here, except that many products are required to meet multiple product regulations, including those which may address the environmental impact of products.
As I have noted, most UK product legislation is derived from EU law. The powers in Clause 1(2) are intended to be used in limited circumstances where there is a corresponding or similar provision in EU product regulations for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products. This ensures that the power could be exercised to create regulatory certainty and manage changes to EU rules we recognise.
This power is limited in this way as we do not wish to create powers to regulate on wider environmental objectives. This already exists, for example, under the Environment Act. Clause 1(2) in no way obliges the UK to recognise or to mirror EU provisions. We have been clear that such decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis and subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate, even though it may have had a slightly retro feel to those who lived through it all in 2019 and 2020.
I have a couple of quick points. On Amendment 37, if it is genuinely the Government’s view that this clause is not intended to and does not give the power to create ambulatory references, it seems we agree on substance—but maybe it could be clearer in the Bill.
On my question about the Windsor Framework, I gently suggest that the Minister has not quite answered the point. It is not about mirroring in GB; it is about goods that are able to circulate in Northern Ireland and therefore can circulate in the rest of the UK without further ado. I would appreciate it if that could be clarified further. I will not prolong this debate, even though I suspect we will return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(2) The Secretary of State may also by regulations make provision, in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom, for the purpose of—(a) reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products;(b) promoting sustainable production and consumption;(c) advancing circular economy principles;(d) meeting or exceeding environmental standards set by relevant EU law or other international best practices.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expressly allows the government to exceed EU environmental standards, and adds circular economy principles to the face of the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 5 I will also speak to Amendments 28, 30, 50, 115 and 125, which are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I am very aware of the time and the risk of a vote being called, so I am abbreviating this on the understanding that we may be able to have discussions later.
In the interests of time I did not speak on the first group, but the noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke about this Bill—rather than being a framework Bill or one that is filled with Henry VIII powers—as providing guard-rails. Many will see the amendments in this group as providing a set of environmental guard-rails. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, said that the Bill needed policy direction, and that is essentially what these amendments do.
I take the Minister’s point about there being a level of detail that is not appropriate to include in legislation rather than regulation. I spent this morning with Westminster Forum Projects talking about deposit return schemes and extended producer responsibility. I learned about RAM—recyclability assessment methodology. Those are things that certainly need to be in the regulations, but they need to be the guard-rails here.
These amendments will be classed as environmental amendments, but they are also amendments about things such as the right to repair and tackling utterly unnecessary planned obsolescence, which is deeply costly to consumers. These are also amendments that start to address the cost of living crisis and are real principles for people today. I was going to go through the amendments in considerable detail, but the arguments for right to repair and against planned obsolescence are really obvious so, given the time, I will address just the circular economy elements, which run as a line through these amendments.
It is worth saying that the environmental improvement plan contains a target to reduce residual waste, excluding construction waste, to 437 kilogrammes per capita by 2028, but in 2022 this figure stood at 558.8 kilogrammes. That was only 2.8% down on 2019. In three years, that was all the progress that had been made towards the target of circularity, which is only three years away.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is no longer in his place, was talking about EU rules on deforestation. In 2021, UK consumption was associated with 30,000 hectares of deforestation, with all the climate and nature impacts that we understand. If we look at the climate aspect, the treatment and disposal of waste resources is separately responsible for 5% of all UK greenhouse gas emissions. The cost of that treatment and disposal of waste is borne very often by the public, when actually a few companies are profiting from the production.
I briefly mention, because I promised to do so, that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who is unable to be with us for this group, wanted to stress the importance of construction. Although it is excluded from that waste target, there are difficulties because so many problems with, and failures of, design are happening in construction. We all know about the safety impacts but they also have huge environmental impacts—and cost impacts, about which many of us know from working with builders.
In the interests of time, I shall stop there. I beg to move Amendment 5.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly on Amendments 30, 115 and 125, which are in my name. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, observed, they are designed to produce guard-rails that significantly strengthen the environmental and sustainability part of the Bill. It seems inconceivable to me that legislation of this kind would not carry these requirements.
Amendment 30, which is the substantive one, would add new subsection (2A) to Clause 2 in order to ensure that future regulations under the Act include provisions that relate to environmental impact assessments, the circular economy and granting consumers the right to repair products. On the latter, despite attempts, the tendency is to continue to find products manufactured with increasingly complex modules that defy cost-effective repair or sensible re-use, which should be an important part of the future economy. This amendment does not dot “i”s or cross “t”s, because that is the role of the actual regulation, but it sets a standard that we should be looking at for the regulation process. That is it; I could go into more detail, but I do not think I have to.
Amendments 115 and 125 are definitions that would help explain what we mean by “circular economy” and “right to repair”. I hope that His Majesty’s Government will find some sympathy with all of this group and find a wording. I am not proud about my words; I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is the same. Let us find a way of putting these proposals into primary legislation because these are really important issues.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for introducing this group. I assure her and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that we on these Benches want to see a bright future for our green and pleasant land. That said, we have some concerns about these amendments.
The first relates to the themes that the Committee has been exploring throughout this session. The Bill confers, as we have discussed at length, extensive Henry VIII powers on the Secretary of State. These amendments are broadly drawn and, we feel, have considerable holes in them. Given the wide Henry VIII powers conferred on the Secretary of State, it is not hard to imagine a world where a crazed zealot occupies the position of Secretary of State—it is not hard to think of those, is it?—and decides to apply these provisions in extreme ways without any scrutiny. We really should not lay ourselves open to that. These decisions should be subject to democratic scrutiny. Opinions will be sure to differ on the definitions of some of the phrases in these things. That is not to say they are wrong; it is just that opinions can, and will, differ.
My second point is that we are concerned that the amendments would impose significant costs on businesses. They will stifle competition and harm growth; obviously, this comes at a time when businesses are grappling with significant challenges. Although the proposals appear virtuous on the surface, in practice, they represent an unnecessary and impractical burden on businesses and consumers. That comes at a time when the country needs growth—a point that has obviously been acknowledged by the Government.
These amendments would create additional regulatory burdens, which would hamper industries already struggling with economic headwinds. I also note—I will expand on this theme in later debates—that the market is already supplying many of the solutions sought through these amendments. We believe that, for the many businesses —especially small and medium-sized enterprises—that are already struggling due to various factors, the cost of compliance with these rigid requirements could be devastating. It is not just businesses that will be affected because, of course, those costs will be passed on to consumers. Before any amendments in this group can be considered, surely we must assess the potential unintended consequences for businesses and consumers.
We have a strong record of delivering improvements for our environment but we on these Benches are clear that we should avoid overburdensome regulation on businesses. That said, informing consumer choice is an important component of efficient markets so, notwithstanding our objections, Amendments 28 and 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, have some merit. He is channelling his Orange Book foundations here. Overall, we would not support these amendments, for the reasons that I have outlined.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an interesting mini debate and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their amendments. I want to remark on the miraculous conversion to regulatory purity of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I can only refer to Luke, chapter 15, which states that
“joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over 90 and nine just persons, which need no repentance”.
I am not a crazed zealot but perhaps in my case, with due acknowledgement to St Augustine, “Oh Lord, make me regulatory pure, but not quite yet.”
We have encapsulated a very interesting debate because I think we all accept the really important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox. On the other hand, there are issues about the wording of the amendment and the unintended consequences, alongside the fact that we believe that current legislation allows us to do what both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness would require us to do.
Amendments 30, 115 and 125 are intended to reduce waste. They promote recyclability, repair and reuse of products, and seek to mandate that all product regulations made under the Bill would require an environmental impact assessment and provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy. Amendment 50 of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to achieve similar by making it a requirement that regulations made under the Bill include provisions to promote circular economy principles. The noble Baroness’s amendment then goes a step further, requiring the Secretary of State to issue guidance on such principles within 12 months, and to review and update that guidance at least once every three years.
Under the duty set out in the Environment Act 2021, Ministers and policymakers must already consider the environmental impact of all new government policies. I certainly empathise with the whole concept of the circular economy, on which both the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke with such eloquence. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has set the reduction of waste by moving to a circular economy as one of Defra’s top five priorities. In fact, the Secretary of State has convened a small ministerial group on the circular economy and asked his department to work with experts from industry and academia to develop a circular economy strategy. I will feed this debate and noble Lords’ contributions into the ministerial task force.
I understand the importance of the right to repair. The product regulations made under the Bill will cover many types of products, some of which may be inappropriate to repair. That is really part of the point; for instance, cosmetics is one example—the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made. The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021 introduced measures including requirements for repairability for the first time in Great Britain. Those regulations contribute towards circular economy objectives by increasing the lifespan, maintenance and waste handling of energy-related products. Our aim is to introduce further right to repair measures when regulating individual products under the ecodesign for energy-related products regulations, where appropriate. That is probably the best way in which to approach it, rather than putting a generic requirement in this piece of legislation.
With regard to Amendments 5 and 28, I reassure noble Lords that the provisions in the Bill do not prevent the UK introducing new environmental regulations. Should we wish to set out broader regulations that exceed or differ from EU rules, we already have powers under other legislation to introduce wider environmental protection rules.
I understand the desire of noble Lords to have something in the Bill in relation to these important issues, but there is a problem of imposing requirements where they cannot reasonably be met or duplicate existing policies. I know that is not the intention, but we think that would be the effect of the amendments before us. We clearly want to avoid conflicting or duplicating regulations. In essence, we agree with the principles put forward by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. We think we are covered by existing legislation and regulations, but I am grateful to them for bringing them forward.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and noble Lords who have taken part in this time-constrained debate. I take some encouragement from the expressions of at least general support. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I look forward to further discussions with the Minister on this issue. That is part of the reason why I tabled a number of amendments taking different approaches and going into different parts of the Bill because of the different ways of approaching it. We are very open to anything that might put in some kind of guard-rail.
If I may say so, the Minister gave a classic Civil Service response: “But it is covered by other legislation”. I point him to the figures I cited about how little progress has been made on waste reduction towards a target that is only three years away. What we are doing now is clearly not enough, and it is not working.
We are talking about the product regulation Bill, and on the point about right to repair and cosmetics, there are obviously different rules to be applied to different products. That is true of any Bill that covers product regulation.
I wish briefly to pick up the points made the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, who suggested that these amendments might produce a further burden on consumers. If consumers found that their fridge lasted longer, for the kind of period that fridges used to last, that would be not a burden but a considerable advantage. If they were able to fix their mobile phone instead of having to pay a multinational company a large sum of money for a new one, that would certainly not be a burden on consumers. It would perhaps be a rebalancing of the Government acting in the interests of consumers rather than those of giant multinational producers.
We can see clearly that this is a debate that will continue, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 5.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I say at once that I pay due regard to the Civil Service and the advice I receive, but these are the words of Ministers. There is a judgment here that you do not want to add legislation where you already have it. The point the noble Baroness makes is that the legislation is not being used effectively. The whole point of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’s task force is to look at the progress we are making and to refocus in relation to the circular economy. I hope the noble Baroness will not think that this is a damp squib of an answer because we take what she says very seriously. Of course, we will be happy to meet her and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to discuss this important matter further.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that my fridge is more than 20 years old, and I have a very good mobile-phone repairer.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I guess the noble Lord has chosen his products well and been extraordinarily lucky. I am afraid some of my fridges have not lasted anything like so long.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Wales: Coal Tip Safety
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent meetings they have had with Welsh Government Ministers regarding coal tip safety.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales has regular discussions with the First Minister of Wales on a range of topics, including matters related to coal tip safety. The Government are committed to resetting the relationship with the Welsh Government, based on trust and mutual respect. That was evident in the Budget last month, where we allocated £25 million to the Welsh Government for essential work to keep disused coal tips maintained and safe.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Coal tips are a legacy in Wales of our mining past, and that pre-dates devolution. There are more than 2,500 disused coal tips in Wales, and 10% of those pose a risk to communities and infrastructure. Your Lordships will remember the Aberfan disaster, a tragedy that was caused by ignored warnings about safety, neglect, and a lack of investment. For those living literally in the shadow of coal tips, we must not let history repeat itself. The announced £25 million that the Minister just noted is far short of the £600 million required to make those sites safe. Would I be correct in saying that the funding covers only the inspection and initial maintenance? If so, do His Majesty’s Government accept their moral and financial responsibility to fully fund the necessary remediation?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question, but I will have to disagree with some of it. The reality is that the £25 million announced in last month’s Budget is a demonstration of a Welsh Labour Government working hand in hand with a Westminster Labour Government. It is in addition to the £44.4 million that the Welsh Government have spent on coal tip safety, which is what this is about, over the last three years. The £600 million that has been referred to relates to the remediation and regeneration of the sites. That is a different conversation, separate to the ongoing maintenance of coal tip safety, and those conversations are ongoing with the Welsh Government.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, since the tragedy of Aberfan in 1966, one of the great successes in Wales has been the greening, removing and making safe of those coal tips. Apart from the very helpful amount in the Budget, have the Government been able to offer anything else to allay the concerns of the Welsh Government?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. This £25 million, for which the Welsh Government asked for years but did not receive from the last Government, is a demonstration of us working to support the Welsh Government and the people of Wales. The £25 million is about the safety and security of the tips and ongoing maintenance. We will continue to work with the Welsh Government to ensure that the regeneration of these sites remains an ongoing discussion and delivery for the Welsh Government and for the Labour Government in this country.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, in memory of Mansel Aylward, who, as a medical student, was the person who crawled into the school only to discover that the children were all dead, as was the teacher, what research is being undertaken now to look at more effective ways of monitoring the coal tips? With the change in climate, we have ever-increasing rainstorms and the water flow, which was partly responsible, is creating a greater, not lesser, danger in those valleys, where the memory of what happened in Aberfan remains as sharp today as it ever was.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am the granddaughter of a miner and appreciate everything that the noble Baroness just said, especially about the impact of Aberfan, which we remember every year on the anniversary. Our hearts and prayers go out to the families and we can only imagine their ongoing grief. I reassure your Lordships’ House that the coal tips are currently safe—this work is to ensure their ongoing safety and maintenance. New technologies will be at the forefront of this, and I was delighted to see reports only this week that new satellite technology is now being used to analyse the coal tips to make sure that we are securing all those that we believe to be currently safe and those where we are most concerned.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
Would the Minister be good enough to take the time to commend the work of the Aberfan Memorial Charity? Its members have found the time, amid all they have to do to commemorate that terrible event, to work with the Grenfell Tower community and the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission, which I have the honour of co-chairing, so that we can support each other at a time when, all too often, people feel neglected and forgotten.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I put on record our thanks to the noble Lord for the work he has done with the Grenfell survivors and their families. There is nothing more painful than tragedy in the form of Grenfell or Aberfan. In terms of moving on and dealing with that level of grief, supporting each other and others gives a vehicle and a voice. I am —I would not say delighted—proud to be able to put on record our thanks to both the Aberfan community and the Grenfell survivors’ groups which are continuing to ensure that this never happens again.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships but this is a subject new to me so perhaps the Minister could help me. The £600 million she refers to is for regeneration and the £25 million and the £44 million from the Welsh Senedd is for ongoing safety and maintenance. What is the actual figure to ensure the safety of the pits referenced in this Question so that we do not have a repeat of disasters past?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I apologise for the confusion. The funding commitments are £44.5 million in the last three years from the Welsh Government and £25 million now from the British Government. The £500 million to £600 million the noble Baroness referred to is an aspirational number for future investment in remedial and regeneration works. It does not exist.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, if it transpires that, after the expenditure of the £25 million, and possibly £40 million, which the Minister said the Welsh Government were putting into the pot, a need is identified for substantially more urgent expenditure to guarantee safety, will more money be forthcoming?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
This is not a one-off conversation. We have regular conversations with the Welsh Government related to coal tip safety. This is an ongoing debate, and we have given this money because it is a national safety issue. We will continue to work with the Welsh Government to ensure that people in Wales are safe.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I too remember the Aberfan disaster, and my own childhood worries that the completely blameless hill behind my Welsh primary school might collapse on to my school one day, so I welcome the way in which the Government have listened to campaigners on coal tip safety, and the measures in the Budget—building, as they did, on our work as part of the joint task force. It is a good start. May I ask for the indulgence of the Minister, in the spirit of listening to campaigners for measures to increase investment in Wales: will she commit to helping to find new funding from the UK Government to make the M4 corridor around Newport a reality?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question—I think. Obviously, I do not have a response to that, but I will speak to Transport Ministers and come back to her.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I understand that our Labour Government have given a boost to the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme, but I do not seem to have read much about it in the newspapers. I wonder whether the Minister could give us more details.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
As someone who campaigned on this issue in the other place, I was delighted that in the first Labour Budget for 15 years we announced that the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme will receive an uplift of 32% for pensioners—an average of £29 per week, or £1,506 per year—which was funded from the scheme, but the previous Government refused to allow the trustees to move forward in that way. It is a welcome move for many thousands of people up and down the country.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Chancellor on giving the £25 million, just for next year? I believe that is the first tranche, and that there will be more to come. I am so pleased that this Government have recognised the need to provide the money so that we can have safe coal tips, certainly where I live. I am from the Rhondda Valley, surrounded by coal tips, and there is still a danger, as we saw only a few years ago in Tylorstown, when the coal tip slipped. Thankfully, no one was harmed. I am so pleased that the Chancellor has agreed to pay the money, knowing that the Welsh Government on their own cannot deliver the funding for that need. Will the Minister confirm that this will be continuous now—it is not just for next year but for years to come?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. This is a matter of keeping people safe. We have touched on Aberfan, and the impact that had on communities and on many people around your Lordships’ House. The subject of future funding will be raised in the spending review, and I look forward to those discussions with my noble friends in the Treasury.
Counter-Extremism Strategy
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goodman of Wycombe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made with their review of the counter-extremism strategy announced in August.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The counter-extremism review has now concluded. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is considering the recommendations made and will provide a further update to the House in due course. Countering extremism in all its forms, and protecting the public, remain key priorities for the Government.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Robin Simcox, the Government’s Commissioner for Countering Extremism, draws a distinction between Islam, one of the three great Abrahamic faiths, and Islamist extremism, which he describes as
“the key threat I am confronted with”,
and therefore a threat to all of us. Do the Government agree with their Commissioner for Countering Extremism?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Question and for the way he put it. The Commissioner for Countering Extremism makes recommendations to the Government, and we will consider all those recommendations in due course. There is a range of threats from the extreme right, from Islamist terrorism and from other forms of terrorism, and there is a real danger that people are radicalised in ways that are new to the next generation. We keep all things under review. The Government are cognisant of the fact that there are many threats, and the one that the noble Lord mentioned is very high on the list.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in the last year there has been a 38% rise in attacks against Muslims, and a 33% rise in attacks against people who are Jewish—anti-Semitic and Islamophobic attacks. Will the Government ensure that in their search for solutions to eradicate extremism, leading figures are careful in the language they use and that schools are not unduly targeting young children for early indications of radicalisation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government condemn all attacks against all communities, because people have a right to live their lives according to their own beliefs and religious outlooks. We will certainly look to protect all communities. In fact, the Government have allocated resources to support particularly vulnerable places such as mosques and synagogues. We intend to ensure that we prevent radicalisation, and that means a wide-ranging Prevent programme, but we are sensitive to the fact that we do not wish to stigmatise people at a very young age.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, counterterrorism police say there is a clear link between extremism and domestic abuse, not helped by the amount of misogyny that young men are watching online. With one woman in the UK killed by a man every three days, will the Government commit to looking again at the Law Commission’s recommendations on hate crime to better protect women and girls?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My honourable friend Jess Phillips is the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls, and she is currently drawing up a range of strategies. If there is a link—and I am not aware of one at this Dispatch Box today—between the issues the noble Baroness has raised, that will form part of my honourable friend’s strategy. I hope the noble Baroness will rest assured that addressing domestic violence and the perpetrators of it is at the forefront of the Government’s agenda, and we plan to halve violence against women and girls during the course of this Parliament.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as a former Minister for Countering Extremism at the Home Office and subsequently at the FCDO, I wrestled with the issue of co-ordination between those two departments on what I would term imported extremism. The clear message that needs to be sent internationally is to stop extremism at source. What measures will be included in the review to ensure that those seeking to come to our shores are prevented from doing so in the first place?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will take that as a representation on the outcome of the review, because I cannot comment on the review today. There are two aspects to extremism, the first of which is an external threat, so the Government have to be cognisant of individuals. That is why we have watch lists, security services and advice looking at potential threats from abroad. Equally, the strategy will be concerned with radicalisation at home—not just people from communities that relate to the faith of Islam, but people who might well be radicalised online by a range of sources, from outside the UK or from inside. Counter-extremism is about looking at the total envelope, at home and abroad, and the Government will focus on that when the review’s recommendations are brought forward.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, the ISC, in its report on right-wing extremism, highlighted the issue of young men, in particular, being attracted by right-wing extremism online. Will my noble friend outline what the Government are doing to ensure that platforms take down content that is leading to the radicalisation of some young people?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, my noble friend tempts me to produce the outline of the review’s conclusions. But we genuinely take this issue seriously. When I was a Member of Parliament, a constituent of mine in a small village in north Wales was badly attacked and injured by someone with a machete who was radicalised by Nazi philosophy online. That radicalisation is extremely important, and we need to look at how we build up the stability of individuals to resist that radicalisation and, as my noble friend said, stop that radicalisation at source. If it comes from outside this country, we need to take effective action through the security services and others to close it down. I will give my noble friend further information once the review is complete.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Following on from the last question, what steps are being taken to address the growing threat of online radicalisation, particularly among young people, and to hold tech platforms accountable for extremist content? In the context of online radicalisation, how are this Government ensuring effective co-ordination between departments, including the Home Office, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice, in delivering the counter-extremism strategy?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the question and the way in which the noble Lord put it. Again, I am slightly constrained in outlining the conclusions of the review before it has been completed. But let me say to him that online extremism and online radicalisation, whatever forum they come from, are extremely important issues and will be a focus of government. Going back to the point my noble friend made earlier, we have to look at a cross-government strategy on this; what happens in communities through local government departments, for example, is as important in preventing radicalisation as what the Home Office and the security services do, and we need to be aware of that. When the conclusions are published and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced and opined on them, I will be able to report back to this House in more detail.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am sure that Ministers and Members on the Government Benches remember the election in July fondly. But lest we forget, it was marred by ugly episodes of intimidation and harassment. Can the Minister update us on promises from the Home Secretary to specifically investigate, for example, the openly anti-Semitic supporters and red paint-wielding pro-Palestine activists hounding and abusing candidates and canvassers alike? In the context of attempts to use fear to distort election results, can the Minister outline which of the recommendations for safeguarding democracy in the review by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, will be enacted, and when?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There is a Defending Democracy Taskforce comprising a number of Ministers, led by my honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Minister with responsibility for security and counterterrorism. It is reviewing a range of issues and working across government to ensure that the integrity of elections is maintained. By “integrity” I mean elections being free of interference from abroad and from intimidation at home. I hope that will help satisfy the noble Baroness.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his and his department’s ongoing support for all faith communities that face extreme behaviour and attacks on their buildings and property. Will the Minister update the House on what material His Majesty’s Government are preparing in response to Martyn’s law, and how they plan to communicate clear and easily understood advice for small volunteer groups, including faith groups, many of which struggle with the demands of administration and compliance?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question. Martyn’s law has been considered by and has cleared the House of Commons, and the issues he raises have been debated there. I expect it to come before this House in relatively short order, probably—without breaking confidences—in the next three months. There will then be opportunities to explore that, but we are cognisant that the purpose of the measure is to ensure the safety of the public. It has to be balanced with the safety and response of the communities that organise events in those halls and other facilities. On his first point, the Government will continue to provide funding in order to offer protection to synagogues and other religious buildings where threats are visible and real.
Satellites: Adverse Effects on Astronomy
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to protect the work of astronomy from the adverse effects of large numbers of satellites.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. The updated register of interests will show that I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Dark Skies.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
The Government recognise the importance of mitigating the adverse effects of satellites on astronomy. At this year’s United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, the UK played a key role in securing an agenda item on dark and quiet skies, focused on protecting optical and radio astronomy. The Government work with astronomers and industry to develop mitigation strategies, and remain committed to international collaboration on this issue.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. This is a complex area because the sky is being filled with thousands of satellites —around 28,000 are currently going around the earth—and they interfere with astronomy in both the radio and the optical wavelengths. Mr Elon Musk personally controls two-thirds of all the active satellites going around the earth, having launched his 7,000th satellite this autumn, and he has plans for 34,000 more. Against this backdrop, can my noble friend the Minister be confident that major international astronomical facilities—such as the Square Kilometre Array, which is based in South Africa and Australia and is headquartered at Jodrell Bank here in the UK—can undertake their work without serious interference from large satellite constellations? If not, what can the Government try to do to mitigate this interference by working with satellite operators, astronomers and international partners?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. There is a 10% increase, year on year, in light pollution from land, and there is a substantial increase in the problem of radio and light interference from satellites, as my noble friend says. The number of satellites circulating was about 2,000 in 2019, but it is now well over 10,000 and projected to go very much higher. Because of that, we have pushed to get this very item discussed next year by the scientific and technical committee, which is a sub-committee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, to try to make sure that there is an international approach to reducing the problem, including mitigation strategies for satellites that will be put up.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, the UK space sector is worth over £20 billion and employs about 50,000 people. The UK launched its first space strategy in September 2021, and the noble Viscount may be concerned to learn that the first point of its 10-point plan is to dominate the European satellite industry. Do the Government still support the space strategy published in 2021, or do they intend to review it?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The cost of launch has come down by something like 95%. The UK remains committed to getting a launch and remains committed to the space strategy as laid out.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in that National Space Strategy, the previous Government focused on encouraging lower earth orbit satellites, which are increasingly contributing to the loss of dark skies, as we have heard. Will this Government focus on incentives for the development of higher-orbit satellites, such as geostationary satellites, particularly the micro versions, of which far fewer are needed? They offer the best cost economics, compared to LEO systems, and have a lower impact on the night sky.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an extremely important point about the size of satellites, which is one of the problems with the interference from both radio and optical imaging. The smaller satellites, which the UK is extremely good at making, will become an increasing part of the solution. On orbit, we have a commitment to low orbit through the OneWeb approach—where there are about 700 in low orbit—and to higher orbit where it is appropriate to do so.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, the global space industry is said to be worth about $500 billion. As we launch more and more material into space, which is largely unregulated, the orbits around this planet are getting clogged with blizzards of flying junk. A single bolt took out a French satellite not long ago. Does the Minister agree with me that the environment around our planet is every bit as important as the environment on our planet? Will he commit to raising public awareness of this underappreciated tragedy?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
My Lords, the question about the number of things circulating in space and the implications of that is very important indeed. The number of satellites projected to be launched by 2030 could be as high as 400,000, with estimates ranging from 50,000 to 400,000. This is a very big issue. The amount of space debris is increasing as well, which also contributes to the problem. The UK promotes the sustainable use of space and there is a range of initiatives, from regulation and standards to research, space observation and monitoring capabilities, as well as technologies for active debris removal and in-orbit servicing to try to make things last longer, all of which we will continue, along with the notion of satellite refuelling. This is a growing problem and one that we have raised with the United Nations body and will continue to do so.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. As an economy, we are increasingly reliant on positioning, navigation and timing signals from satellites in space. The Minister participated in the event organised by the Royal Institute of Navigation this morning, which I also spoke at. Could he share with us the Government’s plans around the vulnerability that our national economy and all our businesses will face if there is disruption to PNT signals, either because of space junk or solar activity, or malign activity by another nation? How well prepared are we to deal with those issues?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
This is a critical question. The Royal Institute of Navigation has recently—in fact, today—launched a paper on how to prepare for this. It is something that all critical national infrastructure will be urged to look at, to have a plan for what would happen in the event of GPS failure. There is a longer-term question about the alternatives to space-based navigation and there is active work going on in the UK on terrestrial approaches, including the use of quantum systems to try to get a robust secondary approach to PNT.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, now that over 70 nations have their own space agency, how will the Government pursue the widest and most effective possible international co-operation in support of Astra Carta’s aim,
“to care for the infinite wonders of the universe”?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
There is a series of international collaborations in place. We are a member of the European Space Agency. A large proportion of the £1.9 billion of the UK Space Agency money goes to the European Space Agency and our collaborators there. We also spend through the MoD and through UKRI. We are members of the UN bodies that deal with the question of a sustainable space sector and space environment. The space environment is increasingly important and needs attention. We will continue to raise this question at the UN bodies.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that we retain access to independent satellite launch capacity in the light of SpaceX’s close relationship with the next US Administration and the recent challenges at the Cornwall spaceport?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The next UK launches are planned from Scotland, and several operators, including Orbex, Skyrora, and RFA are targeting orbital launches in 2025-26. The launch date depends on a range of factors, including technical readiness of launch operations, but we believe that we have a particularly important launch site which leads directly to polar orbit, which is of particular importance.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very interested in the cost of satellites coming down quite so dramatically. Is this something to do with the private sector producing satellites much more cheaply than NASA used to do as a state-owned organisation?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Launch has decreased in cost dramatically and so have satellites. A large part of the reduction in satellite cost has been the advent of small satellites. Surrey Satellite Technology, among others in the UK, has been particularly important in developing those technologies. That was a spin-out from the University of Surrey, and has led the way in producing much cheaper satellites. Multiple satellites can therefore be launched with one launch. That has been a very important change in the system.
Exports to the European Union
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Londesborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the speech of the Governor of the Bank of England at Mansion House, what measures they are taking to increase the export of goods to the European Union.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, in his Mansion House speech, the Governor of the Bank of England observed that Brexit has weighed on the UK economy, particularly in goods trade. The previous Government’s Brexit deal imposed new trade barriers on business and, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, permanently reduced GDP by 4%. That is why the Government are committed to resetting our relationship with the European Union, to strengthen ties and to tackle barriers to trade.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, and indeed for not mentioning that black hole—which is perhaps surprising, since the latest figures from the ONS show that our goods exports to the EU have fallen from £175 billion in 2018 to £153 billion last year, which is a drop of £22 billion. Not only that, our goods exports to the rest of the world over those same five years have fallen from £184 billion to £162 billion—yes, another £22 billion black hole. Does he therefore agree that these figures demonstrate a deeper-rooted weakness in our goods trading performance rather than simply Brexit being to blame?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his Question and for mentioning the £22 billion black hole. He is absolutely right to point to the consequences of the previous Government’s ill-conceived Brexit deal. It imposed new trade barriers on business equivalent to a 13% increase in tariffs for manufacturing and a 20% increase in tariffs for services. As a result, the Office for Budget Responsibility has found that the overall trade intensity will be 15% lower than if the UK had remained in the EU. Specifically, goods exports to the EU have fallen significantly, down 19%—or £42 billion—compared with 2018. Of course, he also raises the correct point that we must increase our trade right around the world, because increasing trade is good for increasing growth.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
Has my noble friend the Minister had the opportunity in his very busy day to read the article in the Financial Times this morning by the very perceptive commentator Janan Ganesh? He pointed out that, 10 years ago—long before the black hole was observed—we in the United Kingdom stood at the crux of three interlapping economic relationships: the United States, China and the European Union. We were in a formidable position. Since then, we have lost two and are possibly about to lose the third. Does that not make it all the more imperative that we start to rebuild those relationships, starting with the European Union?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree 100% with my noble friend. I have not had the opportunity to read that article yet, but I absolutely will on his recommendation. He is right that the strength of those relationships is vital. As the Chancellor said in her recent Mansion House speech, we
“will always do what is in our national interest for our economy, for our businesses and for the British people”.
As she also said, the European Union is by far our biggest trading partner.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
My Lords, it is very good to hear from the Minister about maybe pivoting to a closer relationship with the European Union. What does he think the new Administration in the United States should take from that inference, given the prospective trade and tariff war with that country?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
In the recent Mansion House speech, the Chancellor said that we will always stand up for
“free and open trade, especially with our most economically important partners. That includes the United States”,
obviously—it is one of our most important destinations for financial services trade, for example—and that there is great
“potential for us to deepen our economic relationship on areas such as emerging technologies”.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, renewing—or rekindling—the relationship with Europe is very important. Does the Minister agree that one of the ways to make that harder is for UK product regulation to diverge from EU product regulation? Can the Minister confirm that we will work hard on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill to make sure that we have an avenue to stay close to that EU market?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with much of what the noble Lord says and agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment behind his question.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, what is the timetable is for addressing these concerns? The creative industries have been hit particularly hard by Brexit, losing revenue in trade with Europe on daily basis. There is, or should be, a real urgency about this.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I completely agree with the noble Earl. The creative industries, along with many others in our country, have been hit particularly hard by Brexit. We have identified the creative industries as part of the EU reset, identifying touring visas in particular as one of the priorities. The Prime Minister met with the President of the European Commission in Brussels on 2 October, and they have agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and the UK, putting it on a more solid and stable footing. We will now work with the EU to identify areas where we can strengthen co-operation for mutual benefit. Obviously, we recognise that delivering new agreements will take time, but we are ambitious, have clear priorities and want to move forward at pace.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, what precise steps are the Government taking to increase the number of trade agreements with non-EU countries, such as those that the previous Government negotiated including of course with the CPTPP, which noble Lords will be aware represents the fastest-growing economic region in the world?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, we have acceded to that partnership already. At the G20 this week, the Prime Minister spoke about reopening negotiations with India. In the spring, the Government will publish a trade strategy, in part to reset our relationship with the EU, but also to support more small businesses to export and remove barriers to trade right around the world.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the last Government wrecked the economy and our relationship with our biggest trading partner, all on the back of the idea that there were loads of trade deals out there to be done. They failed to do them, and those that they did damaged the farming industry in the UK.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with some of my noble friend’s sentiment; I am not entirely sure what the question is. However, it is important to recognise the significance of the EU to our trade. Four of our top five export markets are in the EU, and eight out of the top 10. The EU accounts for nearly 50% of our trade; total trade with EU is worth over £800 billion and 41% of total exports go to the EU.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that part of our loss of trade to the global world outside the EU has been because, since Brexit, we can no longer guarantee to meet European standards for products, and because going through European supply chains was usually our entry point to meet final clients for independent exports? Both those routes have now been damaged.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As so often on this topic, I agree with the noble Baroness. According to the Resolution Foundation, the previous Government’s Brexit deal imposed new trade barriers on business equivalent to a 13% increase in tariffs for manufacturing and a 20% increase for services. Reducing those trade barriers is a key priority for our European reset.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the current arrangements for exporting to the EU bear disproportionately on small and medium-sized enterprises? Will, therefore, a priority in their negotiations be to reduce those, to stimulate that bit of the economy?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct. As I mentioned a short while ago, in the spring the Government will publish a trade strategy to help reset our relationship with the EU, and a key part of it will be providing more support to small businesses to help them export and particularly to remove some of the barriers that they face to trade with the European Union.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in any renewing of relationships with the European Union, does the Minister agree that top of that list should be to get back control of our own country—in other words getting Northern Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom and getting rid of the Windsor Framework?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
We remain committed to implementing the Windsor Framework and to protecting the UK internal market.
European Forest Institute (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
That the draft Order laid before the House on 15 May be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 13 November.
Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 and 23 October be approved.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the second instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 13 November.
Building Societies Act 1986 (Modifications) Order 2024
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the draft Order laid before the House on 14 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 18 November.
Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 October be approved.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 November.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
I apologise if I did not make myself clear, but I am hoping to have a chance to talk about these regulations on another occasion. Is that possible?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this lengthy and comprehensive statutory instrument was debated on Monday in Grand Committee and approved. This afternoon is the appropriate opportunity to move this Motion.
Jailing of Hong Kong Pro-democracy Activists
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the jailing of 45 pro- democracy campaigners in Hong Kong is a serious blow to the freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. The fact that this happened only 24 hours after the Prime Minister cosied up to President Xi is particularly concerning. I welcome that the Prime Minister publicly raised the issue of Jimmy Lai, but did he also raise all these other cases where the verdicts were, at that time, imminent?
China has flagrantly ignored the Sino-British declaration in respect to Hong Kong, and it continues to flout international law in the South China Sea. Therefore, given that China has an observable track record of violating such international agreements and given that Mauritius was the first African country to sign an FTA with China, why does the Minister not believe that China is easily capable of similarly disregarding the agreement handing over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands and therefore establishing a competing base on one of the neighbouring islands to Diego Garcia?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I was not expecting Chagos this afternoon, I have to say. We have discussed the issue around Chagos and the treaty we have with Mauritius at length. As the noble Lord knows, Mauritius is a close ally of India and the UK, and the treaty will be subject to scrutiny in this House, so I hope that the concerns he raises about Mauritius somehow being susceptible to something around China can be responded to during that process.
The noble Lord is right, though, to draw attention to the fact that the UK Prime Minister met President Xi at the G20 in Brazil in the last few days and rightly raised the case of Jimmy Lai. Noble Lords can see the footage of that exchange for themselves, and they can reach their own conclusions about how it went.
On the 45 who were sentenced under the NSL, we are opposed to the NSL. We see this as in breach of the agreement that we reached with China in respect of Hong Kong; we are deeply concerned about what has happened. The 45 people were exercising their right to political expression and have now been imprisoned for it, and we oppose this.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, after meeting President Xi, our Prime Minister said that he wanted to see more trade with China, notwithstanding the fact that the UK has a trade deficit in goods with China of over £25 billion. The previous Government refused to even countenance the suspension of some trade preferences from China in the UK economy if there were significant human rights abuses. In opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and I were at one in calling for a statutory human rights and trade policy. Can the Minister state that it is still the intention of the Government to ensure that human rights can trigger suspension of certain trade preferences from China if there are significant human rights abuses?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, we keep these things under constant review. We are deeply concerned about what has happened, not just in recent days in Hong Kong with the sentencing but about wider issues that I know he and my noble friend Lord Collins will have worked on together in the past. We have made quite strong statements at ministerial level in the last few days on these issues, and we will continue to do so as appropriate.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, 1,800 pro- democracy activists are in prison in Hong Kong, including the British national, Jimmy Lai. Even yesterday, he was interrogated in the Hong Kong courts, including being asked about a visit to your Lordships’ House. Given the situation that they find themselves in, why did the Prime Minister decline, according to a Guardian report this morning, on two occasions during the G20 summit to condemn the decision to extend the sentences on the 45?
Will the noble Baroness repudiate reports that a deal has been offered between the British Government and Xi Jinping to remove the sanctions on British parliamentarians—there are seven of us—in exchange for removing sanctions on those responsible for genocide in Xinjiang? Surely that would be morally reprehensible and something that we should never countenance.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I will double-check, but I know of no such arrangement and I would be very surprised if that were the case. As he knows, we do not comment on sanction designations before they take place, and I would be very surprised if we would comment on something like that. I will check and get back to the noble Lord if I am wrong, but I would be very surprised if that report was in any way accurate.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, in the other place, the Minister’s right honourable friend said at the end of her Answer that the United Kingdom Government will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong. Could the Minister explain what she meant by that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I was among the people in the other place who called for the BNO passport holders to be given the rights that they have, and we will continue to do that. That is one way in which we stand up for the people of Hong Kong. The other way is through using our voice when we can. The view that this Government take—and I appreciate that this is a different take on this from that which the previous Government had—is that, through some engagement, we might be better able to effect the kind of change that we would all wish to see.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that this is a party point at all. It all seems a bit defensive. Has not the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, got a point? We find all the time the Chinese trying to undermine our democracy by various subterranean or covert arrangements inside this country and in many other parts of the world, including most of the Commonwealth. Can we not at least be reassured that we are using the same degree of ingenuity to undermine completely false claims by the Chinese, particularly where they are flouting United Nations directives themselves? Can we establish that, while we have to trade and work on climate issues with the Chinese—you cannot just cancel them—nevertheless, we will be absolutely determined to hold them to the rule of law, which if they undermine they will pay the price for?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I agree with the gist of what the noble Lord has just said. He is right to point out that we have concerns with China on issues of human rights, and we raise them; we seek opportunities to do so. We do have a trade relationship with China and we also have global challenges on climate, health and other issues. It is in our best interests to co-operate and collaborate with China, but we will compete when we need to and we will not shy away from challenging when that is right as well.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, in Opposition, the present Government pressed the previous Government to take steps of a trade kind when we had human rights situations of this kind? Now, in government, she has not given us an undertaking that she will do in power what she tried to get others to do when she was not in power.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
No, I do not agree with that. I would point out that this Government are taking a very different approach to China in many ways. The previous Government had what at best could be described as a passive approach, where criticisms were made here in the UK but there was very little engagement to speak of, especially not on a ministerial level. We are taking a different approach; we are having a review of China which is going to go across Whitehall, so noble Lords can expect to see a different tone from this Government. I do not know whether this new approach is going to have the effect that we would all wish to see on human rights—nobody could know that—but I am confident that our approach has a far better chance of achieving a good relationship, where we are able to be heard and have the conversations we need to have at the right level, with the effect that we wish to see.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am saddened by the Minister’s response, because she will recall that the previous Government took a very robust stance when it came to the issues of human rights, particularly the situation in Xinjiang. She will also recall that it was the previous Government who took action on sanctioning what was happening in Xinjiang. The previous Government also took action in leading the way at the UN and at the human rights committee with other countries and building a coalition. So I ask the noble Baroness to reflect on her remarks, because the previous Government was pretty robust when it came to these issues.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do accept that. The noble Lord is completely right. He will recall that we supported the previous Government in all those endeavours. The difference is that this Government are attempting to engage in a different way, at a different level. Noble Lords can have a view on whether that is something that they welcome or that they think will ultimately be futile. But this Government’s position is that it is right to engage and to try. However, I wholeheartedly accept the points that he made about the work that the last Government did and I want noble Lords to know that we supported those measures at every step and called for some of them.
Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:41 - Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 210 / Noes: 213 - Motion A1 disagreed.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A I will speak also to Motion B. I am grateful for the collaboration and engagement up to this point on the Bill, which is a critical step towards our manifesto commitment of reforming our fragmented railway system. This system has cost taxpayers and passengers dearly in huge fees paid to private operators and in the delays, cancellations, overcrowding and poor service that passengers have endured for far too long. There is a strong public desire for public ownership. In September, a YouGov survey found that 66% of people nationally agreed that railway operations should be run by the public sector and only 12% favoured private operation. I hope that the House can agree that we need to pass this Bill and move on to the critical work of the next one.
Motion A is about the purpose clause proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Moylan. I completely agree that public ownership and wider reform should be guided by a clear purpose, with users of the railway placed at the heart of that purpose. Turning specifically to Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, I was disappointed to see that the noble Lords were insisting on this, despite the overwhelming majority against it in the other place. This is not in keeping with the collaborative approach that I hoped we were taking to the Bill in this House—and quite an unusual approach for this House to take as well.
The Government have already set out the purpose of public ownership and wider reform in our policy document Getting Britain Moving. This identified six objectives. People can see what they are and can hold the Government to account on delivering against them. These objectives are already at the heart of our decision-making. For example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have met the worst-performing train operating companies and their Network Rail counterparts and have demanded that they do better for passengers, right now. We have brought to an end long-running industrial disputes that inflicted misery on passengers. We have convened Network Rail and train operators to work together to tackle overcrowding at Euston and provide a better service for passengers. We have made new commitments about accessibility, following debates in this House, and we have pledged to increase transparency by publishing train performance data at stations. So there is no need to place a purpose on the face of the Bill—especially one that tells only part of the story.
I also remind noble Lords that during the previous Government’s 14 years in office, they never felt the need to legislate to impose this new statutory purpose on the Secretary of State, either in relation to the privatised railway or to the train operations that they chose to keep in public ownership for years—one now for six years—with no sign of a plan to return them to the private sector. However, I agree with noble Lords on all sides of the House that we must ensure that the future Great British Railways will have a clear purpose. In consulting on our wider reform plans, we will restate our objectives for the railway and its purpose. I assure noble Lords that delivering a reliable, punctual train services will be a prominent part of that purpose, as it already is.
I urge the House to support Motion A for two reasons. First, the purpose clause is unnecessary: we have already set out our objectives for the railway; we are already acting to achieve those objectives; and we are ready to be held to account for whether or not we deliver against them. Secondly, we will ensure that we set out a similarly clear purpose for Great British Railways in the forthcoming consultation.
Regarding Motion B, this House will be aware that Amendment 2 was rejected in the other place on the grounds of financial privilege. The Government understand the calls for the worst-performing services to be brought into public ownership first. But Amendment 2 was not the right approach. Its effect would be to delay the transfer of services into public ownership and so require taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for millions of pounds in fees for longer than necessary. Instead, the Government’s approach is the right one, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and her noble friends for recognising this in previous debates.
We have made it clear that where the contracts we have inherited from the previous Government allow it, we will bring failing operators’ services into public ownership as soon as we can. There is sufficient flexibility in the existing contract expiry dates to allow us to do that without overwhelming the public sector operator. Beyond that, we will bring services in-house as existing contracts end. This will avoid paying compensation for early termination and will avoid delaying the benefits of public ownership, as Amendment 2 would have done.
I urge the House to support Motion B so that the Government can get on with delivering the benefits of public ownership in accordance with the very clear mandate on which they were elected. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Gascoigne
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 1”
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
Despite what the Minister just said at the Dispatch Box, I genuinely thank him for the collaborative approach with which I thought we had been dealing with each other. I thank all those who supported this amendment previously. I am also grateful to the Minister’s officials for the advice they have given and for all the words the Minister has just said. I thank the Liberal Democrats for their consistent support for the amendments throughout the Bill’s passage so far.
So that everyone is aware, this amendment is to set out at the outset a clear explanation of what the Bill does: putting passengers front and centre and improving rail services. As I have said previously, this is not a trap, it does not cost anything, and it does not kill the Bill nor tie it down in bureaucracy. It is what the Labour Party itself has said, both in opposition and in government, the Bill will do. It is, as the Minister says, what the people want and expect. This has been said at the Dispatch Box in both Houses.
Omitting the purpose clause makes one question what the Bill is for. After all, some have said that the Bill as a whole is merely about the delivery of nationalisation for purely ideological reasons, with no drive for further reform until the further legislation appears. I am saddened that, purely for cost reasons, we seem to be allowing the continuation of the worst-performing services. This purpose clause makes it clear that the Bill is not being driven by ideological reasons and brings it back to focus everyone’s minds on what it is for—the passengers.
When we replace one franchise with another, who or what is holding the successor to account? What does that entity do with this new-found power? Surely there needs to be something that says that the country expects things to get better or, at the very least, to not get any worse. As I said before, it is needed because under the Bill a Secretary of State has to make a judgment on whether or not to extend an existing franchise. We need a purpose clause to be clear about what the Secretary of State’s overriding desire should be.
I have sought at various stages to set out why this clause is needed, and will briefly respond to the Government’s arguments against this. Yesterday in the other place, the Secretary of State said that the Government are already improving the railways, or that there has been “progress”, as she described it, saying:
“I am more than happy to reassure the House that improving the performance of the railways is at the top of my priority list”.
However, she immediately went on to say that this amendment was
“misleading and potentially harmful, because it picks out improving the performance of passenger rail services as the sole purpose of the Bill”.
How on earth can you say that the Government are already delivering the purpose clause and then immediately go on to say that it is harmful? If that was not enough, the Secretary of State then deployed the age-old ripcord language, saying:
“Improving performance is of course a vital objective, but it is certainly not the only one”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/24; col. 181.]
So in one statement alone, over the course of literally minutes, the Secretary of State said that the Government are improving the service but that it is misleading and harmful to say that they are doing so; despite that, though, they are doing it and a bunch of other things too, but they cannot support the amendment. It feels a bit like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. What is the Government’s position? Are they improving the service or are they against it? Are they delivering the clause already or is it misleading? Is it harmful, yet the Government are doing it? I could ask much else besides.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I do not follow the Government’s logic so far. They accepted our amendment, in the names of my noble friend Lady Brinton and others across the House, on disability access and the equality issue. That was and is a hugely challenging issue for the railway and for the Government, and a very expensive one to fulfil. Yet they reject this simple statement, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, just pointed out, is simply a statement of purpose.
We are very grateful to the Minister for the discussions and for the way he has moved to address our concerns. But, as the Government have said, nationalisation is not a silver bullet. Across the world, there are examples of both publicly and privately owned railways that provide an excellent service. Unlike both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, we on these Benches judge a railway not by its ownership but by its efficiency: how good a service provided to passengers is and putting passengers at the heart of things, always. Incidentally, we welcome the Conservative Party’s new-found enthusiasm for passenger efficiency.
This amendment would make it clear that the primary —but not the only—purpose of the Bill is to improve passenger railway services. This should be a statement of the obvious, so I am mystified as to why there is any debate about incorporating it in the Bill. I am also concerned about the points the Secretary of State made in the other place yesterday. It is unrealistic to assert that you can interpret the amendment, specifically the words
“improve the performance of passenger railway services”,
as meaning that the Secretary of State could decide to run fewer services on time, which is, in essence, what she said. I add that if the Government are not happy with the precise wording, because they believe it could be misinterpreted and misused, they could, of course, have offered to amend it.
We would have preferred the issues of ownership to be more closely linked with improvements, passenger standards and other key issues that need to change if we are to have a robust 21st-century rail service. The Government, in our view, have therefore put the vehicle ahead of the delivery. However, we accept that they have a mandate; we accept that there is more than one way to deliver these improvements. We will be listening carefully to the Minister’s response, and I hope that he will be able to be more persuasive than the Secretary of State, because his expertise and reputation are always taken very seriously in this House. If he is able, today, to commit the Government to improvements to passenger services at the core of future legislation, at the core of the responsibility of the Secretary of State, we will be able to support the Government. Passengers desperately need to see improvements, having had a decline in service for so many years under the previous Government. So let us get that commitment on the record; let us get it in legislation, if possible, as soon as possible, so that the work can start.
Very briefly on Motion B, we acknowledge the primacy of the other place on financial issues, but we hope that the Government will continue to apply the flexibility that current legislation affords them so that they will not, unnecessarily rapidly, bring to an end very successful franchises.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall endeavour to be brief. I repeat what other noble Lords have said in expressing my gratitude to the Minister, as I mentioned at Third Reading and when the Bill passed, for his courtesy and collaboration in our debates on the Bill.
The Government’s problem is this: they wish to reform the railways. There is a great deal of support in your Lordships’ House, across all parties, and generally among the public for a reform of the railways. We would like to discuss what the Government are going to do on a number of issues. Had they brought forward the measure in this Bill as part of a large and comprehensive Bill introducing those reforms to the railways, we would have had the opportunity to have those discussions. We would have been able to discuss, for example, the role of freight, and the tension between the priority given to passenger services and freight services that inevitably exists in a constrained system. We would have had the chance to discuss the continuation of open access and competition on the railways. We could have discussed the devolution of the operation of train services to regional and local authorities, such as exists in London and might exist in other parts of the country. We would have been able to do all those things as part of a comprehensive reform Bill.
But the Government have decided not to bring forward a comprehensive reform Bill, of which this is part; they have decided to take this step first—that is, to seize control of the train operating companies—and the great Bill of reform is promised for the future. The Government say that it will be brought forward within 12 to 18 months—that is a challenging target. As I have said, tediously, in the past, over and over again, even after that Bill has gone through its parliamentary process and passed, it will still take several years for it to be implemented.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I agree that there is a substantial degree of consensus on the need for reform, which the previous Conservative Government started five years ago with the Williams review. However, when we came into office, we found that a very partial Bill had been prepared which did not cover all of the issues that needed to be included in a railway reform Bill. It is the neglect of his previous Administration that has led to this situation.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am not here to defend the previous Government, and I was not making a tedious trivial party-political point when I said that. I will say that I suspect the previous Government were dilatory and slow in bringing forward a massive reform of the railways because it is a very complicated business, and that goes to my point: I doubt this Government will be able to bring forward a Bill within 12 to 18 months precisely because of that complexity. Because of this large gap in time, through the passage of this legislation we are creating a new situation for the railways that could endure for four to six years, with no sense of accountability or purpose that the Government have, because the answer on everything that we wish to discuss —freight, open access, devolution—has been, “We can’t discuss it now; we can’t tell you anything now; you have to trust us”, just like the Government said “Trust us” to the pensioners, to the farmers and to large businesses that are landed with business rates.
The truth of the matter is that we do not see why we should trust the Government. That is without any disrespect to the Minister, but he is just one person and, like all of us, fragile and frail. We cannot build an entire railway system and entrust it to the Government on the strength of one particular Minister because of his noted, genuine and respected skills. We need to know what the standard will be to which we can hold the Government accountable during this new and quite lengthy period.
The objective of the purpose clause is not to set an objective for the railway, as the Minister has sometimes said; it is to set an objective for this Bill, and the Bill is about seizing control of passenger railway services. All we are saying is that the standard we expect to be set is that the purpose is the improvement of passenger services. If we cannot see those improvements then at least we would have a standard to which we could hold the Government to account, and that should be in the Bill. Warm words butter no parsnips. They are nothing to which we can hold the Government accountable. So, if my noble friend Lord Gascoigne chooses to press his amendment to a Division, we on this side will support him.
I turn to Motion B. I do not think the Government realise how helpful Motion B was intended to be to them. It is after all one of those rules in life that, if something is doing well today, it is likely that tomorrow it will not be doing so well, and vice versa. What are the Government now holding out as a practical prospect? They are going to move ahead, and one of the first franchises they are going to take control of is Greater Anglia, one of the best performing and most popular. What is likely to happen to Greater Anglia? Just by random chance, it will start to deteriorate and the Government’s programme of nationalisation will be damaged in the public eye as a result, whereas if they had seized control of Avanti, which is what we were guiding them towards through Motion B, then some improvement would have carried them forward and shown how well nationalisation was working. So we were trying to be helpful to the Government, but the Commons has claimed financial privilege on this issue and, as far as we are concerned, we give way.
On Motion A, I am sorry to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, say she is going to trust the Government. She will be joining a long queue of people who have trusted the Government, but I fear she will be disappointed. But that is enough for now.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and I congratulate him on another polished speech. It ought to be well polished—he has made it at least four times during the passage of this particular legislation. He has not said anything new; we have cantered around the same course about Avanti trains and the future of the railway system.
This is a small Bill designed to create an overall body to be responsible for running the railway system. It was an idea conceived by the party opposite.
Lord Moylan (Con)
With respect, this Bill does not do that. If this Bill created Great British Railways, that would be another story altogether. This Bill does not create a body; it simply is the Government seizing control of existing railway companies.
Lord Snape (Lab)
That is absolute nonsense. This Bill is designed to implement a body, as a result of an inquiry into the railway system set up by the party opposite. Indeed, that party was so impressed when in government by the Williams report that the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, added his name to it. He did not actually do anything about implementing it because the backwoodsmen opposite felt it was a bit too much like nationalisation to have an overarching body responsible for the railway system.
We could have disposed of this particular amendment late at night during the course of the Committee stage of the Bill, but the noble Lord who leads for the Opposition refused to sit after 10 pm. There might have been a good reason for it—perhaps it was past the bedtime of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, or the equivalent, but he and his party were not prepared for a proper debate on this issue, and they still are not.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the amendment which we did not debate late at night was about the management of the railways in London; it had nothing whatever to do with what the noble Lord says. I see him giggle in the corner now; he knows he is having fun at the House’s expense.
The fact is that this Bill does not do what the noble Lord says it does. The other fact is that the Williams review did not envisage the nationalisation of train operating services in this country but rather the use of the private sector on what is referred to as a concession basis, rather than a franchise basis, the technical differences between which I shall not bore the House with now.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I am neither giggling, nor am I in a corner. I find the noble Lord’s contribution to be as specious and inaccurate as most of the contributions he has made during the course of this debate. He keeps repeating the same tedious stuff.
Lord Snape (Lab)
If the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who I have clashed with a couple of times in this Chamber, wishes to intervene, he should indicate and of course I will give way to him. It seems he does not wish to indicate. In that case, I would be obliged if he sat down and listened just for once.
Lord Snape (Lab)
And perhaps learned; that is another point.
The fact is that these are delaying tactics by the party opposite. I am amazed that the Liberal Party should want to be associated with this amendment. It is contrary to custom and practice in this place—not that I am a great one for adhering to the rules, necessarily.
This is a meaningless amendment, putting a duty on the Secretary of State which he already has. What Secretary of State wants to do anything other than improve the railway system? I mean, he did not always succeed, though it might have been well-meant during the time of the party opposite, but certainly the Secretary of State’s intention at that time—at any time—would be to improve the railway system. It really is not necessary to add such a clause to this Bill. I would be grateful if my noble friend treated it with the contempt it deserved.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will address just a few points.
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and his description of the previous Government as being dilatory. It is six and half years since the timetable went wrong in the north-west of England and on Thameslink, in May 2018, and nothing really has been done. The railway is suffering and its passengers are suffering, and something needs to be done about it. I have referred to this before but, at some speed, we will be consulting shortly about the content of the wider Bill to reform the railway. I think that differentiates this Government and the speed at which they choose to operate.
On Motion A, I want there to be no doubt that this Government will undertake reform with a clear purpose and direction. As published in Getting Britain Moving, our objectives are set and are more ambitious and wide-ranging than the proposed purpose clause. We want to see reliability, affordability, efficiency, quality, accessibility and safe travel as the DNA of our railways—the foundational values that drive reform and deliver on what passengers expect. Public ownership will be the first step in ensuring better services, by placing the passenger front and centre as we rebuild public confidence, trust and pride in our railway.
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the commitment that passengers should be at the core of the future of the railway. In that respect, the wider railways Bill is a different matter. It will establish Great British Railways as a new body at arm’s length from government, which will not be directly accountable to the electorate in the same way as the Government are. In that context, it is essential that the railways Bill should clearly set out two things.
The first of those is the functions of Great British Railways—what it is actually going to do. The second is what Great British Railways is supposed to achieve by exercising those functions—in other words, its purpose. I can absolutely confirm to your Lordships’ House today that the forthcoming railways Bill will set out both of those things, and that delivering improvements for passengers and maintaining high standards of performance will be a crucial part of its purpose. I will be more than happy to engage with the noble Baroness on how we express that in the Bill.
I urge your Lordships’ House to support the Government’s Motion A and to reject the amendment in Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for two reasons. First, it is unnecessary, because the Government have already set out our objectives for the railway, we are already acting to achieve those objectives, and we are ready to be held to account on whether we deliver against them as we transfer the services to public ownership under this Bill. Secondly, as I have just assured the House, we will ensure that the railways Bill sets out a clear purpose for Great British Railways.
With regard to Motion B, the Government simply cannot accept an amendment that would delay reform, therefore going against the wishes of the electorate, and which would place additional cost on the taxpayer. We will use every tool at our disposal to resolve poor performance, including contractual termination rights, where they are triggered.
On the Bill itself, public ownership is not only the will of the voters but the right step towards bringing an end to years of fragmentation. Tens of millions of pounds in fees will be saved each year due to public ownership and, with the new direction and focus that this Government are now providing, current in-house operations are already seeing a reduction in cancellations. The evidence that public ownership is the way forward is clear.
On top of this, poorly performing train operators are being held to account, as I described earlier, and with Great British Railways coming further down the line, this Government have shown that we are serious about reform. None the less, improvements are needed now, and the Bill starts that process.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone who spoke in this brief debate, particularly the two Opposition Front-Benchers. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for Lib Dem support up to now; I hope that will continue. I am especially grateful to my very good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Snape. It is always a pleasure to hear from him. Before I came into this House, I was told repeatedly that everyone is very friendly, very compassionate, very polite and respectful. Yet, there we are.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
No, I am okay, thank you.
This debate is about the Bill; it is not about an individual on the Front Bench, in the form of the Minister, whom I still consider to be a very good friend and who, I can confess, drove his own bus at my wedding—our history goes back a long way and I hope our friendship will continue after today. This is not about an individual and it is not even about trust. I do not think we should be trusting people to do something when we now have an opportunity to put it in the Bill. The Minister just repeated the line, “We are already doing this”, so I ask the question: why not put it in?
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I cede the ground to my noble friend on the Front Bench. This is not about my party in government either. Trust me, I could wax lyrical—I say this to my boss on the Front Bench, the Opposition Chief Whip—about all the things I wish that my party had done in government, but it is not about that either. It is not about what we did; it is about what this Bill is going to do. It is Labour’s own language, and in the absence of anything more, I do not believe, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, thinks, that we should be in a situation just of trust: there needs to be accountability. For that, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:09 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 279 / Noes: 136 - Amendment 2 agreed.
18:50 - Division on Amendment 10 - Ayes: 82 / Noes: 172 - Amendment 10 disagreed.
19:03 - Division on Amendment 11 - Ayes: 140 / Noes: 117 - Amendment 11 agreed.
21:20 - Division on Amendment 51 - Ayes: 36 / Noes: 89 - Amendment 51 disagreed.
The Duke of Wellington
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, in conjunction with another amendment in the Duke of Wellington’s name to clause 1, seeks to ensure that undertakers take into consideration the views of environmental groups alongside the views of consumers.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I am honoured to be the first person to speak at the Report stage of this very good Bill. As I have said, I realise that this is not Second Reading, but I repeat my support for the Bill. I have already indicated to the Minister that I wish only to try to improve it in certain small respects.
In this group I have four amendments—Amendments 1, 5, and 6—and I have added my name to Amendment 7. I have tabled Amendment 1 because the history of the last 35 years shows that the environmental voice in decision-making has been insufficient. One has to admit that considerable damage has been done, at least to the aquatic environment, in the 35 years since the water companies were privatised. Mrs Thatcher, Prime Minister at the time, believed that privatising the water companies would in fact help the environment because there would be more investment from the private sector than if they had remained in public ownership. But I have to say that in that respect, she was wrong.
It was difficult at the time to imagine quite how the water companies would structure themselves financially in order to take out of the industry much in way of high interest payments and dividends. All I seek to do in Amendment 1 is to balance the consumer voice with a stronger environmental voice. I am grateful to the Minister for the several meetings I have had with her on this matter. I think that Ministers are broadly sympathetic to what I am trying to achieve in this amendment, but as is so often the case with Ministers, they prefer their own wording to any amendment that is proposed. I would like, however, to continue this theme because it is important. Amendments 1 and 5 in effect go together. We should ensure that the environmental voice is stronger in all future decision-making.
It is worth reminding the House what the Bill says. It requires relevant undertakers—the water companies—to
“have arrangements in place for involving consumers in decisions”.
Fine, although I think it should be consumers “and environmentalists”. On the same page, at line 41, the Bill refers to
“a requirement for persons representing the views of consumers”—
I have added “and environmentalists”—
“to be members of a board, committee or a panel”,
or whatever the body may be. That is basically my point, and I hope that Members will consider it very carefully and agree that it is important to increase that voice.
Amendment 6, which is mine, and Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, to which I have added my name, make a completely different point. I have served on a number of boards where sectional interests have been represented, and in my experience, it almost always leads to difficulties in decision-making and therefore reduces the effectiveness of the board.
I am very much in favour of a sectional interest, such as consumers or environmentalists, being strongly represented in a panel or similar body. In Committee, I tabled an amendment suggesting that it should also be a requirement that the chief executive of the company in question be required to meet regularly with such panels. That would be a very much better way for consumer and environmental interests to be heard strongly, and they would be more likely to have influence over the recommendations of the chief executive to the board.
Lord Remnant (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as having been a non-executive director of Severn Trent, the largest of the listed water companies, for eight years between 2014 and 2022. I chaired the board’s remuneration committee for that time.
I thank the Minister for taking the time to meet me last week to discuss my concerns about key aspects of this Bill. I am only sorry that her apparent sympathy for at least some of my arguments has not translated into accepting any of my amendments. I have three amendments in this first group. I will be as brief as I can, but each addresses a completely separate issue.
I will take them in order. My first is Amendment 4. New Section 35B(2)(a) addresses performance-related pay. The rules will set standards that companies will have to meet in a financial year in order to be able to make awards of performance-related pay to chief executives and directors for that year. However, the Bill extends the scope of this section, in new subsection (5)(c), to holders of such other description of role with the water company as Ofwat may specify.
My Amendment 4 would remove this extended application to individuals below board level. This extension will be difficult to implement in practice, as different water companies will have individuals described differently by title and role. Nor would such an extension be consistent with general remuneration under the corporate governance rules for listed companies, which do not extend to individuals below board level. If we wish to attract and support the next generation of leaders in this vital industry from middle management, this will not be achieved by extending these restrictive remuneration practices to them.
As the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has just said, those in this House are better qualified than Ofwat in certain aspects, and this is one of them: to decide on how far down the management chain these rules should apply. My amendment draws the appropriate and proportionate line in balancing the objectives of the Bill with the interests of those most directly impacted by it.
I appreciate that Ofwat is consulting on the scope of the Bill and its application to individuals. It asserts that it is minded to apply the rule to any executive director who is a member of the regulated company board in receipt of performance-related pay, because that is where ultimate accountability and leadership responsibilities lie. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my concerns in tabling this amendment. In particular, I would be interested to know whether she agrees with Ofwat’s current stance that only executive directors should be brought within the scope of the performance-related pay prohibition, and, if so, whether she will communicate that view to Ofwat.
Amendment 7 is my second amendment and very much relates to what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has just been talking about: the duty for water companies to have arrangements in place to involve consumers in decisions. New subsection (6) in Clause 1 allows this in regard for
“persons representing the views of consumers to be members of a board, committee or panel”,
as we have heard. My amendment adds a sentence which ensures that it is for the boards of water companies, not Ofwat—for very much the reasons that the noble Duke raised—to decide on which of those three forums best suits their own requirements. I am grateful to him for adding his name to this amendment, and I agree with all his arguments in support of it and his own amendment. The Minister commented at Second Reading that it always pains her to disagree with him on anything, so I am working on the assumption that she will wish to spare herself further agony by accepting this amendment. I fully support strengthening the voice of consumers. This can be achieved in a number of different ways, as the Bill accepts, but each company in the sector is best placed to judge what is most appropriate for its own circumstances.
I was surprised to read in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, in the overview prepared by Defra, that one of its provisions is to
“ensure consumer representation on water company boards”.
I should be grateful, when the Minister responds, if she could confirm that this is not indeed the position of the Government, irrespective of the choices which this Bill purports to give and the consultation exercise to be conducted by Ofwat.
There should be no highly prescriptive one-size-fits-all approach. Those best equipped to represent consumer interest may not wish to, or be equipped to, sit on corporate boards, with all the responsibilities and liabilities that entails. For Ofwat even to be given the option of this route risks alienating such experts and losing completely their valuable contribution. Nowhere in its consultation document does Ofwat point to the disadvantages of consumers sitting on boards, to which I have drawn your Lordships’ attention. I am therefore concerned that prospective respondents to the consultation may be being given an unbalanced view of the options.
We should not give Ofwat the power to require companies to appoint representatives of the consumer interest to their boards. Maybe some companies would opt for this route, but equally they may feel that stakeholder interest would be better served through the mechanism of panels or committees. My amendment would ensure that it was the boards of water companies which made that decision, not Ofwat. It would be helpful if the Minister, in her reply, could confirm not only that all identified options are, in reality, properly on the table, but that she recognises the disadvantages of board representation in this regard, which would represent a very suboptimal solution.
My final amendment in this group is Amendment 10. Clause 1(4) provides that the rules about performance-related pay can be applied in respect of the financial year beginning 1 April 2024 and for subsequent years. In effect, they can be applied retroactively. My amendment would change that date from 2024 to 2025 so that they would first be applied from the financial year beginning 1 April 2025. If we do something today, we believe that the law applying to it should be the law enforced today, not tomorrow’s backward adjustment of it. I would argue that the application of these rules retroactively is even more egregious.
One might at least expect your Lordships to know precisely what it is that they are passing and the resultant retrospective impact, but that is not the case. We are delegating the power to make such rules under this legislation to a third party, Ofwat, and I have already expressed severe reservations about its expertise in doing so, given that this is outside the core competence of an economic regulator. We know not what the rules will be, how they will be applied and what impact they will have. Further, it is not intended that they be subject to further scrutiny by this House before being brought into force, as I say, with retrospective effect.
The retroactive application of rules yet to be drafted will undermine investment and increase the cost of capital, raising prices for consumers. Over the next five years, the sector needs to raise £20 billion of new finance, much of it equity, to deliver the largest investment programme in the sector’s history. Investors are already nervous and can earn better returns in other sectors and in other countries. We need to provide confidence that the UK is open for business. Retrospective action destroys that by creating uncertainty about how their investments will be treated.
It will undermine new talent and the sector clearly needs talented individuals to deliver the amount of improvement we all want. Retroactive changes of this sort will undermine employees’ trust in a career. Why choose water when other sectors do not face this risk? If we cannot attract the best people into the water sector, we will not see best performance.
This Water (Special Measures) Bill is designed to drive better future performance. It is too late to change performance by applying rules to a year when two-thirds of it is already over. The water sector is characterised by assets, with 100-year asset lives and performance challenges that require multiyear investment programmes. That is what we should be concentrating on and incentivising management to achieve, not changing the rules of the game retrospectively as punishment for perceived failings. Many noble Lords, including the Minister herself, have made the point that not all water companies are the same—there are good ones and bad ones. I am concerned that the effect of these rules, when drawn up, will draw no such distinction.
Amendment 10 is about as simple as it gets. It requires the replacement of the number 4 with the number 5 so that the performance-related pay provisions come into effect for the beginning of the next financial year, 1 April 2025, and not the beginning of the current financial year, 1 April 2024. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether these rules are intended to apply to three-year LTIPs, not only those beginning in 2024 but also those beginning as far back as 2022 and 2023, of which 2024 is a part? Her reply on this will be important to me. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment. If she does not, I am minded to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I will speak to Amendment 2 in my name, and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Sikka, for adding their names to it. I will speak also to Amendment 8 in my name, and again I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for adding her name to this amendment. Finally, I am sincerely thankful to the Minister and her officials for discussing with me these amendments and the two other amendments in my name, which will come up later.
Probably the most fundamental failure in our water industry is that the regulator either did not understand or was unwilling to investigate sufficiently the financial structuring of the water companies: how these structures and indebtedness were altered over time beyond all recognition from the original enterprises, and what the risks and impacts would be. If anyone is in any doubt about the results, they need only look at Thames Water, which is now all but drowning in fetid pools of ever more expensive debt, adding to its existing £16 billion of net debt so as to limp along from day to day and racking up huge future interest liabilities in addition to the principal £3 billion it is seeking.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her time over the period between Committee and now. I shall speak first to my Amendment 9, which deals with performance-related pay and, more specifically, with bonuses paid to CEOs and directors of water companies. Performance-related pay should be related specifically to how well the water company has carried out its functions, having regard to the environmental targets it has been set. These are likely to relate to the number of illegal sewage spills that have occurred in the preceding 12 months.
During the last year—and especially during the general election campaign—the issue of sewage overflows was in the news almost daily. We saw the outrage of local residents at the state of their streams, rivers and lakes due to sewage spills—many occurred when there had not been any heavy rain. I will not go through the arguments, which have been well rehearsed in this Chamber. What I and my colleagues on these Benches are looking for is a reassurance from the Minister that where a category 1 and/or a category 2 pollution incident has occurred, the management of the offending water company—including the CEO, directors and senior officers involved in decisions in respect of controlling pollution—will be prevented from receiving any bonus or other performance-related pay enhancement to their basic salaries. It is unacceptable to the public for those in a very senior position in sewage and water companies to be rewarded over and above their normal salary for allowing sewage and other pollution to take place and not to have taken any steps to rectify the situation in a reasonable timeframe.
On Amendments 1 and 5 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, environment groups have expertise to give to the water industry, but they should sit on boards. Consumers would also have a voice on boards. On our Benches are Peers who have in the past sat on water boards and contributed positively to their debates. This is a good and positive way forward. We support environmental groups and consumers being on boards and not being sidelined.
Amendments 2 and 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, are about reporting. Amendment 2 would set up annual reporting on financial restructuring, including debt levels. This would seem a sensible way to ensure that the sewage and water company was aware of its business. However, Amendment 8 would involve others in the work of the authority, which is likely to become a bureaucratic nightmare. I have in a previous life sat on such bodies and found them to be unproductive and ineffective—I am sorry. Expectations of the civil society representatives will be high, sometimes with little understanding or knowledge of just how long it can take to implement what may often seem like a trivial matter.
Amendments 4, 7 and 10, from the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, do not align with our Amendment 9 and therefore we do not support them. However, I am conscious that whatever penalties the Bill hands out to directors and CEOs of water companies, they have to be proportionate, or it will be difficult to recruit people with the necessary expertise to sit on the boards of sewage and water companies.
Amendments 11 and 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would introduce an SI into the legal framework. SIs are a favourite tool of Governments to get the detail of legislation in place. They tend to get somewhat divorced from the original Act that they refer to, but the timeline proposed here should mean that the original Act will still be fresh in peoples’ minds.
Amendment 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is, I fear, unworkable. I know from previous debates that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would prefer to be debating the renationalisation of water and sewage companies.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
The Government have indicated that this is not going to happen. The amendment is an attempt to bring forward a different model of governance. The proposal is for 25% of board members to be chosen by local authorities. Local authorities are struggling with social care, looked-after children, education and people with learning disabilities. They certainly do not need this added to their “to do” list.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to this group of amendments, particularly Amendment 9.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 57 is highly workable, because it advances democracy and public accountability of the regulatory bodies. As we have it now, the regulators of the water industry have failed the people, mainly because they are too close to the very interests that they need to regulate and far removed from the welfare of employees, customers and citizens, who bear the ultimate cost of regulatory failure. I am pretty sure that the Government will soon be asking customers to chip in more money to restructure water companies and taxpayers to pay more to reconstruct them. That is just one part of the cost which people will bear.
All regulatory bodies need to be guided by effective watchdogs and guide dogs, but Ofwat has neither any watchdog nor any guide dog; it just seems to be running loose and doing whatever it wishes. There is no mechanism for preventing capture of water regulators. The executives of Ofwat pass through revolving doors and join the water companies with dizzying speed and great regularity, undermining the independence of the regulatory bodies. Regulatory bodies must be seen to be independent rather than just claim that they are independent. At the moment, a director of Ofwat, a former Conservative Minister, is spearheading a campaign that would make it harder for consumers to sue water companies that breach legal sewage limits. Should a regulator be doing that—or should it be more even-handed between the regulated and consumers?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened not just to Members of your Lordships’ House but to the thousands of campaigners, because the amendments tabled in her name are actually of great value. However, I feel they do not go far enough, and a lot of people—though probably not those here—might agree with me.
I have co-signed two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. I will vote for them if any of them are put to the vote. There are lots of other helpful amendments, but those three are the most useful.
I cannot help but feel that, if we were talking about benefit claimants who had behaved in the way that water companies have, we would not just slap them on the wrist in the way that we have the water companies; we would crack down on them, claw back the money and take them to court. The water companies have got off so lightly in this whole process. That really does not seem fair to bill payers or to taxpayers.
Amendment 2 goes to the heart of the issue. Water companies have been ripping us off with financial engineering, and I do not think that the Government’s action plan will resolve this. The water companies have been saying that they invest all the bill payers’ money in infrastructure, but they then take out loans and pay themselves dividends. With this legislation—even with the amendments—the Government are missing the opportunity to crack down on predatory capitalism.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister yet again for her engagement at every stage of the Bill’s progress and for the significant improvements that have been made to it as a result. I will speak to my Amendments 11 and 58, to Amendments 4, 7 and 10 in the name of my noble friend Lord Remnant, and to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.
Amendment 11 is a simple amendment that would give the Secretary of State greater influence over the drafting of the rules on remuneration and governance. We all know that it is the Government who will be held to account in this House and across the country for their record on water quality and pollution reduction. It seems only right that Ministers should have the ability to shape these rules. Indeed, given the importance of getting them right, Amendment 11 would make the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments, giving Parliament its own role in approving these rules. I intend to test the opinion of the House on this, depending on the Minister’s answer.
Amendment 58 relates to limits on water company borrowing. I will not reiterate the arguments I made in Committee and, having listened to the Government’s concerns about the possible impact of a hard statutory limit on current negotiations between the sector and prospective investors, I have tabled an altered amendment here on Report.
It is clear to His Majesty’s Opposition that water companies have failed to take a sustainable approach to borrowing, and the current safeguards are insufficient. The amendment simply gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations under the affirmative procedure for secondary legislation, limiting water company flexibility and returns to shareholders when leverage becomes excessive. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for stating the current leverage ratios of the industry, and I agree with many of his comments, if not his amendment.
Nothing in the amendment forces the Government to do anything; we are merely seeking to give them the tools they need to deliver an effective limit on water company borrowing, given the inability of the regulator to do so historically. The Minister will no doubt tell us that borrowing will be considered in the wider review of the water sector, and we welcome this. However, in the meantime, Ministers need tools to take appropriate action now. If the Government do not feel that a borrowing limit is necessary, nothing in the clause requires them to act, but we on these Benches feel that it would be a missed opportunity to let the Bill pass without giving Ministers powers that they may need to ensure that water company borrowing is at sustainable levels while we await the conclusion of the Government’s review. Subject to the response of the Minister, I am also minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 58.
The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Remnant, which we spoke positively of in Committee, have a great deal of merit. They would ensure that board members are the individuals subject to the rules on remuneration and governance, as well as preventing consumers being inadvertently subject to these rules and other penalties as members of a water company’s board. This can be left to the company to decide.
Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to which I am also a signatory, complements my Amendment 58 on water company borrowing. Greater clarity on water companies’ financial engineering is important. Should he seek to test the opinion of the House, we would support his amendment.
Finally, following the Minister’s constructive response, I did not bring back an amendment on the requirement to provide training to employees on their specific legal obligations within the water industry both before and after the implementation of the Bill. I would be most grateful if she could confirm that the Environment Agency will give guidance to the industry on how employees will be informed of these legal obligations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be back in the Chamber, continuing to debate a very important piece of legislation. I once again thank all noble Lords for their interest in the Bill and their constructive engagement. We may not always agree— I may not always be able to accept amendments—but it has been very useful to have good, constructive discussions, which have helped to inform the amendments. Before I start my response, and before I forget, I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked in his last question.
Amendments 1 and 5 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, consider the views of environmental groups. I fully support his intention to increase the voice of environmental experts and company decision-making processes. However, we do not feel that these are necessary amendments to the Bill, and I shall explain why.
Environmental issues are already a key consideration in company decision-making. Water companies have a range of environmental obligations that they are required to meet, from ammonia limits to phosphorus reductions, and actions related to those obligations. If they break the law, regulators must enforce against them. Ensuring that these obligations are properly met is why we are giving the commission the opportunity to do a full review of regulation.
I agree that we need a step change from water companies. I remind noble Lords that, after only seven days in office, the Government called in all water companies to negotiate and require them to update their articles of association—the fundamental rules that govern each company—in order to make the interests of customers and the environment a primary and fundamental objective. These updates will place customers and the environment at the heart of business decisions, and we expect the majority of companies to have updated their articles of association by the end of the year.
Lord Remnant (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister; I do not mean any discourtesy. I thank her for clarifying that the provisions relate to the time from 1 April 2024. Despite what she has said, I am still concerned about the retrospective element. My understanding is that that would affect the bonus arrangements for the year from 1 April 2024 to 1 April 2025 and would also impact the three-year LTIP arrangements entered into on 1 April 2024 for the following three years. But it will not impact LTIP arrangements entered into as long ago as 2022 or 2023 but which still have the financial year beginning in 2024 as part of those three years. From what the Minister has said, my understanding is that the retrospective element will not go so far back as to apply to LTIP arrangements entered into in 2022 and 2023. If she could confirm that, I would be much happier.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Just to reiterate, Ofwat will look closely at the impact this will have on long-term incentive plans. I cannot give the noble Lord any firm detail on the specific question he asks, because Ofwat is currently looking at this. Perhaps this is something we could pick up so that I can understand his specific concerns in more detail, and we can feed those into Ofwat’s current discussions. At the moment I cannot give him any more firm information than I have already given. If the noble Lord wants to continue this discussion so that I can feed it back to Ofwat, I shall be happy to do so. I do not know what else I can offer at the moment, because I cannot give the noble Lord a firm answer.
I am going over time, but I shall look quickly at what else I need to say. Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would ensure that Ofwat’s rules on remuneration and governance came into force within six months of Royal Assent. Ofwat will be responsible for developing and implementing those rules but, as the Secretary of State will already be consulted through the process, we do not believe there is a need for a statutory instrument to be laid to bring the rules into effect.
We think that allowing Ofwat to set rules in this way, rather than through legislation, will enable those standards to be more easily amended where it is appropriate to do so in the future. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord. Ofwat does intend to implement the first set of rules following its statutory consultation, so this is not something that is going to drag on. We are keen for the rules to be in place as soon as possible after Royal Assent.
Amendment 57, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sikka, is about involvement in Ofwat’s board. We believe that it is the responsibility of Ofwat to determine who is on its board and who has voting rights for board meetings. There are already a number of ways in which consumers can feed into Ofwat’s regulatory work.
Finally, Amendment 58, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, is about water company borrowing. At sensible levels, debt can be an appropriate way to fund investment for essential infrastructure in the longer term. Ofwat is already taking steps to monitor debt levels as part of its report on financial resilience. Companies will need to access additional debt and equity to support the price review 2024 investment programme. I do, however, agree with the noble Lord that more can be done to ensure that debt levels are more closely monitored in future, and I would like to reassure him that, as he expected, that the independent commission will look at this.
Following our meeting, I also know that the noble Lord understands that this is a critical point in time for the water industry and its investors, and we have previously discussed the importance of ensuring that we do not jeopardise water companies’ ability to secure investment before Ofwat’s final determinations are made at the end of this year. Today, Barclays reported in the Times on the deterioration in investor sentiment following the publication of the draft determinations.
I therefore trust that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, is reassured that the Government take this issue very seriously, and that he and other noble Lords understand that introducing further rules on borrowing through this Bill is not appropriate for the water industry at this time. That is what I want to stress—“at this time”.
I have run out of time, but I thank noble Lords. This has been a long group and a lot has been discussed. I hope that they will feel able not to press their amendments.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I am still certain in my own mind that the environmental voice needs to be louder in decision-making in this industry in future. I was considerably reassured by the Minister explaining how environmental considerations are central to so much of the current structure; however, one has to admit that, in practice, that has not been very evident.
I must admit that I became a bit concerned when the Minister was commenting on Amendments 6 and 7 and board representation. She emphasised more than once the importance of the consumer voice on boards, panels and committees, and she never mentioned the environmental voice. I must say that I then slightly worried about the reassurances I had previously received from her. However, one has to be pragmatic about these things. I think that my amendment is important, and I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for apparently being prepared to support it. I noticed that the Conservatives, the Official Opposition, did not comment on it and therefore, with great regret, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cromwell
“(d) requiring a relevant undertaker to report not less than annually to the Authority on actual or planned financial structuring or restructuring of the undertaker, including debt levels, commercial strategy and any associated risks, including to the long-term sustainability of the undertaking.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment requires that financial engineering becomes a regular focus area for timely reporting in order to assist in regulators’ understanding and alert them in good time to risks or distortions in a water company.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I very much appreciate the Minister’s comments, but as she will expect, I am unable to agree. She said that Ofwat is closely monitoring water company finances. Well, we are nearing panto season and all I can say is, “Oh no it isn’t!” I have had numerous meetings with Ofwat in committee and frankly, I do not think it even really understood them. What is required by this amendment is a potentially very short report that simply outlines what financial restructuring has happened and what new debt has been taken on. It is a modest but vital amendment to make transparent the financial engineering and prevent the shenanigans of the past. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
“(iia) meeting relevant standards issued under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, in particular the standards in Schedule 3 (sustainable drainage),”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to return to these amendments and to thank the Minister and the Bill team, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for the very useful, albeit inconclusive, meeting that we had,
Amendment 3 is really a prelude to setting out the basis of Amendment 43, on which, depending on the response I get from the Minister, I may be tempted seriously to test the opinion of the House. Amendment 3 sets out that the relevant standards in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, particularly as set out in Schedule 3, “Sustainable Drainage”, be part of this Bill. In her summing up when this was debated in Committee, she thought that these standards were contained not in the 2010 Act but in a different Act. I beg to disagree. I think she has tabled an amendment, which we will come to later, asking for Ofwat to have regard to climate change. If it is going to have regard to that, I firmly believe that it should have regard to other environmental standards.
The reason I would like to return to Schedule 3 and the important question of sustainable drains is that the Bill, in its current form, is seriously flawed in this one respect. While rightfully holding companies to account on aspects of finance and other responsibilities, it fails to address the fundamental issue that leads to flooding from new developments. If the Bill remains drafted, it will allow rainwater to continue entering public sewers and mix with sewage at times of excessive flooding. This sewage and rainwater will enter existing developments, causing a public health hazard with raw sewage coming into people’s homes. I believe— I know others across your Lordships’ House agree—that it is totally unacceptable to continue to have rainwater mixing with sewage in the public sewers in this way.
There is general contentment that the Government seem to have met their manifesto commitment in this Bill, but sadly they are not focusing—they are reneging —on their responsibilities as regards parts of wastewater. Without my Amendments 3 and 43, the Bill remains defective. Amendment 43 is totally benign. It simply asks what progress there will have been in six months’ time towards implementing Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, calling for an end to the automatic right to connect, and adapting sustainable drains to be built as a mandatory requirement for all new developments. In Committee, I was delighted that my noble friend Lord Blencathra from the Front Bench supported this amendment and asked the Minister to consider bringing tougher flood mitigation duties forward for water companies on Report.
These amendments, and Amendment 43 in particular, provide vital flood mitigation measures that received cross-party support during the passage of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. I am grateful to my noble friend from the Front Bench for lending his support to this amendment yesterday, and I request that the House give it fair wind. As I say, it is not asking for implementation, which would not be in keeping with this Bill, and I know the Minister will respond to this little debate by saying that the Government are looking at a future piece of legislation that will flow from the commission, which I think all noble Lords are grateful that they are setting up.
I would like to press the Minister on one point that she raised in her response to the debate that we had on these amendments in Committee. She said:
“The issue we have is that it also impacts directly on development and developers, which is why the Government are currently working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to assess how best to implement their ambitions on sustainable drainage, while also being mindful of the cumulative impact of the new regulatory burdens on the development sector. At this stage, I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of that process”.—[Official Report, 28/10/24; col. 1009.]
When the Minister and her colleagues sat on this side of the House, she was in favour of Schedule 3 and the immediate implementation of mandatory sustainable drains on all major new developments. I ask her in the most positive spirit: what has changed? Why now are they reneging on their duty, as a new Government with a big majority, to allow households to be free from the fear of having rainwater mixing with raw sewage and entering combined sewers with the potential of coming into their homes? I am not alone in calling for this to come into effect; both the Climate Change Committee and the National Infrastructure Commission have recommended that significant progress be made in addressing surface water flood risk, with the latter recommending that Schedule 3 be implemented.
Managing water both around and from new developments is central to reducing flood risk and the amount of water entering sewers. The Bill is also flawed in not addressing the issue of surface water run-off from highways, which we also discussed in that meeting, and I agree with the Minister and her colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, that this should take place in the planning Bill coming forward. But this Bill is the right place in which to ask the Minister to report in six months’ time on what progress has been made as a consequence of the Bill towards implementing that vital measure of Schedule 3, which is an integral part of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
I look forward to hearing a debate from other noble Lords, but I will listen very carefully to what the Minister says, particularly what she meant by “cumulative impact”. I may well test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. The Minister will be aware that, both at Second Reading and in Committee, I raised matters of capacity where sewage and rainwater mix—run-off from roofs, roads or wherever. In Committee, I quoted some case law that shows that the capacity of the sewers to cope with both should already be taken into consideration. I hope that, when she responds, she will assure us that she has asked for that case law to be investigated, because it may well be helpful in this case.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to this group of two amendments on the implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to promote sustainable urban drainage systems, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Amendment 3 seeks to include the standards issued under that schedule in the guidance produced by Ofwat in relation to performance pay. Amendment 43 requires the Secretary of State to lay a report on the effect of the Bill on the implementation of Schedule 3 to that Act within six months of the passing of the Bill before us. I will speak to both amendments together, as, in the main, they are about the same issue: the implementation of Schedule 3.
We on these Benches are broadly in support of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and we welcome her continued commitment to this particular area of policy. Of course, if we could roll back the clock and start again, we would all ensure that all housing had sustainable drainage designed in and built as standard. That option is obviously not available to us, but these amendments seek to ensure that all housing developments are built with sustainable drainage methods going forward.
We should all use grey water to flush our toilets and water our gardens, and, as a society, we need to make sure that surface water and rainwater are collected, stored and used, so that they do not mix with the foul water from toilets and overflows and overfill our antiquated sewerage systems.
In the face of climate change and even more extreme forms of weather, we need to do more to reduce the use of water and to slow any unessential abstraction of it from our rivers and streams. Planning authorities should not grant new housing planning permission unless proper systems are in place to reuse rainwater, separate it from the foul water and build attenuation ponds to collect surplus rainwater. There are two ends to this problem, and it seems like 99% of what we do is dealing with the bad end rather than with the preventive stuff at the other end. Of course, nature solutions are one option for dealing with these issues. Is anything in the Minister’s Amendment 42 on nature-based solutions helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and her amendment? Perhaps there is nothing, but perhaps there are some connections between the two.
Do the Government still intend to push on in the new year on a consultation on how we could revise these regulations, with the aim of increasing water reuse?
As this is the only contribution I will make to this debate, I will take a moment to thank the Minister and her team for the constructive way she has engaged with all of us across the House on the Bill, and for bringing forward many government amendments that have sought to address concerns raised across the Chamber.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I apologise to the House for not having been able to participate in previous stages. I will briefly support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and these amendments. How come the Government, when in opposition, supported introducing mandatory sustainable drains in major new developments but now seem not to wish to do so? If no drains, soakaways or culverts are constructed to take the excess, flood-water will go into combined sewers, potentially then bubbling up and leaving sewage in housing developments. This causes a health hazard by flooding homes with sewage.
The amendment asks simply for a report on how developers have implemented Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. There was cross-party support for that in this House, and I hope the Minister can reassure us or find a way to meet the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for moving this amendment. In Committee, we discussed the implementation of the provisions of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. As my noble friend has said previously, the last Government accepted the recommendation of a sustainable drainage systems review to implement Schedule 3. We share my noble friend’s concerns about the impact of additional run-off from developments. If the Government seek to deliver the homes we need for the next generation and to drive the economic growth they promised, we need to get sustainable drainage right.
Although I understand that the Government have concerns about whether these amendments should be in the Bill and which department should be responsible for this policy area, I hope they will listen carefully to my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s concerns and be able to reassure her. However, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, but we will not be able to support Amendment 43.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for continuing to raise this important issue, and for tabling her Amendments 3 and 43, which speak to the implementation of Schedule 3. I thank her for her passion and persistence on this matter—she has never let it drop, which is important because this stalled 14 years ago. I also thank her for taking the time to meet me and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, the Minister in MHCLG, to discuss this matter in some detail and to look at how we can improve delivery.
On Amendment 3, the standards introduced under Schedule 3 would be designed specifically for relevant approval bodies to use when determining applications for sustainable drainage. As I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, such applications would be submitted mainly by developers, not water companies—obviously, for SUDS, that is who implements the developments. Because of that, the Government do not consider Schedule 3 standards to be appropriate to use when we are establishing the rules on remuneration of pay prohibitions. That is why we cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Amendment 43 is the important, indeed critical amendment in this group. As I have previously said, the Government are strongly committed to requiring standardised SUDS in new developments. We are not looking to renege or backtrack in any way. We are committed to this; it is about the most effective method of delivery.
There are specific outcomes that the Government want to achieve. We want to see an increase in quantity, with more SUDS being built, but we need to see better design qualities that do what we want them to do. We need effective adoption and maintenance, to ensure the new SUDS being built are long-term and keep their quality for the long-term. We need an increase in sustainable drainage in more developments. We need to ensure that, when we are improving the design, they are designed to cope with our changing climate; that is critical, as we are seeing more and more water, often followed by drought, which compounds a lot of the problems. We need to make sure that anything we bring in delivers wider water infrastructure benefits by reducing the levels of rainwater entering sewers, which noble Baronesses have mentioned, and helps improve water quality, while enabling economic growth and delivering the biodiversity and amenity benefits that we need.
Surface water run-off was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. It is important that we look at how we tackle all aspects of drainage and surface water. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, mentioned her house in Devon. We live in a very old stone-built house in Cumbria. Our house has also flooded in the past. There is much that we need to work on in this area. I am also very aware that there are occasions when new build, if not done properly, can have a knock-on effect on houses that have never flooded before. There is a big picture question in the planning system around how we approach this and tackle it most effectively.
While I am on the subject of surface water, the noble Earl asked about the amendments coming up on nature-based solutions. That is absolutely part of the package of how we tackle this going forward. He asked whether all the areas that we are looking at will continue to be input into the review. Anything we have discussed here that is still outstanding or of concern will absolutely be looked at and will be within the scope of the review going forward.
Having said all of this—the noble Baroness knows this because we discussed it with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—we believe that our ambition for SUDS delivery can be achieved in different ways. It can be achieved through improving the current planning-led approach, and using powers through that route, or by commencing Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, as the noble Baroness requested. If we are going to get this to work in the most effective way possible, and get the kinds of results that we need, we need to work hand-in-glove with the MHCLG. Ultimately, this is about development and developers, and getting them to make the right kind of connections and drainage decisions in new developments.
As we discussed, we are looking at planning reforms that can deliver improved sustainable drainage. The National Planning Policy Framework is out for consultation at the moment, until the end of the year. We have asked specific questions around SUDS, from Defra, in that consultation. If noble Lords are interested in inputting to that, it is currently open for consultation.
The MHCLG is looking at the best approach to this, through the NPPF consultation, and there is going to be planning and infrastructure legislation coming up. That is why we cannot accept the amendment at the moment. There are a number of delivery paths. We want to deliver this and we want to deliver it well, so we need to get the delivery path correct. That is why we are unable to accept the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, she failed to respond on the case study on capacity and on the cumulative impact. I am afraid that in this Bill the Minister is making water companies liable and responsible for something that the developers are responsible for by not putting SUDS in place. That is just not acceptable.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
I do not quite understand the last point of the noble Baroness. On the basis that it comes through planning, the whole point is that it then becomes the developers’ responsibility and not that of the water companies.
On the case study, I will definitely take that back to the Department. I am very happy to do that—I am sorry that I forgot to answer that question. Obviously it was picked up from the previous debate, but I will raise it and see where we are with that. I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness about what is happening, if that helps.
Baroness Browning (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister, but without labouring the point, the case law showed that there is sufficient legislation now for capacity to be an important key point of planning decisions. It could save an awful lot of work going down the track if that were there, but it is simply unused. If that is the case, it is simply a matter of ensuring that it is enforced or that local authorities and planning departments can use it. That could save an awful lot of time.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an extremely important point. I am more than happy to pick this up, look at it and write to her on how we propose to move forward. I am so sorry: the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked another question, but I cannot remember what it was.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
It was on cumulative impact. I quoted what the noble Baroness had said about the cumulative impact on development, and I am trying to understand why we are delaying implementing Schedule 3. What is the cumulative impact and regulatory burden that the noble Baroness is so concerned about?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The main issue, for me, is to look at how we get developers to implement what we need them to be implementing as far as sustainable drainage is concerned. We know that that is the right way forward and we have said that we want to increase it. When we are working with developers, we need to get them to want to do this, to be part of moving forward in the planning system and to improve drainage systems on the basis that, ultimately, it helps everybody when it comes to flooding and sewage overflows.
Clearly, there is a cumulative impact if you are developing in an area that already has a lot of development. We already know that there are issues around this. We need to get it right, so we need to consider the cumulative impact when SUDS are being designed. I have said that we want to improve design, to make sure that it is effective and works for the long term. As part of that, we also need to look at how it is managed. It is all part of that.
Developments do not just get built and then that is it, they are on their own. As I said, there are areas—certainly near where I live—where development has taken place and the cumulative impact on the other developments nearby has been negative; it has not been good. We need to ensure that we consider that, so we make sure that any systems we bring in will work properly.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
From the Minister’s last remarks, we are in fact saying the same thing. All I am asking the noble Baroness to put into this Bill is the requirement to report in six months’ time on where we are on the implementation of SUDS. So, if the Government have decided that they do not want to go down the SUDS path and want to go down the planning path, she will know that within six months. I do not intend to press Amendment 3 to a vote, but I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 43, which will come later.
Lord Remnant
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the provisions about performance-related pay do not have retroactive effect.
Lord Remnant (Con)
My Lords, I heard what the Minister had to say, but I have to say that I believe that the retrospective effect of this legislation is not appropriate —all the more so if it is going to impact on remuneration arrangements that were put in place as long ago as 2022-23. I would like to test the House’s opinion.
Lord Roborough
“(5) The first rules issued under section 35B of the Water Industry Act 1991 (as inserted by subsection (3)) must be published by the Authority within six months of this Act coming into force and provided to the Secretary of State and do not take effect until the Secretary of State has made regulations made by statutory instrument to bring them into effect.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, as I said previously in Committee, consultation with the Secretary of State, as described in the Bill and again by the Minister today, is simply not enough to ensure accountability of this rule-making power, so I would like to test the opinion of the House on my amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment moves the provisions about pollution incident reduction plans to a different part of the Water Industry Act 1991, in consequence of the Minister’s subsequent amendments extending Clause 2 to the water supply network.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, in Committee noble Lords across the House made it clear that, although they were supportive of the new requirement for water companies to produce annual pollution incident reduction plans, they wanted further assurances that the measures in the plans would be duly implemented. I have listened carefully to the points raised in Committee and to the views shared on this issue during a number of very constructive meetings with several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell, among others, and I thank them for their time and consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked for further explanation as to why we believe annual reporting is more appropriate than more regular reporting for pollution incident reduction plans. The measures in these plans are typically programmes of ongoing maintenance that will need to continue on an ongoing basis. Examples include regular cleaning of wet wells at sewage pumping stations to remove detritus that could lead to blockages or replacing rising main sewage pipes. We want companies’ focus to be on delivering the measures they have set out in their plans rather than on preparing reports for publication to talk about delivery. More regular reports also may lead to a focus on the wrong metrics to show progress for progress’s sake rather than the work necessary to reduce pollution incidents.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and other noble Lords, I am pleased to propose a group of amendments to enhance and strengthen Clause 2 of the Bill. I turn first to Amendments 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25, 27 and 31, all tabled in my name, which will expand the scope of pollution incident reduction plans to encompass water supply system-related incidents. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, specifically raised this in Committee when she tabled an amendment which would require that water-only companies as well as water and sewerage companies produce pollution incident reduction plans. She made very persuasive points which we listened to carefully and, on reflection, we agree that including water supply incidents in scope would strengthen these plans. While pollution incidents attributable to the water supply system are less frequent than incidents attributable to the sewerage system, they have the potential to be equally serious. I thank the noble Baroness for drawing our attention to this in Committee. Such incidents could include a burst clean-water main leading to erosion and then silt pollution in the watercourse or the addition of chlorinated or fluorinated water into the watercourse.
The amendments tabled in my name will mean that water companies will have a duty to develop and publish measures to reduce pollution incidents attributable to the water supply system as well as the sewerage system. This duty will apply to all relevant companies, including water-only companies as well as water and sewerage undertakers. We believe this will support the overall intent of Clause 2 in further reducing the frequency and impact of pollution incidents from the water sector. I once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and all who spoke in support of this topic in Committee for their constructive approach.
I now move to Amendments 29, 34 and 35, also tabled in my name. These amendments create personal liability for chief executives to ensure that pollution incident reduction plans are published and implemented in line with the requirements set out in the Bill. A key aim of this Bill has been to hold water company executives to account for pollution caused by the water industry. As a core part of their role, water company executives should be acting to minimise pollution incidents and ensuring that their infrastructure is fit for purpose and resilient to pressure, including from climate change and population growth.
This is why Clause 1 of the Bill will enable Ofwat to ban bonuses for executives when water companies fail to meet environmental standards. But we want to build on this by making chief executives personally liable for the production of pollution incident reduction plans. This will mirror the personal liability which accompanies the duty for directors of a company to publish accounts and a company report under the Companies Act 2006. This will emphasise that minimising pollution incidents is a central aspect of a water company chief executive’s role. Under this group of amendments, the chief executive must personally ensure that the company produces a plan each year which meets all legal requirements. The chief executive must also personally approve the plan before it is published.
If the company fails to publish a compliant plan by the deadline each year, the chief executive—as well as the company—will have committed an offence. The regulator will be able to prosecute against this offence and, if the courts find the chief executive guilty, they will issue a fine.
To ensure that this measure is proportionate, imprisonment will not be available as a sanction. Furthermore, we have provided a defence to ensure that chief executives are not penalised if non-compliance arises due to circumstances that are—I emphasise—genuinely out of their control.
Through bringing forward these amendments, we will ensure that the production and publication of pollution incident reduction plans is overseen at the highest level, reflecting the importance of water companies bringing forward measures to meaningfully reduce pollution incidents.
I turn now to Amendments 19, 32 and 37, tabled in my name. In Committee, noble Lords made it clear that they wanted to see a clearer mechanism to ensure that water companies implemented their pollution incident reduction plans. We have listened very carefully and now propose a group of amendments to further ensure that companies implement the measures in their plans.
However, before I describe these amendments, I would like to recap why we do not think imposing a direct duty for water companies to implement the plans—as is proposed in Amendment 15A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough—is helpful. First, at present, it is rightly the responsibility of companies to produce these plans and to decide the steps they will take to reduce pollution incidents. A direct duty to implement the measures in the plans could therefore result in companies setting enforceable duties for themselves. This would create a confused regulatory system, which could ultimately make it more challenging for the regulators to enforce legal requirements for pollution reduction.
For example, regulators would need to disentangle measures that water companies have put in their plans from pre-existing regulatory duties. This could make investigations and enforcement action more challenging and add complexity and confusion to the regulatory system.
Secondly, a direct duty may inadvertently reduce companies’ ambition. To manage the risk of enforcement, companies might be persuaded to make a commitment only when highly confident they could deliver.
Thirdly, this direct duty may force companies to continue implementing measures, even when they have realised it is not the most effective way to reduce pollution incidents. Companies should have the flexibility to learn and iteratively improve their approach. Sometimes, this may mean companies ceasing implementation of a specific measure and taking a different approach. Therefore, we do not think it is appropriate to create a legal duty for water companies to implement the measures they have set out in their plans.
I will now turn to the government amendments themselves and explain how they will ensure that water companies reduce pollution incidents and are held to account for delivery of their plans. First, this group of amendments introduces a duty for companies to produce an implementation report alongside their annual plans. Companies will be required to set out where they have and have not implemented the measures they planned to implement in the preceding year. Companies must then set out the reasons for any failure to implement their plans and the steps they are taking to avoid similar failures in the future.
This will create a high level of transparency, enabling the public and regulators to scrutinise the extent to which companies have implemented their plans. Requiring companies to set out the steps they are taking to avoid similar failures in the future will ensure that companies cannot continue to make the same excuse year after year.
Secondly, we are also amending the Bill to ensure that the environmental regulators take into account companies’ track records in implementing their plans when undertaking regulatory activities. This means that the regulator will consider the extent to which the company has implemented its plan when considering its enforcement response to a pollution incident, or when planning its schedule of investigations. This may well mean that a company will face more severe enforcement action for a pollution incident if it has failed to sufficiently implement those plans.
I hope the House will agree that, collectively, these amendments represent a significant strengthening of the Bill, and will ensure that companies are firmly held to account for implementing the measures outlined in their pollution incident reduction plans.
I will conclude by speaking to Amendments 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 30, 33, 36, 38, 60 and 63. I am delighted to move this suite of amendments to extend the application of the provisions introduced by Clause 2 of the Bill to Wales. Upon reviewing the requirements imposed by Clause 2 of the Bill, the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales have requested that Clause 2 be extended to apply in Wales. This was announced by the Deputy First Minister on 16 October and these amendments seek to deliver on that request.
I look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with our counterparts in Wales, and indeed with all of the devolved Governments, to tackle shared problems relating to the water industry and water quality more broadly.
I once again thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and input to discussions around the new requirement to produce pollution incident reduction plans, and hope that noble Lords agree that these amendments will significantly improve and strengthen this new requirement. I move that these amendments form part of the Bill.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
On behalf of these Benches, I thank the Minister for listening to the cross-House comments made on the pollution incident reduction plans in Committee. The whole House welcomes the fact that the Government are bringing forward these plans. They can be an important contribution to dealing with the sewage crisis which we have seen for too long; water companies have let the public down.
On that point, it was a disgrace in the last week to see that United Utilities—which has been so responsible for all the sewage pollution that has gone into Windermere, as we referred to in Committee—has increased its dividend to shareholders. It is an absolute disgrace, so these measures cannot come soon enough.
We thank the Minister for listening to the very real concerns we had on two fronts: first, that water companies were excluded from the provisions in the way that water and sewerage companies were not. Although they are a smaller number of the 16 and may be proportionally less important, they are still very important. We thank the Minister for that.
On a slightly broader point, we hear what the Government said on not accepting the amendment proposed in Committee, about adding “and implement” into the Bill, which I see that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, has brought back today. We are satisfied with the numerous amendments the Government have brought forward to address the two main points: first, that the plans will have to be annually and publicly reported, so we can see what the companies are doing. As the Minister made very clear, it is not just what they have done; they have to make absolutely clear what they have not done and what they are going to do about it, so that we the public—and indeed the regulators—can hold them to account.
The second point, which the Government have moved on significantly—which we very much welcome—is that the chief executives have become personally liable for the production of both the plans and the reports and have some legally binding responsibility which can translate into sanctions, which we believe are strong enough. We thank the Government for bringing forward these pollution incident reduction plans and for listening so constructively to the comments which were made. This is a major improvement to the Bill.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I fully echo the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in thanking the Minister both for her engagement during the Bill’s progress and also, specifically, for listening to the House on the implementation of the pollution incident reduction plans. We also welcome these government amendments.
I tabled Amendment 15A simply as a reminder of how understanding and accommodating the Government have been. This was originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, in Committee. As I said then, we would have tabled it ourselves had she not been so swift with her pen. It is crucial that pollution incident reduction plans are more than a wish list, and actually have real obligations for implementation.
We are most grateful to the Minister for listening to this House and creating a structure for making water companies responsible for implementing these plans and reporting on that implementation. The Minister explained clearly the issues around that responsibility, relating to interference with the other statutory obligations of those companies, and we are very pleased that she and her officials were able to design a methodology that would work.
We agree that making the CEO of the relevant undertaker responsible for signing off the plan and liable for its implementation creates significant incentives to ensure that these pollution incident reduction plans will be implemented. I thank the Minister, yet again, for her further explanation of why annual reporting is appropriate in this instance, and I accept that. We on these Benches are supportive of these government amendments and I will not press my amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this group, and in particular I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their support for the government amendments. Our amendments will ensure that water companies develop robust and comprehensive pollution incident reduction plans and will also guarantee that they are held accountable for delivering the measures outlined in the plans. Once again, I thank noble Lords for helping the Government to improve the Bill in this respect, and I look forward to working with them as the Bill progresses. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
““Pollution incident reduction plans
205A Duty to prepare and publish plans”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s previous amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 so that it covers the water supply network as well as the sewerage network.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 to Wales.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 so that it covers the water supply network as well as the sewerage network.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 so that it covers the water supply network as well as the sewerage network.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 so that it covers the water supply network as well as the sewerage network.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision superseded by the Minister’s amendment at page 5, line 38.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 so that it covers the water supply network as well as the sewerage network.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 to Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 to Wales.
“(7A) A pollution incident reduction plan must include, or be published with, a statement by the chief executive of the undertaker that the chief executive has personally approved the plan.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a pollution incident reduction plan to be approved by the chief executive of the undertaker in question.
“(7A) Before preparing a pollution incident reduction plan, a sewerage undertaker must consult with farmers, local authorities, developers and others to identify natural flood prevention solutions to prevent pollution incidents.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require consideration of opportunities to retain water through natural solutions to prevent sewage mixing in combined sewers with excess rainfall, causing pollution incidents.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to open on this very interesting group of amendments, and to speak to my Amendment 26. At the risk of having a love-in with the Minister and the Government, following on from the last group, I would like to commend her and her Bill team for listening to the debate we had on similar amendments in Committee. To be honest, the reason I tabled this amendment is that we discussed this issue very briefly when we met with the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, but I did not realise that I had not seen the text of the amendments the Government were submitting. I applaud and commend her Amendment 42 and others in this group; I will leave those who are moving those amendments to speak to them.
I have just a few words to say on Amendment 26 and the Pickering pilot scheme, with which I was associated in its latter stages and the success of which I still monitor very closely. Since we have had the Pickering scheme, the dam and the planting of the trees, Yorkshire Water and the Duchy of Lancaster have put some money in, and Pickering Town Council has agreed to maintain some of the work that has been done. I take the noble Baroness’s point, made at the conclusion of the second group, about the importance of the maintenance of sustainable systems going forward. I would like to think that that was a role model.
The one defect of that scheme was that there was no private finance, apart from Yorkshire Water, and I hope that other models will look to retain that going forward. It also had money from the Environment Agency, North Yorkshire Council and Ryedale District Council, as was. As I said, it is a role model that I hope other projects will follow. It has meant that Pickering Beck has not flooded Pickering or downstream since that time. I therefore commend the amendment to the House, although I shall not be pressing it because I favour the Government’s Amendment 42 in this regard. It would allow an opportunity to retain water through natural solutions in order to prevent sewage mixing and combining with excess rainfall, causing pollution incidents.
I hope that when the Minister responds, she will highlight how, as I have set out in Amendment 26, she would expect a sewerage undertaker to consult with Parliament, local authorities, developers and others to identify such natural flood-prevention solutions. If all the parties work together going forward, this will be very important work of the water commission, looking at a catchment management system that someone has to take control of. I commend Amendment 26 and I look forward to listening to others speak to their amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to government Amendment 48. I am extremely grateful to the Government for bringing forward this amendment, which reflects the substance of the amendment that I and others brought forward in Committee, and I am happy to support it by putting my name to it. That debate showed that there was a clear case for Ofwat doing more on environmental issues, and I thank the Minister and her officials for their extremely productive approach, openness in meetings and willingness to work together to address these concerns. I am really pleased that we now have on the face of the Bill a new duty for Ofwat to have regard to the need to contribute to our climate change and environmental targets when exercising its functions. It is so critical that this is factored into decision-making, so that opportunities to contribute to these targets are not missed or deprioritised.
While I am grateful for the progress we have made in seeking to redress the imbalance, it would have been preferable to have a stronger duty than “have regard to”. I know the reasons for using this language, but my previous wording, which would have obligated Ofwat to
“take all reasonable steps to contribute to”
our climate and nature targets, would have provided a stronger obligation without caveats. Therefore, I very much hope that the progress we have made today is just the start of wider changes to ensure better environmental outcomes in our water industry. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the question of how Ofwat will balance environmental duties and deal with the related trade-offs with other economic and consumer objectives will be looked at in detail as part of the water commission’s work.
I also want to raise the important issue of adaptation. My original amendment contained an additional limb which was intended to ensure that adapting to the current or predicted impacts of climate change, as identified in the most recent report of the Climate Change Committee, would also be part of Ofwat’s remit when exercising its functions. In discussions, the Minister said that adaptation is covered by the resilience strategic priority. However, this does not directly link back to current Adaptation Committee reports. I hope this too will be examined by the water commission, because in spite of having the resilience objective, this has not so far led to the new reservoirs we urgently need for housing and drought resilience. More clearly does need to happen, and I would be grateful for any assurances the Minister can give regarding adaptation.
I also welcome government Amendment 42. I hope that this will be a step forward in increasing the use of and spend on nature-based solutions, and lead to their greater and more systematic use to address adaptation issues such as flooding and drought.
Amendment 44, in the name of my noble friend Lady Boycott—who sends her apologies—is the same as the one tabled in Committee. It addresses the very real issue of water companies not being transparent with environmental data, and specifically does three things. First, subsection (1) would provide statutory underpinning to the Fish Legal case, making it beyond challenge that water companies are, and will remain, public authorities for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. This is necessary because, if it is not in legislation, its overturning by a future ruling remains a distinct possibility.
Secondly, proposed new subsection (2) would cut through the delaying tactics and refusals by water companies to make it clear that effluent and wastewater treatment data must, as a minimum, be proactively published by water companies. The water companies will be required by law to publish it up front, without anyone having to ask. This would be consistent with the expectation of transparency that we are setting though the Bill.
Thirdly, proposed new subsection (3) would amend the appeal and enforcement provisions in the 2004 regulations to allow members of the public to complain directly to the Information Commissioner about data not being proactively published—which they cannot at present.
In Committee, in response to this amendment, the Minister said that, while the Government supported the principle of transparency, these
“specific proposals duplicate pre-existing provisions and would create practical difficulties”.—[Official Report, 30/10/24; col. 1186.]
However, we have looked, we cannot find these pre-existing provisions and we do not understand what the practical difficulties would be. All we are asking is for sewerage undertakers to publish data that they hold and which, under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, they are meant to publish but do not because the regulations are effectively unenforceable.
Noble Lords and the Minister may have seen over the weekend an article in the Observer, which has already been mentioned, about precisely this issue. United Utilities has been fighting a legal challenge that has been brought upon it to not give the public access to environmental data on its—to be generous—“potential” pollution of Lake Windermere. First, it claimed that the phosphorus data was not environmental information, then that it was internal communication. Obviously, this is environmental. ICO agrees and has said that it should be published—but still it has not been.
In this example, we can see that some sewerage companies will not behave in the public interest unless forced to do so. In this amendment, we have an opportunity to address these refusals to be transparent. It would go some way to removing their supposed legal defence, forcing them to co-operate. I really hope that the Minister can get behind this today, as the only thing that will help here is words in statute. If there are specific concerns with the drafting, we would welcome her amending it at Third Reading.
In conclusion, I reiterate my thanks to the Minister and her team. We have made important progress for climate and nature in this Bill and we will start to see delivery of better outcomes for our precious river and coastal ecosystems.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my Amendment 49 puts a clear and unambiguous environmental duty on Ofwat. It gives the authority a primary duty to protect the environment. I am well aware that the Government probably will come round to the Greens’ way of thinking in 10 or 15 years and that perhaps this side of the Chamber might come round to our way of thinking in 25 or 30 years, but we have to care now about our environment and our planet. What we have passed so far, although very welcome, is just not enough.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, natural flood management is proving to be a cost-effective way of reducing flood risk, far cheaper than traditional construction involving lots of concrete. Water companies should be investing in these nature-based solutions to reduce the infrastructure cost of handling service water run-off, because every litre of water that soaks into the ground is a litre of water that does not flood into the water treatment system.
I have two requests of the Minister. Will the government amendments now provide a baseline so the Minister can take forward a piece of work to expand the use of natural flood management, especially where it is significantly cheaper than other methods? Secondly, will the Government please put these climate and nature amendments on the face of their Bills at drafting stage, rather than having to amend them down the line?
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, it is always an absolute pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I was going to call her “my noble friend”—but not quite yet. I am delighted to speak to my Amendment 55. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Roborough, who has also signed the amendment, and I thank all noble Lords who spoke to this in Committee.
Like so many other noble Lords today, I join in the great “love-in” for the Minister. All I will say, speaking from experience, is “Enjoy it while it lasts”. I pay tribute to the Minister and the officials who have engaged with me over the last few days since we last met. Echoing words that have already been said, looking back to where we were in Committee on this amendment, and on nature and the environment as a whole, the Government have listened and moved quite a lot. Collectively, we pushed, and the Government have listened. I think a lot of this comes down to the Minister, who cares about it and gets it.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering said, this is an interesting group of amendments and we on these Benches welcome them. I do not wish to replicate what has been said but I have a few reflections.
Government Amendment 48, so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, is extremely welcome. It could go further, but we on these Benches welcome it. We accept that the Bill is an interim measure and that the independent water commission is just that: independent. Nevertheless, it is important that the Government at this point in time are making a marker in the sand that the regulator should have greater regard for climate and environmental targets. That is extremely important and is the additional reason why on these Benches we welcome it.
Amendment 44 was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. You would expect that we on these Benches, as Liberal Democrats and liberals, would welcome anything that enables local people to have more say on decisions that affect their lives, particularly the environment and climate decisions, because we know that, if they get involved and are caring about their environment, they will help protect it better. So we think that this is an extremely welcome amendment and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in her response.
On the final group of amendments, on nature-based solutions, which we participated in in Committee, I think there is broad agreement. Everybody understands that we need water companies to look less at concrete and far more at green solutions. Government Amendment 42 is extremely welcome. The only point that I would make echoes that made by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, when introducing his Amendment 55: there is an area where it could have gone a bit further. The noble Lord’s amendment talks powerfully about water storage and flood prevention; the Government’s amendment is welcome, but it excludes that. We on these Benches would like to hear a little more about how the Government see themselves taking that forward —mindful that it is not in their amendment. Having said that, we welcome these amendments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for moving the first amendment in this group. I shall speak to my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s Amendment 55 as well as government Amendments 42 and 48.
Amendment 55 is a powerful, concise amendment, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Gascoigne on his commitment to, and passion for, making the case for nature-based solutions within the water industry. My noble friend’s amendment has two parts— both are important for the future of nature-based solutions in the water sector. The first would require water companies to give due consideration to nature-based solutions for meeting their statutory obligations. The second would prevent the regulator blocking the use of nature-based solutions.
The Minister has two amendments in this group that make significant additions to the Bill around the use of nature-based solutions. Amendment 42 requires undertakers to explain the contribution from nature-based solutions. Amendment 48 is a broad amendment that could also contribute towards nature-based solutions being used for their wider benefit to nature restoration. I am most grateful to the Minister for her constructive engagement on my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s amendment, and for these government amendments. It is clear from these discussions that the Minister cares deeply about nature recovery.
However, I ask the Minister to clarify the approach taken by Ofwat to the use of nature-based solutions within the water and sewage industry. I am aware that £2 billion of investment is included within the draft determinations. However, we on these Benches wish to be reassured that, where suitable and at no additional cost to consumers, further nature-based investment is possible within this determination and beyond. To echo my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, we would also like reassurance that nature-based solutions will be used not just in drainage and sewerage but throughout the water supply and treatment network, including catchment restoration for flood prevention, drought mitigation and water quality.
I am sympathetic to the intentions of Amendment 26 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. This would appear to be captured within our Amendment 55 as a specific case but also potentially within the government amendments. The water companies are perfectly positioned to stimulate nature restoration at scale and without using the public purse. We welcome these government amendments and look forward to the Minister explaining how impactful she believes they will be.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I again thank noble Lords for the discussion on this group, for their amendments and for the thoughtful consideration that we have had since Committee on these issues regarding the environmental duties of water companies and the regulators.
Amendment 26 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and Amendment 55 by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would require water companies to consider further opportunities to use nature-based solutions. I thank noble Lords for meeting me to discuss these amendments and nature-based solutions more broadly.
One thing the Government are clear about on these amendments is that water companies need to be encouraged to increase their use of nature-based solutions. In line with that, I am very pleased to see that Ofwat has proposed an allowance of over £2 billion for investment in nature-based solutions in the draft determinations at price review 2024. Alongside this, Ofwat has been clear, publicly, that it remains open to companies to identify where additional nature-based solutions can be delivered. We very much support this approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, mentioned the catchment approach. Again, that is something we are very supportive of. If we are to make a real difference in our water quality, and our approaches to our waterways, we need a whole-catchment approach.
Ofwat’s £200 million innovation fund aims to grow the water sector’s capacity to innovate. Since 2020, the fund has awarded funding to 93 collaborative projects where water companies work with different sectors to solve the water sector’s biggest challenges. The main- streaming nature-based solutions to deliver greater value project is one example that is working to overcome barriers to the adoption of nature-based solutions.
What I am trying to get across is that the nature-based solutions the Government are supporting are not just about what is in the Bill; it goes much broader than that. That is important, because we need to look at this approach right across the board. I hope that helps to reassure noble Lords and answer some of their questions.
The regulators have, for example, recently approved several new and innovative nature-based solutions. One example is the use of sustainable drainage systems in Mansfield to manage flood risk. That is a £76 million scheme and includes over 20,000 sustainable additions to the built environment in the area, including rain gardens, planters and permeable paving, creating the equivalent of 23 Olympic-size swimming pools of storage and protecting 90,000 people from flood risk. Again, this is about much more than just what is in the Bill. There is further funding proposed for nature-based solutions alongside this—for example, reed beds and wetlands—and the Government are also supporting water companies trialling nature-based solutions for groundwater-induced storm overflows. There is a lot of work going on in this area.
Having said that, we recognise the strong support in this House for the Government to do more to ensure greater use of nature-based solutions across drainage and sewerage systems specifically. I am therefore pleased to table Amendments 42, 61 and 64, which require sewerage undertakers in England and Wales to address how nature-based solutions have, or will, contribute to the resilience and development of their network within their drainage and sewerage management plans. I thank noble Lords who have expressed their support for these amendments today.
Drainage and sewerage management plans are the key planning mechanism for the entirety of the sewerage undertakers’ wastewater network. This new requirement will ensure that water companies consider the use of nature-based solutions at the very start of the investment planning process. In this way, they embed solutions into delivery.
We intend to commence this new requirement very quickly—two months after Royal Assent—and it will apply also in respect of the next round of drainage and sewerage management plans, which will be published ahead of the 2029 water price review. Sewerage undertakers will need to demonstrate that they have addressed the use of nature-based solutions in their draft, and final, drainage and sewage management plans and will be held to account if they fail to do so, because there is no point in bringing forward amendments if they are not going to be delivered as swiftly and as effectively as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, asked whether the review would look at things such as adaptation and further environmental matters around reservoirs. Absolutely: the review has a very broad scope in these areas. I remind the House that in our manifesto we pledged to build new reservoirs, because we know how critical they are.
I hope that noble Lords agree that these government amendments will support the future exploration, development and delivery of nature-based solutions by adding this requirement into existing planning frameworks.
I turn to Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for introducing it on her behalf. It looks to improve public access to real time and operational water company data. I will explain why the Government do not support the amendment; I had a discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about this. I know that the noble Baroness has questioned this, but we believe the amendment would duplicate existing requirements for transparency from water companies.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for summing up what has been an excellent debate and I thank all those who spoke. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, spoke not only to her own amendment but to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, very eloquently indeed. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb— I call her my noble friend—spoke to her amendment with familiar passion, as did my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, following the excellent work he did in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, speaks with great authority on these issues. I also thank my noble friend Lord Roborough for his contribution.
The mood of the House is very much to support the government amendments. I congratulate the Minister and the Bill team on the work they have done in this regard, and on being in listening mode to those around the House. I have just a couple of thoughts. I think we are all committed to storage, which has been the success of the Pickering pilot scheme. It is not far from Cumbria; I hope those who live further afield, across the border in Lancashire, might come to see the excellent work we did. There is an outstanding problem on storage, with the Reservoirs Act 1975, as to when it becomes a reservoir. The de minimis rules need to be addressed. If the water commission can look at that, it would be very welcome indeed. With the greatest will in the world, it is difficult to have storage if it is then said to be a reservoir, but the farmers, golf clubs or whatever do not have the means to maintain it.
In addition to all the funds the Minister mentioned, I urge her and her department to look at how ELMS can work with water companies—I know that United Utilities and Yorkshire Water have a good record in this regard—to come up with nature-based water solutions on farmland. That would be very welcome indeed. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 26.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 so that it covers the water supply network as well as the sewerage network.
““appropriate agency” means—(a) the Environment Agency, in relation to relevant undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in England, and(b) the NRBW, in relation to relevant undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in Wales;”Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 to Wales.
““chief executive” , in relation to an undertaker, means an employee of the undertaker who, alone or jointly with one or more others, is responsible under the immediate authority of the board of directors for the conduct of the whole of the business of the undertaker;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “chief executive” for the purpose of the Minister’s amendments at page 5, line 29 and page 6, line 1.
““the Minister” means—(a) the Secretary of State, in relation to relevant undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in England, and(b) the Welsh Ministers, in relation to relevant undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in Wales;”Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 to Wales.
““system” , in relation to a relevant undertaker, means—(a) in the case of a water undertaker, its supply system within the meaning of Chapter 1A of Part 2 (see section 17B); (b) in the case of a sewerage undertaker, its sewerage system within the meaning of that Chapter (see section 17BA(7)).(10) In the case of a relevant undertaker that is both a water undertaker and a sewerage undertaker, the duty in subsection (1) is to be discharged in respect of both of its systems in a single plan.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 so that it covers the water supply network as well as the sewerage network.
“94EAA Implementation reports(1) A relevant undertaker must, together with each pollution incident reduction plan that it publishes (except the first), publish an implementation report.(2) An implementation report is a report containing the undertaker’s assessment of—(a) the extent to which it succeeded in implementing the planned measures during the preceding calendar year, and(b) to the extent that it failed to implement those measures during that year—(i) the reasons for that failure, and(ii) how the undertaker intends to avoid repeating that failure in respect of any measures in its current plan that are the same as, or similar to, those in respect of which the failure occurred.(3) In subsection (2), “the planned measures”, in relation to an undertaker and a calendar year, means the measures set out in its previous pollution incident reduction plans so far as they were (according to those plans) likely to be implemented in that year.(4) Subsections (6), (7) and (7A) of section 94EA apply in relation to implementation reports as they apply in relation to pollution incident reduction plans.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires water and sewerage undertakers to publish annual reports on their implementation of previous pollution incident reduction plans.
“(1) The duties of a relevant undertaker under sections 94EA(1) and 94EAA(1) are enforceable by the appropriate agency.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendments extending Clause so that it covers the water supply network, the Minister’s amendment at page 5, line 38, and the Minister’s amendments extending Clause 2 to Wales.
“(2) If a relevant undertaker fails to comply with its duty under section 94EA(1) or 94EAA(1)—(a) the undertaker commits an offence, and(b) the chief executive of the undertaker commits an offence, subject to subsection (2A).(2A) It is a defence for the chief executive to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the failure.(2B) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction or conviction on indictment, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes the chief executive of an undertaker liable if the undertaker fails to comply with the new duties about pollution incident reduction plans, unless the chief executive has taken all reasonable steps to ensure compliance.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s previous amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendments extending Clause 2 to Wales.
“(4) Where, in deciding how to exercise its functions in relation to a relevant undertaker, the appropriate agency has regard to the record of the undertaker in complying with its legal obligations concerning pollution, it must also have regard to the record of the undertaker in implementing measures set out in its pollution incident reduction plans.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Environment Agency and the Natural Resources Body for Wales to have regard to the record of undertakers in implementing their pollution incident reduction plans when deciding how to exercise regulatory functions.
“(4) In this section, “appropriate agency” and “chief executive” have the meanings given by section 94EA(9).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendments extending Clause 2 to Wales and the Minister’s amendment at page 6, line 1.
Lord Cromwell
“(e) the date by which an explanation of reasons why the discharge occurred is expected to be made publicly available.”
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to both Amendments 39 and 40 in my name. I am grateful for the kind support of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, on Amendment 39 and of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on Amendments 39 and 40.
I am told that Amendment 39 is unwelcome because it is hard to determine when explanations can be expected. As the Minister knows, my catchphrase in Committee was “modest and proportionate”. I think that this very small amendment is modest and proportionate, but it is my further understanding from discussions that management plans will, once a year, give explanations of such discharges as part of their pollution plans. With numerous discharges happening across the year, that annual document will be a mighty task to compile and to read through. More importantly, it seems that people living with the discharges might have to wait 12 months or more simply to find out why a discharge has occurred and, presumably, what has been done to deal with it and prevent a recurrence. This invites not only discontent but accusations that nothing is being done and that people are being kept in the dark. Can the Minister take this away and see whether a government amendment can do better in addressing the concerns and rights to information of the public?
Amendment 40 in my name is essentially about trying to get information all in one place so that anybody from the public can access it. Since tabling this amendment, I have been advised by the Minister that Water UK, the body that represents the water companies, is to create a map of discharges that can be accessed by the public. That is very welcome, but unless the mapping is presented and run in a comprehensive and timely way, is sufficiently detailed to provide meaningful information and is periodically assessed for its quality of delivery, it will be of little use.
I have a number of questions which I would be very grateful if the Minister can address, either from the Dispatch Box or by letter. There are six of them—brace yourselves. Can the Minister clarify what information exactly this map will show? When will it be up and running? At that start date, will all future discharges be shown in close to real time? Who will have the responsibility for ensuring that Water UK receives the necessary information in real time? What will be the penalties for failure to supply the information and doing so in good time? Who will have the responsibility for auditing the online mapping performance of Water UK over time? Somebody needs to watch the watchers to ensure that this potentially rather colourful and enjoyable map is accurate, sufficiently detailed and up to date in real time.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I support these amendments. It is obvious that the public have a right to know when sewage is being dumped. Would the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, like to speak to his amendment first? If not, I shall carry on.
The water companies have this as real-time data and there is no reason why they cannot publish it in real time so that the public know whether the waterways are clean enough to swim in, paddle in, kayak in or even let their dogs run in. I simply do not understand why the water companies cannot provide that information. Well, I do know why—they will fight this tooth and nail because the true level of leaks of sewage discharges is so ridiculously high.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness for supporting my amendment. To be clear, it requires an explanation of why the discharge has occurred, not that it has. The Minister pointed out that that might take quite a long time to establish.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
In that case, the noble Lord’s amendment is not radical enough for me, but I hope it passes anyway.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
I speak to Amendment 41 in my name. It makes a simple point that I hope will find sympathy with the Minister and other Members.
I well remember, as other Members may, that during the passage of the Environment Act three years ago, there was a major spill by Thames Water somewhere in the London area. The excuse given at the time was a power failure. I remember thinking that that really was not a very good excuse. Those in charge of any infrastructure installation surely should have sufficient emergency generator capacity in place and maintained so that, should there be a power failure for an essential activity, it can be covered for a while. Clearly, if the power failure lasts for a day or two, the generator capacity will probably not have sufficient fuel to run that long—I understand that. Nevertheless, it seems too easy a let-out for a sewerage undertaker to be able to excuse an emergency discharge of any sort simply on account of a power failure.
I have therefore put down this amendment and hope that the Minister can assure me that water companies are required to have sufficient generator capacity in place and to keep it maintained so that they cannot simply say that there was a power failure and the generator did not work. That is just not good enough. I hope to get reassurance from the Minister about this; it is an important point, because otherwise we are giving too easy a let-out to the water companies.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 39 and 40 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, relate to the publication of data on sewage overflows in a form that is readily accessible to the public. The public are concerned about sewage spills, and they want to know when and where they are occurring. They also want to know what is being done about preventing further spills in their area. The amendments help to redress the current balance on availability of information.
Amendment 41 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, relates to the failure of electricity supply which affects a sewage overflow outlet. I agree completely with the noble Duke. If an overflow outlet is reliant on an inefficient electricity supply, it is up to the undertaker to work with the electricity company to ensure that it is fit for purpose. The electricity supplier, similarly, will know when there is going to be a planned outage and should notify the undertaker in advance so that alternative arrangements can be made. If the electricity supply which serves an overflow outlet is inclined to break down, the undertaker should plan to have a generator on standby, as the noble Duke said, to take over when the electricity supply is down. This is common sense, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, first an apology: in my excitement in the last group on the government amendments, I forgot to refer to my register of interests, including as a landowner across a number of river catchments and an investor in several natural capital-related technology companies.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for moving his amendment. I recognise how hard he has worked to improve the Bill, in consultation with the Government. We agree with the spirit of his Amendments 39 and 40 in that we also want more transparency from water companies on pollution incidents. This is an important principle that runs through the Bill, and I hope that the Government will listen to the noble Lord’s argument and seek to strengthen transparency in the water sector where this is appropriate.
I also thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for his Amendment 41. While we do not agree with it, we do agree that water companies should take some and more responsibility for the resilience of their power supplies. I would be interested to hear what the Minister can offer in reassurance.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for tabling their Amendments 39, 40 and 41, which speak to the publication of data from monitoring networks and emergency outflow permits. I also thank the noble Lord and the noble Duke for the time they took to meet with me between Committee and Report to discuss these topics and the wider industry that they were concerned about.
Amendment 39 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, was supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. We agree that it is essential for companies and the regulators to have a clear understanding of the cause of discharges from emergency overflows. That information is important to ensure that the regulators can assess the compliance of emergency overflows and for companies to invest in the right improvements to prevent discharges from reoccurring.
It is important to note that all discharges from emergency overflows should be reported as pollution incidents. Once the Environment Agency has been notified of a pollution incident, it will request follow-up information as to the cause of the incident and any remedial action being taken.
For some discharges, establishing the cause may be straightforward. However, for more complex or more serious incidents it may take longer to identify the cause. When more serious incidents occur, the Environment Agency may need to complete on-site visits and investigations into the cause of the discharges. Since it will not necessarily be known at the time of the incident occurring how long these investigations will take, it is not practical to set a date by which the cause will be identified.
Furthermore, Clause 2 will also require companies to provide information on the causes of pollution incidents annually, as the noble Lord referred to from our discussions, as part of their pollution incident reduction plans. That is to ensure that water companies are transparent about the causes of pollution incidents and the measures they have taken to reduce the likelihood of further incidents.
Requiring water companies to publish a date by which they would inform the public of the cause of an individual discharge would likely result in water companies either rushing investigations to meet an arbitrary deadline or setting themselves lengthy timelines that they know would be achievable. Following our discussions and what I have said now, I hope that the noble Lord understands why we consider the amendment unnecessary and that he will be content to withdraw it. I am of course always happy to discuss matters with him further.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I am sympathetic to the reasoning given, but will the Minister take on board that this means the citizenry may not know for a year why there was a spillage in their area?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am happy to take that on board and back to the team for further discussion.
I turn to Amendment 40, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I thank him for proposing it, as the Government agree that it is important that water companies make information about emergency overflow discharges as easy to access as possible.
Clause 3 explicitly states that information on discharges from emergency overflows will need to be both readily accessible and understandable to the public. That duty will be enforceable by Ofwat, which will be able to access the underpinning raw data from emergency overflows to inform its enforcement responsibilities under the Water Industry Act.
Water companies have already begun to publish information on storm overflow discharges in near real time, ahead of the Water Industry Act duty coming into force in January next year. Furthermore, Water UK, in collaboration with water companies, is shortly due to publish a new centralised map of storm overflows—as referred to by the noble Lord from our discussions—which is designed to present real-time discharge data from all storm overflows in England on one website. I am sure that he will be delighted to hear that we are making good progress on this. The Minister for Water received a demonstration of the website only yesterday, and the Government understand that it is due to be published shortly.
A similar approach is intended to be followed for monitoring data for emergency overflows to meet Clause 3 requirements. In addition, if needed, guidance could be issued from the Government or the regulator to the sector to further support the implementation of the emergency overflow publishing duty. Therefore, since the industry is already planning to centralise data on sewage discharges on one website, the Government do not believe that an amendment to mandate publication on a centralised website is necessary.
The noble Lord asked a number of very specific questions. If I have not answered any of them, I am happy to come back to him in writing with more detail.
Amendment 41 is in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I thank him for raising this important issue. The Government are clear that emergency overflows should be used only as an absolute last resort. We are talking about emergency overflows here, not storm overflows. Emergency overflows are different from storm overflows. They operate in response to an emergency event at a sewage pumping station, whereas storm overflows are designed to operate in combined sewer systems during heavy storm events. Discharges from emergency overflows should therefore only occur in much more limited circumstances.
As previously explained, environmental permits for emergency overflows already require companies to put in place strict protection measures to prevent, as far as possible, discharges due to power failure. That can include back-up generators or duplicate power supplies.
The Environment Agency will consider enforcement action if a company operates an emergency overflow and it can be proven that the discharge could have been avoided if the company had complied with the protection measures set out in its permits. Electrical power failure is an acceptable reason to discharge only when it is fully—I repeat, fully—outside the water company’s control and not due to any failure on its part to maintain protection measures.
The unintended impact of the amendment could be that we fail to provide for discharges that are outside a company’s control and that are necessary to protect upstream homes from flooding—for example, if a back-up generator failed or did not last long enough. For these reasons, we do not believe this amendment is necessary and are concerned about the unintended consequences.
Having said that, I appreciate that the noble Duke feels strongly on this point, so I extend an invitation to him that I hope he will take me up on. I offer him to join me on a visit to see some of the overflows in person, to enable him to look at the varied scale and types of infrastructure and protections that are already in place, to help him understand and, I hope, to put his mind at rest. I am sure that the noble Duke has never had an invitation from a noble Baroness to look at a sewage plant before and that this is an exciting first for him.
I once again thank noble Lords for their constructive engagement on the important matters of data transparency across water industry monitoring networks and the permitting of emergency overflows.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The Minister is right that I am delighted to hear about the centralised provision of information, and I eagerly anticipate her reply to my six questions. I am bitterly disappointed that I have not also been invited to go with her to a sewage farm. What has the noble Duke got that I have not? I do not know and I do not want to know. Anyway, I wish them joy. I thank the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Nature-based solutionsIn section 94A(3) of the Water Industry Act 1991 (matters to be addressed in drainage and sewerage management plans), after paragraph (e) insert—“(ea) the use that is to be made of nature-based solutions, technologies and facilities within the undertaker’s drainage system and sewerage system,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a sewerage undertaker’s drainage and sewerage management plan to explain the intended contribution of nature-based solutions, technologies and facilities.
The Duke of Wellington
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would add Ofwat as a relevant agency with the obligation to impose a fixed monetary penalty on a water company in respect of a specified offence.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 45, the related Amendment 47 in my name and, in a sense, the intervening Amendment 46 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, all seek in essence the same purpose—namely, to ensure that any fines imposed on the water industry, either by the Environment Agency or by Ofwat, remain within the environmental protection regime and do not go to the Treasury.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has set out the case for this group of amendments with his usual clarity and passion for sorting out the obligations which Ofwat needs to impose.
The money collected from fines from sewerage and water companies needs more clarity over its destination. At the moment, it would appear that the money from fines imposed by Ofwat does not go back into ensuring that investment occurs to correct the defects which allowed sewage spills in the first place. Much of the money from fines goes into the Treasury coffers and supports other government departments. This is not what the public want. They want the money from fines to go into making good inadequate and out of date sewerage systems and helping to create new reservoirs. A transparent and obvious way to achieve this is to set up a water restoration fund. This group of amendments requires all fines for environmental offences to be ring-fenced for this fund.
I understand that the Treasury is not in favour of this as it is hypothecation. I understand where it is coming from. However, it is necessary, due to the appalling performance of the water industry, for the public to be able to see just where the money from fines is going and how it is being used to improve the service they are paying for in their water and sewerage bills. We are, therefore, very keen to see such a fund set up without delay. There are undoubtedly going to be large fines coming down the line which water companies will have to pay. These fines cannot just evaporate into the ether so that customers cannot see what is being done with the money. Restoring public confidence in the water and sewerage industry is key to moving forward and a water restoration fund is a vital element of achieving this.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for introducing this group. I also take the opportunity to thank him for his tireless commitment to clearing up the water industry. I have no doubt that the fact that we are considering this Bill in this Chamber at this time owes much to his hard work.
In government, we made progress on work to ensure that fines charged to water companies would be reinvested into the infrastructure of the water sector to reduce pollution and tackle flood risks. Given the very clear concern of the public about the health of our rivers, lakes and beaches and the impact of pollution, it seems only right that the proceeds of fines levied on water companies should be invested in tackling pollution, so we support the spirit of Amendments 46 and 47 in principle.
While there is clearly disagreement on how best to achieve the goal of reinvesting the funds raised through fines on water companies, we hope the Minister will listen to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and ensure that proceeds from water company fines are reinvested in the sector.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their suggested amendments and the points raised in relation to penalties and the water restoration fund.
First, I will talk to Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. While I acknowledge the intention behind this amendment, which seeks to strengthen Ofwat’s enforcement powers, we do not believe that automatic penalties are appropriate for the obligations which Ofwat is responsible for enforcing. Ofwat’s role as the economic regulator is distinct from the role of environmental regulators and from the permitting regime for environmental activities. Offences that may be subject to automatic penalties and outlined on the face of the Bill, such as pollution control, abstraction, impounding and drought, fall within the remit of the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales. Extending the enforcement of these areas to Ofwat would therefore duplicate the responsibilities of the regulators and create more complexity in the current system.
Furthermore, Ofwat’s investigation and enforcement activities relate largely to breaches of core licence conditions, which are highly complex matters that are not fixed to singular assets or permits but rather systemic failings right across the company’s operations. Investigations often require significant and detailed evidence to be gathered, potentially from a number of sites, to establish whether a breach has occurred. This can take months to conclude and does not lend itself to an automatic penalty.
Ofwat has existing appropriate powers to impose financial penalties. For example, the Water Industry Act 1991 enables Ofwat to take enforcement action, including imposing financial penalties on companies if they are in breach of their statutory duties or licence conditions.
Finally, I remind the House that the independent commission will consider the roles and responsibilities of the water industry regulators and how we can ensure our regulators operate as effectively as possible. This is something that may be discussed in some depth by the commission. The Government will therefore not accept this amendment, but I hope the noble Duke feels reassured on the points about automatic penalties.
I will take Amendments 46 and 47, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, together. I very much appreciate the intention behind the amendments, but we do not believe it is necessary to define a mechanism for spending the money received through fines in law. A water restoration fund was launched in April this year, and this arrangement does not require legislation. As we have heard, the water restoration fund serves as a mechanism to direct water company fines and penalties into water environment improvement projects. We feel that defining a water restoration fund in law would instil inflexibilities regarding the scope of the fines available to include within the fund and how the money gathered from fines could be spent. We believe that retaining flexibility is important to ensure funding programmes deliver value for money.
As for the devolved elements of the noble Duke’s amendment, water is a devolved policy area, so it is for the Welsh Government to determine the extent to which a water restoration fund should apply in Wales.
What has come across in the debate, and what came across strongly in Committee, is the recognition that investment in the water industry will be absolutely critical to improving the existing poor standards. The Government are continuing to work with His Majesty’s Treasury on the continued reinvestment of water company fines and penalties in water environment improvement. We are working with the Treasury on this specific issue because we recognise its importance. As this is ongoing work and discussion, we will not be able to accept the amendments today. I thank noble Lords for the debate, and hope that they have been reassured by my comments.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. The point of Amendment 45 was only that I was advised by the Public Bill Office that I had to table it to make Amendment 47 make sense—parliamentary drafting not being one of my specialities. However, the underlying point, which I share completely with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, is that we want to see all the fines levied on the water industry reinvested in ensuring improvements to the clean water environment. That is what we are all trying to do. I suspect that the Minister would support that, in theory, and I wish her well with her discussions with His Majesty’s Treasury. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Requirement for Ofwat to have regard to climate change etcIn section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991—(a) after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) In exercising or performing any such power or duty in accordance with those provisions, the Authority must also have regard to the need to contribute towards achieving compliance by the Secretary of State with the relevant environmental target duties, where the Authority considers that exercise or performance to be relevant to the making of such a contribution.(4B) The “relevant environmental target duties” means—(a) the duty in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (UK net zero emissions target), and(b) so far as the exercise or performance concerned relates to appointment areas wholly or mainly in England, the duty in section 5 of the Environment Act 2021 (other environmental targets);and for that purpose an “appointment area” is an area for which an appointment is held under Chapter 1 of Part 2.”;(b) in each of subsections (6A), (6B) and (7), for “(4)” substitute “(4A)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause requires Ofwat to have regard to the need to contribute to the achievement of Secretary of State’s targets on climate change and other environmental matters where relevant to its functions.
Lord Remnant
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that compliant companies in the sector are not required to render financial assistance to recover SAO losses caused by another company under special administration.
Lord Remnant (Con)
My Lords, under the special administration orders part of the Bill, relating to the insolvency of water companies, Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State the power to modify the licence of a water company in administration or solvency to recover from its customers any shortfall in costs incurred by the Government in such a situation.
My amendment addresses subsection (4) of the new section to be inserted by this clause, which allows the Government also to recover those costs not just from the company in administration but from any other compliant company, and its consumers, in the sector. My amendment would simply remove this extended unjustifiable right of recourse.
This subsection surely cannot be fair. It would force good companies and their blameless customers to bail out failed companies. Would anybody seriously suggest that, if Sainsbury’s got into financial difficulties, it should be bailed out by Tesco’s customers and shareholders? I think not.
To take a potential live example, were Thames Water to find itself in special administration, if you require customers of Northumbrian Water, at the other end of the country, and other companies to fund SAR losses, the Government are protecting hedge funds and other speculators who are now buying Thames debt at big discounts. It is the debt and equity investors in Thames who should pay for these losses in the form of lower proceeds from any eventual sale. Why should a retired police officer in Yorkshire or a hard-working nurse in Cornwall lose out to a hedge fund owner in New York trying to make a quick return?
I tabled the same amendment in Committee and felt it necessary to bring it forward again because the Minister did not address my concerns at that stage. She covered the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the special administration regime itself rather than justifying the extended right of recourse to other compliant companies in the sector. She said there was a high bar for the introduction of such a regime, that the Government do not expect to have to use this power and that any intervention would be considered very seriously and as a last resort.
As we speak, there are two companies in the sector renegotiating their debts: Thames Water and Southern Water. In theory, either could result in administration or insolvency, which may or may not involve the provision of financial assistance by the Secretary of State and the recovery of any shortfall under Clause 10. The Minister will be much better appraised of these situations than I am, so I derive some comfort from her assurance, armed with that knowledge, that the Government do not expect to have to use this power to recover losses from companies affected. Can she not, however, be more categorical than that, by saying that, even if the powers afforded to the Secretary of State under Clause 10 were to be invoked, they would not be used to recover cost shortfalls from other, blameless companies in the sector, and their customers?
Far more straightforward, however, would be for the Government to accept that any suggestion of collective punishment for the financial ways of others should be rejected, and for the Government to accept my amendment and remove this wide and, I argue, unjustified recourse across the sector. I look forward to listening to my noble friend Lord Roborough on his Amendment 51, which immediately follows. Clearly, if Clause 10 is removed in its entirety, that would satisfy my concerns. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have three amendments of my own in this group and I have co-signed Amendment 56 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka.
I spoke earlier about the Government’s plans not being strong enough to get a grip on these out-of-control water companies. The amendments in this group, including my Amendments 53, 54 and 59, are illustrative of what could be put in place to really force the water companies to clean up their act. There does not seem to be any protection whatever at the moment against a water company simply going through the special administration process and then hiking bills up on the other side. The moral hazard is obvious.
I am going to take my amendments out of order, and noble Lords will see why. My Amendment 54 would create a special administration process for environmental failures, such as persistent sewage dumping. I do not understand why only financial failure should lead to special administration, when a much bigger failure is the sheer amount of sewage pumped into our rivers and on to our beaches. Thames Water, for example, will come out of special administration still in private hands, but with the bulk of the debt paid off by higher bills. My amendment would change this by giving the special administrator the power to write off the bulk of the debt where it has been used to pay for dividends and where the company has failed to deliver the investment to fix the sewage system. Those powers are not in the current rules and the Government have the chance to change that. Otherwise, we will reward the failures and greed of companies such as Thames Water and will be blamed for it.
I will take my Amendments 53 and 59 together only because I would actually have liked to press them to a vote. They are two amendments I care about very much, on issues that I think the general population cares about very much, and it staggered me that there has not been more support for them in your Lordships’ House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for supporting me: it is two Greens and him who have proposed this.
Essentially, my Amendment 53 would prevent water companies being bailed out by either the public purse or via consumers’ water bills. This is because I am quite suspicious that the whole Bill is a tactic to support the water companies, at vast expense to bill payers and eventually to taxpayers. I simply do not understand why profits are privatised but losses are not. We, the public, pay for the losses but do not get the profits.
My Amendment 59 would require the Government to conduct a full assessment of the costs of bringing water companies into public ownership. So much of the public ownership debate is dismissed based on dubious industry figures about how expensive it would be. These conveniently miss the fact that some of these companies are now distressed assets facing bankruptcy. I at least ask the Treasury to do a proper costings exercise which discounts the fact that water company valuations are based on expectations that taxpayers or bill payers will underwrite the future profits of the water companies. Given the total failure of water privatisation, the Government need to seriously plan to bring water back into public ownership. The public are crying out for it, and it would actually be good value for money. The first step towards that is to work out the real costs rather than regurgitating figures from a biased industry.
It will be a race against time whether we can pass this Bill before Thames Water fails. All the experts agree that Thames Water is going to collapse, so why are the Government not taking it into special administration immediately? My genuine fear is that this Government will find themselves in a political storm over the big rise in water bills to finance a new private company taking over. The Government would have three regrets: first, that they did not refuse a bailout; secondly, that they did not listen to the public and change the powers of the special administrator to write off shareholder-accredited debts; and thirdly, that they ruled out public ownership as an option and boxed themselves into a corner. I deeply regret this aspect of the Bill, and I wish there were support in your Lordships’ House for no bailout and public ownership.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 53 and 56, with some trepidation. At 4 pm today my heart soared, because the Railway Minister said that government policy was to bring these monopolies into public ownership. But by 5 pm the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—said no, and that water companies must remain in private hands. It is nearly 9 pm now, so I do not know whether the policy has changed again. It would be interesting to know.
Water companies and shareholders and lenders have extracted vast sums of money, and under no circumstances must they be bailed out. We are now almost reaching the endgame and maybe the beginning of a new chapter in water companies. Thames Water is an interesting case. All nine of its shareholders have declared the company to be a basket case and are refusing to invest, after extracting billions of pounds in dividends and inflicting massive, real-term price hikes on customers. The value of those shares has been written off; the value of debt has also taken a haircut in the marketplace.
The interesting thing is that Thames Water is now going to borrow more money, which does not make any sense; I do not know how the Government have made any sense of it. Thames Water already has a debt of about £18 billion, and its gearing, as I said earlier, is already over 80%, compared to Ofwat’s idealised ratio of 15%. Thames Water is now negotiating a £3.5 billion new loan at 9.75% for two and a half years. This new loan will require it to pay £800 million over two and a half years, with interest and various fees, to intermediaries, after which it will also have to repay the loan of £3 billion. That is £3.8 billion—which it will probably try to recover from customers. It has 16 million customers, so that works out at a charge of £95 per customer simply to service this debt. This simply is not viable. There would be riots in the streets if water companies went ahead and squeezed the customers even more. It is simply and utterly unacceptable.
The company will continue to discharge tonnes of sewage in the rivers. Water leaks will still go unplugged. We are talking about not just investment in infrastructure; Thames Water has also neglected other investments such as investment in IT. Some of its IT systems date back to the 1980s and are obsolete. According to whistleblowers, some of its essential systems still use Lotus Notes software from the 1980s and 1990s, which cannot be updated any more.
Thames Water will run out of cash soon and will inevitably pass to its lenders. But that will not solve the problem either, because the lenders, as the new equity holders, would still want a massive return on their investment, so we are back to the territory of massive new bill hikes. The Government’s delay and dithering are not helping to clarify the situation. They need to bring this company into public ownership. Private equity and hedge funds are lurking—they are the new hyenas ready to feed on the carcass of Thames Water and grab whatever assets it has left. I have been told that they are especially after land. They are counting on some kind of government bailout so that the value of their investment soars.
Thames Water is not alone. The same scenario is being repeated at Southern Water. The Minister said today that Ofwat’s approval is needed to pay dividends, so it is interesting that today Severn Water declared six-months profits, which have nearly tripled in six months, and has increased its dividends from 46.74p per share to 48.6p per share. It would be interesting to know when Ofwat approved this. Can we have some public evidence to show that Ofwat approved this higher rate of dividend?
It is a matter of concern to me and others that the Bill enables the Secretary of State to dip into the public purse and also levy massive charges on customers to restructure the companies. That is effectively a bailout by another name. Through this process, the Government may possibly write off the debts of these companies and possibly take on the liabilities and costs associated with cleaning rivers, seas and lakes. So there is nothing of any value in this for the customers at all, because they will end up paying more and the citizens will end up paying more as well. The bottom line is that public money should not be used to bail out any of these investors, whether they are lenders or shareholders. Hopefully, the Minister will give that commitment.
I tabled Amendment 56 previously, but I got some strange responses so I want to return to it. In any civilised society, a key requirement is that all businesses, especially those that control services essential for life, must be operated by organisations that are law-abiding, ethical and responsible. But none of that applies to water companies. The whole industry is controlled by organisations with criminal convictions galore. It is not one or two, and it is not that somebody forgot something or perhaps there was an innocent oversight. There are 1,109 criminal convictions, and there is not a single water company without a criminal conviction.
This is the result of deliberate planning in company boardrooms: the directors decided to violate laws, lie and cheat. The field of these convictions is led by United Utilities, with 205; Thames Water has 187 convictions; and South West Water has 174. None has shown any sign of mending their ways; if they had, these convictions would have stopped years ago, but they continue. Just last month, the BBC reported that United Utilities dumped more than 140 million litres of raw sewage into Windermere between 2021 and 2023—at that time, it was not permitted to do so. A BBC investigation found that illegal discharges had been taking place for more than three years—far longer than the discharges in the four months the company retrospectively reported. In other words, it lied.
There is no effective fit and proper person test in the UK to decide whether somebody ought to be allowed to run or control a water company or a wastewater disposal service. If there were, none of these companies would pass it. But, rather than punishing companies engaged in criminal activity, successive Governments have protected them. They ask people, year after year, to hand more money to these organisations, which obviously continue with their pattern of behaviour.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord has reached the time limit.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
Sorry, I did not realise. I was just beginning to enjoy that.
Just to finish off—not long to go now—the question is: why should these criminals be allowed to remain in charge? These things are not minor infractions. Last time we debated this, the Minister said that there were
“significant consequences for a company’s investors. Investors would not have the confidence to invest money if the special administration regime could be triggered without allowing a company to rectify any performance issues”.—[Official Report, 4/11/24; col. 1373.]
That is, again, a very strange argument that we should allow criminals to continue because somehow it might upset the market. On that basis, it would open the doors to criminal activities everywhere—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am so sorry, but we have reached time. Thank you.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this is the last group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Remnant, has introduced Amendment 50 on recovering costs from water companies. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, has Amendments 51 and 52 to leave out Clauses 10 and 11. We did not support these amendments in Committee and have not reconsidered our view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has spoken to Amendments 53, 54 and 59, dealing with water companies that have been taken into special administration. Under Amendment 53, 50% to 100% of the debts of the company would be cancelled. Under Amendment 54, the Secretary of State would place a water company into special measures for breach of environmental conditions. Amendment 59 requires an assessment of costs to bring water companies back into public ownership. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is very articulate and passionate, I am afraid we are not able to support these amendments.
Amendment 56 in the name of Lord Sikka, to which he has spoken very eloquently, seeks to prevent companies from operating where they have criminal convictions in a five-year period. I have listened to the noble Lord’s arguments on this amendment and will listen carefully to the Minister’s response, but at the moment I am not convinced of the efficacy of Amendment 56.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 51 and 52, which seek to leave out Clauses 10 and 11 from this Bill. These would also have the effect of rendering unnecessary Amendment 50 of my noble friend Lord Remnant.
Our concern on these Benches is that the consumers are left as the providers of funding of last resort to the water industry. In the event of a company going into special administration and there being losses incurred by the Government, these clauses allow the Secretary of State to recover those losses by putting consumer bills up above the levels that have been determined by Ofwat—not just customers of that undertaker but also of others.
This does not seem fair or just. Surely the ultimate responsibility resides with the Government who created the system of regulation that must have failed in this scenario. I intend to test the opinion of the House on my amendment; we do not believe that the Government should grant themselves this power.
I would also like to briefly address Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. We on these Benches agree with her that a bailout of creditors or shareholders by the Government would be completely wrong. It is not for the Government to make professional or retail investors whole when their investments have gone wrong. However, we are unconvinced that this amendment needs to be in the Bill, given that there does not appear to be any mechanism where the Government could be called on to bail out investors. Perhaps the Minister can reassure the House that this is the case.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for the constructive discussion on the important topic of ownership and management structures of water companies. I turn first to Amendment 50, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. I understand his concern about the aspect of the clause that allows for socialisation of shortfall recovery. We had some discussion around that, as he mentioned. However, I reassure him again that this element is necessary for the shortfall recovery power to function effectively and safeguard the interests of taxpayers and water customers.
We do not expect to have to use this power—the noble Lord mentioned that we had talked about this—and I stress that it would be utilised only if it were not possible to recover all the funding provided by Government over the course of a special administration; that is, in the event of a shortfall. It is only at that point that Ministers would decide whether to exercise the shortfall recovery power. Water sector stakeholders, including the Consumer Council for Water, would be consulted about any decision to exercise the power. It is therefore not entered into lightly.
All water customers benefit from the use of a special administration regime, as it ensures that services continue in the event that a water company fails. This power already exists within special administration regime frameworks for other essential service sectors, such as energy, where there is a well-established principle of socialising these costs across the sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Remnant, asked specifically about why we think the powers are needed, so I will provide an example. There may be an occasion where government funding, provided during a special administration regime, contributes towards water sector infrastructure—such as a reservoir—that goes on to benefit several different water companies. In other cases, a particularly small water company, with a limited number of customers, may enter special administration. In this scenario, it is vital that a decision can be made about recovering a shortfall from more than one company, to ensure fair allocation of costs and to prevent customers of a single, small company facing unmanageably huge bill increases.
In all scenarios, a failure to deal with a shortfall fairly, or to prevent impacts unduly falling on a single company, risks increasing the cost of capital for the whole sector. This is because investors will price in the risks of excessive shortfall costs falling on a single company. The ability to recover a shortfall from multiple companies is therefore necessary both to ensure that it is possible to recover government funding in the event of a shortfall and to safeguard the sector from any wider cost impacts. I reiterate that we see it as very unlikely that this will ever happen. For this reason, the Government will not accept the amendment.
I turn next to Amendment 53 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. While I thank her for her engagement on this clause, the Government must reject this amendment because it would jeopardise the main purpose of the water special administration regime, which is to ensure the continuation of water and sewerage functions in the event of a water company insolvency or failure.
The role of the special administrator, once appointed, does not include a power to cancel debt, so does not serve to bail out water company creditors or shareholders. When a water company exits from special administration, via either a rescue or a transfer, the special administrator determines the level of repayment to creditors in accordance with the statutory order of priority. The level of repayment that creditors and shareholders may expect will be in accordance with the order of repayment clearly set out in statute. Any power to cancel debts outside of a restructuring plan agreed as part of a special administration, or a scheme where there is built-in court supervision, would be a material departure from long-established insolvency principles of fairness and treating creditors equally according to their rights. I hope that the noble Baroness understands why the Government must therefore reject this amendment.
I will turn next to Amendment 54, also tabled by the noble Baroness, and Amendment 56 tabled by my noble friend Lord Sikka. He mentioned dividends. I assure him that Ofwat is able to stop the payment of dividends if they would risk the company’s financial resilience, and can take enforcement action against water companies that do not link dividend payments to performance. I just wanted to make that point clear.
Amendments 54 and 56 are already covered by the existing legal framework for insolvency and special administration regimes. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, specifically asked why a SAR can be used in only financial circumstances. However, that is not the case. A water company can already be placed in special administration on performance grounds where it is in such serious breach of its principal statutory duties, or an enforcement order, that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. Both the amendments would limit the powers of the Secretary of State and Ofwat by forcing their hand to take specific action, thereby limiting their ability to respond appropriately to individual situations. As part of an application to the court for a special administration on performance grounds, the Secretary of State and Ofwat must consider all aspects of a company’s performance and enforcement record, including its record of criminal convictions. Under the current framework, a company must take actions to address performance issues, including those involved with poor performance. Any failure to do so would form part of any assessment by the Secretary of State, or Ofwat, of the appropriateness of that special administration in the first place. Special administration must be a last resort, and proportional and appropriate to the circumstances. An automatic threshold for special administration, such as outlined in these amendments, would limit the ability of the Government or regulators to act. It would also likely undermine the confidence of actual and potential investors, and bring instability to the wider sector.
The Government are already taking action to strengthen the regulatory system through the recently launched independent commission into the water sector and its regulation. The regulators’ roles and responsibilities, including on enforcement, will be reviewed as part of this. We expect that recommendations from this review will form the basis of future legislation. The rigid approach in these amendments would prevent the Secretary of State from exercising their powers to respond to the details of individual cases. For this reason, the Government will not accept these amendments. However, I hope that noble Lords are reassured by my explanation.
Regarding Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, I have already spoken at length about the costs of nationalising the water sector. It would require a fair price to be paid to shareholders and debt holders. This would come to over £90 billion. I know that noble Lords have disputed this figure, but it is based on Ofwat’s regulatory capital value figures for 2024. I have also spoken about the benefits—or lack thereof—of nationalisation.
Research commissioned by the Consumer Council for Water, an independent organisation that represents customer interests, found that a substantial change to the industry and company ownership would not address the main problems experienced. We also see a variety of ownership models in the UK and internationally, with clear mixed performance. For these reasons, the Government have been clear that nationalisation is not on the table.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
As the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said, it is okay for the railways but not for water. If it were within the remit, at least we could get some accurate figures. At the moment we do not have accurate figures. Also, a recent poll said that 82% of the general public would like water out of private hands and in public ownership again. That means that this Government are going against the grain.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I appreciate what the noble Baroness is saying, but the Government are clear: nationalisation is not going to be within the scope and we are not going to change our position on that. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter.
Moving on, the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, tabled Amendments 51 and 52. The special administration regime is not new to the water sector and, as I have mentioned, it is normal practice in the provision of public services. SARs exist for a variety of other sectors, including energy, transport and financial services. Although Governments have had the power to place water companies into special administration for over three decades, it is important that we regularly update legislation to reflect the modernisation of law and experiences across other sectors. There is a high bar for the imposition of a special administration regime and we want to make it clear that the Government and Ofwat will always act to protect consumers as a priority.
However, if a SAR occurs, government funding would be required to cover the costs of a special administration, including both operational and capital expenditure—for example, for ensuring that statutory environmental obligations were met as well as paying the cost of the special administrator. I reiterate that we expect most of these costs to be recouped either through the proceeds of a sale or through the repayments agreed as part of a rescue at the end of a SAR. If there are insufficient funds to cover repaying government, there is a risk of a funding shortfall. The Defra Secretary of State does not currently have the power to require this shortfall to be repaid. This is unlike in other sectors, such as energy, where the relevant Secretary of State has flexible powers to recover a shortfall in funding.
The introduction of the mechanism is required to ensure that the costs of any water industry SAR could be recovered appropriately, in line with special administration regimes in other regulated sectors. Without this power there is a risk that, in the event of a shortfall, taxpayers’ money would be lost. The Government are clear that any intervention that would increase customer bills would always be considered very seriously and used only as a last resort. I hope noble Lords agree that this power is therefore essential to protect taxpayers’ money in the event of a SAR and I move that these clauses stand part of the Bill.
Lord Remnant (Con)
My Lords, the hour is late, so I will be brief. I thank everybody who has participated in our discussion of this group of amendments, and in particular my noble friend Lord Roborough for his support. There is clearly a lot of interest in the special administration regime and the costs arising from it, particularly in the allocation of those costs, and I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who have spoken with their normal passion and dogged determination on these issues.
I thank the Minister for her patience and considered response on all these issues. I do not necessarily agree with all the points she has made, particularly on the cost of capital. I am not sure that it would be raised more in instances that she is referring to, rather than the industry having this spectre of having costs allocated to the compliant companies in respect of losses incurred elsewhere. But I thank her anyhow. I am sorry that she has not been able to accept my amendment, but I beg leave to withdraw it.
Lord Roborough
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent consumers in England from being charged higher water bills to cover any losses incurred by the Government as a result of the Secretary of State’s decision to make a special administration order.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said that His Majesty’s Government do not expect to use these powers in Clause 10. I struggle to believe that any noble Lord listening to the noble Baroness describe socialising these losses across consumers can feel comfortable, however unlikely it is. If the clause is not to be used, I would like to test the opinion of the House on whether it should stand part.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendments extending Clause 2 to Wales.
“(d) section (Nature-based solutions), so far as relating to undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in England;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the commencement by regulations in England of the Minister’s new Clause after Clause 3.
“(d) section (Requirement for Ofwat to have regard to climate change etc), so far as relating to powers or duties exercised or performed in relation to appointment areas (within the meaning of the subsection (4B) inserted by the section) wholly or mainly in England.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the commencement by regulations in England of the Minister’s new Clause before Clause 8.
“(aa) section 2 (pollution incident reduction plans), so far as relating to undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in Wales;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendments extending Clause 2 to Wales.
“(c) section (Nature-based solutions), so far as relating to undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in Wales;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the commencement by regulations in Wales of the Minister’s new Clause after Clause 3.
“(c) section (Requirement for Ofwat to have regard to climate change etc), so far as relating to powers or duties exercised or performed in relation to appointment areas (within the meaning of the subsection (4B) inserted by the section) wholly or mainly in Wales.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the commencement by regulations in Wales of the Minister’s new Clause before Clause 8.
National Youth Strategy
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords across your Lordship’s House can agree that the youth sector, like the young people whose interests it champions, inspires us all with the energy and dynamism with which it does its work, and that we must do all we can to protect its future. The Conservatives, in government, had a proud record of supporting and listening to young people. Their interests were at the heart of our £500 million funding for the national youth guarantee, which expanded access to clubs and activities for 11 to 18 year-olds. Their interests were also at the centre of the £1.3 billion that we invested in sports programmes and facilities across the United Kingdom.
Although we on these Benches welcome the Government’s vision for a national youth strategy, and look forward to scrutinising the measures once there is more substance to that, we must express some confusion at the content and tone of this announcement. The Government say that they are placing young people front and centre. The Secretary of State said in her Statement in another place that the strategy will give young people more “chances and choices” and will
“put them at the heart of government”,
and yet there is not much in this Statement that improves the chances and choices of young people. I fear that our nation’s youth might share my perplexity at the mixed messages they are getting from their Government.
Scrapping the National Citizen Service, which was started to great acclaim by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, most certainly does not give young people more choices; it restricts them. The National Citizen Service has, over 13 years, given more than 750,000 young people the opportunity to broaden their horizons, engage with their compatriots from a wide variety of backgrounds and different parts of the country, and play their full part in shaping our society. If the Government truly want to put young people at the heart of government, why have they scrapped a scheme based on the premise of putting the needs of young people first?
This human interaction and drawing of people from a diverse range of backgrounds is at the heart of the brilliant work that the National Citizen Service has done for more than a decade. I was confused by the logic as it appeared in the Secretary of State’s Statement; maybe the Minister can shed more light on it. In the section in which the Secretary of State talks about scrapping the National Citizen Service, she talks about the growth in Facebook, X and TikTok users that has happened since its creation. Surely, in an age when there are more social media and young people are spending more of their time online, it is all the more important that they should take part in schemes such as the National Citizen Service, which brings them together in real life to learn about the lives of their fellow country men and women who are drawn from different backgrounds.
UK Youth summarised the views of the sector neatly when it said that the Statement was deeply unsettling. As noble Lords will be aware, the National Citizen Service funded countless projects throughout the country. The specific structure of the programme ensured that funds were widely distributed to grass-roots organisations. These include, among others, London Youth, Children North East, the YMCA, which we talked about in our debate last week on the implications of the Budget for cultural organisations and charities, and the EFL trust, which is a charity that helps drive young people through the football talent pipeline. I find it slightly strange that the Government are taking a Bill through your Lordships’ House that seeks to improve the sustainability of English football and the future of the sport at the same time as they are pulling funding from charities that help support the grass roots of the beautiful game.
Do the Government have any plans to replace lost funding for schemes such as the ones I have mentioned and the many more that could be mentioned? If so, could the Minister or the Government clarify these as soon as possible? The closure of the National Citizen Service, coupled with the reduction in funding for cadets and the lack of replacement for the youth investment fund, all lead to a cut worth millions of pounds to youth organisations. Does the Minister believe that His Majesty’s Government are truly expanding the chances and choices of young people when the evidence we have been provided with today, in the Budget and in the weeks since, indicates the very opposite?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lord, we come rather belatedly to discuss this Statement. I do not know whether it is the longest wait I have ever had between a Statement taking place in another place and it being discussed here, but it is certainly a contender.
Many of the points I have about youth services are about how we will assess the future of a scheme. One of the problems I have found with youth-focused activity is that it fails to take into account one very important factor about those who use it: they grow up. Things tend to drop off a cliff at the age of 18: you are in a project, which is great, but then it ends. There does not seem to be any coherent strategy for getting people involved in voluntary sector work or any activity as they become adults.
Sport is a classic one for this: a wonderful project gets hundreds of children running around, but what happens when they get to 18? I have asked this on numerous occasions. I will not mention the groups I have done this with, but many of them celebrate their success, but when I ask, “What happens when you get to 18?”, they reply, “What do you mean?”. Some young people become coaches, but an 18 year-old football coach is of no use to an amateur football side; they just will not be able to do it.
How will we start to integrate this into the other sectors of adult society? If we are using it as a tool and a structure that goes with it, I have a little more hope for what is coming next. But I hope we will be told how the Government will assess successful projects, what help they will get in identifying them and how they will integrate them into the voluntary sector of adult life. I would like to hear something about that from this Government. If we invest in this type of work, we must have a flow through. Certain national organisations thrive on this interaction. Are we getting some structure and guidance on how to do it better?
When it comes to pressure on young people, let us face it, all teenagers have a habit of being misunderstood and sitting in darkened rooms. We did in our day, but unfortunately now they are accompanied by the internet and its pressures, so they sit in darkened rooms talking to fictitious people and reinforcing their own often self-imposed misery. If the Government can look at how we break through that, with some positive action and guidance, I would be incredibly impressed.
How will we go about this? Any youth service has to bear in mind two things: how to get in and assess it, and how to exit it with a positive result. I look forward to hearing from the Government what assessment they have made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and Lord Addington, for their contributions. I hope that my comments can answer some of their questions before we move on to wider questions from your Lordships.
We have an opportunity to rebuild a bright, successful future for this generation, giving them choices and chances, including the chance for them to shape policy that relates to their lives. Coming into government, as the Secretary of State said in the other place, we found that there was no youth strategy and no consistent youth voice across government. It is very difficult to target funding without a strategic approach, and this is what we intend to deliver, working with young people.
I know that all noble Lords would agree that young people are critical to our nation’s success. They have high aspirations—they believe in their power, and so do we, but they also face significant challenges. They have experienced a global pandemic, the rise of new technology and social media, climate anxiety and an increase in mental health issues and loneliness. We desperately need a new path forward for young people. We are committed to having a proper national conversation about how to empower them, ensure that they have trusted adults in their lives and provide them with great opportunities to achieve and thrive. We want to support them in navigating an ever-changing world. We will do so by launching the co-production of a national youth strategy with young people in the driving seat. The strategy will outline a long-term vision for young people, better co-ordinating youth policy and ensuring that we are more than the sum of our parts. We will publish this strategy within a year. It will better co-ordinate youth services as well as moving away from one-size-fits-all approaches from the Government, bringing power back to young people in their communities and rebuilding a thriving and sustainable sector.
We know that this is ambitious, and that is exactly what we want to be. We will start with a series of youth-led engagements in the coming months and will set up a group of young co-producers who will inform key decisions on the design of the strategy, providing expertise and insight from their lived experience.
As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport observed in the House of Commons last week, change is important to move forward. That can mean making difficult decisions, which is why we will wind down the National Citizen Service programme from the end of the financial year. We will also close the trust when parliamentary time allows, and all necessary processes will be followed, including engagement with Parliament and His Majesty the King. We stand ready to support the NCS during this period of transition and have a team within DCMS supporting this process. I know that this is a difficult decision for many of the people involved and for those who have taken part over the years. I express my gratitude to each and every staff member and young person who has contributed to the NCS trust and its programmes over the years. We are grateful for their commitment to supporting young people, helping them build meaningful connections and pushing themselves out of their comfort zone.
I also thank many noble Lords who have played a role within the trust over the years. We will work closely with the NCS trust to ensure an orderly transition from the end of the NCS programme to what comes next.
The new strategy will enable us to better target funding and services where they are most needed. While we develop the strategy, we will focus on transforming our work and supporting our youth sector through the transition. As a starting point, the Government intend to strengthen the relationship with local government by launching the local youth transformation pilot, which will build back capacity and improve local youth offers with young people at the heart of local services.
In addition, we will allocate over £85 million of capital funding in the places where it is most needed, including launching the new £26 million better youth spaces fund for youth clubs to buy new equipment and do renovations. The Government have also announced the allocation of £100 million of the next tranche of dormant assets funding to youth outcomes, and we can expect further details on the focus and distribution of this funding in due course. By working across government, civil society and business, we will make sure that everyone is focused on the common goal of better supporting and empowering young people in England.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, asked about grass-roots sport. The Government are acting to support more people to get access through delivery of the multisport grassroots facilities programme in 2024-25. In the Autumn Budget, the Government confirmed continued support for elite and grass-roots sport by investing in multi-use facilities, and further details will be confirmed in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about what happens at 18. I think that point is slightly outside the scope of this strategy, but I appreciate the need for us to look at how people can transition, be active citizens and be active in sport beyond that. I will speak to Minister Peacock about the point that the noble Lord has raised, as he did during the debate on football governance. It is a useful point for us to explore.
The overall package of support for young people lays the foundations for a transition towards a future in which young people will be empowered to succeed. I welcome views from across the House on the content of the Statement and on the priorities for our youth strategy. I look forward to discussing this issue further in due course.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the announcement that we are creating a new strategy, particularly the fact that young people themselves will be central to its design. Young people today face profound, complex challenges and a world very different from a decade ago, and it is right that they are driving forward the changes that are central to their future. I ask the Minister for more detail on exactly what their involvement will look like and what it will entail.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. It is important to us that the strategy is a co-production. We will set up a youth advisory board as well as running a series of youth-led round tables. There will be a wide consultation, reaching and engaging young people across the country through surveys and focus groups.
On top of that, the UK Youth Parliament is DCMS’s key mechanism for engaging with young people and ensuring that their voices are heard in policy and decision making. I know that a number of noble Lords here are particularly interested in the work of the Youth Parliament, so I will just note that it is Parliament Week.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the Statement says that young people today
“are at the sharp end of a revolution in social media”
and that there are now one in five young people with a mental health problem. The research shows that everything points to social media and smartphones. At the moment, I understand we are just giving guidance that smartphones should be banned in schools. My question for the Minister is simple: when are we going to legislate so that smartphones are banned? They must be a huge distraction and they should not be in the classroom.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I refer the noble Earl to the debate on precisely this issue in your Lordships’ House next Thursday. I think that question will be explored in a lot of detail in that debate.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my question follows on from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and is really about process. I very much welcome from the Green Party perspective the youth involvement, and the people who are most affected by this having a say. However, I must note that it is a pity that the Government are not immediately pushing forward with votes at 16, which would give young people a much stronger say immediately and directly in our democracy.
Is the process of co-production envisaged to be a deliberative democracy process, and not one where people are asked surveys, with just the usual suspects coming forward? Are we going to see a truly representative group of young people, from around the country, making sure that it is not too focused on the south-east? Will there be people from different social backgrounds and different groups? Will disabled young people be specifically represented? Will they have a chance to deliberate and talk, and to meet perhaps with Ministers? Will this be a long-term iterative process, rather than yet another survey or “consultation”, which really has acquired something of a bad name?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Baroness asked about the precise process, and we will get far more details on this in due course. The co-production model is intended to reach young people and children from across the spectrum. We know that disadvantaged young people are much less likely to access enriching activities, and we want to ensure that we target the consultation and our resources towards making sure that all young people have an opportunity to take part, whether that is in the co-production or the activities once they are subsequently rolled out.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to address the issue of why we are taking this Statement so late in the evening, and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. My understanding—I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench is too polite to say this—is that this was arranged so that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, could be here to defend what is presumably the jewel in his crown. If that is not the case, I maybe was misinformed.
I am surprised to hear those on the Bench opposite asking questions such as the noble Lord did in his opening remarks, especially since, in 2021, the previous Government made cuts of £135 million after the Evaluation Task Force shared its concern about the impact and value of the NCS. They were a Government who introduced and oversaw huge cuts to local authority youth funding, leading to the closure of huge numbers of youth facilities—in contrast, it has to be said, with the achievements of the previous Labour Government with Sure Start, which transformed the future of a generation of children and was then dumped by the noble Lord’s Government. Given that the noble Lord and his Government oversaw sweeping cuts to this programme, does my noble friend the Minister agree that we do not need to take any lessons from those on the Opposition Benches about supporting the future of young people? Can my noble friend say what the timeline is for publishing and implementing the strategy?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On the initial point of not taking lessons from His Majesty’s Opposition, I think it is fair to say that, on this side, we have been quite impressed by how quickly they have developed amnesia about the last 14 years.
The National Citizen Service provided 1 million young people with opportunities, and in 2024-25 it received £52 million in government funding. We believe that, if we develop an overarching government strategy on youth, we will allow more young people and children to access activities that will enrich their lives and help them build their future. That is why the report that will emerge from the consultation will be entitled, “Today’s Youth, Tomorrow’s Nation”. These people are our future and it is really important that we target the funding we have to the absolute maximum.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, could the Minister give her view on the importance of local authorities in this strategy? My experience at local level is that they can be a hugely powerful linchpin in the network of local services and engagement opportunities for young people. They really bring it to where they are, engaging with schools, youth services and sporting opportunities. Can the Minister give us a feel for how local authorities will figure in this strategy, and how they will be consulted in its formation?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Local authorities are an absolutely key partner in the development of any strategy. From my perspective, one of the key things is to look at how their youth funding has fallen over the previous 14 years. Local authorities’ youth funding in England fell by 73% under the previous Government. This Government have started to help restore that funding, but there is a correlation—I have been told it is not a causation but a correlation—between areas where funding for youth centres has been cut, and rises in anti-social behaviour.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and given the hour and the sparsely occupied Benches, in many areas—I can think of many that I have visited—the closure of a large number of facilities, particularly local authority facilities, has been picked up by local community groups, social enterprises and local organisations. They have, for example, occupied the adventure playground that was closed and set up their own arrangements, often operating with very scarce resources and relying on huge amounts of voluntary effort. Can the Minister assure me that the Government will make sure that the new youth strategy fits in with the voluntary community efforts that are already operating, rather than a whole new broom sweeping in and dumping down on communities, possibly sweeping aside those valiant voluntary efforts that have kept things going in such difficult conditions of austerity?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
For the purposes of brevity, I shall just say yes.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as there are a few moments left, may I ask the Minister about something that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said which has been reported in the papers today? He said that he was open-minded about a ban on under 16 year-olds being on social media. His statement made a big play about the injurious effects of social media on young people, saying that they are at the sharp end of a revolution in social media. Is that under active consideration by the Government? How does the Minister think that tallies with their commitment to give 16 year-olds the vote? Will they be able to exercise their democratic rights at 16 if they have not had the opportunity to engage with political debate and political discourse on social media, as they presently can?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point, particularly about votes at 16. I neglected to respond to the noble Baroness’s point on that subject. We anticipate, and plan to introduce, votes at 16 before the next election, when parliamentary time allows. We are exploring all the issues in relation to social media and so forth, and I will write to him with a fuller response on that.