House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
The Government are increasing funding for the National Crime Agency by £58 million next year, with £150 million over the next two years for the Border Security Command to tackle organised immigration crime. The whole House will welcome the recent action by the National Crime Agency to arrest major suspects in people smuggler gangs.
Paul Waugh
I applaud the work of the Border Security Command and the NCA in those operations. Will the Home Secretary join me in thanking Greater Manchester police for their work in tackling organised crime groups, particularly the notorious Adam OCG in Rochdale, whose drug dealing, modern slavery and child exploitation make life such a misery for my residents? Will she particularly applaud Chief Superintendent Danny Inglis and his team, not just for their superb detective work but for their engagement with schools?
Yvette Cooper
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Greater Manchester police and the National Crime Agency on that operation, which has made people safer on the streets of Rochdale. Tackling organised drug crime means action stretching from international work by the NCA right through to neighbourhood police on the streets, and community work to prevent young people from being drawn into organised gangs.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Home Secretary knows that rural areas are not immune to county lines activity. Will she put on record her thanks for the excellent work of West Mercia police, who recently arrested quite a few people on charges relating to drugs and firearms? What more can the National Crime Agency, and particularly the multi-agency co-ordination centre, do to support rural forces and smaller forces such as West Mercia?
Yvette Cooper
I certainly welcome the work that has been done to tackle the gangs the right hon. Gentleman refers to. Such crimes have a huge impact on communities. We need the National Crime Agency working not just through the regional organised crime units, but with local forces right through to the neighbourhood police on the beat. That is often where the intelligence comes from, especially where children are being dragged in.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I know the Home Secretary understands the importance of our brave firearms officers in dealing with serious and organised crime that poses a danger to the public. I welcome the measures to provide anonymity, but will the Government consider going further by allowing a defence in misconduct or criminal proceedings if an officer can show that they followed their training and procedure?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman will know that we set out very swiftly the response to the accountability review. That included a series of measures not just on anonymity, but on strengthening the law and on the need for the system to work much more speedily to support officers in very difficult split-second decisions. We have a review under way, involving Tim Godwin and Sir Adrian Fulford, which is looking at many of these issues.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Too many town centres and high streets have been hit in recent years by soaring levels of shoplifting and street crime, and damaging antisocial behaviour, at the same time as neighbourhood police have been heavily cut. The Government are introducing new powers to tackle antisocial behaviour and shop crime, and rebuilding neighbourhood police on our streets.
Becky Gittins
Too often in recent years, antisocial behaviour has blighted our high streets, with people in Clwyd East feeling unsafe when they are out in their local community. We know that neighbourhood policing works. In Prestatyn, the recent work of North Wales police to combat antisocial behaviour at the retail centre has led to positive youth engagement and criminal charges. Does the Home Secretary agree that rather than writing off such offences as low-level and leaving communities to deal with them alone, as the previous Government did, we must prioritise neighbourhood policing and give officers the powers they need to tackle antisocial behaviour head-on?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I congratulate her on standing up for her town centre. When town centre crime gets out of control, it impacts on local businesses and local confidence, and it impacts badly on communities. That is why we are bringing in respect orders, under which repeat perpetrators can be banned from town centres, and setting out our plans to have 13,000 more neighbourhood police and police community support officers back on our streets.
Kevin McKenna
I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful answer. Many residents in my constituency flag up the real problems with antisocial behaviour in both Sheerness and Sittingbourne town centres. Windows have been smashed in church halls, and shop windows were smashed when the Christmas lights were being put on—I am seeing this all the time. Can she please tell me what help she is offering Kent police to support my residents facing this behaviour?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. As well as our plans to increase neighbourhood policing and introduce respect orders, we are going to get rid of the ludicrous £200 rule that we inherited from the Conservatives, which means that shoplifting is very often not properly investigated. That needs to be taken much more seriously.
Danny Beales
This morning I had the pleasure of meeting Sunny, the new store manager at the Hotel Chocolat in Uxbridge, which opened today. Unfortunately, during that joyous occasion, he told me all-too-familiar stories about the shoplifting and antisocial behaviour that blight our high streets. Will the Home Secretary assure me that the 19% of the Met Police’s time that is taken up with London-wide and national policing issues will be taken into account when allocating the Met’s budget, so that we have the resources we need and, crucially, the police we need back on our high streets?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point; I can tell him that we have already provided Met Police with an initial £30 million this year to fund the police pay increase that was not funded by the previous Conservative Government. We are also supporting neighbourhood policing right across the country and much stronger action, not just on shop theft, but on assaults against shop workers—a truly disgraceful crime.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
As a former police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, I worked very closely with the last Government on Operation Centurion, which was about really focusing in on antisocial behaviour through more visible patrols and better partnership working. We know that a lot of antisocial behaviour is egged on by a very small minority, and some of the most serious crimes related to antisocial behaviour are driven by that small minority. Without restricting freedoms, banning orders do not work and engagement with youth offending teams does not work, because they are all voluntary. What measures do the Government intend to bring in as part of their new zero tolerance zones that will be different from what currently exists, to make it really zero tolerance?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right that sometimes it is a small minority who are making life a total nightmare for everyone else. The current antisocial behaviour injunctions just are not strong enough, because very often they do not come with a power of arrest. That is why we are introducing respect orders, which mean that repeat perpetrators can be banned from town centres. They will have a power of arrest so that swift action can be taken if they are breached.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Antisocial behaviour and crime on our high streets are best tackled with a visible police presence, but police officers in my constituency are spending a four-hour round trip taking those they are arresting to Worthing custody centre when we have a perfectly fit-for-purpose custody centre in Chichester. Does the Home Secretary agree that opening Chichester custody centre would reduce the time that police officers spend sitting in traffic and get them back on our streets?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member makes an important point: there are often additional challenges for rural areas or areas where neighbourhood police may have to travel, and it is important that we maintain and increase neighbourhood policing right across the board in all areas. She will know that many of the issues around the location of centres are operational decisions for police forces, but I will pass the issue she has raised on to her police and crime commissioner.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Cherry Tree community centre on the Swinemoor estate in Beverley provides support for up to 150 young people in the area, despite not having any permanent premises. It has planning permission and some money from the National Lottery, but could I please meet the right hon. Lady or one of her colleagues to discuss how we can find the funding for the right premises to support young people in Swinemoor and across Beverley?
Yvette Cooper
I will happily ensure that the right hon. Member is able to have a meeting with one of the team. We believe that introducing youth hubs is part of the prevention work that we need, particularly as part of new prevention partnerships, to stop young people being drawn into crime. We also need a new stronger law on child criminal exploitation.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The use of illegal high-powered Sur-Ron type e-bikes by criminal gangs on and around our high streets is causing significant concern, particularly in London, with incidents of antisocial behaviour, violent muggings and phone theft becoming increasingly more common. Can the Home Secretary please update the House on discussions her Department has had with the Mayor of London and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on what they are doing to reduce these incidents and make our streets safer across London?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right to refer to the issues around antisocial and criminal use not just of e-bikes—sometimes e-scooters are used illegally on pavements and off-road bikes cause havoc in local neighbourhoods. That is why we will strengthen the law around vehicles used for antisocial behaviour, so that they can be seized when that antisocial behaviour takes place and the police do not have to go through a whole ritual of a series of warnings which delays action.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The horrendous attack in Forbury Gardens in Reading claimed the lives of three people, and it is all the more agonising for their loved ones that the subsequent inquest concluded that it was avoidable. The Home Secretary and I are overseeing the implementation of commitments made in response to the inquest, and we are determined that all the lessons learned from this terrible incident are acted on.
Paula Barker
I thank the Minister for his response. James Furlong, David Wails and Joe Ritchie-Bennett were murdered in the Forbury Gardens terrorist attack in Reading in 2020. The coroner found major problems with intelligence sharing between authorities, which was underlined in the prevention of future deaths report published in May. Alongside others, Gary Furlong, my constituent and the father of James, is demanding that this is not just another report that sits on a shelf gathering dust. What action will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary take to make permanent changes on the back of this attack? Will she agree to meet Gary Furlong and me to discuss progress in due course?
Dan Jarvis
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue. Our deepest condolences are with the loved ones of James, Joseph and David following their tragic deaths. I assure my hon. Friend and the families that we will do everything in our power to stop this happening again. We will of course be happy to meet the families to discuss changes made, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and her constituent to discuss the matter further.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the families of the Reading victims and the victims of other terror attacks.
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said that as much information as possible should be put into the public domain as early as possible to maintain public trust. Can the Minister assure the House that he and his ministerial colleagues have always disclosed relevant information at an early stage in relation to high-profile terror-related cases that have attracted substantial public and media attention?
Dan Jarvis
The shadow Home Secretary has raised an important issue. Yes, we agree with Jonathan Hall; he is absolutely right. Our overriding priority will always be to ensure that the victims of crime get justice, and we will look at how best that can be achieved.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
In the last year of the previous Government, shop theft reached a record high, and we saw intolerable levels of abuse against shop workers, leaving people fearful of going to work. This Government will not stand by as these crimes devastate our high streets and town centres. That is why we are committed to rebuilding neighbourhood policing, scrapping the £200 limit, which has let thieves steal below the level with impunity, and introducing a new, stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker.
Chris McDonald
Our shop workers will be putting in some long, hard shifts in the coming weeks to help us to get ready for Christmas, but a report from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has said that their risk of being the victims of assault in the workplace has doubled in the last year. Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending USDAW’s Freedom from Fear campaign and affirm that the Government’s commitment to removing the immunity from certain types of shoplifting introduced by the Conservative Government will proceed at pace?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting USDAW’s findings and its tireless campaigning alongside the Co-op for the new stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker, which we will be proud to introduce in the forthcoming crime and policing Bill alongside the scrapping of the £200 limit. I take this opportunity to recognise the commitment of Cleveland’s police and crime commissioner, Matt Storey, in tackling retail crime. I look forward to working with all police and crime commissioners to tackle this scourge on our communities.
Tom Rutland
Shoplifting is a crime that threatens the feeling of safety for shoppers and shop workers alike. In my constituency of East Worthing and Shoreham, the issue has become so severe that in the past year a resident has described it as an epidemic. Can my right hon. Friend please tell me how the Government plan to tackle this issue, so that shoppers and businesses in my area can operate in safety and with confidence?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that people in East Worthing and Shoreham and across the entire country want to know how this Government are going to tackle this epidemic. I have referred to the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers, respect orders, the abolition of the £200 threshold limit and the stand-alone offence of assaulting a shop worker. I want to restore confidence in the people my hon. Friend represents—confidence that will make them feel their streets are safer—and ensure that criminals in their area pay the price for their crimes.
Chris Ward
My constituency team and I recently visited shops on one of the busiest high streets in my constituency. Of the first 10 we visited, nine said that their staff had suffered attacks at work, and all 10 said that shoplifting was now pretty much a daily occurrence. Does the Minister agree that extra resources and extra policing are part of the answer, but that we should also be looking at programmes such as offender to rehab schemes—one of which has been rolled out in the west midlands—to make sure we are also tackling the causes of retail crime?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend paints a deeply upsetting and unacceptable picture of the impact that aggressive and repeated shop theft can have on retail workers. The worst thing is that we know that it is replicated up and down the entire country; we cannot continue like this. That is why we are determined to take the action that I have set out in previous answers, but I agree that we have to look at issues around rehabilitation for offenders, including treatment for addiction where appropriate.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Bath is a very popular tourist and shopping destination, but it has also seen the highest increase in shoplifting offences between 2023 and 2024. For my shopkeepers to feel safe, they want a much more visible police presence in Bath. What can the Government do for them?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Shop theft went up by 21% in the previous year, which is totally unacceptable, and I hear very clearly what she says about her constituency of Bath. That is why the neighbourhood policing model that this Labour Government stood on at the general election is so important for starting to deal with shop theft, which—as we have just been talking about—has become an epidemic.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Home Secretary has repeatedly reiterated her pledge to tackle shoplifting and violence against shop workers by having a named officer in each community, as part of the 13,000 uplift for neighbourhood policing. I spoke to Cambridgeshire constabulary recently, which confirmed that under the Home Secretary’s plans there would be one police officer to cover the whole town of St Ives. That officer would cover not only St Ives, but the town of Ramsey and all the villages in between—Woodhurst, Old Hurst, Pidley, Warboys, Wistow and Bury. Last week, the Policing Minister would not commit to reviewing the police allocation formula to ensure Cambridgeshire receives its fair share of funding. How can one officer be expected to cover such a large area effectively, given that Cambridgeshire is likely to receive only a handful of the officers?
Dame Diana Johnson
I say gently to the hon. Member that he has to look at what this Government inherited from his Conservative Government after 14 years, during which neighbourhood policing was repeatedly cut. This Government are committed to restoring neighbourhood policing. We have said that we will bring in 13,000 police officers, police community support officers and specials.
Dame Diana Johnson
The shadow Home Secretary is shouting “When?” at me. We are working on this as quickly as we can, five months in, after 14 years of what the Conservatives did to our policing.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Shoplifting is often organised by criminal gangs, and Norfolk police have had some success in fighting them. Does the Minister recognise that partnerships such as Operation Wonderland—which has just been launched by West Norfolk police alongside the local council, CCTV operators, street rangers and shop workers—are key to tackling this crime and making sure offenders are brought to justice?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Policing alone cannot deal with this crime; we need to work hand in hand with businesses, as well as the trade unions. USDAW has been very important in the campaign for the offence of assaulting a shop worker that we are going to bring in. I have also met the British Retail Consortium, and will chair a regular forum with the retail sector to make sure we are sharing best practice. We are going to deal with the problems we have inherited.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
One of the best ways to help tackle retail crime is to put more police on the streets. The last Conservative Government did just that—[Interruption.] The last Conservative Government did just that, delivering record numbers of police, with more funding than ever before, but we were not stopping there. This year, the Conservative Government increased frontline police funding by £922 million. Will the Minister commit to matching or even improving that figure next year?
Dame Diana Johnson
I do not know if it is just amnesia on that side of the House, but I think the Shadow Minister needs to reflect on what we actually inherited: PCSOs cut by 50%, specials down by two thirds and over 20,000 police officers cut under the Conservative Administration. So a little bit of humility about what they have left us with would go down very well.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
We are determined to honour our commitment to those who supported us in Afghanistan and who stood up for freedom and democracy, placing their own lives at risk. To date, the Afghan schemes have brought over 32,000 people to safety in the UK, including thousands through the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. We aim to continue to relocate eligible individuals through our established schemes as quickly as possible.
Wendy Chamberlain
A major issue of concern for Afghans who have been here since the opening of the scheme is that their residency permits are now up for renewal. I am sure the Government do not want to render illegal those whom we welcomed to the UK. Can we have some guidance from the Home Office about some of the questions that people have asked me: where do people go for renewal; how is the Home Office responding to those who have had several changes of address; and if there is a cost, what happens to those who cannot pay?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and for all her work for those who are here from Afghanistan. We continue to seek to email and notify all individuals currently resettled in the UK whom we are aware of, and I will certainly continue to discuss with her the methods we are using for those facing other issues.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
My constituent Dr Lubna Hadoura is an NHS consultant who desperately wants to be able to care for her 80-year-old mother, a refugee displaced from Gaza earlier this year who is now alone in Egypt and unable to care for herself. Will the Minister assure me that her application for an adult dependent relative visa will be carefully, humanely and properly considered?
Mr Speaker
I am not quite sure that that is actually about the resettlement scheme, but okay.
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The death and destruction in Gaza are intolerable, and I assure her that that application is being looked at very closely and she should be receiving an update very soon.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
The Government have set out an unprecedented mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. I say this on White Ribbon Day, and it is good to see everybody wearing their white ribbons. We are determined to tackle the scourge of domestic abuse in all its forms. From early 2025, Raneem’s law, which will embed domestic abuse specialist teams into 999 control rooms in order to improve the police response to domestic abuse crimes, will ensure that victims get a swift and specialist response when they call for help. We will also, finally, launch the pilot of the domestic abuse protection orders and roll them out across the country, which the previous Government failed to do three years after the fact of the law changing. So we will be providing stronger protections for survivors and ensuring that perpetrators are properly monitored and managed.
Cat Eccles
I thank the Minister for her response. My constituent Samantha Billingham is a domestic abuse survivor who now runs training sessions on coercive control. Coercive control is a thread that runs throughout all abuse, and I was shocked to hear that it does not form a core part of the training for the police, social workers or any other domestic violence training. Will the Minister meet me and Samantha to ensure that coercive control forms a key part of domestic violence training?
Jess Phillips
I have met Samantha Billingham, a local west midlands legend campaigning in this space, a number of times and I share my hon. Friend’s shock at the lack of knowledge about coercive control. All police, social workers and others in contact with victims of domestic abuse ought to be aware of coercive control and its insidious effects on the victim, and of course I would be delighted to meet her.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
There is a significant disparity in sentencing for murder based on whether a weapon was taken to the scene of a domestic crime or was already present. Sentences for murderers who used a weapon already available at the crime scene start 10 years lower than sentences for those who brought a weapon with them. Does the Minister agree that this disparity must be tackled?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Lady and pay tribute to Julie Devey and Carole Gould, two of the parents who are fighting this campaign. A Ministry of Justice sentencing review is currently ongoing, and I know that Carole and Julie and Members here will want to feed into that.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
The epidemic of knife crime that has grown over the last decade is devastating families and communities right across the country. That is why this Government have set ourselves an unprecedented mission to halve knife crime over the next 10 years. We are already taking action to get lethal blades off Britain’s streets and taking stronger action against illegal online knife sales. We are also determined to stop young people being drawn into violent crime and county lines in the first place, which is why we are delivering a radical new young futures prevention programme, with targeted interventions to help at risk young people and a network of new youth hubs.
Alice Macdonald
I thank the Minister for meeting me recently. As she says, too many young people are being drawn into county lines, suffering exploitation and violence. This is a significant problem across the country, including in Norwich. Many organisations are working hard locally to improve the situation, such as the Joe Dix Foundation, established by his parents after Joe’s tragic murder in 2022. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government are investing all they can in preventive measures and set out what is being done to support organisations on the frontline?
Dame Diana Johnson
It was a great pleasure to meet my hon. Friend just last week to discuss this issue. Organisations like the Joe Dix Foundation do amazing work to help keep people safe and keep young people out of county line gangs in particular, and through the Home Office county lines programme we are going after exploitative gangs and providing specialist support for children and young people. Our young futures programme will establish those prevention partnerships in every local authority to identify children and young people at risk.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister speaks of the young futures programme. Will she work with the Northern Ireland Executive to put in place the same programmes so that we can prevent young people in Northern Ireland from joining paramilitary organisations, which are nothing more than organised and violent crime organisations?
Dame Diana Johnson
I can certainly talk to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office to discuss what we can learn from the proposed programme and the good practice we know exists already in many parts of the UK. We want to build on that so I am very happy to share that.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Sorry, Mr Speaker. These questions are like buses—they all come along at once.
Vehicle theft is a deeply distressing and damaging crime which can have a detrimental effect on both individuals and businesses, including in rural communities. That is why we are working closely with both the police and the automotive industry to ensure the most robust responses possible to these crimes. Last week I met with the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for vehicle crime to discuss this issue and how we can better work together to prevent it.
Dr Tidball
An increase in car and van thefts and antisocial behaviour in Stocksbridge, Deepcar, High Green, Chapeltown and Dodworth has left my constituents feeling vulnerable and unsafe. Local people have also experienced excessive 999 response times. How is the Minister tackling the rise in vehicle thefts, working with manufacturers to improve vehicle safety and supporting South Yorkshire police after years of Conservative cuts?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am pleased that this question is being asked, and it is important to note that this autumn, driven by the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for vehicle crime, the national vehicle crime reduction partnership has been launched, bringing together the police, the Home Office and manufacturers on the very point of how we tackle this problem. We are also committed to bringing forward legislation to ban electronic devices used to steal vehicles, empowering the police and courts to target those criminals using, manufacturing and supplying them.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
That was a welcome answer from the Minister. Farmers in Wiltshire complain not just about car theft, which is endemic, but wider agricultural theft, too, and the terrible scourge of hare coursing. It is all bound up in serious organised crime. Does the Minister recognise the seriousness of organised rural crime of this nature, and what steps is she taking to address it?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I recently met the Agricultural Engineers Association to discuss the implementation of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, which he will know is important in tackling some of that rural crime with agricultural equipment that has been stolen, often by organised gangs. There is work ongoing on this, and the issue is recognised by the Home Office.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Public confidence in policing fell under the last Conservative Government, as we saw a big drop in police on the beat, with fewer crimes solved and a real sense in communities that more criminals are getting away with it. This Government are determined to turn that around, starting with getting police back on the beat and rebuilding neighbourhood policing.
Jake Richards
Earlier this month I held a community meeting in Dinnington about the regeneration project on the high street. It was well attended, and people are optimistic, but they are also worried about the lack of police in the area and the crime that continues to blight their town. Can the Home Secretary reassure the residents of Dinnington that this Government will rebuild community policing, which was utterly let down over 14 years of Conservative Government?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The percentage of people seeing police on the beat each week has dropped by two thirds over the past 14 years. The percentage of people who say they never see the police has doubled. That is the shameful consequence of 14 years of Conservative policing policies. This Government will put 13,000 more police and police community support officers back on the beat.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Local volunteers in Potters Bar were left struggling on Remembrance Sunday to stop the traffic to allow the march to take place. They were told by the police that they lacked the resources and the power to stop the traffic, yet on the same day in neighbouring Essex the police managed to visit a journalist regarding a deleted tweet. Every weekend, vast amounts of resources pour into London for pro-Palestinian marches. Does the Home Secretary share the despair of my constituents at this allocation of resources, and will she provide guidance for next year’s Remembrance service, both on police powers and the responsibilities regarding those marches?
Yvette Cooper
I just point out to the former Deputy Prime Minister that the state of policing in this country is the policing that we inherited after 14 years of Conservative Government, in which they took police off the beat and in which we lost neighbourhood policing and PCSOs. This Government have made clear what the priorities for policing should be neighbourhood policing, including tackling antisocial behaviour and town centre crime, and reducing serious violence, including knife crime and violence against women and girls. We always believe that Remembrance Day should be respected, which is something that one of his former colleagues as Home Secretary did not respect.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
More than 13,000 non-crime hate incidents have been logged by UK police forces in the past year, including against schoolchildren as young as nine for classroom insults. This is estimated to have taken 60,000 hours of police time and undermines public trust and confidence in policing. The last Government tightened the guidance, and it has been widely reported this morning that the Home Secretary will update it again. How will the right hon. Lady know if her changes have worked? What is the metric, and is there a target? If the changes do not work, will she restrict investigations to take place only when there is an imminent risk of an actual crime?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the hon. Member to her acting role—I am not sure how long she is acting for. We have made clear what we believe the priorities should be for policing: neighbourhood policing and reducing serious violence on our streets, and that should be the case across the board. We should have a common-sense approach to policing decisions in every area across the country. On the issues she raised, the inspectorate has recently done a report, which found inconsistencies in a whole series of areas. We believe that its recommendations need to be taken immensely seriously by forces across the country.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
There is nothing more important for the Government than keeping our children safe. That is why I am appalled by the volume of child abuse that is proliferating online, and why we are determined to act. We are committed to robust implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023, which contains strong protections for children, but we will not hesitate to go further if tech companies fail to play their part. Our investment in the National Crime Agency, GCHQ, an undercover online network of police officers and the tackling organised exploitation programme is supporting our efforts to keep children safe online by targeting and stopping the highest harm and most technically sophisticated offenders.
Gregor Poynton
I greatly welcome the action that the Government are taking, but the fight against child sex abuse online is only as strong as its weakest link, and Facebook’s decision to allow the encrypted sharing of images makes it a very weak link indeed. Does the Minister share my anger that Facebook appears to be turning a blind eye while its platform becomes a safe haven for paedophiles?
Jess Phillips
My hon. Friend raises an extremely serious issue. I assure him that we very much share his concerns. The Home Secretary has met representatives from Meta and our officials are in regular contact. What we say in all those discussions is very simple. For years, Meta has been an industry leader when it comes to preventing and detecting child sex abuse online, and what we all want to see is it continuing to play that positive role and not—as my hon. Friend fears—going in the opposite direction.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
My constituent lost his son to suicide following exposure to an online suicide forum. He is sadly one of 88 known Britons, the youngest of whom was just 17, whose deaths have been linked to this one site. Under the Online Safety Act, the Technology Secretary has the powers to include such small but very dangerous sites under category 1—the most heavily regulated category—but Ofcom has advised him against doing so. Will the Minister press her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to include these exceptionally dangerous sites in category 1?
Jess Phillips
I pay tribute to the hon. Member’s constituent. It is unimaginable for any parent to have to go through something like that. We at the Home Office are working incredibly closely with our DSIT colleagues as the Online Safety Act comes into force to ensure that it is as strong and robust as it can be. We are having those conversations daily.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
The scale of violence against women and girls in our country is intolerable, and the Government will treat it as a national emergency. As part of this mission, we are bringing together Ministers from right across Government so that every Department does its bit, from prevention work in schools through to relentless pursuit of dangerous perpetrators. On top of that work, we have already begun strengthening the police response to domestic abuse. We will mark the next 16 days of activism with further announcements on our work to tackle spiking, stalking and other VAWG crimes.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
Charities such as Aylesbury Women’s Aid do brilliant and vital work to support survivors of domestic abuse. However, when these survivors interact with other public-facing services such as emergency or healthcare services, they are not always met with the same level of understanding. What measures is the Minister taking to ensure that survivors of domestic violence and abuse are met with a trauma-informed approach across all public services?
Jess Phillips
A massive thank you to Aylesbury Women’s Aid for the amazing work that it is clearly doing. I am afraid that my hon. Friend and victims are exactly right in their assessment. That is why we must have a completely cross-Government approach to ensuring that no matter where a victim stands up, all services take responsibility for their role in the lives of those who are suffering.
Monica Harding
As the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) pointed out, coercive control is a criminal offence but it is often overlooked, despite research suggesting that it is the third highest risk factor in domestic homicide. In my surgeries in Esher and Walton, victims have told me that there is not a sufficient understanding of coercive control in police interviews, particularly when other crimes are being investigated. What assessments are being made of the effectiveness of the roll-out of the domestic abuse risk assessment—DARA—toolkit, which was introduced by the College of Policing in 2022?
Jess Phillips
A number of different risk assessment tools are used, whether DARA or Dash—the domestic abuse, stalking, harassment and honour-based violence risk assessment—which has a more historical grounding and is used more widely. I want the hon. Lady to know that it is impossible to read any domestic homicide review in our country for the past decade and not think that risk assessments, and how well they are used and operating, is something that we should look at.
Chris Bloore
Will the Minister join me in thanking the incredible staff at the Sandycroft centre in my constituency, who offer life-saving support for vulnerable people in times of crisis? Will she visit the centre with me to hear from CEO Lee McKenzie and the independent sexual violence advisers, who are on the frontline tackling increased violence against women and girls?
Jess Phillips
As it is very local to me, I take a particular interest in the Sandycroft centre. Such centres are invaluable to vulnerable women, and I would be delighted to visit him and Lee—it would be a 15-minute drive.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Does the Minister agree that local charities like Jasmine House, which operates in my constituency, play a vital role in supporting women who have been victims of a sexual crime? But in addition to the worry of constantly trying to find funding, they are concerned about the impact that the Government’s proposed increase in employer’s national insurance will have on their ability to continue providing that help. Does the Minister agree that they should be exempt from the changes to national insurance contributions?
Jess Phillips
I pay tribute to Jasmine House. As someone who applied for funding for a similar centre, I understand exactly the funding pressures that its staff will face. What the sector really needs is stability, the assurance of more than single-year funding, which the Government are looking at, and making sure that we mitigate to ensure that there is enough.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. It marks the start of 16 days of global activism on the issue. As part of the Labour Government’s safer streets mission, we have set an ambition to halve violence against women and girls, which I hope everyone will be a part of.
Today we are setting out new action to tackle the devastating crime of spiking, with a new stand-alone criminal offence to strengthen the police response, new specialist training for bar and door staff across the country, and new recording measures, because we fear that the prevalence is much higher than has been previously thought, and the dangerous criminals responsible need to be caught and stopped. As we look forward to the festive season, everyone should be able to enjoy a night out without having to worry about the safety of their drink and whether they will be able to get home safely.
Deirdre Costigan
I met constituents at my coffee morning in Southall Green on Friday, who raised the constant issue of open drug dealing and antisocial behaviour in the town centre. Will the Secretary of State work with the Mayor of London to ensure that we have more police on the streets of Southall and London as soon as we can?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have already given the Met an additional £37 million this year, on top of what it was previously allocated. We also need to ensure that here and right across the country we have neighbourhood police back in town centres, because that is how to tackle not just local drug dealing, but antisocial behaviour and other crimes that blight communities.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Let me start by offering the Home Secretary a belated congratulations on her appointment. Having been a Minister in that Department, I know how difficult her job is and I genuinely wish her well in doing it. We will always seek to work constructively with the Government in the national interest. I also associate myself with the remarks she made about International VAWG Day—International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and Girls. Since the election, 19,988 people have dangerously and illegally crossed the channel, a 23% increase on the same period last year. Why does the right hon. Lady think the numbers have gone up so much on her watch?
Yvette Cooper
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his opening words. I think he described his time in the Home Office as his best ministerial job ever. Given that he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury under Liz Truss, we can perhaps wonder why. He was also the Immigration Minister who, I remind him, told the Commons and the Select Committee that he would not rule out using giant wave machines as the way to stop small boat crossings. We inherited record high levels of small boat crossings in the first half of this year. We have taken action to fix the previous Government’s chaos.
Chris Philp
I am asking the Home Secretary about her record. I am asking the Home Secretary why small boat crossings have gone up during her time in office. Perhaps it is because, as the National Crime Agency said, we need a deterrent. Yet she cancelled the Rwanda deterrent before it even started. Now we hear Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission President, asking European member states to look at offshore processing. Is that not why it has gone up? Is that not why the Minister for Border Security and Asylum admitted last week that she is opening new hotels instead of closing them down?
Yvette Cooper
Seriously, what a lot of chaos! Highest level on record: that was the six months of the last Conservative Government, while the right hon. Gentleman was in government. In fact, the numbers since the summer are not the highest on record. That, unfortunately, was his legacy. While he was the Immigration Minister, he increased the number of asylum hotels by 500% and increased the number of people in asylum hotels by over 900%. Seriously, he should not try to give lectures to anybody else at all.
Mr Speaker
Well, I am going to give a little lecture. If you really want to attack each other, can you do it before we get to topical questions? These questions are meant to be short and sweet, because otherwise other Members will not get in.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I have visited The First Step, and to say that it is run by brilliant Merseyside women would be an underestimation. Specialist “by and for” services play an essential role and provide tailored support to victims and survivors. We understand the challenges that the sector faces, in particular with the level of demand their services are currently facing. All decisions on funding after March 2025 are subject to the spending review process.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
We all want to stop criminals terrorising our communities, whether they are domestic abusers or shoplifters targeting our high streets. Live facial recognition is being rolled out by our police forces, including on Sutton High Street in my constituency, but we cannot ignore the risks that this technology presents. Facial recognition systems are most likely to misidentify black people and women, doing nothing to stop crime and further eroding trust in our police. Will the Minister introduce clear regulation oversight of live facial recognition, such as that which the EU passed last April?
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
This is another area where the new incoming Labour Government are having to look at powers and measures brought in by the previous Government. Live facial recognition can have very positive effects, but we need to consider whether we need a framework around it. That is why I will be hosting a series of roundtables before Christmas to discuss with stakeholders the way forward on this technology.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. What the National Audit Office found in its report was not only an appalling process of decision making by members of the previous Government, but a grotesque waste of £15 million of taxpayers’ money—just like the waste of £60 million at RAF Scampton. In contrast, the new Government are determined to cut asylum accommodation costs by stepping up decision making, reducing the backlog—
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The taskforce is examining closely the threats that he raises, and we shall have more to say about that shortly.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
I am sure that the Home Secretary would agree that good government is transparent government. I have been told by her Department, in response to a written parliamentary question, that the number of crimes committed by illegal migrants is not available through published statistics. I am sure that the Home Office does hold the data, so will the Minister commit to publishing it in full?
Dame Angela Eagle
There will be a huge drop of immigration-related national statistics at the end of the week.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is a serious problem of injunctions, non-molestation orders and protection orders not being treated properly. That is why we are introducing Raneem’s law, which includes stronger protection orders and specialists in 999 control rooms.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Chelmsford’s allocation of dispersal accommodation for asylum seekers is more than 120 beds, but the number found to date is about a tenth of that number owing to the high demand for and high cost of private rented accommodation in the district. What extra support can the Minister offer councils facing the increasing cost of housing asylum seekers?
Dame Angela Eagle
We are trying to co-operate much more with local authorities so that we can deal with these issues, but ultimately the way to deal with them is to get the backlog down and get people out of high-price accommodation so that we can integrate them if they are granted asylum.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
The death and destruction in Gaza are intolerable. Palestinians who wish to join family members in the UK must do so via the range of existing routes that are available, but if my hon. Friend wishes to raise a specific matter with me, I shall be happy to meet her.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
What steps is the Minister taking to tackle crime in rural areas?
Dame Diana Johnson
As I said earlier, I have met representatives of the Agricultural Engineers Association to discuss the implementation of the secondary legislation that is required to deal with the theft of agricultural equipment, and I am also having meetings with the rural crime units to discuss some of the specifics. However, the neighbourhood policing guarantee applies in rural areas just as much as in urban areas, which is important.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Yvette Cooper
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituent Tracy for campaigning in memory of Cameron. Too many young lives are being lost. That is why we are setting up the Young Futures programme, with youth hubs but also prevention partnerships, to work across the country.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
In recent weeks, the number of channel crossings has been far higher than the Home Office expected, which is why we have seen Ministers rapidly approving new asylum hotels. We are told that the situation is temporary, because asylum claims are apparently now being processed faster and people are being moved through accommodation faster too. What reassurances can the Home Secretary give my constituents that the faster processing of asylum claims, with no deterrent in the system, will not simply act as a massive incentive for more people to come here on small boats?
Yvette Cooper
I have to tell the hon. Member that unfortunately the previous Government cut asylum decision making by 75% in the run-up to the election, and they took away caseworkers. That is why the backlog was soaring. We have now put caseworkers back in place so that we can start clearing the backlog, because asylum hotels are costing the taxpayer huge amounts of money.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Disabled women are almost three times more likely to experience domestic abuse and almost twice as likely to report sexual violence. Does the Minister agree that it is important for not only her Department but the police to work with disabled women-led organisations to understand the intersection with gender-based violence and the double whammy that affects disabled women?
Jess Phillips
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to Stay Safe East, one of very few specialist disability and domestic abuse charities. Without “by and for” services, we simply would not be serving most of the women in our country who need support.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
A report published today shows that 60,000 hours are taken up each year investigating non-crime hate incidents. Does the Minister agree that confidence in the police could be restored if they prioritised their time and resources to investigate actual crime rather than hurt feelings?
Dame Diana Johnson
This Government have made very clear what our priorities are around safer streets and where the focus should be for policing: on halving knife crime and halving violence against women and girls over the next decade. The Home Secretary has also been very clear that a common-sense approach must be taken to non-crime hate incidents. We will work with the inspectorate and the College of Policing on the matter.
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Prime Minister, I should like to say a few words about our former colleague Lord Prescott. John was first elected to this House in 1970, and he served the people of Hull for four decades. He became deputy leader of the Labour party in 1994—my father helped on that campaign—and Deputy Prime Minister at the 1997 election.
I have to say thanks to John for coming to Chorley to ensure that I had a new start as a Labour Member in Chorley. I will just share what John did. On that day, tragically, the press pushed an old lady over and her arm was broken. The first thing John said was, “I must go to the hospital.” He went to hospital to see that lady as her cast was being put on. That was the kind of person John Prescott was.
John played a major role in delivering the Kyoto protocol and was a great champion of regional government, integrated transport and affordable housing. After leaving government, he became active in inter-parliamentary relations, leading the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. He was an effective politician, a highly respected colleague and a towering figure in the labour movement and in this House. He will be deeply missed, and all our thoughts are with Pauline and the family.
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for those words, which John’s family will have heard.
There are many Members of this House who serve their constituents faithfully. Some deliver change for the entire country. Very few enter into public consciousness, let alone public affection. But John Prescott achieved all those things. He was absolutely unique and people loved him for it. He had the most extraordinary life, from failing his 11-plus to stewarding Anthony Eden on a cruise ship, to being deputy leader of—as he described it—
“the greatest party there is”,
and the longest-serving Deputy Prime Minister this country has ever had.
It was an extraordinary life, yet ordinary people across the nation felt that he was one of them. He told a story of a working-class lad made good who embodied the aspiration of working people across the entire country. People felt recognised in the struggles they had—the snobbery and the small-mindedness that still plague politics even today—but they also felt that he understood and championed their ambitions, their hopes and their dreams.
John was a politician for working people through and through. That was who he always was. A proud son of Wales and an honorary son of the Humber, he served the city of Hull for 40 years, as you said, Mr Speaker. Everyone knew that he loved it as fiercely as he fought for it. Everything he did was about making working people’s lives better. That was evident from his whole career, a career in which he was often ahead of his time. He led on climate change, fighting regional inequality, supporting the minimum wage, working to transform public transport, building council houses and even completing the channel tunnel. In many ways, he set the path that we walk today. Make no mistake: he did things his own way and forged his own path, and in doing so he brought about some of the greatest transformation this country has ever seen.
John was the linchpin of new Labour, because beneath the pugnacious exterior he was a skilled negotiator, sometimes with immense and perhaps surprising sensitivity. He had an incredible skill, which was the ability to bring people together from different starting points—whether that was in his work on climate negotiations or closer to home in his own party—to stand together in a better place.
That sums up another thing that I think the public sensed about John: that he was not in it for himself. He was willing to work with people he did not agree with, as well as challenging those he usually did agree with. He had great self-awareness and great humility, and if he disagreed fiercely in private, he would do so and then defend the line—often improved because of his intervention —in public to the hilt.
John was a team player and he was proud to play for team Labour. That was never more evident than during the campaign season when it was time to bring out the battle bus, a tradition that our Deputy Prime Minister proudly continued this year. The Prescott express was a morale boost to any campaign. It may have been arriving in a Tesco car park, but John was always met with a reception like Beatlemania. And no wonder: the public were at the heart of John’s politics and it was clear that the public had a particular place in their heart for him, too. That was key to his popularity. Indeed, after the famous incident it was the public who came out swinging for him. That night, Labour campaigners were anxiously dispatched to the most accurate focus group that there is, the local pub, to hear what people were saying. The reports were clear: the public had his back, just as he had always had theirs. Tony Blair, my predecessor, said simply, “John is John.”
And he was. John was John, and he will live on in Labour legend, in the memory of everybody who is in this House now and who served when he was in the House, and in the affection of the nation. We remember today his wife Pauline, and we send our love and condolences to his family and his loved ones. We stand with the people of Hull and working people across the country to say, “Thank you, John, for a lifetime of service, for a genuine character and for a changed nation.” May he rest in peace.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to the late John Prescott. Lord Prescott will be remembered for many things: as a committed Member of Parliament for his beloved constituency of Kingston upon Hull East, as a formidable campaigner for the causes he believed in, and for his public service as Deputy Prime Minister. As I said last week, he was a true patriot and had a unique way of connecting with the electorate. Many of us did not know him personally, but his strength of personality was felt.
For those of us who came into politics during the new Labour era, our experience of politics was shaped by Lord Prescott. He was a leading figure in making the Labour party under Tony Blair electable, after enduring four consecutive election defeats. In the process of broadening his party’s appeal, he ensured that Labour thought about the needs, values and aspirations of regular people across this country, not just those of a metropolitan elite. He was often underestimated, yet by all accounts he was an intelligent, amusing and relentlessly hard-working man with great political instincts. Although I would doubtless have disagreed with him on many things, I would have loved the opportunity to argue with him about making our country better.
In paying tribute to the late Lord Prescott, I express heartfelt condolences on behalf of myself and my party, and I send sincere condolences to his family, his friends and his colleagues.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I pay tribute not just to my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Kingston upon Hull East, but to a family friend of over 50 years. In doing so, I send my heartfelt condolences to Pauline and the family.
Many will remember John as a political giant, and indeed he was, but he was also a gentle giant to many. John always had time to chat to anyone who stopped him. Many Members will speak today of the great work he did both inside and outside this House, but I want to speak about the John we knew in east Hull, both as our MP and as a very dear friend, as he was to many.
East Hull was John’s adoptive home, and it became a strong part of his identity. Everyone in east Hull has their own story about John, including those he helped, and there were many thousands of them. One of John’s biggest legacies in Hull is the £55 million regeneration of the Preston Road estate in the heart of the constituency as part of the new deal for communities. I am told that John was the person in the Cabinet who spearheaded that programme.
I have had the great pleasure and honour of knowing John all my life. As kids we enjoyed family holidays with the Prescotts, and I still keep a picture on my office desk of me, JP and the family hurtling down a log flume. I keep it for a reason: because John was clearly enjoying it the most.
One year, John decided that we were going to Loch Ness to find Nessie. We did not find Nessie, but we had the most amazing time, with memories we will never forget. During the voyage, Captain John thought it would be fun to throw his watch overboard to test our diving skills—as kids, we did not realise that John was an expert diver—but it sank too far. We began to panic a bit, but John, with a big grin on his face, dived overboard. He was missing for more than a few minutes, we thought, but he came up on the other side of the vessel, holding the watch with a massive grin on his face.
John’s legacy will always be etched on the hearts of those he served and the city that he loved. There will never be another JP, and no Member of this House will ever be able to connect with the voters quite like he did. He truly was one of a kind. John’s spirit and approach to politics will live on in all of us who were inspired by him and by his dedication and commitment to the cause. Rest in peace, comrade.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I was never on John Prescott’s Christmas card list, but I did have the interesting task of shadowing him in the early noughties for three years, and I felt like I got to know him. My respect for him grew, though I was never sure whether it was entirely reciprocated. I would occasionally tour the media studios with him, and on one occasion John was getting his make-up on and clearly had not realised that I was outside the door. He said to his aide, “Is that bloody Liberal here again?”
We spoke more in later years, when I was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, as John always retained a deep and well-informed interest in all things climate, with his significant, globally recognised role in securing the Kyoto climate treaty. The Government’s chief climate negotiator in my time, the brilliant but sadly departed Pete Betts, had also been John’s key negotiator at Kyoto. Pete would tell the story of how John’s sheer energy and staying power were crucial to the success of those negotiations, and how John would tour the negotiating rooms throughout the night, uttering the great phrase: “I’m walking. I’m talking.”
Our paths also crossed in the great city of Kingston upon Hull, when we eventually managed to get Siemens to invest in a wind turbine manufacturing facility for offshore wind farms. There was a celebration on the day when the first sod was turned to build the factory, and the reception was held in what is called The Deep—a huge tourist attraction, which John had played a crucial role in making happen, down by the marina in Hull. The Deep is the UK’s home to several species of shark. As we walked around it, being instructed about sharks, we were reliably informed that sharks can be very friendly, and though he would never admit it in public, John was always very friendly to me. He was a trailblazer and an inspiration, even plunging into the Thames in a wetsuit to make an important point about water pollution —exactly the sort of savvy, effective campaigning that I for one admire. John will be missed by very many people, so on behalf of bloody Liberals everywhere, I send my heartfelt condolences to Pauline, John’s children and grandchildren, and all his family and many friends.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As chair of the parliamentary Labour party, I echo the tribute made by the Prime Minister and send our thoughts and love to John’s family. At the PLP meeting tonight, we will have a chance to reflect on his enormous contribution to the country and the party. As a former Labour organiser, I can tell the House that he was beloved by our members. They would move mountains in Wales to go and see him, although he himself said:
“When I do die, after 50 years in politics, all they will show on the news is 60 seconds of me thumping a fellow in Wales”,
The many, many tributes over the weekend rightly reflected his immense contribution to the country, which should never be underestimated: his drive to improve council housing; his championing of the minimum wage; his leadership on climate change—climate action before it was a thing. A true socialist and thoroughly authentic, he cared only about making people’s lives better.
To go back to that punch, there are many others here today who were close friends with John, or who worked with him and knew him far better than me; we were, however, connected by one event, for I, as a youngish general secretary of the Welsh Labour party, organised his visit to Rhyl—clearly not very well, although he never seemed to hold it against me, and he did not get me sacked, which was an enormous relief at the time. There is so much that I could say about that day. He was a trooper. He went back inside immediately after the punch and did this rather strange comedy show at the Little Theatre, but I will not test your patience, Mr Speaker. The definitive guide is in Matt Forde’s podcast with Martin Angus, which I would recommend to all Members. For those of us in the background of the footage, it never goes away. Although John was right that the clip has been shown again a million times over the weekend, his legacy was always far bigger than a GIF. He will be much missed by our big Labour family.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I served in this place with John Prescott for many years, and I admired him from afar as being a true Labour man and a man of true grit. I am not sure that my admiration of him was reciprocated, but I held him in great affection. My first memory of him was in 1983, when I arrived in this place as a new Member of Parliament. I gave a speech, during which I could see John grunting and looking furious. He probably thought I was an absurd, young, opinionated Thatcherite brat—and he was probably right.
Talking of Mrs Thatcher, my next memory of him was when I saw him having a quiet supper in the little Members’ canteen we used to have downstairs. The moment my boss, Mrs Thatcher, came in, I could see John waving his hands in fury at her for all that she had done. Neil Kinnock leaned over and said, “Calm down, John, calm down.” I thought, “Here is a man of real strong opinion.” We have so many anaemic politicians today—I am not looking at anybody in particular—so it was wonderful to have a man like John Prescott on the Opposition Benches.
John much mellowed and it was a great joy to serve with him on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I remember him saying that his children wanted him to go on “Strictly Come Dancing”, but he decided not to. That would have been something for the history books—John Prescott on “Strictly Come Dancing”!
As a local Member of Parliament, I pay tribute to John Prescott. I used to take my children to The Deep, and he did a great many things for Hull. I wish hon. Members could have watched Look North, our local television news programme, and seen the tributes paid by local people, who said how loved he was in Hull and how hard he worked for the people. He was a great man and he will be sorely missed.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I was deeply saddened to hear about the death of John Prescott. I send my condolences to Pauline, his sons and all those who were close to him. I considered him to be a good friend of mine and of Mansfield. He was a giant of a man and a champion of the coalfields, devolution, local government and climate action.
I first met John in the 1980s, as an activist in the Labour party, and enjoyed supporting him in his first campaign to be deputy leader in 1988, and in his campaign to be leader and deputy leader in 1994. His legacy includes setting up the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which was established to help support former coalfield areas in communities such as Mansfield that had been impacted by the pit closure programmes of the 1980s and 1990s. That helped ensure that my area received millions of pounds of funding.
John had a particularly strong link to my constituency of Mansfield, especially through my Labour predecessor, Sir Alan Meale, who was his parliamentary private secretary for some years. Anecdotally, I can recall many endearing memories of John, including a time when we were playing table tennis in Sir Alan’s front yard in Mansfield. It was a lovely sunny day and we were enjoying our game in the garden, on a day when the Prime Minister was out of the country on business. An important call came through that John had to take, and we paused our game. To this day, I have no idea who it was or what was said, but the conversation clearly distracted John so much that when he arrived back, he hit the ball with such force that it bounced right off the table and hit the ministerial car. From that experience, I can assure the House that the left hook still packed a mighty punch.
In the years after John left office, I would often drive him back to the station at Newark or Doncaster after his many visits to Mansfield, so he could get the train to London or back home to Hull. The insights from his frank and honest recollections of history from the Blair and Brown years will stay with me for a very long time. May he rest in peace.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. When I first arrived in the House, it was common in the Conservative party—the Thatcherite Conservative party, I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—to view John Prescott as public enemy No. 1. It was an act that he loved playing into, in public at least. That being said, outside the studio or the Chamber, he was friendly and helpful, certainly to me. Indeed, he was almost the best possible constituency neighbour one could want.
John Prescott was quintessentially a working-class hero—an identity that I suspect the current Deputy Prime Minister also adopts. Of course, he was a brilliant constituency ally and a forceful defender of the interests of the people of Hull, with the emphasis on force. However, he was also a necessary champion of the new Labour party. The Prime Minister referred implicitly to the fact that John Prescott delivered one man, one vote. We should remember that it was an act of huge courage for him to take on his own union allies, I think at about one hour’s notice, and persuade them to support the neophyte Tony Blair.
Frankly, despite the snobbery of the London establishment about John Prescott’s education, it was a very unwise person who underestimated his intellect. He was a formidable and brilliant innovator on—I am looking at the Environment Secretary—the environment, on Europe, on devolution and on a whole range of things. He was what we would all hope to be: not a creature of history, but a changer of history. For that, we should always admire him.
To put to one side all those grand things, he was also greatly, greatly loved by his family. On that basis, I offer my condolences to Pauline and the rest of the family.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to add my own few words to the tributes that have been made, and especially to welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), which were so warm and personal.
John Prescott’s great many achievements—his commitment to climate change and other matters—have already been spoken of. He was a truly authentic working-class hero, and somebody who always attracted a crowd wherever he went. He persevered with his famous battle bus through good times and poorer ones. What may sometimes be missed is his commitment to devolution, and the great efforts he made in the north-east of England, where he committed to the campaign for a north-eastern assembly. We were not successful on that occasion—the referendum was not won—but, ultimately, John’s legacy prevails in the devolved institutions and authorities that we have seen ever since.
On a personal note, I want to put on record my thanks to John for his personal support to me. I found myself propelled on to the shadow Front Bench a little bit prematurely and unexpectedly, but he was of great support to me in discharging the transport brief. He retained such immense knowledge, and on every single occasion he offered encouragement, for which I will be eternally grateful. He was a true giant of the Labour movement. We will miss him enormously, but his legacy remains. I, too, pass on my sincere condolences to Pauline and to all his family.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Scottish National party, I pass on our sincerest condolences to Pauline, to John’s family and to his many friends, colleagues and comrades right across the Labour movement. You have lost a colossus of a man, and an inspiration to working-class people right across the United Kingdom who were encouraged by his example to go into politics.
I remember coming down here as a new MP in 2001 and observing the Labour Front Bench—titans, all of them, and all known to the UK public, but dominant among them was John Prescott, and it was John Prescott the public wanted to hear from. When he appeared on the TV screens, the public paid attention and listened to what he had to say. He resonated with the British public, who held him in a curious affection. If what he had could have been bottled, I am sure we would all take a little sup of it today.
I will never forget where I was, as a candidate in 2001, when that famous incident came in that the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) referred to—who could? I think we all know where we were. I was with a bunch of sixth-formers at a hustings at Brechin high school, and one of the senior pupils said to me, “If it’s like that every day in your political life, I want a bit of that.” There’s inspiration for you, Mr Speaker.
John was a huge music fan and a great supporter of our music act, MP4. We could never quite master the jazz that he seemed to favour—although maybe as a tribute to him we will get round to doing one of those numbers—but it was something he completely loved.
Everyone has talked about John’s commitment to climate change, but there was also his commitment to devolution, which a few colleagues have mentioned. John Prescott was the engine who drove that path towards a Scottish Parliament and the regional assemblies which will be happening as a matter of course with this new Labour Government.
John was part of a generation that we are sadly beginning to lose, but he will stand out as one of the true great parliamentarians in this House of the past few decades and we will all miss him dearly.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is wonderful to hear all the various tributes to John and I wanted to share my own memories of him. As some have mentioned, when it came to campaigning, his big thing was his battle bus—who would not love touring the country eating sweets with Martin Angus? I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) will attest to that.
I have my own memory of John’s battle bus from after the 2005 election. He got a small group of us together and we toured London as commuters were on their way to work, at around 7.30 or 8 o’clock in the morning. John was on the tannoy thanking them all individually for voting Labour and for another five years of a Labour Government. Watching people literally stop in the street, confused that a bus was talking to them, only to discover that it was actually the Deputy Prime Minister talking to them, was incredible. John then took us all to his flat, where, despite having had no sleep at all, he made us bacon sandwiches and tea. That was John at his best: generous, indomitable and completely unpredictable.
John’s incredible achievements and those of that Labour Government will stand the test of time. He was the cement that kept the broad church of those New Labour Governments together and we will always remember him for that. I also want to say that last year my father died of Alzheimer’s, and it was very difficult, in those early days, to remember the man who was, before that cruel disease took him away. I really do hope that Pauline and John’s family are listening to the wonderful tributes that are being paid here in this House and around the country, so that they can remember the extraordinary man that John was and the extraordinary life that he lived.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I first collided—if that is the right word—with John Prescott when I was shadow Secretary of State for Transport as he ploughed on with his integrated transport plan, which was one of the centrepieces of the first Blair Administration. I found that some of my colleagues tried to treat John Prescott as a bit of a joke. That was a mistake. Yes, we teased him about his two Jags, and he rather loved that, but he was utterly sincere in what he did, passionate, and pretty brutal with his Opposition opponents when he felt he was on top. We clashed again over the proposals for regional assemblies. Great campaigner though he was, he lost the north-east referendum, and I do not think he ever really forgave me for that.
When required, however, John could be a great statesman. He was right to insist on a public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster, which the previous Government had refused to hold, and he was right immediately to announce an inquiry into the Paddington rail disaster as soon as it happened. I recall getting one of the most surprising telephone calls of my political life when, having told the Conservative conference that he was right to call that public inquiry and that we should wait for its outcome, I got a call from him to thank me for that bit of bipartisanship—something even he was capable of when the cameras were not looking.
I pay tribute to John for that, because the Cullen inquiry came up with a completely new safety regime for rail, including a rail accident investigation branch for the Department for Transport. We have not had a public inquiry into a rail accident ever since, because of the safety regime that he implemented following the inquiry. Every survivor of the Paddington rail crash and subsequent rail crashes is grateful to him for what he did for passenger safety on our railways. If for nothing else, we should remember him for that.
I send my best wishes to John’s family and to all his friends and colleagues on the Government Benches at this sad time.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will share two particular memories of Lord Prescott. The first is from my time working for the disability charity Scope. We had decided as a campaigns team to use the 1997 general election to highlight the many obstacles that disabled people faced when exercising their democratic right to vote. I and my campaign colleagues devised the “Polls Apart” campaign, which included a special campaign pack for candidates.
Bearing in mind that this was in the halcyon days before email, a campaign pack was something of a rarity. We printed, stapled and posted out hundreds of packs to candidates the length and breadth of the UK, including one to the Labour candidate for Kingston upon Hull East. Off it went, sent second class. To our amazement, a week or so later, a reply came back saying that Mr Prescott not only supported the campaign, but had written to all of Labour’s candidates in his capacity as the general election co-ordinator, instructing them to take the campaign actions that our pack suggested. More than that, when Labour was elected a few weeks later, he brought forward amendments to the Representation of the People Act to make it easier for disabled people to exercise their right to vote.
I had met John Prescott a few years before that, when I worked for the then Member of Parliament for Streatham, the right hon. Keith Hill. Both John and Keith were members of the RMT parliamentary group, which was as broad and diverse as its talent was deep. I asked Keith ahead of my remarks today if he had any particular memories of John that I might share with the House, and he told me of one from his time as a Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
John and Keith were due to make a presentation on Labour’s housing growth areas to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in the Cabinet Room one morning at 9 am. At 4 am, John was still working on the presentation. He decided that he needed to know about the rail connections between Cambridge and Oxford, so he phoned Network Rail. Members can doubtless imagine the startled reaction of the poor Network Rail official who answered that call at 4 o’clock in the morning from someone claiming to be the Deputy Prime Minister, who had a very specific question about east-west rail links. Tony Blair was equally amazed at 9 am. “And did he tell you what the rail connections are?”, asked the PM. “There aren’t any,” replied John—“We’re going to change that.” Now, thanks to the Budget, that change will finally be delivered—a fitting tribute, perhaps, to the work ethic, energy and enthusiasm for change that John Prescott exemplified.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. My condolences to Pauline and all of John’s family at what must be a truly devastating time for them. David used to work in my office, and he sent me a message just after John died. He was very close to his father and saw him as his hero and his friend. We send our condolences to all of them.
I obviously knew John in the House for many years. When he was first elected along with Dennis Skinner, they shared a flat in Clapham. I do not know what went on in that flat, but while they were good friends, they were very different characters. I later learned that after the last vote took place in the House, Dennis and John would both leave to go back to the flat, but they never travelled together. Dennis always made sure that he got there first, so that he could get hold of the one television in the flat, turn it on and watch the darts, the snooker or whatever else. John would turn up and want to watch “Newsnight”, and Dennis refused to change the channel—he would say, “No way. You’ll watch the darts with me.” You can imagine the repartee and the arguments that would have gone on between them, which would have been incredibly funny.
In the 2017 election, John offered to help in any way he could, and he was fantastic. We did several events together. One day, we started in Hull in the morning with the launch of our arts manifesto, and then went on a tour all around Yorkshire and Humberside in the famous bus. John seemed to know the owner of every fish and chip shop in the whole of Yorkshire, and insisted on stopping at every one, so we had a big supply of fish and chips all day long. Then we got to Scarborough, where we were doing a rally in the pavilion by the seafront. John and I got up to speak on the stage, and I do not think a lot of the people there realised that a political rally was going on. They thought they were just there enjoying the sunshine, and then these two guys got up on the stage and started talking.
The people loved John, because he brought out Freddie the fox. We had a long discussion about the evils of foxhunting—the evils of Tory foxhunting. “The Tories are always going to bring back foxhunting. The Tories would kill the fox.” Then he pulled Freddie out of his coat and said, “Look at poor Freddie here. They’re going to tear him apart. That’s what the Tories do to you.” He was loved for all of that.
I want to say thank you to John for what he did, but also to remember that one of the crucial points in his political career was the issue of climate change and Kyoto. It was not easy, popular or normal; a lot of people refused to even consider what we are doing to the natural world and the environment, and how there are limits to what we can do, hence the protocol that John negotiated and signed up to. He was one of the people who was very important in starting to change the global debate about climate change and respect for the natural world and the environment. We should all say thank you to John Prescott for that.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The first time I met John Prescott in his role as Deputy Prime Minister was in 1997, when he opened up Admiralty Arch to 60 young homeless people as part of the winter shelter programme. It was a bitterly cold winter, and at the time, the Conservative Back Bencher Crispin Blunt said that this project would be treating a historic building as if it were a “flagship for undesirables”. Given that John was frequently described as an undesirable by many of his opponents throughout his life, he took that as a badge of honour, and he was really proud of that homelessness project. I will never forget the way he shared breakfast with those rough sleepers and took a real interest in every one of their lives. It was a testimony to his compassion, his practical politics, and his unwavering commitment to housing policy. Many millions of council tenants saw home improvements—new windows, new doors and home insulation—and none of them will ever forget that. Those are the basics that many of us take for granted, but which far too many people lacked at the time.
In a superb biography by my late former colleague on The Independent, Colin Brown, naturally entitled “Fighting Talk”, there was a lovely and telling quote from John:
“There are those priests of the Left who want to keep their consciences and there are those who will get their hands dirty. I belong to the dirty hands brigade.”
John was regularly patronised and frequently under-estimated, but he had the last laugh by delivering for real working people. For that, we are all grateful.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In the last six months of 2005, the United Kingdom took over the rotating presidency of the European Union, and Prime Minister Blair wanted to make a big success of it. One of his concerns was that there was a young British MEP who was prone to behaving very badly in the Chamber and being particularly rude to visiting Heads of State, so John Prescott was sent to see me. He himself, of course, had served as an MEP and was a big project supporter—he loved everything about the European Union—so he came to explain to me that it would be very bad for Britain if I were to stand up and cause a scene when Prime Minister Blair was speaking. I will not say that he threatened me, but I certainly felt deeply intimidated and behaved myself impeccably over the course of the next six months. That was the bruiser John Prescott perhaps.
A couple of years later, on Remembrance Sunday, when the ceremony was over and the parades had finished, I was walking up Whitehall and there, to my astonishment, walking on his own and without any security, was the Deputy Prime Minister. I said hello and wondered what he was doing. John had seen a group of Arctic convoy veterans on the other side of Whitehall. A seafarer himself, he had gone over to speak to the men who had endured such appalling hardship during the last couple of years of the war, and said to them, “I’m going to fight to make sure that you guys get a campaign medal after all these years, recognising what you’ve done.” They did get the medal, and I got the message. I understood why he had been so phenomenally successful from humble roots: he connected, he got on with people and he was very human. We mourn his passing, but perhaps we also mourn the passing of big working-class characters in politics. We need far more of them.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As you well know, John had many connections with the north-west of England. He went to school on the Wirral. He was a parliamentary candidate in Southport, and he returned there to campaign in the 2017 general election. He was a seafarer out of Liverpool, and he was presented with a trophy by Anthony Eden, whom the Prime Minister mentioned. The trophy was for winning a boxing bout on board ship, and it was there that he honed the craft that may have led to what he was known so famously for later on.
When I came here in 2010, I bumped into John in the Committee corridor, where he was sitting at a desk working. He said he was there because, despite being a former Deputy Prime Minister, he had to share an office with four other Members of the House of Lords—he had recently been ennobled—and he moaned about the fact that there was no preferential treatment for him. However, despite the moan, he was getting on with the job, as John always did.
My favourite story of him is when, during the 2010 election campaign, the battle bus turned up on grand national day outside Aintree racecourse. He had a campaign to keep the grand national free-to-air on terrestrial TV, and there he was with his loudspeakers haranguing the racegoers to come and sign his petition, which they did in droves. Not only did they sign the petition, but they queued in large numbers for selfies with John. That goes to the point about the affection in which he was held, and the impression that John made that day will stay with me forever.
When I came here and was serving in this place, as he was serving in the Lords, he was a source of terrific advice to me, and I am proud to have counted John as a friend over the years. I send my best wishes to Pauline, David and the rest of his family. May John rest in peace.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. When I was elected for Beverley and Holderness in 2005, John Prescott, the MP for neighbouring Kingston upon Hull East, was of course already a legend. He was the word-mangling, fast-fisted former bar steward who had, for the last eight years, been Deputy Prime Minister of this United Kingdom. Hearing the tributes from across the House and all the ways in which that one man was able to influence history and make a difference is, I hope, an inspiration to aspirant working-class politicians all over the country, but also to people in this House.
I knew John from a few years before I entered Parliament. He came to Cambridge for a transport summit, so I organised a demonstration against it and stood outside all day. The day went on and he did not come out. When eventually he did come out, I was just about the only demonstrator left. I immediately berated him and his entourage, and we had a surreal dance around the car park, before he went up to a Jaguar and tried to get in: it was not his. I think it took him quite some time to forgive me for that.
I regularly saw John—as did colleagues from Hull, such as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who is sitting on the Government Front Bench—on Hull trains, and he was normally surrounded by papers at a four-place table that he was trying to keep entirely to himself.
Although he was gruff, he was also engaging. He would often come to Beverley, when Pauline would go shopping and he would go to the Royal Standard pub, the finest establishment in Beverley, where he was always very welcome, and people to this day hold him in the highest regard.
As has been remarked, he led our delegation to the COP at Kyoto in 1997, and was widely regarded as the key element in delivering its historic outcome, the first time an international agreement was made to recognise and cut climate emissions. The former US Vice-President Al Gore said that he had
“never worked with anyone in politics…quite like John Prescott.”
John continued to take climate issues seriously, and we would have passionate and rather loud conversations on the train as we went to and fro from east Yorkshire. When I led our delegation to last year’s COP, the first to commit to phasing out fossil fuels, I knew my team and I were following in the footsteps of someone who may have come from a humble background but went on to change the world.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Over two months ago, I rose to give my maiden speech in this Chamber, opening with a comical line about one of my constituency’s most famous sons, Lord John Prescott. Although I am sad to be commemorating his passing today, it is important to reflect on the indelible mark that he has left on British politics.
A formidable character, John Prescott was a political giant but never stopped being one of us: an ordinary, down-to-earth, working-class man. The ambitions of John and others for communities like his as part of a trailblazing Labour Government are the reason why so many of us are here today.
Often underestimated by both his political allies and enemies, he was the glue that held the Labour Government together and saw it deliver so much. Personally, I knew him little more than as an overly keen teenager at Labour party conference asking for a selfie with a political hero —he did oblige, although in his customary unimpressed fashion—but his impact on me and so many on the Labour Benches has been huge.
On behalf of the people of Clwyd East, I say a fond farewell to one of our own, a treasured son of north Wales, a political trailblazer, and a true one-off. My thoughts are with Pauline and his family.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to add to all the warm tributes to John. I got to know him and encountered him outside of a political context. It is a matter of record that towards the end of his time as Deputy Prime Minister he had several bouts of ill health and was admitted to hospital on a couple of occasions, and he was admitted to the critical care unit where I was a nurse at the time. He made an incredible impression on me and my fellow staff. He was a really great patient, which, let’s face it, cannot be said of every VIP that crosses into a ward. He was warm and fun, and abrasive in the right way and challenging in the right way. One of my most abiding memories is being summoned in to see the Deputy Prime Minister because his hospital food was rubbish. He wanted to complain about that; I hope that is the only time a Deputy Prime Minister calls me in to criticise me for something that I am responsible for, but you never know.
It is a testament to him that, after that spell in hospital, he invited all the staff who had looked after him to do a big tour, in a very John Prescott way, at Admiralty House, where he took us all through the back corridors of Whitehall, entertaining us with great bits of history and anecdote and finishing up with a mock auction. He had acquired a lot of geegaws and knick-knacks from all his diplomatic visits abroad, and he was throwing them out, with his very strong arm, for people in the room to catch. I hope that many of those people, including colleagues of mine at the time, still have some of those items and will treasure them.
I give my heartfelt condolences to Pauline and to John’s family.
Mr Speaker
The House is always at its best at these times, and I am sure that John would have been smiling at the tributes; they were fantastic. The only thing I would add is that John managed to divide Hull into two when he became a “Robin”, but we will leave it at that.
Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants
(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
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the decision taken by the International Criminal Court’s pre-trial chamber I to issue arrest warrants in respect of the Israel-Gaza conflict.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Hamish Falconer)
Last Thursday, judges at the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and the reportedly deceased Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri, commonly known as Deif, commander-in-chief of the military wing of Hamas.
The ICC is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern. It is actively investigating allegations of the gravest crimes in countries around the world, including Ukraine, Sudan and Libya. In line with this Government’s stated commitment to the rule of law, we respect the independence of the ICC. We will comply with our international obligations. There is a domestic legal process through our independent courts that determines whether to endorse an arrest warrant by the ICC in accordance with the International Criminal Court Act 2001. That process has never been tested, because the UK has never been visited by an ICC indictee. If there were such a visit to the UK, there would be a court process, and due process would be followed in relation to those issues.
There is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy, and Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah, two terrorist organisations. This Government have been clear that Israel has a right to defend itself in accordance with international law. That right is not under question, and the Court’s approval of the warrants last week does not change that. Israel is of course a partner across UK priorities, including trade, investment, security and science and technology. We co-operate across a wide range of issues for our mutual benefit.
This Government remain focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire to bring an end to the devastating violence in Gaza. That is essential to protect civilians, ensure the release of hostages and increase humanitarian aid into Gaza. We have always said that diplomacy is what will see an end to this conflict, and that can only be achieved through dialogue. It is in the long-term interests of the Israelis, Palestinians and the wider region to agree to a ceasefire deal urgently and bring this devastating conflict to an end.
Priti Patel
The International Criminal Court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for the state of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant will do nothing to help secure the release of those poor hostages, who have been held captive by Hamas for more than a year. It will not help to get more aid into Gaza, and it will not deliver a sustainable end to this awful conflict. In charging Israeli leaders alongside Hamas, the ICC appears to be drawing a moral equivalence between Israel’s war of self-defence and Hamas terrorism. We utterly reject any moral equivalence. The only beneficiaries of this decision are Hamas and their terrorist sponsors, Iran, who are now celebrating this propaganda coup as a great victory for Hamas and Hezbollah. Since the ICC’s decision, we have had dither from Ministers, confused messaging and no clarity, so I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks today.
The Government have indicated already that they will seek to enforce these warrants through our own courts, and there is a process around that. On the issue of warrants, we have expressed serious concerns over process, jurisdiction and the position on the complementarity principle. We believe that the warrants for Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant have no basis in international law. Do the Government believe that the Court has jurisdiction in this case, given that Israel is not party to the Rome statute and Palestine is not a recognised state? Does the Minister agree that the ICC must act within legal norms?
In the absence of the ICC making public the specific context of the charges, does the Minister share the concerns expressed about reports of process errors in the ICC’s investigation and the concerns expressed by Lord Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, about the use by the prosecutor of an expert panel? Finally, but crucially, what effect does the Minister believe that Mr Netanyahu’s immunity under international law as a serving Prime Minister of a country that is not a state party has on enforcing these warrants in the UK’s own courts?
These are important questions on which I look forward to the Minister’s response. He has already spoken about securing the release of hostages and more aid coming into Gaza, but at this time when such a conflict is taking place, it is important that we have clarity from the Government.
Hamish Falconer
I welcome the questions from the right hon. Member across the Benches. Utmost in the Government’s mind is the need to bring an immediate end to the conflict in Gaza and to secure the release of the hostages, whose families I have met. She knows that I am familiar with these issues from my previous life. We also need to see more aid going into Gaza. The questions at issue with the ICC are separate from that.
Diplomacy will continue regardless of the ICC process. But I had understood it to be the common position of the House that the international rule of law is an important commitment. The International Criminal Court is an important body—the primary body—in enforcing those norms, and the issues on jurisdiction and complementarity were heard by the pre-trial chamber. Its three judges issued their findings. I think we should respect those.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The International Criminal Court was created when 120 countries put their names to the Rome statute and signed up to the principle that certain basic standards of behaviour must be enforced internationally, with those laws applicable to everyone, no matter who they were. From the time when Winston Churchill led the Conservative party, this country has been a proud supporter of international law. It is wrong for us to try to undermine it. Does my hon. Friend share my deep disappointment that the Conservatives have fallen as far as they have?
Hamish Falconer
As I think has been clear from our actions from July when we became the Government, the international rule of law is incredibly important to this Government. All our actions will be guided by it.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The conflict between Israel and Hamas has had a devastating impact on Palestinian and Israeli civilians, with women and children paying a particularly terrible price. Now that the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for those it believes are culpable, the UK has obligations under international law, which we must uphold. The previous Conservative Government chose to be selective with those obligations when it came to the ICC’s jurisdiction in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That was deeply regrettable and damaging for our country, and I greatly regret that Conservative Front-Bench Members are pursuing that same line today.
It is right that the Government have committed to uphold the ruling, and I welcome the Minister’s statement that they will support the process to enforce the arrest warrants. Does the Minister share my concern about the words of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who has proposed sanctioning nations—including the UK—who uphold the ruling? Will he outline the specific new steps that the Government are taking to secure an immediate bilateral ceasefire with all parties, so that we can put a stop to the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, get the hostages home and open the door to a two-state solution?
Hamish Falconer
Every member of the Government—most particularly the Foreign Secretary and the rest of the Foreign Office ministerial team—is engaged every day, including this morning, in pressing all parties for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon, and for a de-escalation of violence in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but also more broadly in the middle east, where violence remains far too high.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for the Prime Minister of a democratic state that is a UK ally, having found that there are reasonable grounds that he is responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Does that not call for action as well as words from the UK Government, which might include ending trade with illegal settlements, the sanctioning of members of that Government and settlers, and indeed recognition of the state of Palestine if we are to show not only our disapproval, but how we want to move forward?
Hamish Falconer
I recognise my hon. Friend’s long commitment to these issues. As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not comment further on the ICC process, which needs now to carry through in accordance with due process in the way you would expect. On sanctions, which have been discussed before in the Chamber, I am not, in the usual way, at liberty to provide any further commentary on who we might consider for them.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Whatever reservations one may have about the conduct of the conflict in Gaza, there are two fundamental principles: first, Netanyahu is a democratically elected leader of a sovereign state; and secondly, that state is conducting a legitimate war of self-defence. The Minister acknowledges those facts, but does he not appreciate how this ruling is seen by many of my constituents as an affront to those principles?
Hamish Falconer
I am slightly stumped by the questions from the Opposition. We are signatories to the ICC Act. I think the whole House agrees with the importance of the rule of law. Representations were made to the ICC in the pre-trial chamber, and it has come to its decisions. I think we should respect its independence.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I find it shocking but not surprising that the Conservative party has chosen to downgrade and disparage the highly respected International Criminal Court. We are a nation that upholds the rule of law, so I am proud that the new Labour Government have chosen to respect the independence of the ICC in its arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant and Mohammed Deif, on the basis that there are reasonable grounds for their criminal responsibility for potential war crimes. Does the Minister agree that it is important that we respect the independence of that ICC judgment and that, if required, we implement those findings?
Hamish Falconer
I am not really able to go much further than to say that there is a domestic legal process, through our independent courts, that would determine whether to endorse an arrest warrant. We would follow due process in the way that hon. Members would expect. This is a decision not for Ministers but for an independent court.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Minister may be aware that I have fought the corner for international courts time and again in this House. I view upholding the authority of those courts and their reputation as very important. The difficulty here is not just that Israel is a democracy, but that it has an internal, independent judiciary, which puts a limit on what any Government can do in Israel. That is why equating—or appearing to equate—Netanyahu with all the other monsters that the International Criminal Court has quite properly prosecuted risks bringing the court into disrepute.
Hamish Falconer
I know that the right hon. Member has looked at these issues over a long period of time. Questions of complementarity are important, and I understand that they were considered by the pre-trial chamber.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Several of our allies and international partners have outlined their commitment to fully support the ICC, including Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and Ireland, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to respect the independence of the ICC. Does the Minister agree that it has a high evidential threshold for issuing arrest warrants for alleged perpetrators, which has been demonstrated in this case?
Hamish Falconer
The deliberations of the ICC on this matter have gone on for some time. I think it is clear for all to see the way in which it has proceeded, and I welcome it.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Last week I attended a memorial service for the people of Gaza with families of Palestinian origin here in the UK—I believe the Minister has met some of those representatives. We heard from a woman called Kitam, who described how, overnight, she lost 48 members of her family. As she walked back and sat behind me, she broke down in sobs as she remembered so painfully that day. She deserves justice. The issuing of a warrant is not justice. There is still a process to go through and a trial to be had. Is it not right that, whatever the court, those outcomes are adhered to? May I press him on the ruling of the ICJ advisory opinion on the occupation? That ruling is at the core of this: it should mean that we do much more than just meeting those families and sharing in their pain.
Hamish Falconer
As the hon. Member alludes to, I have met those families, and many other families who have been so wounded by the conduct of this conflict, over the course of the last year—families on both sides, both the hostage families and the many, many Palestinians and Lebanese who have seen their lives so cruelly turned upside down. As I said earlier, in the end it is only diplomacy that will bring an end to the conflict. We will continue to have contact with all sides, including those indicted. We will continue to press all those with whom we engage to bring an early end to this war. On the ICJ, we have set out our position before. We are considering the judgment carefully. We have provided an explanation of our position so far in the United Nations. It is an important, far-reaching judgment and we hope to be able to say more in due course.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the UK will be upholding the ICC arrest warrant for the Hamas general and Israeli leaders. The ICC found grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant
“each bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.”
It goes on to refer to
“the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.”
On that last point, what moral justification is there now for continuing arms sales used by Israeli forces at the behest of a Prime Minister accused of such serious war crimes? When will we use every diplomatic lever to stop the killing, free all hostages and stop selling arms to a country led by someone accused of such horrific war crimes?
Hamish Falconer
I would like to just be clear that what I have said this afternoon is not that the Government will uphold arrest warrants. What I have been clear about this afternoon is that due process will be followed. These are questions for independent courts in the UK, and it is independent courts that would review the arrest warrants if that situation were to arise.
My hon. Friend asks about aid. I want to be absolutely clear: insufficient aid is getting into Gaza. I travelled, myself, to the Gaza border and saw the restrictions Israel is putting on aid reaching Gaza. Those restrictions have been called out by me and other Foreign Office Ministers day in, day out. We are taking steps with our partners and our allies to try to ensure that people in Gaza have the aid they need as winter comes in, in order to survive. These are grave matters and I understand the frustration right across the House that we have not seen the amount of aid in Gaza that we would like to see. I recognise that people are asking for yet more to be done. On the specific question about the arms licence suspensions announced to the House on 2 September, we will of course keep that under review. We will consider the findings of the ICC in relation to that assessment.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Last year, the Labour party had to be dragged into accepting that there was a collective punishment of the Palestinian people. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman’s boss said that “war is ugly”. The Labour party earlier this year had to be dragged into even uttering the word ceasefire. Will the Minister show the leadership that his bosses failed to show, and say that if Benjamin Netanyahu’s feet touch the ground in the UK he will comply with the arrest warrant?
Hamish Falconer
The right hon. Member says with dismay that war is ugly. War is ugly and we are doing everything that we can to bring it to a close through all the diplomatic measures we would expect. This is not an issue for grandstanding; this is an issue for diplomacy. That is what the Government are committed to.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
Surely central to the debate today must be the UK’s ongoing political role as Israel’s close ally, and the fact that UK-made weapons, including components, are still being used by Israel. Does the Minister recognise that beyond the commitment to uphold the ICC’s arrest warrants, the UK’s failure to clearly condemn the collective punishment of civilians—an intent explicitly indicated by key Israeli leading figures—and the continued military support for Israel’s ongoing onslaught in Gaza have serious implications for the UK’s own human rights obligations and the fate of millions of innocent men, women and children?
Hamish Falconer
I will not rehearse too much the answers provided on 2 September and on numerous occasions in the Chamber since then. We have suspended, with one exemption—to which I am happy to return—all the arms that we are selling to Israel that could be used in Gaza. That suspension, in our assessment, also covers the west bank and Lebanon. We are taking action in accordance with our commitments under international humanitarian law, and we will continue to do so.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Can we be absolutely clear about what the Government are saying? It seems that the Government are not saying that there would be an automatic arrest should Benjamin Netanyahu arrive in this country, but they are saying that there would due process. Can the Minister confirm that
“customary international law…does not permit the arrest or delivery of the serving Prime Minister of a non-State party to the ICC”?
So the Minister is committing himself to due process but not to arrest. Am I correct in my understanding?
Hamish Falconer
There is a domestic legal process through our independent courts, and we cannot prejudge that process. I note that the shadow Attorney General has written to the Attorney General about questions of detail in relation to some of the points to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, and the Attorney General tells me that he will be writing back on the subject of those more detailed points.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
While we watch and work tirelessly to secure a ceasefire in Gaza—which is really important simply because if children do not see an end in sight, neither do the families in Gaza—does the Minister agree that Britain’s reputation on the world scene as a global leader in upholding justice would be undermined if Britain did not respect the independence of the ICC, which is what Conservative Members are implying?
Hamish Falconer
This Government think that adherence to international law, and being seen to adhere to international law, are incredibly important, and in everything we have done since July we have sought to underline that principle, which I hope is one on which the whole House would support us.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The Minister has assured us that the arrest warrants will be carried out, and I hope that is the case, but will he also consider this question? If an arrest warrant has been issued for the leader of a country, and the International Court of Justice has found that country deeply wanting in respect of its behaviour as an occupying power and the war crimes that have been committed, why are we still supplying weapons that are being used in the bombardment of Gaza and destroying life as we speak?
Hamish Falconer
As I said in answer to a question from my own Benches, we took steps on 2 September to ensure that, with one exemption—which I am happy to go into—we are not selling arms that are being used and could pose a breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza. That continues to be the position, and it is kept under regular review.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The ICC’s decision is a crucial step towards ensuring justice and accountability for the crimes against humanity committed in Gaza and Israel. It is vital for the Government to act without fear or favour in order to uphold the international rules-based system. War crimes are wrong whoever commits them and wherever they happen, whether they are committed by Russian forces in unlawfully occupied Ukraine or by Israeli forces on unlawfully occupied Palestinian territory. Will the Minister now review all diplomatic, economic and political relations with Israel to ensure that our country is not complicit in the atrocities that are taking place in Gaza, the west bank and Lebanon?
Hamish Falconer
I can confirm that the Department and the Government as a whole keep our international obligations under close review, including in relation to the theatres described.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Last week I was in the west bank and saw for myself the incursions by settlers into the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Following recent comments from Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who described in explicit terms the active effort to annex the west bank into Israel, does the Minister agree that now is the time to sanction Smotrich?
Hamish Falconer
The comments of Finance Minister Smotrich have been condemned in this Chamber before, and we can reiterate that condemnation. As the hon. Lady would expect, however, we cannot comment on sanctions that may or may not be under consideration in the usual way.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I am no friend of Hamas, but we must remember that Prime Minister Netanyahu promised us intelligence-led precision attacks in Gaza. We have seen daily violation of international law, 43,000 people killed, restrictions on food and aid, and 136 journalists killed. I welcome the Government’s announcement about respecting the ICC’s decision, but may I urge them to consider using all levers, including sanctions against two Israeli Government Ministers, the settlers in the west bank and other organisations operating therein?
Hamish Falconer
I will not comment on what sanctions may be under review, for reasons that are well established, but I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the sanctions that we took in October against Israeli settlers and organisations involved in both breaches of international law and violence in the west bank.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Our closest ally is the United States of America, and there has been widespread condemnation of the issuing of these arrest warrants across Congress. What effect does the Minister think this decision will have on our relationship with the United States of America, and particularly with the incoming Administration, who have very different views?
Hamish Falconer
The UK is a state party to the Rome statute, and that brings with it obligations that put us in a different position from that of the US. We will continue to engage with both the current and incoming US Administrations in the shared interest of our two countries and across the full range of our priorities.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The atrocities that led to the issuing of arrest warrants continue to this day, not least in healthcare facilities, with devastating stories coming out of Gaza. My hon. Friend has set out his frustration at aid not reaching such facilities, yet more sanctions could be applied by this Government. Why will he not escalate the UK’s response to the Israeli Government by introducing sanctions so that they feel the real pain of our country but also understand that we want to ensure that justice is served by the ICC?
Hamish Falconer
I want to reassure the House about how focused the Government are on the question of aid access into Gaza. As I say, I have travelled to the region and raised these issues repeatedly with all parties, including the Israeli Government. We need to see a flood of aid into Gaza. That has been the commitment of the Israeli Government, and I regret that we have not yet seen a flood of aid and that Palestinians are suffering as a consequence. Winter is coming, and Palestinians in Gaza are extremely vulnerable. We will continue to press the Israeli Government to do everything that they can to ensure that more aid reaches Gaza and, indeed, all parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories that require it. I made these points forcefully this morning, and I will continue to do so.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The ICC has issued arrest warrants for crimes including direct attacks on civilians. Open-source information shows that, on average, Royal Air Force reconnaissance flights are going over Gaza nearly four times a day. Although we all seek the information necessary to gain the release of the hostages, how confident is the Minister that the information gathered from those flights and shared with Israel has not been used to facilitate any attacks on civilians?
Hamish Falconer
I will not go into operational details, but I can assure the House that the surveillance aircraft are unarmed and do not have a combat role. They are tasked solely with locating hostages, including a British national, and they will continue to do so.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
In response to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), I note that the UK under the previous Conservative Government signed an ICC state party statement in support of the ICC and to preserve it from political interference, just before the election. The Foreign Secretary has confirmed the UK’s acceptance of and respect for the ICC arrest warrants for Netanyahu’s war crimes. Therefore, is it not now incumbent on the Government to take effective, concrete steps to prevent further such acts by banning all arms licences to Israel, including those relating to F-35 parts; by imposing sanctions on individuals, on assets and on goods trading with the illegally occupied west bank; and by the urgent recognition of Palestinian statehood?
Hamish Falconer
I will not rehearse the points that we have already discussed on sanctions. The Foreign Secretary has set out our position in relation to the suspension of arms licences and the F-35 exemptions, and that remains the position. We will keep our assessments under regular review, including the findings of the ICC.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Frankly, I am disappointed that the Government are not giving any clear responses. I therefore ask this question. In October 2023, over 800 experts in international law and in conflict and genocide studies gave a warning of clear prospects of genocide. In November 2023, over 40 United Nations experts called it a “genocide in the making”. We then had the ICJ judgment that called it a “plausible” genocide, and a judge from the ICJ saying:
“The alarm has now been sounded by the Court. All the indicators of genocidal activities are flashing red in Gaza.”
Now we have an arrest warrant. Do this Government stand by their conviction that genocide is not being committed in Gaza—yes or no?
Hamish Falconer
It is important that we treat the international institutions with the respect that they deserve. This is an indictment from the ICC and we respect it. The ICJ process to which the hon. Gentleman refers has not found; it is at an advisory opinion stage. We need to treat international law with the respect that it deserves.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)
The Minister will be aware that, as well as the ICC’s recent decision to issue arrest warrants, there is now an entire body of international law, including the ICJ’s advisory opinion, adopted by the UN General Assembly, ruling Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories illegal, as well as South Africa’s case at the ICJ on genocide, that points towards a clear position in international law. Does the Minister therefore agree that if we are to preserve the integrity of the international rules-based order, we must start by ending the international hypocrisy and double standards and reaffirm that all states, including the UK, have an absolute obligation under international law to act now to bring all those who commit war crimes to justice?
Hamish Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I want to underline this Government’s commitment in relation to accountability for war crimes. We stand against international crimes of this nature in all places, everywhere, and our commitment to international law is one of the most powerful levers we have in trying to prevent war crimes.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I ask for the Minister’s forgiveness because I did not hear whether he answered this question from my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. Is it his understanding that customary international law does not permit the arrest or delivery of a serving Prime Minister of a non-state party to the ICC, and that the UK seeking to arrest such a Prime Minister would not only breach our international obligations but be unlawful under the International Criminal Court Act 2001?
Hamish Falconer
For the awareness of the House, the shadow Attorney General has written about the two different legal interpretations of immunity and has sought the Attorney General’s view on these matters. I think the shadow Attorney General acknowledges that this is a case on which the courts are the competent authority, but the Attorney General has undertaken to respond to that letter in due course.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The law is the law, and the evidence is the evidence. Whether or not it is politically convenient or diplomatically helpful, the law is the law. The International Criminal Court has been clear, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to reject the Opposition’s calls to turn this into a political decision. It should remain an independent legal decision for our courts and for the International Criminal Court, and the Minister should continue exactly as he is.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I welcome the ICC’s decision, and I sincerely hope that we will live up to our international obligations if the Prime Minister of Israel visits the UK. You have said yourself that you regret the fact that more aid is not getting into Gaza, and that you have been calling out the Israeli Government for not letting in more aid. Is it not time to do more than just calling out the Israeli Government and telling them how angry you are? Is it not time to end all arms exports to Israel, impose sanctions, end trade with all the illegal settlements and recognise Palestine as a state?
Hamish Falconer
We will continue to press these points with vigour, and we will continue to keep all other measures under review, as I have said.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind Members not to use the word “you.”
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thought the Conservative party styled itself the party of law and order, but it seems that that is increasingly not the case when it comes to international law. The Government are right to uphold the ICC’s decision, and they were right to vote for last week’s UN Security Council resolution on a ceasefire.
The Minister will be aware that there is increasing evidence, including from organisations such as Human Rights Watch, of the forcible displacement of Palestinians from the north of Gaza. He will be aware that this is a crime against humanity, and that two of the main proponents are Israeli Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. The Prime Minister has confirmed that the Government are looking at this, so when will the Government move to sanction those Ministers as part of a wider package of further action to uphold international law?
Hamish Falconer
We follow reports from northern Gaza closely and with concern, and we have repeatedly raised many of these issues. I will not comment further on sanctions, but I wish to be clear that the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza is not consistent with Israel’s obligations.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Does the Minister agree that one of our greatest tools against tyranny anywhere is that—friend or foe, rich or poor, elected or unelected—the law applies to everybody, and that the universality of certain crimes means that they can be prosecuted anywhere?
Hamish Falconer
As I hope I have made clear this afternoon, this Government are committed to the international rule of law and will continue to be so.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
Despite what the Minister has said, the Government conceded at the royal courts of justice last week that UK-made F-35 parts could be used in violation of international law in Gaza, and admitted that Israel has shown no commitment to upholding these legal obligations. Despite this, the Government have continued to authorise offensive F-35 arms exports, exposing themselves to criminal liability.
It is disappointing that the Foreign Secretary is not here today, but will the Minister let our constituents know whether the Government will end their complicity in genocide, impose sanctions and end all arms sales? Will he confirm that should Netanyahu, who faces an ICC arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity, enter UK territory, he will be immediately arrested—yes or no?
Hamish Falconer
I will return briefly to the Foreign Secretary’s statement on 2 September, in which he said that
“suspending all licences for the F-35 programme would undermine the global F-35 supply chain that is vital for the security of the UK, our allies and NATO.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 39.]
He went on to set out how the suspension of arms licences would apply to the direct sale of F-35 components to Israel but would not apply to the global supply chain. That continues to be the position.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Forty-three thousand dead; possibly 100,000 under the rubble; schools and hospitals destroyed; 16,000 children killed, including by drones and by being shot in the head—many hon. Members said that this was a genocide many months ago. Now that the ICC prosecutor has called Benjamin Netanyahu a potential serious war criminal committing crimes against humanity, does the Minister agree that now is the time to recognise the state of Palestine and end all military and financial co-operation with the Israeli Government while their leaders are essentially international fugitives?
Hamish Falconer
I will not rehearse our position on the recognition of the state of Palestine, other than to say that we believe that the Palestinians have an inalienable right to a state alongside a safe and secure Israel. The Government hope to take steps to advance that as part of a contribution to a two-state solution.
The hon. Member suggests, I think, no contact at all with the Israeli Government as a consequence of the ICC ruling. It is only diplomacy that will bring an end to this conflict. We will continue to have direct contact, and in that direct contact we will continue to do all we can to secure an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, aid into Gaza and a more safe, secure and stable middle east.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I say this to my hon. Friend as constructively as I possibly can: a number of us have sat here for months and have asked questions about sanctions, but the response from Ministers has been to say, “We cannot comment on sanctions in the House.” Not only does that render sanctions ineffective, but it breaks down the accountability of Ministers to this House. We deserve a better statement than that.
On the legal process, my hon. Friend has rightly said that we will respect international law and comply with the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction and decisions. If I have got the wording right, he said that it will be for the domestic legal processes involved. Where does physical arrest come within that domestic legal process?
Hamish Falconer
Let me deal with why we do not provide advance comment on sanctions, and then I will turn to the domestic legal process.
I hear my right hon. Friend. The reason that we do not provide commentary on sanctions is that to do so in advance would reduce their effect. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is sitting next to me—may correct me, but I think that we have probably issued upwards of 50 or maybe even 100 sanctions in the short time we have been in government. There has been no shortage of sanctions for this House to comment on. I recognise that the two on which I have most been pressed this afternoon are of intense political interest; however, despite that intense political interest, if we were to prejudge sanctions and trail them in this House before we made them, we would reduce their impact. The same is true of the hundreds of sanctions that we have placed on Russia over the years, and it would be the same in every forum.
In relation to the domestic legal process, I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for not entering too deeply into hypotheticals about how a court might discharge its findings on these matters.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Israel is a democracy. In the past, its courts have shown themselves unafraid to put even senior politicians on trial. What assessment has the Minister made of the Israelis’ own ability to bring human rights cases in their own courts?
Hamish Falconer
This is described in international law as the question of complementarity, and it was considered by the pre-trial chamber. Given the independence of the ICC, I do not think it appropriate for me to offer further commentary. Arguments were made by various states on this matter, and the pre-trial chamber came to its findings.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that as well as demanding an immediate ceasefire, the freeing of all hostages and unhindered aid getting into Gaza, we must ensure that the perpetrators of heinous war crimes and crimes against humanity, whether they are friend or foe, are held to account under international law based on justice that is blind, objective and impartial? Playing politics with courts undermines justice.
Hamish Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Support for international criminal justice and accountability has traditionally been a matter on which we have had widespread support in this House. It will continue to be a priority for the British Government.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The ICC, the world’s highest criminal court, has “reasonable grounds” to allege that the Israeli leaders are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The other world court, the International Court of Justice, has found that there is “plausible” risk that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians and that Israel’s occupation and annexation are unlawful.
I ask the Minister two questions. First, does he agree that the UK has obligations under international law to prevent genocide, to bring Israel’s unlawful occupation to an end and to bring suspected perpetrators of grave breaches of international law to justice? Secondly and quite simply, what will the UK do differently as a result of the decisions of the ICC and the ICJ? The Minister says that he will pull out all the stops. We have heard many suggestions here today, including stopping the export of F-35s. What will the Government do differently?
Hamish Falconer
Do the Government accept that we have international obligations? Indeed we do. I have set out this afternoon how we would discharge them in relation to the ICC; I have also set out the view that we take on the ICJ process. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure that there is proper international justice that all abide by. We are one of the ICC’s major funders: we commit £13.2 million a year to ensure that the ICC can function properly. In everything that this Government do, we are trying to ensure the international rule of law, and we will continue to do so.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The UK has a responsibility not just to respect the independence of international courts, but to take active steps to promote compliance with international obligations. When nations or leaders have been accused of committing war crimes, the UK has held itself up as a global leader in placing sanctions. It is unconscionable that in this situation we are yet to stop all sales of arms to Israel. If Israel is accused of committing war crimes, does the continued sale of any arms to Israel not make the UK potentially complicit? Given the gravity of the situation, will the Minister further clarify why he cannot comment on sanctions, or indeed on the other steps that the Government are planning or willing to take to make clear the UK’s condemnation of the continued slaughter of civilians in Gaza?
Hamish Falconer
Let me comment on arms sales, as they have been raised again. I will not rehearse the arguments about the F-35 exemption. In relation to the arms that are licensed to be sold to Israel, the category that has been suspended is the category that posed a risk of being involved in breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza. Those weapons, we also believe, would be the weapons at issue in the west bank and in Lebanon. There is a second category of weapons that are for resale elsewhere, which is not relevant to events in Israel. There is a third category of weapons that are used either for defensive purposes or for purposes with which nobody in this House would disagree: body armour and helmets for aid workers going into Gaza, for example.
I say gently to colleagues across the House that there is not, in the rest of the arms sales, some solution to the dilemma that faces us. The suspension of arms sales has been done carefully and has been aimed at the potential breach of international humanitarian law. It has been reached carefully and judiciously, including in relation to the F-35. That remains the position.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I have a degree of sympathy with the Minister, who has been asked to substitute in lieu of the Foreign Secretary today, so I will ask him a question of fact. Does he recognise that pursuant to section 23(6) of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, representatives of a non-state party to the Rome statute will remain immune from prosecution unless that non-state party expressly waives that right to the ICC?
Hamish Falconer
I do not need sympathy, just careful listening. The same question was asked by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), and the answer is the same. The shadow Attorney General has raised the matter with the Attorney General, and a letter will be sent in due course.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
I must press the Minister on the question of F-35 arms sales. He mentions direct and indirect arms sales, and he says that the indirect arms sales are either irrelevant or impossible to remedy. As I understand it, there is no reason why F-35 parts that are made in the UK, sold to the United States and used by Israel cannot be subject to a conditional licence under which they are sold to the United States with the proviso that they cannot be used in Gaza. Given that, how can it be legally or morally justifiable to continue allowing UK parts for fighter jets that are being used to kill Palestinian children to be exported even indirectly to an Israeli leader who faces an arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity? We hear about the review, but while that review has been ongoing under the last Government and this one, thousands and thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed.
Hamish Falconer
For clarity, we have suspended arms licences where parts for the F-35 programme are sold directly to Israel. Where they are sold to the global spares pool, it is not possible to disentangle where they go in that pool and see their final destination. That is why we have made the exemption, and it is why we judge that doing so is vital for the security of the UK, for our allies and for NATO.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that the cold-blooded slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people in Gaza cannot be justified as self-defence? Does he also agree that—contrary to the Trumpian line adopted by those on the Conservative Benches—just because a country is a democracy, that does not provide it with blanket immunity from international law?
Hamish Falconer
The hon. Member refers to the terrible loss of life in Gaza, which is in the minds and hearts of the whole House. We are a democracy, as much as signatories to petitions may wish otherwise. We abide by international law and we expect our allies to do the same, and we make that point with force.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Let us remind this House why we are here. Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant stand accused of very serious crimes: the crime against humanity of murder, and the crime against humanity of persecution and starvation as a weapon of war. Seventy per cent of those killed in this war are innocent women and children. Nobody in this House can think of a war in living memory in which 70% of those killed were women and children.
I want to ask the Minister a very specific question, because he has evaded all of this so far. Can he tell us one concrete step that he will take—apart from executing the arrest warrants, as the UK is obliged to do as a state party to the Rome statute—that we can all tangibly grasp? We would like to hear it, please.
Hamish Falconer
I have been clear about what the Government have done and will continue to do. If the hon. Member would like a recap, on the very first morning that I became a Minister, we announced the restoration of funding to UNRWA. We have provided significant aid to the people of Gaza. We have provided aid that has not got into Gaza, and we have raised that with the Israelis. My ministerial colleagues and I have travelled to the region to press these issues, both alone and in company with the French Foreign Minister.
This House is united in its concern about what will happen in Gaza in December. There is no disagreement that insufficient aid has gone in. There are urgent, almost frantic efforts every day in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to try to ensure that adequate aid reaches the Palestinians. I understand the frustration of this House. We are working as hard as we can and we will continue to do so. We take concrete action each and every day on this issue.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The ICC found that there is no justification under international humanitarian law for the restriction of aid by the Israeli Government. Indeed, the ICC detailed how doctors have been forced to carry out treatments and amputations without anaesthetic, including on children. The Government’s response must include redoubling our efforts to get more aid into Gaza. Can my hon. Friend confirm what pressure is being put on the Israeli Government, in addition to what we have already done, to get more aid into Gaza?
Hamish Falconer
In addition to the steps I have just outlined, we will be working closely with our partners and I hope to be able to update the House shortly on some of the measures we are taking, in company, to try to ensure that sufficient aid gets into Gaza, particularly over this vital winter period.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The ICC arrest warrants are welcome, but in themselves they will not bring an end to Israeli war crimes and ethnic cleansing and the killing of innocent men, women and children. It is an international legal obligation on the UK Government to prevent ethnic cleansing and genocide. Will the Minister explain what specific measures the Government have taken and are taking to stop Israel’s ethnic cleansing in northern Gaza and what concrete steps the UK Government have taken to comply with the genocide convention?
Hamish Falconer
The hon. Member asked about northern Gaza and some of the specific measures that have been taken. As I said in answer to a previous question, we have been paying close attention to events in northern Gaza. By way of example, we watched closely—with horror—the events at Kamal Adwan hospital. I raised them myself repeatedly with the Israeli authorities and urged them to preserve life at that hospital, including among the children. We take every opportunity to underline to the Israelis their responsibilities as an occupying power in the whole of Gaza, but particularly in northern Gaza, and indeed the obligations that fall to them in relation to medical facilities, particularly where there is ongoing treatment of children, as there was in that case.
I recognise the hon. Member’s frustration at the situation in northern Gaza. We are clear that northern Gaza must not be cut off from the south. There must be no forcible transfer of Gazans from or within Gaza, nor any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip. The Government of Israel must minimise evacuation notices to only areas where they are militarily necessary, provide timely and consistent information on when and where they take effect, and be clear on where it is safe for civilians to move to.
The polio vaccination roll-out has now ended, but an estimated 6,800 to 13,700 children in northern Gaza were not reached due to intense Israel Defence Forces activity. That is deplorable. Delayed vaccination of any child in Gaza puts them at risk and is unacceptable, and we make those points to the Israelis. I recognise the hon. Member’s frustration, but we are doing what we can to try to ensure that children and others in northern Gaza have access to the aid they need.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have written to me to express their horror at what is happening in Gaza. Does the Minister agree that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency plays an indispensable role in the provision of humanitarian assistance, and does he oppose the Bills recently passed in the Knesset that would prevent UNRWA’s operation?
Hamish Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for passing on the concern of his constituents; I know that that is felt right across the country and that many other Members would wish to put on record the concern of their constituents too. I do condemn the Knesset Bill in relation to UNRWA. We have made the point clear that UNRWA is indispensable. Only UNRWA can provide the aid into the Occupied Palestinian Territories at the scale required, and we will continue to press for UNRWA’s continued operation in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is crucial that the Labour Government comply with our obligations under international law to uphold the ICC’s ruling and enforce the arrest warrants against Israeli Ministers. That compliance is vital, given the previous Conservative Government’s besmirching of the International Criminal Court and, in turn, damaging of the UK’s standing on the world stage. Many of my constituents in Wokingham would like to see the UK stand up for what is right and see that the UK does not turn its back on international law. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not undermine the ICC’s ruling by unequivocally agreeing to uphold the arrest warrants?
Hamish Falconer
I reassure the hon. Member and ask him to pass on to his constituents that this Government will indeed do the right thing and stand up for international law. I have set out the manner in which we would do that over the course of this afternoon.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Ind)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to uphold their obligations under international law and therefore to issue arrest warrants to these men if they set foot on British soil. If the Government acknowledge that the Prime Minister of Israel should be on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, how—morally and legally—can we continue to supply him with the weapons being used by Israel in its horrific assault on innocent civilians in Gaza?
Hamish Falconer
I have outlined our position in relation to both our international and domestic obligations to the ICC and our position on arms sales. I reassure my hon. Friend that we will consider the findings of the ICC in the ongoing review process in relation to arms sales.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I am truly perplexed, as most of the British population watching this debate no doubt will be, by some of the arguments being advanced. When it comes to the ICC, topics such as morality and equivalence do not feature; this is a principle of law. An independent body, encapsulating some of the most senior members of the judiciary, has made a finding, yet we have the issues of democracy and morality being used to argue for some sort of impunity for leaders. Will the Minister state that if Benjamin Netanyahu arrived on these shores, if the ICC had issued warrants, we would at least detain him, subject to our domestic procedures?
Hamish Falconer
The hon. Member makes an impassioned and welcome commitment to due process and the independence of the law, and I will not demur from that by providing commentary on what domestic courts might do in a hypothetical situation.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I am frankly astonished at the principle underlying some of the comments made by the shadow Foreign Secretary and some of her Conservative colleagues today. I have been giving assemblies to primary school children across the Earley and Woodley constituency emphasising that British democracy means that nobody is above the rule of law. I hope that one day, Conservative Members might understand what the children of the Earley and Woodley constituency instinctively understand, which is that we should be equal under the law, whether we are the political leaders of a democracy or otherwise. That is why I welcome the Minister’s statement that the Government will comply with their international obligations.
The Minister has set out the work he has been doing in travelling to the region and witnessing at first hand the blockage of aid into Gaza by the Israeli Government. The United Nations states that over 83% of food aid has been blocked, which of course leads to the risk and ongoing fact of starvation in the region. What can the Minister and the Government do in line with our positive obligation under international law to prevent future atrocities occurring in Gaza?
Hamish Falconer
The Government are deeply concerned by the latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification finding about food insecurity in Gaza. We are making efforts to try to ensure a more rapid and regular flow of aid, including items that have been barred, which often seem to be those that are most vital for winterisation—as the international humanitarian community call it—in Gaza. We will continue to press for more flexibility on these points, so that the necessary tents, sleeping bags and other equipment required to safeguard Palestinian life over the course of the winter can move in at the scale that is required.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Having seen and lived through the misuse of lawfare in Northern Ireland, whereby the terrorist uses law to target those who seek to live by the law while ignoring the fact that every one of their actions is illegal, I very firmly oppose the UK’s stamp of approval on any ICC decision on Israel. It is only when you—not “you” meaning the Minister, but “you” meaning me—have been the victim of whitewashing propaganda, as Unionists have in Northern Ireland, that you truly understand the danger. Will the Minister not recall that Israel has been defending itself under perpetual attack, and that this ICC ruling is simply affirming the Hamas agenda of hiding terrorism behind women and children, sacrificing them to achieve their goal? That goal is clear: to wipe Israel off the map. That is something that we can never support, and I hope the Minister will never support it either.
Hamish Falconer
I do not support the actions of Hamas—I condemn them outright and utterly. The actions of Hamas, including the continued keeping of hostages, represent unspeakable cruelty, both to the Israeli people and to British nationals. We do not forget Emily Damari, who is still held more than a year since she was taken. That being said, we can both condemn terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah and encourage our allies to keep to the very highest standards, and our commitment to international law is part of that contribution.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I have just returned from the west bank, where I met Roland Friedrich, director of UNRWA affairs, and saw UNRWA’s work at first hand. In the west bank alone, that work includes running 97 schools and 43 health centres and providing public services such as clean drinking water and rubbish collection. Does the Minister agree that there is no viable alternative to UNRWA, and will he do everything in his power to ensure Israel allows its vital operations to continue?
Hamish Falconer
I do agree. There is no alternative to UNRWA, and we will raise those points, both directly with Israel and in company. It is vital that UNRWA, underpinned by a succession of UN Security Council resolutions, is able to continue its vital work, both in the west bank and Gaza and across the wider region.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Can the Minister reassure us that he and other Ministers have directly pressed Israel on compliance with international humanitarian law in their meetings with their counterparts?
Hamish Falconer
I can. I did this morning, and I will continue to do so.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Emily is a British citizen who, as the Minister has said, has been held hostage ever since the attacks. Would the Minister explain what measures the Government are taking to make contact with those holding the hostages so that we can bring Emily home?
Hamish Falconer
Hostage cases are some of the most horrifying situations that a family can face. I know that many people in this House have met with Emily’s family, and have seen at first hand their bravery, but also the agony that they feel a year on. I regret deeply that the best chance of release for all of the hostages is through negotiated agreements, and I call on all parties to come back to the table to try to advance the agreement necessary to secure a release of hostages, an immediate ceasefire, and a reduction in the awful violence that scars us all.
Storm Bert
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on Storm Bert. The storm brought heavy rain, high winds and snow across the UK over the weekend. The flooding Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) —and I are receiving regular updates on the flooding in England. Our thoughts and our sympathies are with all those who have been affected.
This morning, I held an emergency meeting with Environment Agency chief executive Philip Duffy to discuss the flooding response and ongoing plans to protect communities. I was briefed on the latest situation, the 24/7 response being led by the Environment Agency and the emergency services, and the actions being taken to further protect communities in the coming days, with river levels expected to rise further in some places. We discussed how to bolster the response from the Environment Agency, emergency services and local authorities, if required.
Flooding in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is dealt with by the devolved authorities. The Prime Minister spoke to the First Minister for Wales on Sunday, and the Welsh Government have activated their crisis management arrangements in support of the local response. We have offered additional support to our colleagues in Wales if and when that is required.
I would like to put on record my thanks to the emergency responders, local authorities and the Environment Agency for their immense efforts to help communities across the country. Around 28,000 properties have been protected by Environment Agency flood defences. Unfortunately, an estimated 107 properties have flooded across England, principally from river and surface water flooding. While Storm Bert has now passed, we will continue to see the impacts of this weekend’s heavy rainfall over the next few days. Environment Agency staff are continuing their work across the country, and are engaging closely with local resilience forums and local responders, with arrangements in place to scale up their response if and when that is needed.
As of 4 pm today, there is one severe flood warning in place, with 120 flood warnings and 145 flood alerts in force across England. A severe flood warning, which reflects a danger to life, was issued in the early hours of this morning. It relates to the Billing Aquadrome on the River Nene in Northamptonshire, where the caravan park was safely evacuated. This is the fourth time the aquadrome has been flooded in recent years, and I would like to thank local responders for their swift actions to protect those most at risk.
The Environment Agency and local responders have also been busy protecting properties elsewhere in England, including flooding from the River Teme in Tenbury Wells, where around 40 properties have flooded. The river has now peaked, and local responders will be focusing on the lower reaches of rivers over the next few days. There has been a focus on the Calder valley in west Yorkshire, the River Weaver in Cheshire and the River Avon in Bath, including Chippenham and Bradford-on-Avon. Further flooding is, sadly, likely over the next few days, as water levels rise in slower-flowing rivers such as the Severn and the Ouse. The Environment Agency anticipates that any impacts should be less severe than we have seen in recent days.
Storm Bert also caused disruption to road and rail networks. Our transport industry has well-established plans to respond to severe weather and get affected transport networks running smoothly as quickly as possible. National Highways, local highway teams and Network Rail staff have been working all weekend to reduce floodwater and remove fallen trees from roads and railways. Unfortunately, residual floodwater is affecting the great western main line, the midland main line and other branch lines, and this continues to affect passengers’ journeys. The safety of passengers, train crew and staff is always the top priority, and railway lines will be reopened as soon as it is safe for trains to run.
Climate change will inevitably lead to more severe weather of the kind we have seen this weekend. As Environment Secretary, I have made it my priority to improve our flood defences and drainage systems to keep people and businesses safe. This Government inherited flood defences in the worst condition on record following years of under-investment by the previous Government. Over 3,000 of our key flood defences are below an acceptable standard. That is why we are investing £2.4 billion over the next two years to build and maintain flood defences.
We have also set up a new floods resilience taskforce to make sure there is better co-ordination between central Government and the frontline agencies on the ground up and down the country. This brings together organisations including the Association of Drainage Authorities, the National Farmers Union, local resilience forums, and emergency responders. It is key to strengthening resilience in the face of floods, and it met for the first time in September to prepare for the autumn and winter.
We have provided £60 million in the recent Budget to help farmers affected by the unprecedented flooding earlier this year, and I am pleased to tell the House that the bulk of the payments are already in farmers’ bank accounts. We have confirmed that an additional £50 million will be distributed to internal drainage boards to manage water levels to protect agriculture and the environment, and we will launch a consultation in the new year which will include a review of the existing flood funding formula to ensure challenges facing businesses and rural and coastal communities are taken into account when delivering flood protection. We aim to bring in that new approach from April 2026.
I repeat my thanks to the emergency services, local authorities and the Environment Agency for their work to keep communities safe during Storm Bert. I will continue to receive updates from the Environment Agency and its teams on the ground, and I will continue to ensure that Members across the House are contacted when flooding affects their constituency.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
Storm Bert has had, and continues to have, terrible impacts across the United Kingdom. Our thoughts are with the loved ones of those who have lost their lives in recent days as well as the people whose homes and businesses have been devastated and all the communities affected by flooding and this weather. I understand the distress, the anger and, frankly, the exhaustion many will be feeling today as they contemplate the process of rebuilding their homes, businesses and communities because my own constituency suffered terrible damage from Storm Babet a year ago. Residents need practical support quickly, and they also need some reassurance for the future.
I thank the emergency services, the local authorities and the Environment Agency for their efforts to help people quickly and often in dangerous circumstances, but I also thank the members of the public who have stepped in to help their neighbours and local communities in countless ways. They are the rays of kindness in what has been a dark weekend for many communities.
The Government need to focus on how help will be given to those who have been driven out of their homes, including the provision of decent temporary accommodation and the repair and reopening of schools, as well as the process for speeding up insurance claims so that residents can return home as quickly as possible. Knowing, as we do, sadly, from previous storms, how important Members across this House will be in helping their constituents, will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that his Department sends a daily operational update to Members across the House so that Members may help their constituents assiduously?
Last week the Secretary of State’s Department will have received data from the Met Office about the severity of this storm and its likely impacts. So that we can understand the urgency that the Secretary of State gave to these warnings, will he please tell us about the discussions he had with the Environment Agency and the Met Office before the storm hit and when they were held, and what actions were implemented as a result of any such meetings?
The Secretary of State mentioned his Government’s floods resilience taskforce, which was set up to improve flood preparedness. It has met once since July, and its next meeting is next year. He has just said that its duty is to prepare for the autumn and winter. Can he list precisely the preparations arising out of that meeting and the practical impacts on communities up and down the country?
Regrettably, with the threat of flooding still present —indeed, as I rose to my feet, one severe flood warning and 120 flood warnings were still in place—the Secretary of State descended into playing politics. To correct him, I will just set out these facts, and there is a question for him to answer at the end. The last Conservative Government committed a record £5.2 billion from 2021 until 2027 to provide significantly improved flooding defences across the country. That is critical and long-standing infrastructure work. Will he confirm whether the £2.4 billion he has referenced is part of that £5.2 billion or in addition to it?
The Conservatives ringfenced £100 million to help those communities threatened repeatedly by flooding. It was called the frequently flooded allowance. Will the Government confirm the continuance of this fund and its ringfencing? When is the next assessment for that scheme? Can communities flooded through Storm Bert be included? We also set up the natural flood management fund to complement traditional bricks and mortar defences. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that will be continued? I note that the Secretary of State has mentioned funding independent drainage boards to the tune of £50 million. Can he confirm that the funding has been cut from the £75 million promised by the Conservatives, and why?
While I welcome the increase of £10 million in the Budget for the farming recovery fund, which was announced by the Conservative Government to support farmers for last year’s wet weather, can the Secretary of State confirm that he will announce new money to support farmers for this winter’s bad weather? Can he give comfort to the farmers watching that the Treasury will include adverse weather conditions and flooding as mitigations for its much criticised family farm tax?
I end by wishing every community, whether they are the subject of those flood warnings or watching their weather updates with great concern, a safe and comfortable few days ahead.
Steve Reed
I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments, and I echo her good wishes to people who have been affected by the situation. She refers to funding. I politely remind her that she was a Treasury Minister in the previous Government, who underfunded our flood defences and left more than 3,000 of them—the highest level on record—in an inadequate state. She asks about appropriate support on the frontline. The floods resilience taskforce exists to ensure that those on the frontline across the country—local authorities and the agencies responsible—were ready for this and other storms when they happen, and that appropriate support was in place for individuals, families and communities that may be affected. That of course includes those who are most vulnerable.
The Minister for Water and Flooding, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) has already held a roundtable with insurance providers to ensure that we are speeding up support for those who are affected by flooding. The Environment Agency will keep Members regularly updated on the circumstances in their own constituencies. Turning back to funding, we have allocated £2.4 billion over the next two years, which is more per annum in each of those two years than the previous Government allocated for the current year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I entirely empathise with my right hon. Friend about what he has inherited. We have had the perfect storm of massive funding cuts to the Environment Agency with increased pressures from flooding as a result of climate change. Notwithstanding that, the need for improvements in our flood defences is urgent and critical. How can communities such as mine in Chesterfield, flooded by the Rother and Hipper rivers, engage with the work he is doing so that we can be more prepared, working with the Environment Agency to bridge the funding gap for the existing scheme on the River Hipper? My heart goes out to all the communities across the country that have been so appallingly flooded. They need to know how we can work with the Government to step up the urgency so that our country is more flood-prepared in future.
Steve Reed
I thank the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee for his questions and of course sympathise with residents in his constituency who have been affected by the recent flooding, and indeed previous flooding. The Government are reviewing the flood funding formula to see how we can make it more effective. That includes nature-based flood management, such as planting more trees further upstream to help the land hold more water, so that less rainwater floods downstream to more populated areas where it can cause more damage. That consultation will involve businesses, rural communities, coastal communities and communities such as his all feeding in to ensure that we have a flood funding formula that works for every part of the country.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. The financial cost of the devastation caused by Storm Bert will run into many millions, yet that is nothing compared with the heartbreaking loss of life. My prayers are for the loved ones of those who have died and for the communities so horrifically affected. I, too, am grateful to the emergency services of all kinds, council workers, the Environment Agency and the communities who have pulled together and been wonderful neighbours up and down the country. Indeed, I am grateful to the many Members who have got their hands dirty serving their constituencies. That includes my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) who, in the absence of any trains, hired a car this morning and left Parliament to get back to her communities to be with those who have been devastated by the flooding.
This storm highlights the foolishness of the Government’s real-terms reduction of 1.9% to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ budget. That is a potential threat to flood-affected communities through its impact on flood management schemes, natural flood management and specific projects such as those in Kendal and Appleby. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether he may seek to reverse those cuts?
Disruption to rail services has been significant, too. Less than a year after the terrifying derailment at Grange-over-Sands, the whole of the Furness line in my constituency is out of action until later this week. Will Ministers put extra resources into ensuring that that vital line and others are upgraded and made more robust?
Storm events also have an impact on our sewerage networks. Research by the Save Windermere campaign estimates that storm overflows discharging untreated sewage into our lake began at 3.21 this morning and by midday could have reached a volume of 7 million litres. Will the Government speed up action to prevent egregious storm overflows like that across our country? Finally, does the Secretary of State understand that given the crucial role that farmers play in natural flood management, his decision to cut 76% of the basic payment scheme from next year could push farmers away from such schemes altogether? Will he revisit that decision?
Steve Reed
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and questions. I share and echo his gratitude to Members across the House for the work they have carried out to support their local constituents and signpost them to appropriate support. We will be ensuring that the Environment Agency continues to engage with Members on that important work.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the very difficult financial inheritance that we had from the previous Government. In that context, I think the fact that we have been able to deliver an increase in funding for flooding is to be welcomed: £2.4 billion over the next two years means an increase in both years compared with the amount of funding provided by the previous Government for the current year.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned storm overflows. When we have these more severe episodes of rain, it is extremely distressing to see more storm overflows discharging sewage into rivers, lakes and seas. Sir Jon Cunliffe is leading a wider review into the failures of governance and regulation that have led to this situation, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and Liberal Democrat Members will engage with that. In addition, we are requiring every single outflow to be monitored so that we know what is going into our rivers and can take appropriate action, including through the strengthened powers under the Water (Special Measures) Bill.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Storm Bert has been devastating for my constituents. In Cwmtillery, with its disused coal tips, 160 mm of rain fell in just 48 hours. Across Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, homes have been washed out, children’s Christmas presents have been ruined and families without insurance are counting the cost. I hugely welcome the £25 million in the Budget for Welsh coalfield tip maintenance and safety measures; that makes a big difference. Given, though, the extraordinary weather that we saw on the weekend, will the Secretary of State please look again to see if further support will be available for coal tips in the future?
Steve Reed
I recognise the absolute devastation that my hon. Friend described, which homeowners and business owners will have felt in seeing their homes devastated by flooding. The Prime Minister contacted and spoke to the First Minister of Wales on Sunday. He made available any support that the Welsh Government may need to deal with the situation. That offer stands open, and we are ready to support colleagues in Wales if and when they require that, recognising that parts of Wales have been the hardest hit by Storm Bert.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Plaid Cymru’s thoughts are with all those across Wales affected by Storm Bert. Confirmation of a coal tip landslip in Cwmtillery is extremely concerning and will lead to anxiety for others living near coal tips. Those tips are the legacy of an industry that extracted from Wales to enrich London, yet the UK Government have pledged just 4% of the £600 million needed to secure them. Will the Secretary of State commit to providing the full funding required?
Steve Reed
Again, I share the hon. Member’s concern about the situation. This is the first Government ever to have offered funding to support the problems of coal tips that she described. As I said in response to the previous question, the Prime Minister has made it clear to the First Minister of Wales that the Government stand ready to provide more support to the Welsh Government if that is required.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
This weekend, much of my constituency was under a severe flood warning. Businesses, roads and homes were flooded. We were luckier than in previous years in terms of severity, but in places it was agonisingly close, with rivers centimetres away from breaking their banks. Calder Valley has had two major floods in the past decade, and the fact that we avoided the same level of destruction this time was in no small part because of the work of local flood wardens, natural flood management organisations such as Slow The Flow and Calderdale council. I pay tribute to them.
It is almost a decade since the serious floods in Calder Valley on Boxing day 2015. We had further floods in 2020. While the Environment Agency has carried out flood prevention works in Mytholmroyd and Brighouse, it has not even made a start on planned schemes in Hebden Bridge and Elland. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the plans we have upcoming and get some action from the Environment Agency? My constituents are understandably really anxious.
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend very much for his question. I am sure that his constituents will be pleased to hear of the increase in funding over the next two years to support areas that are affected by flooding as well as the review to the flood funding formula that we are consulting on to ensure that we are taking the most appropriate and effective steps necessary to protect communities and businesses from flooding. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Water and Flooding will be more than happy to meet him to discuss his constituency concerns.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is not the silver bullet, but given the severity of the situation over the weekend, every little helps. Will the Secretary of State—he will earn huge plaudits if he is able to pull this off—convince the Environment Agency that it would be helpful to many communities in North Dorset, the south-west and elsewhere to increase the capacity of our rivers through a managed programme of dredging? We are losing capacity. Last week I saw a river where two arches of a bridge were entirely silted up. That is losing 20% of capacity. It is not the silver bullet, but capacity improvements would help.
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I know his constituency well and I know what a champion he is for communities there. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that we are reviewing the formula with the Environment Agency, to look at precisely what actions would be most effective to protect communities in whichever part of the country they find themselves in, including his very beautiful part of Dorset.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Last July, the previous Government issued its third national adaptation plan, and this March the Climate Change Committee issued its independent assessment of NAP3. It said that it falls far short of what is needed, that it lacks the pace and ambition to address growing climate risks—which we are already experiencing—and that it fails to set out a compelling vision for what the Government’s well-adapted UK entails, with only around 40% of the short-term actions to address urgent risks identified in the previous climate change risk assessment.
Will the Secretary of State ensure that the key recommendations of the Climate Change Committee in its assessment of NAP3 are implemented and that an urgent refresh of NAP3 takes place, to strengthen it and avoid locking in additional climate impacts? Key reforms must be implemented over the next year, along with enforcement. Those are the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee. Can he assure the House that he is taking those seriously and moving them forward?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is right to point to the impact of climate change through the much more frequent severe weather incidents that we are seeing, whether droughts in the summer or floods at this time of year and through the winter. That is why we are reviewing the formula and our approach to managing flooding. We take the reports and views of the committee very seriously as we continue to look at how best to adapt to the challenges that climate change presents to the whole country.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
People living in former mining communities across south Wales deserve greater reassurance on what the Government will do about coal tips. Can the Secretary of State explain what exactly they will do to make these tips safe, particularly when it comes to the live monitoring of any movement and early warning systems?
Steve Reed
There is a programme to improve the maintenance of coal tips, which is underway through the Welsh Government. As I said, this is the first Government to allocate funding to tackle that risk and its very serious implications for people and communities living in affected areas.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Environment Agency for protecting much of my constituency. However, businesses still continue to flood. Could the Secretary of State say what he is doing to review the remit of Flood Re, so that businesses, leaseholders and properties built after 2009 can be covered by the Flood Re scheme, which really does help people through times of flooding?
Steve Reed
As I have indicated, the Minister for water, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), has already chaired a roundtable with insurance providers, including Flood Re, to look at what more can be done to provide support. As things stand, 99% of the most high-risk households can get quotes from over 15 insurance providers, and four out of five homeowners with claims have seen a 50% reduction in their insurance premiums. We are looking at what more can be done for businesses through the British Insurance Brokers’ Association.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I associate myself with the words of gratitude paid by the Secretary of State to all those who have helped over the weekend. The House will know that I have raised the situation of Tenbury Wells many times. It is devastating to hear that it was flooded again this weekend. I do not know whether the Secretary of State, in his meeting with Philip Duffy this morning, was told that there is a really well advanced design for flood defences for Tenbury Wells, which has been substantially funded thanks to previous funding allocations. I wonder if he could find it in his heart—and in his £2.4 billion over the next two years—to get that scheme over the line.
Steve Reed
I know the hon. Lady’s constituents will be very grateful for her championing of their cause, particularly given the flooding that we have seen over the weekend. The funding allocations will be made in the usual way by the Environment Agency, working through its regional flood and coastal committees and engaging with local stakeholders. I am sure that she will make sure her voice and that of her constituents are heard, as she makes a powerful case for funding those flood defences.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that my constituency has some of the mightiest and most beautiful rivers, including the Wye, the Usk and the Monnow. But having those incredible rivers means that we are really at risk of flooding. Yesterday we had two severe flood warnings. They have been downgraded today, but there are still five flood warnings, some of which are on the River Wye, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, runs through England and Wales. I want to express my gratitude to Monmouthshire county council, South Wales Fire and Rescue and all those in the community who helped, particularly Darren in Skenfrith, who has been up for 36 hours helping the community. That community has been flooded four times in the last three years. Can the Secretary of State please assure me that he will encourage Natural Resources Wales and the Environment Agency to work together to solve those flooding problems on cross-border rivers?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We need to ensure that the agencies with responsibility for the same rivers or catchment areas and that operate cross-border work as effectively as they can. I will make sure that those points are conveyed to both agencies.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. The thoughts of my Scottish National party colleagues and I are with the families of those who have lost their lives during Storm Bert. I also associate myself with his remarks on the response of the emergency services.
Many unnamed storms occur in Scotland, and in my constituency in particular. For example, a part of the seawall in Gardenstown came down recently. I am sure that Storm Bert has made that worse. I note the Secretary of State’s comments regarding additional support that could be given, and will he confirm that, with the coming storms that we expect in Scotland, he will be able to make the same commitment for Scotland as well?
Steve Reed
Of course, the Government will stand ready to support and help the devolved authorities whenever they face circumstances like these.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My thoughts are with all those affected over the weekend. I also thank everyone who has been protecting the public at this very difficult time. The levels on the River Kennet, which is a tributary of the Thames—and indeed the Thames itself—have been rising to dangerous levels in recent hours. Could the Secretary of State provide an update on specific matters in the Thames valley region, in particular the flood defence schemes in the Reading area and the vital work that he is preparing to do upstream to plant more trees and to rewild to avoid flooding?
Steve Reed
I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome our proposals to review the formula so that we can look at nature-based flood management in the way that he described. I will ask the Environment Agency to contact him with an update on what is going on in his constituency, and what further action is being taken as the river continues to rise to ensure that his constituents are kept safe.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I also acknowledge the enormous work done by Philip Duffy in the Environment Agency. He came down to visit my constituents in Britford in the first quarter of this year and made an enormous impact. In addition to the £30 million, for which the people of Salisbury are very grateful, for the Salisbury river park scheme that has just completed, it is important that smaller schemes, driven by parishes such as Britford parish council, are given licence to combine both their own precept and investment from the Environment Agency to come up with bespoke schemes. Will the Secretary of State ensure that attention is given by the EA to how it can give as much flexibility as possible, so that small schemes can also move forward at parish level?
Steve Reed
I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about Philip Duffy at the Environment Agency and all his colleagues, who are doing an incredible job—they always do, every time storms hit. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important and interesting point about how we can better tie up different approaches to funding. I will take that back and discuss it with the EA. I will ensure that he receives a full written response.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
My constituency is home to a wonderful retirement community at Hartrigg Oaks. However, residents living there have told me that they worry, every single time there is a storm, about how the River Foss may overflow on to their property. There is a fix: a water pump to alleviate flooding, but that was removed, shamefully, by Yorkshire Water three years ago. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that Yorkshire Water should fix that urgently, following Storm Bert?
Steve Reed
It is important that we look at all possible ways we can protect communities from flooding. I do not know the detail of the particular instance my hon. Friend is speaking about, but I am happy to look at it. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), the Minister with responsibility for water, and I will be happy to meet him to discuss what we can do to support him in what he is calling for.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking firefighters from Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, who have attended over 420 water incidents during Storm Bert, including many across my constituency in North Devon? Does he agree that community resilience for severe weather incidents should be a statutory duty in England, with accompanying Government funding, as it is in the devolved nations?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and I share his gratitude to those in the Devon and Somerset emergency services who are keeping people safe at this very difficult time. We will look, with colleagues in the Home Office, at whether further duties are required to ensure that communities are safe when circumstances like this happen.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to all the agencies that worked so hard over the weekend in flood-affected areas in my constituency in really difficult circumstances, and to express my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Mr Brian Perry? As well as the police and fire and rescue services, many of the teams involved in searches of this nature are staffed by volunteers, such as Ogwen Valley mountain rescue organisation, and we owe them all a huge debt of thanks. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the additional support that has been offered to the Welsh Government and colleagues in Wales in response to the devastation caused by Storm Bert. What further contact will there be with the Welsh Government in the coming days?
Steve Reed
I echo the condolences for the loss of life and state my gratitude to those volunteers who have been engaged in supporting communities at this very difficult time. We will of course stay in regular contact with the Government and other authorities in Wales, to make sure that if they require further assistance it is made available to them as quickly as it can be provided.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Storm Bert affected many parts of my constituency in the Scottish Borders, and I pay tribute to the volunteers and emergency services who kept local residents safe. Many farmers have been particularly badly affected. Have the Government made an assessment on crop yields, not just in Scotland but across the UK, as a direct result of Storm Bert?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Appropriate assessments will be made once we have had time to consider exactly what has gone on, but I am sure that, like me, he will welcome the allocation of £60 million through the farm recovery fund to support farms that were devastated by flooding earlier in the year.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My thoughts are with all those affected by Storm Bert. As chair of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group, I express my solidarity and thanks to all our emergency services, including firefighters on the frontline.
Extreme weather events are on the rise and are becoming ever more frequent as a result of climate change, highlighting the urgent need for proper funding and resources. England is the only part of the UK without a statutory duty for flooding, leaving fire services underfunded and under-resourced to respond effectively. That must change. As the FBU has long called for, when will the Government finally provide a statutory duty for fire and rescue authorities to respond to flooding incidents in England? Furthermore, in our election manifesto the Government committed to developing a national structure to inform policy and standards in the fire and rescue service. When will that be implemented? Finally, will the FBU be invited to the floods resilience taskforce to ensure that the voice of firefighters is heard in shaping flood resilience strategies?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Fire and rescue authorities have the powers to intervene, but she is quite right to point out that there is not a duty. Officials in my Department, working with the Home Office, will review that to consider whether it remains appropriate. My hon. Friend the Minister for water, who now chairs the floods resilience taskforce, is happy to issue an invitation to the FBU to participate in that.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Residents across Somerset are once again feeling incredibly anxious. Parts of Glastonbury and Somerton saw 130 mm of rain during Storm Bert over the weekend, which has placed additional strain on our ageing flood defence network. Does the Secretary of State agree that, because of the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather, we need to incentivise our farmers and landowners to urgently establish more nature-based flood solutions on their land and fund more extreme weather resilience plans for isolated rural communities?
Steve Reed
I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about the circumstances in Somerset. I agree with the points that she is making. We have increased the actions available through environmental land management schemes, including more actions around natural flood management of precisely the kind she describes. I look forward to seeing much more of that over the months and years to come.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for reminding the House about the first-time funding for coal tips. I notice that the Plaid Cymru Member, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), mentioned coal tips, but she could not leave the Chamber quickly enough—she could not wait for the end of the statement.
I pay tribute to the local authorities, emergency services, volunteers and all those affected by Storm Bert in Cardiff, in Rhondda Cynon Taf and across south Wales. May I ask my right hon. Friend to speak to colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology about looking carefully into the role of the Met Office? It is clear that its response was slow and that there was an underestimation of the impact of Storm Bert: it put out a yellow rather than an amber or red warning. Our constituents have been let down by this incompetence before. It cannot keep happening.
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend should be reassured, and so should the whole House, that in most affected parts of the country, warnings were given with adequate time for people to prepare. I encourage people to sign up on the website of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or of the Environment Agency for warnings and alerts if they live in an area that could be affected by flooding. I am aware of the particular concern that my hon. Friend mentions about the Met Office; I will indeed be speaking to colleagues in DSIT as they review the circumstances and look at how the situation can be improved for future such events.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to what happens after the acute phase of flooding, particularly in rural areas like mine. I have small areas and villages that are affected and then struggle to get things sorted out. For example, Witherley in my constituency is small enough to be affected heavily by flooding that goes up through its roads, but it then struggles to have the capacity to get all the agencies to sort it out because of the funding. When he looks at the funding model, will he consider the issue of size?
Also, trying to pull agencies together in one place has taken me more than a year. We are meeting on 13 December to plan, but it has taken 10 years of work to get them all together. Will the Secretary of State look at a way of ensuring that the process is clear, so that it is spelled out to all the agencies, including fire agencies and water companies, what they are accountable for? Everyone, and most importantly the public who are affected, needs to know who is accountable for what.
Steve Reed
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his work in trying to bring the agencies together in his locality, which is precisely what we are trying to do at a national level with the floods resilience taskforce. In fact, it would be helpful for the taskforce to look into how co-ordination is happening on the ground in localities such as his, especially given how long he has been pushing for this to happen in a more effective way—so far, sadly, without success. I would very much like to see the national taskforce supporting him in that work so that he can deliver for his local residents.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
In places like Ironbridge Gorge in my constituency, it is days later when the water comes down the river and has an impact on businesses and residences. Each and every time the temporary flood barriers are erected, a hammer blow is dealt to the economy in this world heritage site. Will the Secretary of State instruct the Environment Agency to come up with a plan and resource for frequently flooded areas, given that year on year the flooding becomes worse in places like Ironbridge Gorge? I invite him to visit the gorge to see it for himself.
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his invitation to visit the gorge; I would very much like to take him up on it when time allows. I am sure he will welcome the review of the flood funding formula, which will allow us to take different approaches to managing flooding in ways that will be much more effective. He should be aware that the Environment Agency will be conducting its funding allocation in the usual way through its relevant committees, and he should feed his views into that process.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
This weekend, residents in my constituency were flooded yet again. The same thing happened only five weeks ago, and after that event I met people at my surgery who showed me footage of floodwater spewing out of their toilet into the downstairs area, and of their sodden houses. I met more than 100 residents in the village of Eardisland who expressed concerns that I know are widespread in the county and the constituency.
On that occasion in October more than 100 households in Herefordshire were flooded, yet the flood recovery framework was not initiated because Ministers felt that the flooding was not widespread or severe enough. Will the Secretary of State please consider the terms under which the flood recovery framework is initiated? It provides vital support that councils can pass on to help that recovery: immediate grants for communities and businesses, with council tax and business rates relief. Will he think about how that is triggered and consider giving the responsibility to local authorities, which are far the best-placed agencies to judge when it is required? In addition to everything we need for flood resilience, that immediate support is crucial at times like this.
Steve Reed
May I extend my sympathies to the hon. Lady’s constituents following the distressing experiences that they have undergone during this and, I am sure, previous flooding episodes? She is quite right to ask how we can improve the flooding formula and get agencies working better on the frontline. It is possible to do so through the consultation that we have launched on the formula, and I hope that she will contribute to that. I am sure we can get to a position where the formula works much better for her constituents in North Herefordshire and for those in every other part of the country.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I have been contacted by residents of Draycott, Marchington and Rolleston and others in my constituency who have been affected by the flooding this weekend. This is a persistent problem that affects these areas every time we experience heavy rainfall. What work is the Department undertaking with county councils and other agencies to ensure that rivers are properly maintained and drains are regularly cleared to prevent this recurring devastation?
Steve Reed
I empathise with the suffering that my hon. Friend’s constituents have experienced because of the recent flooding. We are reviewing the formula; we realise that it is not working as effectively as it should. Along with the floods resilience taskforce, we will be looking into how we can better improve co-ordination on the ground among the different agencies that have responsibility first for keeping people safe and then for helping communities to recover after flooding of the kind that my hon. Friend describes.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Residents of south Abingdon have already been flooded twice this year, and tonight there is another warning. I cannot imagine what they must be feeling. When I visited them in September, they reported feeling very alone. They had been promised a flood defence, and then the Environment Agency said that it was not value for money; they had been promised sandbanks, which then did not show up. When we asked the EA today whether it would be on the ground, it told us that it could not send enough people—not because it did not have the staff or the money, but because not enough of them had completed a workplace assessment and training on how not to be assaulted by angry residents. Of course staff safety is everything and Environment Agency workers deserve our thanks, but surely an element of common sense needs to be applied. Surely the best way to help angry residents is to be there and help them in their hour of need.
Steve Reed
I am grateful for the point that the hon. Lady makes. I would be happy to raise it with the chief executive of the Environment Agency to ensure that when there is an urgent need for support and staff are available to provide it, that is what happens.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to Derby last year to see our flood defences and to meet firefighters who had saved lives and property when Derbyshire was hit by floods. May I echo the calls for him to explore with the Home Office the possibility of putting the water rescue that they perform on a statutory footing? Will he give us an update on the next phase of Derby’s flood defence work?
Steve Reed
It was a great pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and meet firefighters and other emergency responders so that, together with her, I could thank them personally for the work that they always carry out in circumstances like these. She has referred to the duty that may be required of the fire service and other emergency services to respond to such circumstances. Currently, there is a power but no duty. I will be engaging with colleagues in the Home Office to see whether we need to put in place such a duty. I will be sure to keep my hon. Friend updated as those conversations progress.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
A couple of weeks ago I held a roundtable with some Mid Buckinghamshire farmers on the measures required to mitigate flooding, especially after extreme weather events such as Storm Bert this weekend. At the top of the list was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made about dredging and river capacity. On top of that, however, communities in Buckinghamshire such as Calvert Green and Fleet Marston are being flooded for the first time in decades as a result of some of the big infrastructure that is being built, particularly HS2. It seems that HS2 will concrete over a field, completely unaware that that will have a knock-on effect on farmland next door. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with the Transport Secretary and, I suggest, the Deputy Prime Minister, given their plans to concrete over the countryside, to ensure that where construction takes place, there are proper—and I really mean proper—flood mitigation measures?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We need to look at dredging and other means of mitigating the risk of flooding, and he is quite right that that needs to be done across Government. We will have those conversations and will ensure that measures are taken to protect communities as much as possible from the more severe weather events that we are seeing as a result of climate change.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend was speaking, the water levels on the River Ouse continued to rise, which means that tonight my constituents in Newport Pagnell are once again bracing themselves and preparing their homes, businesses and farms for the second flooding incident in just a few weeks. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the dedicated volunteers of the Newport Pagnell flood group for their tireless work in protecting our local town? Will he pay tribute to our local firefighters who are responding to this incident? Their water response unit in Newport Pagnell deals with incidents across the area. I should declare an interest: my brother is one of those brave local firefighters and is currently responding to an incident in Beaconsfield. Will my right hon. Friend also outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure that communities such as Newport Pagnell are better safeguarded against flooding in future?
Steve Reed
I share my hon. Friend’s praise for volunteers and the emergency services, and particularly for his brother, for the work that they are carrying out. I am sure that he will welcome our review of the funding formula, which will ensure that all appropriate steps are taken in whichever parts of the country are affected, to improve resilience against the kind of flooding that we have seen over recent days. I know that the Environment Agency is aware of the rising water levels in the Ouse and other slower-moving rivers and is taking appropriate steps to safeguard people in Newport Pagnell, in other parts of his constituency and, indeed, along the rest of those rivers who may be affected as river levels continue to rise.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I note from the Secretary of State’s statement that the floods resilience taskforce is designed to ensure better co-ordination between central Government and frontline agencies. Can he advise whether any of those agencies, local authorities or, indeed, the devolved Administrations have requested military assistance through the MACA process? If they have, is that being considered? Will he consider including the Ministry of Defence in his floods resilience taskforce?
Steve Reed
Yes, the devolved Administrations were represented on the floods resilience taskforce. We want to co-ordinate better with them and to ensure that they are co-ordinating with their own agencies and the frontline staff who are charged with protecting communities from the devastating impacts of flooding.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
As the House has heard today, a major incident has been declared in Northamptonshire: there is a risk to life in my constituency and that of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool). Over 1,000 people have been evacuated from the Billing aquadrome, and we have seen hundreds of workers from the council, the EA, Anglian Water and the emergency services, and volunteers and residents’ groups, working around the clock to make sure that my neighbours are kept safe. Does the Secretary of State agree that the collaboration I am seeing in Northampton demonstrates the importance of the floods resilience taskforce that he has announced, which will bring together multiple agencies to protect towns such as mine?
Steve Reed
I had the pleasure of visiting the aquadrome, and I am very sad indeed to hear that it has been flooded yet again. My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that it is not just about increasing funding, important though that is; it is also about getting the agencies on the ground to co-ordinate better at national, regional and very local levels.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
We have a flood alert in Runnymede and Weybridge at the moment, but it takes a few days for the water to make its way down to us, so we do not know the full impact of Storm Bert. We hope that there will not be a repeat of what happened with Storm Henk earlier this year, when constituents were passed from pillar to post due to the myriad statutory responders during a flood emergency. What will the floods resilience taskforce do to fix that, and will the Secretary of State support my campaign for an individual point of contact and co-ordination? We need a flood control centre in Runnymede and Weybridge, and in all our constituencies, to support our residents in a flood emergency.
Steve Reed
The role of the floods resilience taskforce is to ensure not just that there is better co-ordination at national level and between national and local agencies, but that co-ordination happens far better at the local level in the way that he is describing and that there is much better communication with residents, so that they know who to contact, and can do so in a much simpler way, to get the support and help that they need both when floods are coming and as areas recover from the impacts of flooding.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
One of the ways in which my Hazel Grove constituents have been impacted by Storm Bert is as passengers facing severe delays and cancellations on our rail network, particularly the west coast main line. Will the Secretary of State please update the House on the conversations that he has had with colleagues in the Department for Transport on how to minimise the impact, and on how to ensure that we learn the right lessons, so that future flooding causes even fewer impacts?
Steve Reed
We are in close contact with colleagues in the Department for Transport, and safety must be the priority for both passengers and people who work as part of the crews on the trains or on the ground. The railway lines will be opened as soon as it is safe to do so. We are aware that further steps need to be taken to protect all forms of public transport and, indeed, all parts of the country from the increase in severe weather incidents.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The flooding Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, recently confirmed to me that the Government’s new floods resilience taskforce brings together a range of partners, including the Environment Agency, the devolved Administrations, selected regional Mayors and lead local flood authorities. However, following flooding in Brampton and St Ives that was caused by the high level of the River Great Ouse last month, Cambridgeshire county council informed me that its role as lead local flood authority was only a supporting one, and residents have been understandably frustrated by the lack of clarity about who owns what. Can the Secretary of State offer some clarity on which agency leads the multi-agency response during a flooding event, and how is that reflected in how it interacts with the floods resilience taskforce?
Steve Reed
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point. Part of the role of the floods resilience taskforce will be to ensure that there is clarity on the ground, area by area, as to who are the lead responders and how co-ordination is happening, in a way that will provide the maximum benefit to people who are at risk of being affected by flooding.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I hope that the Secretary of State will join me in thanking workers at Torbay council, who have stepped up to help out residents across my constituency during Storm Bert. I highlight to colleagues the fact that we are haunted by deep cuts to the flood defence budget under the previous Government. Will the Secretary of State reflect on a piece of critical infrastructure: our Dawlish rail line? Phase 5 of the Dawlish rail resilience programme remains up on the shelf and has not been funded yet. Will he give assurances that it will be funded, to protect this vital piece of infrastructure?
Steve Reed
I share the hon. Gentleman’s thanks to those who have been involved in protecting people from the impact of flooding. I can write to him on his specific question about the Dawlish railway.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I remind Members that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities. Large areas of North Shropshire are often under water, either from river flooding or from prolonged rainfall. This weekend has been no exception, with villagers cut off for long periods of time and vast swathes of farmland flooded. This year, there are farmers who have been unable to plant crops in the current harvest, which has just been collected, and who will not be able to do so next year—they are in a desperate state. When the Secretary of State reviews the flooding formula and the funding, will he consider how farmers will be compensated for storing vast quantities of water upstream, regardless of whether they like it or not?
Steve Reed
We can take that into account when we look at the flooding formula, but I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome, as I do, the additional £60 million in the Budget for farmers who have been affected by the severe levels of flooding experienced earlier in the year.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The advice from Great Western Railway this morning was not to travel. Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), how many meetings has the Secretary of State had with the Transport Secretary about the resilience of Great Western Railway?
Steve Reed
It is always wise to follow the advice that is given for people’s safety. We are in regular contact with colleagues in the Department for Transport and other parts of Government to make sure that we are doing everything we can to keep people safe.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
My constituency of Witney has the Windrush, the Evenlode and the Thames, all of which have really impacted constituents today. We have just lost out on some FiPL—farming in protected landscapes—funding to produce modelling of the Windrush, which is upstream of Witney, our key market town in the constituency. That means that we are unable to forecast how we can lower and slow the flood crest through Witney, which would make it safer. Will the Secretary of State please look into providing better funding or enlarging the funding for such modelling, so that we can keep towns such as Witney safe on rivers like the Windrush?
Steve Reed
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. We will make announcements on FiPL early in the new year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Everybody knows that when I am called, it is all over—almost. [Laughter.] I thank the Secretary of State for bringing forward a very positive action plan and strategy. I send my sincere sympathies to those who have lost loved ones, and to those who are particularly anxious, worried and depressed about their properties. That is a serious worry for people who do not know what they will do next.
Will the Secretary of State outline what discussions have taken place with counterparts in the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that the Assembly and local communities have the ability to quickly regroup and get a handle on the devastating flooding that has taken place throughout the United Kingdom? I also need to ask him a question that I wish I had the answer to. One of the big questions is about alternative accommodation for those who have been flooded out. Has he been able to give any attention to that question, and if so, will the answers be shared with the people back home?
Steve Reed
They say it’s not over till the fat lady sings, but I am not sure that they had the hon. Gentleman in mind when that particular phrase was coined. I am in regular contact with the devolved authorities, including on flooding. They sit on the floods resilience taskforce and it is important that there is co-ordination across all parts of Government across the UK to ensure that we can provide appropriate support for people in precisely the circumstances that he describes when flooding hits.
Point of Order
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Saturday there were several incidents of Greater Manchester police violently restricting young Romany Gypsy and Irish Traveller children who had come into Manchester city centre to do Christmas shopping. Video footage depicted a group of Romany Gypsy and Irish Traveller children being dangerously forced on to a train out of the city to stations unknown, with one child being pushed to the point of nearly falling on to the track. Footage also shows a young man being forcibly restrained on the ground and arrested.
The actions of GMP raise serious questions about its operational approach and decision-making processes. This has caused huge distress for the many young people involved, for their families and for those across the Romany Gypsy and Irish Traveller communities. Therefore, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I seek your guidance on how we can encourage the Home Office to make a statement and to consider an investigation into the incident?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving prior notice of her point of order. I have not had any indication that the Home Secretary intends to come to the House to make a statement, but the hon. Member has put her point on the record and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will note her comments and pass them on.
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:34 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 173 / Noes: 335 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 336 / Noes: 175 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Kevin Hollinrake has been selected.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Last month, the Chancellor set out the Government’s first Budget. That Budget was a once-in-a-generation event to wipe the slate clean after 14 years of the Conservatives. At that Budget, we laid the foundations for our No. 1 mission of economic growth. The scale of the mess that we inherited at the general election meant that we had to take tough decisions on welfare, spending and tax. Those decisions have been difficult, but they were necessary. They have enabled us to deliver economic stability and fix the public finances. Doing that is crucial to getting public services back on their feet, and to giving businesses the confidence they need to invest and thrive.
Stability, certainty and predictability are highly prized by businesses when making decisions about where and how much to invest. In opposition, I spoke to businesses time and again about the importance of stability, so in government we have made sure to deliver for them by publishing our corporate tax road map alongside the Budget. In my meetings with businesses about what they need to succeed, the system of business rates also came up time and again. I heard businesses criticise a system that is inflexible, that disincentivises investment and that places an unfair burden on those businesses on high streets across England.
That is why, in the Budget, the Chancellor confirmed our first steps towards creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. We are determined to support high streets, as they are places that bring people together and serve as focal points for economic activity. Their success is what people across the country want to see, and it is a priority for the Government to deliver it. That is why, in our first Bill on business rates in this Parliament, the Government have prioritised making progress to rebalance the rates burden faced by high street businesses.
The Bill before us seeks to put into law the commitments made at the Budget by enabling the introduction from 2026-27 of permanently lower tax rates for the retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000 that make up the backbone of high streets across England. We are determined to give those businesses a tax cut, and we know that that must be fully funded in a challenging fiscal context. For that reason, the Bill also enables us to generate sustainable funding for those tax cuts through an increase of multipliers on the most valuable 1% of business properties in the country.
This targeted approach captures the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants, as well as other out-of-town businesses that draw footfall away from high streets. It will enable us to lock in new, permanently lower tax rates for core high street businesses, providing not only a tax cut but stability and certainty after the one-year retail, hospitality and leisure relief, which has been precariously extended year by year since the pandemic. Our approach provides a permanent tax cut to help high street businesses succeed, alongside the certainty that they need to invest and the means to pay for it within our tough fiscal rules.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister talks about certainty, but one of the biggest problems for small businesses is that so many things are happening at once, including the national insurance contributions increase, the Employment Rights Bill that is coming in, and now the levy that has been cut down from 70% to 40%. The cumulative effect of all those makes a massive difference for my businesses. A hairdresser that I met only this weekend talked about how much of a problem that will be. How does the measure help to engender stability for those small businesses, which have to wait until 2026?
James Murray
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that, around the difficult decision that we had to take on employer national insurance contributions, we provided explicit protection for small businesses by more than doubling the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, which will benefit hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the country. I suggest that he talks to businesses in his constituency about that.
We are not shying away from the fact that difficult decisions were taken in the Budget, but he might also consult the plans that were left in operation by the previous Government in July. If we had pursued those plans, and if we had not taken any action on business rates, the retail, hospitality and leisure relief would have ended entirely next April. The cliff edge looming next April would have seen it go down to zero. We have extended it, despite the tough fiscal circumstances, for another year at 40%. That is a reasonable way forward while we put in place these permanent reforms.
As I mentioned, the measures in the Bill to level the playing field for high streets are the beginning of our efforts to transform the system of business rates. Our ambition to go further is set out in the paper published alongside the Budget, “Transforming business rates”. That paper sets out the Government’s priority areas for further reform to support investment and make the system fairer. It invites businesses and industry representatives to work with us on designing the best possible system for the future.
I am grateful to all those businesses and representative bodies that I have spoken with in the last few weeks for their engagement already. We will consider what more the Government should do to incentivise investment and growth, including by looking at the efficacy of improvement relief and empty property relief, the impact of losing small business rate relief on expanding businesses, and the cliff edges within the current system.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
If the Minister is looking for other methods by which public finances could be effectively deployed, will he look carefully at the last decade, during which small business rate relief has been used by second home owners to flip their properties to business rating and pay nothing at all? In Cornwall alone, that has resulted in over £500 million of taxpayers’ money being paid out to wealthy second home owners through covid aid and the small business rate relief. Will he look at how wealthy people have been incentivised to use that method to their advantage? Will he ensure that we have a much fairer system that puts first homes before second homes?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman raises a crucial point about ensuring that the tax system is fair and that it supports the behaviour that we seek to incentivise.
That leads me neatly to my next point. As part of the discussion paper on transforming business rates, we have committed to consulting on adopting a general anti-avoidance rule for business rates in England. Although that might not necessarily address the exact problem the hon. Gentleman highlights, it speaks to the general issue of avoidance in relation to business rates.
We will also look at how the burden adjusts with the economic cycle, and we will assess the merit of a further increase in the frequency of re-evaluations. I look forward to working closely with businesses and representative organisations to deliver a business rates system that is fit for the 21st century, and that work begins today with the powers in this Bill to deliver our permanent tax cut for high streets.
As I said earlier, the tough decisions that the Chancellor set out in the Budget to deliver economic stability and fix the public finances enable us to give businesses the confidence they need to invest, and to get public services back on their feet. One public service that is crucial to breaking down barriers to opportunity is the education system, which is why the Government have prioritised ensuring that every child has access to the high-quality education that they deserve.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Like others, I have repeatedly raised the need for exemptions for religious schools. For the Free Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland, for example, the expression of its faith and treasured beliefs does not sit comfortably with mainstream schooling, and it is the same for many other faiths. If the Government are determined to press ahead, does the Minister agree that exemptions must be made, at the very least, for such schools? On behalf of those Churches, those faiths and those people, I have to say that the Government must think again.
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for a rare intervention, but this Bill is about business rates in England. Some of his wider points may relate to the removal of the VAT exemption for private school fees in other countries and nations of the UK. Those provisions will be debated as part of the Finance Bill on Wednesday and, if he repeats his comments, I might be able to address them more specifically.
Today, we are addressing the business rates system that applies in England. This is important because every parent aspires to get the best education for their child, and we as a Government are determined to ensure that those aspirations are met. At the Budget, the Government announced a real-terms increase in per pupil funding, with a £2.3 billion increase to the core schools budget for the financial year 2025-26, including a £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding.
This funding increase needs to be paid for so, to help make that happen, the Government are ending the tax breaks for private schools, as set out in our manifesto. This includes ending charitable rate relief eligibility for those private schools in England that are charities. This Bill will do that, and its measures operate alongside the ending of the VAT exemption for private school fees, which is being delivered through the Finance Bill that I will be moving on Wednesday. Together, these measures will raise £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Bill makes provision for maintaining the charitable status of institutions that are wholly or mainly concerned with providing full-time education for pupils with an education, health and care plan. Will the Minister set out the definition of “wholly or mainly”? What support will be put in place for councils to afford the burden of extra pupils moving into mainstream education? Schools will be facing the double whammy of losing charitable status and VAT being imposed on school fees. Hampshire county council is already under financial strain, and it will face a crisis point by 2026-27 under these proposals.
James Murray
As I will explain, the test of “wholly or mainly concerned” is 50% of pupils, or more, having an EHCP specifying that their educational needs can be met only in a private school. I will provide some more detail in a moment.
Of course, the Government have prioritised funding for the state education system in this Budget. The £2.3 billion increase, including a £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding, is possible only because of the difficult decisions that we have taken on taxation, including in the Bill.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that the Budget’s prioritisation of state schools should be welcomed? I have talked to teachers in Harlow and, under this Labour Government, they feel hope for the first time in 14 years. Is it not shocking that the Conservative party is still bemoaning the removal of tax exemptions from private schools, rather than focusing on the mainstream education attended by 96% of children?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right that we, as a Government, are focused on improving state education for children across the country, because we know that every parent aspires for their child to get the best possible education. That is what our plans seek to achieve, and I would welcome it if the Opposition supported our efforts for the good of children across the country.
Members will have the chance to scrutinise the detail of this Bill in Committee, but I will now spend a few moments outlining how the Bill’s provisions are intended to operate.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Does the Minister recognise that many independent schools, such as Lady Eleanor Holles school and Hampton school in my constituency, are involved in a huge amount of partnership work with schools in disadvantaged areas, like Feltham’s Reach academy, to help disadvantaged children to have opportunities that they would not otherwise get? Does he recognise that both the measures in this Bill and the introduction of VAT on private school fees will lessen that partnership work, which will have a detrimental impact on many state schools?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but what will have a positive impact on state schools across the country is the extra funding that we announced in the Budget. If Opposition Members want to support extra funding for schools, they have to support some of the tough decisions to raise that revenue in the first place. They cannot have it both ways. I know the new Leader of the Opposition is very keen to oppose tax rises while claiming that she supports the investment, but she cannot have it both ways. If Opposition Members want to support extra funding for schools, the NHS and other public services, they have to have some responsibility and accept the decisions that we are taking, or propose some of their own.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm the continuation of small business rates relief for the rest of this Parliament?
James Murray
I will come to business rates. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to respond in full in just a moment. [Interruption.] I see that he is impatient to tell us how much he supports the Bill—or am I misreading the signs from across the Dispatch Box?
As I have said, this Bill will enable the introduction of new multipliers in the business rate system from 2026-27. The provisions in this Bill will enable the introduction of two lower tax rates, which may be applied only to qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties. The definition of “qualifying properties” will ultimately be set out in secondary legislation but, for the avoidance of doubt, it is our intention that the scope of these new tax rates will broadly follow that used for current retail, hospitality and leisure relief. These new rates will provide permanent tax cuts, offering certainty to businesses by ending the continued uncertainty of retail, hospitality and leisure relief, which has been rolled over annually since covid-19.
Our intention is for a lower rate that offers a tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure properties that currently pay the standard multiplier, with a rateable value between £51,000 and £499,999. Another rate will offer a larger cut to the retail, hospitality and leisure properties currently paying the small business multiplier, which are those with a rateable value below £51,000.
We are clear, however, that any tax cut must be sustainably funded. For that reason, the Bill will also enable the introduction of higher multipliers, which can be applied only to the most valuable properties—those with a rateable value of £500,000 and above, which represents less than 1% of all properties in England. The rates for any new multipliers will be set in the 2025 autumn Budget in the light of the outcomes of the 2026 revaluation. The Government recognise, however, that it would be inappropriate to take unfettered powers that allowed the Government to change tax liabilities by unlimited amounts. For that reason, the Bill includes sensible guardrails to limit the use of those powers.
The guardrails determine that the two lower tax rates, when introduced, may not be set lower than 20p below the small business non-domestic rating multiplier, and that the higher tax rates, when introduced, may not be set higher than 10p above the non-domestic rating multiplier. Let me make it clear that those values are maximum parameters and do not represent the changes that we intend to implement. They are guardrails that offer sensible limits with proportionate flexibility. They ensure that the Government can respond to future revaluations as well as the changing economic and fiscal context. As I said, the exact rates for 2026-27 will be set out in next year’s Budget.
Alongside the provisions on multipliers, the Bill contains provisions relating to private schools that will raise around £140 million a year. There are more than 2,400 private schools in England, of which approximately half are charities and are able to benefit from business rates charitable relief. The Bill will remove the eligibility of private schools that are charities for that relief. The Bill provides a specific definition of a private school as
“a school…at which full-time education is provided for pupils of compulsory school age…where fees or other consideration are payable for that…education”
or
“an institution…which is wholly or mainly concerned with providing education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19…where the provision of full-time education…is wholly or mainly provision in respect of which fees or other consideration are payable”.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have questioned how the Government’s plans will affect pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. My officials and I carefully considered the design of the policy, and the provisions in the Bill mean that private schools that are charities that wholly or mainly provide education for pupils with an education, health and care plan will remain eligible for charitable rate relief. To be clear, in answer to the earlier question from the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), “wholly or mainly” in business rates generally means 50% or more. The Government believe that will ensure that the majority of special educational needs schools will not be affected by the measure.
The measure will operate in addition to the existing business rates exemption for properties used by private schools wholly for the training or welfare of disabled people. That exemption, which we are retaining, means that those types of properties pay no business rates at all. Taken together, the existing and new provisions are intended to ensure that most private special educational needs schools will not be affected by the removal of charitable rate relief.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Given the terrible SEND crisis across the country, does the Minister really think that it is good enough that only “most” of those schools will be exempt?
James Murray
I hope that the hon. Member will welcome the fact that we have committed an extra £1 billion in 2025-26 to high needs funding in the education system. The Government are committed to reforming England’s SEND provision to improve outcomes and return the system to financial sustainability. I would welcome her support for our measures in that regard.
Dr Luke Evans
I appreciate the Minister making this carve-out on SEND, but I would be grateful if he could give us some statistics. He said that “most” will be carved out. Have the Government done any work to determine how many schools will still fall under the provisions? If not, placing such an impact assessment in the Library would be useful for Members across the House.
James Murray
Let me point the hon. Gentleman to a document that has already been published: “Removal of eligibility of private schools for business rates charitable relief”, which sets out the impact and all the figures that he requests. There are 2,444 private schools in England, 1,139 of them are charities, and we expect that under our plans 1,040 will lose the relief. The schools that are wholly or mainly concerned with provision for children with an EHCP that specifies that their educational needs can be met only in a private school will retain access to charitable rate relief. I hope that that document will give him some of the statistics that he requests.
Let me add a few more details, in case they help hon. Members in understanding the policy. I can confirm that stand-alone nurseries with their own rates bills are not within the scope of the Bill. If they are charities, they will retain their eligibility for the existing relief. In addition, the Bill references independent training providers, which provide valuable vocational training courses on behalf of the Government, ensuring that there are suitable further education opportunities for all. Because of the funding mechanism used by the Government to fund independent training providers to provide full-time education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds, the Bill provides a specific carve-out to ensure that those institutions will not be affected by the measures in the Bill. As previously announced, it is the Government’s intention that this measure will come into effect from 1 April 2025. As business rates are a devolved tax, the measures in the Bill will apply only in England.
The measures in the Bill will play their part in bringing about the change that the Government were elected to deliver. The powers to introduce new multipliers serve as first steps on the road to transforming the business rates system. We are determined to transform the business rates system to support our high streets in a sustainable way, to offer stability and promote investment, and to drive the economic growth that is our mission as a Government. Our vision of a modern business rates system is one that helps to create wealth and decent jobs in every part of the country, and that ensures that high streets serve as the heart of local communities.
We are also determined to break down barriers to opportunity and help all parents to achieve their aspirations for their children. That is why the Bill will make changes to the relief from business rates that private schools that are charities currently enjoy, raising crucial funding to help to ensure that every child has access to the high-quality education that they deserve. The Bill delivers change. Change is what the British people voted for, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House observes that the Autumn Budget 2024 has cut central Government funding for retail, hospitality and leisure business rate relief in 2025-26, and that this Government funding will end completely in 2026-27; expresses concern that the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill represents a stealth increase in business rates on high streets and the hospitality sector, as well as on larger businesses, on top of the Government’s increases in National Insurance contributions; regrets the lack of a proper cumulative impact assessment on the effect on business; notes that the removal of charitable rate relief on independent schools, taken together with the imposition of VAT, will mean fewer children going to private schools and will therefore create extra pressure on state schools, will undermine aspiration and parental choice, and mean larger class sizes in state schools and increased costs for taxpayers; and therefore declines to give a Second Reading to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill.”
It is a privilege to speak in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. The Conservative party has a proud record of supporting businesses on the high street. We cut business rates to support small businesses, including doubling small business rates relief from £6,000 up to £15,000, and almost trebling higher rate relief from £18,000 to £51,000. We increased the frequency of business rate revaluations, making our business rates system fairer for businesses and more responsive to local economic trends, helping businesses to invest, create jobs and grow.
The contrast with this business-bashing Labour Government could not be greater. They have brought forward a mass of new red tape for business by means of the Employment Rights Bill. I note that the Regulatory Policy Committee released its commentary today on the impact assessment, which it said is “not fit for purpose”. It says that the annual costs to businesses could be much higher than £5 billion, and the impact assessment has received a red rating.
The Government have also imposed huge new tax increases on businesses. The worst thing is that they were not even man enough to tell businesses that they were going to do it—quite the opposite—which is why, as much as the Minister says that businesses have confidence in his plans, the Institute of Directors has said that it has seen the biggest one-month fall in investment confidence in its history. The Confederation of British Industry said today that 50% of its members will reduce headcount, and two thirds are scaling back hiring. Is that the kind of growth that he imagined he would bring forward with his legislation?
Infamously, the Labour party promised in its manifesto not to raise national insurance. Next week, we will have the Second Reading of a Bill that reneges completely on that promise by raising employer’s national insurance contributions by £24 billion a year. Labour has also hit business through the family farms tax, and our best family businesses in other sectors by halving business property relief. I remind the Minister that family businesses employ 13.8 million people in this country and pay over £200 billion every year in taxes. The Government are killing the geese that lay the golden eggs.
In its manifesto, the Labour party promised to
“replace the business rates system, so we can raise the same revenue but in a fairer way. This new system will level the playing field between the high street and online giants”.
In a speech to the House on 12 May 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
“We would scrap business rates to help our high streets flourish.”—[Official Report, 12 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 300.]
The Treasury Minister himself also stated his party’s intention to “scrap business rates” to the House on 25 October 2023. The Bill before us breaks those promises because it does not “replace” or “scrap” the business rates system. Not only that, but as a result of the Bill and the measures in the Budget, business rates are actually going up, both for online companies and businesses on our local high streets—yet more broken promises from a Government of broken promises.
Maybe the Government do not realise exactly what they are doing, perhaps because members of their Cabinet have no experience of starting and running a business. Shamefully, there has been no consultation with businesses about the changes. True to form, the Government have not published a full regulatory impact assessment alongside the Bill on the changes to business rates multipliers. It is a discourtesy to the House and to our constituents for the Government to refuse to consult with businesses, consider the impact their policies will have or publish the information that would allow Members of the House to scrutinise the plans properly. Instead, they are using their majority to ram through the half-baked damaging measures in the Bill.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I find it more than ludicrous to hear the Tories lecturing Labour about red tape. What the Tories have served up to the country through Brexit and the damage they have done to our economy is a disaster. To hear them masquerading as—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Only interventions relevant to the speech in hand should be made. There is no need for that performance.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I remind him that it was not the Conservative party that voted to leave the European Union, but the people of this country. We respect democratic mandates.
I hope every Member on the Government Benches who walks through the Lobby to support the Bill tonight realises the price their constituents will pay for that decision. If the Government will not publish the likely consequences of the Bill, let me set out what I believe the consequences will be.
The Government claim to be cutting business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England, but that is not the case. The business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses that we introduced cuts 75% off bills, but that support is being reduced by the Labour Government. They are almost halving that relief to 40%, meaning that shops, restaurants, cafés, pubs, cinemas, music venues, gyms and hotels will all see their business rates rise.
James Murray
Was that 75% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses due to expire in April 2025?
Kevin Hollinrake
As the Minister knows, it had been renewed every year since 2021. The Conservative party supports businesses. When that 75% was passed on in England, the same moneys were provided to Scotland and Wales. What did Wales do? Only 40% relief was passed on, not 75%. That is the Welsh Government’s attitude to business. The Conservative party supports businesses, but the Labour party does not because it does not understand them.
Businesses face a stealth tax from Labour, with a £925 million rise in rates next year. That will add more than £5,000 to the business rates bill for the average pub, on top of £5,000 per year in extra costs for national insurance rises. It will also add more than £9,000 to the rates bill for the average restaurant, on top of the £12,000 national insurance increase, which means an additional £21,000 in total per annum for a typical business.
There will also be an increase of up to £2.7 billion in 2026 through higher business rates via the new multipliers, despite Labour’s manifesto promise not to increase the amount raised by the levy. These tax rises, as the CBI has said again today, will be passed on to workers through lower wages and to consumers through higher prices, making a mockery of Labour’s claim that it would not raise taxes for working people. The British Retail Consortium has warned the Government:
“The sheer scale of new costs and the speed with which they occur create a cumulative burden that will make job losses inevitable, and higher prices a certainty.”
The Bill will replace retail, hospitality and leisure relief with a lower multiplier for businesses with a rateable value below £500,000. That will be funded by the new higher rate multiplier for premises with a rateable value of more than £500,000, as the Minister set out. Setting the threshold at that higher level is a blunt instrument. I can assure the Government that it will have consequences for businesses that are not big online retailers. It will hit large supermarkets, supermarket delivery, large department stores, football and cricket clubs, conference centres and airports. Some of those on whom the new charges will be levied pay tens or hundreds of millions of pounds in rates. At the maximum level, it will mean a 20% increase to their rates bill.
It is no wonder that the outgoing chief executive of John Lewis has criticised Labour’s lack of business rates reform and warned that, alongside the national insurance increase, this is a “two-handed grab” from businesses. The Cold Chain Federation has warned that the business rates changes and the NICs increases could lead to the cost of food and medicine going up. That might be a double whammy for consumers, as the National Farmers Union has warned that the cost of food will go up because of the family farm tax. The Labour Government do not seem to have thought that through. The Labour party used to say that the business rates system created uncertainty, but now KPMG has described the Government’s plan to change the business rates system, as set out in the Bill, as “creating uncertainty for businesses”.
The Bill is silent on the matter of small business rates relief, which is a lifeline for many businesses on our high streets. When the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution winds up the debate, will he confirm that the Government intend to retain small business rates relief for the rest of this Parliament? Business is listening, and it needs to know.
Let me address the sting in the tail of the Bill: Labour’s education tax. The shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), feels passionately, as do all Conservative Members, that the Government are making the wrong decision. This Bill is part of the Government’s education tax, because removing the charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities goes hand in glove with the utterly wrong-headed, anti-aspirational and counterproductive policy of charging VAT on private school fees.
Chris Vince
Will the shadow Minister tell us how many state schools there are in his constituency, and whether he will talk so passionately about them when he talks about the decisions that this Government are making to support state schools?
Kevin Hollinrake
The Bill is about raising rates on private schools, which is why I mention them, but I am very happy to talk in glowing terms about the state schools in my constituency, including the one that I attended as a boy and the ones that my children went to. I am for state schools, but I am also for independent education. Why is it either/or? Why would anyone ever tax education?
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Stop School Cuts campaign website estimates the combined school cuts since 2010 in Thirsk and Malton, the shadow Minister’s constituency, as more than £70,000. Will he point to where in the public record he has spoken out about that?
Kevin Hollinrake
I was part of the fairer funding formula for schools in my area, which had the worst-funded local authorities in the country. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that schools in my constituency improved under the stewardship of the Conservative Government. Surely that is the key metric, rather than just how much money is put in.
Dr Luke Evans
The impact of taxing private schools with VAT will be that thousands of pupils move out into the state system. That will take away funding. It is already having an impact, but no mitigation has been put in place. The Education Secretary said that 3,000 was not the correct number, but she would not give out the number of pupils who have moved. The Government know those numbers and they need to come clean, because the impact of those pupils moving will eat away at whatever the tax raises.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand that 90,000 pupils will be transferring to the state sector as a result of these plans. We Conservatives hold firmly to the principle that education should not be taxed. The only other nation to have tried is Greece, which abandoned the policy within months because of the disastrous consequences.
The Independent Schools Council has said that some independent schools will close entirely and others will scale back the education they offer, causing significant upheaval and disruption to the lives of tens of thousands of children. As surely as night follows day, that will mean fewer children going to private schools and increased pressure on state schools.
I would be grateful if the Minister enlightened me about whether this policy complies with article 14 of the European convention on human rights. The legal issues memorandum considers the principle of non-discrimination regarding the difference in treatment between private schools and state schools, but not between private schools that are charities and other charities that will still qualify for charitable rates relief. I look forward to the Minister’s clarification.
During our time in government, England became one of the top-performing countries for education in the western world, a legacy that this Government seem determined to trash. In short, this Bill may be short, but it is long on disastrous consequences. I implore Government Members to think about their local schools and their high street businesses that are about to be clobbered, and about the resulting job losses, higher prices and boarded-up shop fronts. I ask all Members to think about what is in their constituents’ best interests, do the right thing and vote against the Bill.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I will focus on the removal of private schools’ eligibility for charitable business rates relief. Before I was elected to the House I was a scientist, but before I was a scientist I trained as a secondary school teacher. In school, I saw at first hand the dedication and resilience of my colleagues, but I also bore witness to the challenges that they faced—challenges that led many, many teachers to leave the profession after only a few years. I left after only my training year, citing the unsustainability of marking books at 1 o’clock in the morning, planning lessons at the weekend and never seeing my family as the reasons why I could not continue in the profession, despite loving being a teacher. I chose to leave the profession to do something that I feel is much easier: to take a doctorate in engineering.
When I trained 10 years ago, teaching had a profound retention issue, but now it is worse. One in 10 new teachers leaves after just one year in the role; one in four leaves after just three years. Little over half of teachers see their career last more than 10 years. Many are outstanding teachers who do not want to leave the profession. Even now, I miss teaching every day.
The picture in our education system gets worse when we look at maths and science, subjects that I know the whole House believes are vital. The maths teacher shortage began in 2012, and in 2023 the intake of new maths teachers was just 60% of the Government’s target. I was a physics teacher, and in 2023 there were six times as many vacancies for science teachers as there were in 2010. In my view, the failures of the previous Government’s education policy led to this abysmal state of affairs, and they are profoundly unacceptable.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is talking from personal experience about an important part of our education system. He talks a lot about teachers and the previous Government’s failed education policy, but will he take a moment to recognise the vast improvements in our performance in international league tables and the fall in the disadvantage gap in the years leading up to covid-19? Will he at least give some credits to the outputs, not just the inputs?
Adam Thompson
I will come to some of those points further on in my speech, if the hon. Gentleman is willing to hang on for a few minutes.
I trained as a teacher when the former Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath was Education Secretary. He made significant changes to the education system during his tenure, as the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) has just alluded to. Those were changes that I and the vast majority of my colleagues at the time strongly disagreed with. Those changes ignored decades of pedagogical research and favoured the metrification of our children over learning. They harked back to the rote learning of 50 years ago and set pedagogy back decades.
Austerity was already being very much felt in the sector. Teachers were expected to put in the same effort, but with fewer resources and with their pay frozen. Now it is worse. After a decade of Conservative Education Secretaries following in the footsteps of the former Member for Surrey Heath, teachers’ pay has taken a significant real-terms cut. In many ways, he inspired me to enter politics as a Labour Member—a sentiment that I know many of my colleagues on this side of the House share. Opposition Members may challenge me about why I raise these points, but I think they are all part of what the Bill is about. They are about keeping teachers in their jobs, paying them fairly and giving them the resources that they need to give our children the education that they deserve.
The previous Government set a goal that all children should finish year 11 with at least GCSEs in maths and English. That is a laudable goal, which has my full personal support, but last year just 45% of children in England—not even half—achieved it. Only one state secondary school in my constituency of Erewash attained results above that average, and even in that top-performing school, just half their children in year 11 attained GCSEs in maths and English. Every other state secondary school in my constituency was below that 45% average, and at the worst-performing the result was fewer than a third.
I should note that I place none of the blame for those issues on the local schools themselves. I have met several local heads and many teachers, all of whom it is powerfully obvious to me have made incredible sacrifices to deliver excellence in our local education system, and all of whom have been burned by the failures of education reforms introduced throughout the past decade. The people of Erewash elected a Conservative Member of Parliament in 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019, and in return the previous Government let their children down.
I have been talking a lot about state schools, which is only natural when they are the schools that 94% of our children attend, but I would also like to highlight the major independent school in my constituency, Trent college in Long Eaton. In the run-up to the election and since then, I have been around as many of the schools in Erewash as I can, and Trent college is no exception. I have spoken many times to staff and pupils, and this weekend I attended a show put on by the incredible Wildflower community choir at the school’s chapel. It is a wonderful school, with excellent staff led by the brilliant Bill Penty. The staff provide fantastic opportunities to all the pupils who attend. The facilities are the best I have ever seen in a school and the staff do a huge amount for our community, but it is a simple fact that the vast majority of my constituents cannot afford to send their children to Trent college and that many of its pupils come from outside my constituency.
A great part of what this Bill is about is making sure that the incredible opportunities received by the children at Trent college, and the aspirations that they are encouraged to have, are available to all children in Erewash. I want every child in Erewash and the country to receive the best education they possibly can. This Bill will support the extension of those opportunities to every child in every state school in Erewash and the country.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is giving a thoughtful and impassioned speech. Notwithstanding his support for the Government’s policy, I wonder whether he regrets the fact that it is being introduced midway through the year, so that children, including those with special educational needs, will find themselves struggling to get involved with the curriculum and to fulfil the examinations for which they have put in a lot of effort and preparation.
Adam Thompson
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that if Opposition Members did not want us to have to take drastic measures to re-establish our country’s economy, they should not have left a £22 billion black hole in it.
I want to flag a particular failure in the education system that was brought to crisis by the previous Government: the provision of SEND education. It has long been under-supported, and after the past decade, things are worse. Opposition Members will claim that the Bill will make SEND provision worse still. Let me tell them that for SEND children and their families in my constituency and across Derbyshire it is scarcely conceivable that things could get any worse. Some 20% of the casework that I receive in my office relates to SEND problems. The recent Ofsted report on SEND services offered by Conservative-run Derbyshire county council found that it had “widespread” weaknesses, that communication with parents was “poor” and that children’s needs were often not accurately identified or provided for. The report is utterly damning—it is the worst Ofsted report I have ever seen—and Derbyshire county council’s failures are extreme. For my constituents, the local elections cannot come soon enough.
I was very pleased when the Chancellor announced in the Budget an extra £1 billion to support SEND services. Having spoken extensively to parents of SEND children in my constituency, I can say that they are not worried about whether private school fees might increase; they are worried about whether their children will be able to go to school at all. This Bill is about providing equality of opportunity. It is about ensuring that a child’s postcode or their parents’ income does not determine their chances in life. This Bill will provide funds to fix our state schools, reverse the bite of austerity, get more teachers into school and help them to stay there, ensure that all children are properly included, and ultimately provide them with the education they all deserve.
I feel strongly that supporting this Bill is my duty to my Erewash constituents and to its schools, its teachers, its children, their parents and the future of our towns and villages. It is my duty, therefore, to vote for the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Great British high street is on life support. Many bricks-and-mortar businesses are barely surviving and, where they are, it is often against the odds. Changes in our trading relationship with Europe, the covid-19 pandemic, energy prices, the cost of living and the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-Budget have all taken their toll, but for years one measure has stifled high street businesses more than any other: the broken business rates system.
The business rates system is unfair on companies, bad for our local communities and damaging to our national economy. It penalises manufacturers when they invest to become more productive and energy-efficient. It leaves pubs and restaurants with disproportionately high tax bills and it puts bricks-and-mortar shops at an unfair disadvantage compared with online retail giants. In too many places pubs, restaurants and shops are being forced to close, taking with them jobs, opportunities and treasured community spaces, and consumers are seeing the cost of this unfair tax passed on to them.
More broadly, this outdated system inhibits business investment, job creation and economic growth, holding back our national economy, yet for too long it has been allowed to continue. In their 2019 manifesto, the previous Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of business rates to ease the tax burden on smaller businesses. Yet in 2022, when I challenged the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), on his personal commitment to making that happen, he admitted in this place that it was
“Another of the promises I now vainly wish I had not made”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 430.]
Businesses are tired of being treated with such cynicism and of relying on a patchwork of last-minute temporary reliefs. They cannot plan, they cannot invest and they cannot grow. They are crying out for fundamental reform and a new, fairer system. Before this autumn Budget, Liberal Democrats called on the Chancellor to reform business rates completely, with a new system, and to do so no later than April 2026. We believe the new system should be based on our Liberal Democrat calls for a commercial landowner levy—a bold move that would deliver a real shot in the arm for our high streets.
Instead of pursuing fundamental reform, instead of fair reform, this Bill is just more tinkering. Rates relief has been a sticking plaster—but, boy, is that plaster being ripped off in April, with a big reduction in relief. Many small businesses now say that the increase in business rates, combined with the increase in national insurance contributions, will be too much for them to absorb.
Andrew George
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Along with the point I made in my previous intervention about the opportunity for abuse under the rates relief system, particularly by holiday homes, does she accept that the methodology used by the current rating system for parking spaces in out-of-town retail outlets such as supermarkets hands a massive advantage to those supermarkets in comparison with town centre shops, and that we need a rating system that actually levies a rate on that benefit at a level that ensures an even playing field?
Daisy Cooper
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this broken business rates system is unfair in many ways and it is the big giants, online or otherwise, that are getting an easier ride.
The Bill fails to address many other problems with business rates. For example, it does nothing to support businesses outside the three sectors of retail, hospitality and leisure, meaning it excludes key sectors such as manufacturing that are particularly negatively affected by the current system. It does not address the £51,000 cliff edge. Properties with a value over that threshold are not eligible for the small business multiplier, even though they are small businesses, and with rates relief going down, business rates bills for small businesses will go up. From next April, business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure will be cut from 75% to 40% and this Bill does nothing to avert that blow.
The Minister said he wants to rebalance business rates. I welcome that direction of travel, if it turns out to be true, but in the absence of an impact assessment, I am particularly worried about unintended consequences. I say this in the spirit of constructive opposition: it appears as though the Government are moving from a system of temporary relief to a lower multiplier. At the moment, a small business enjoys 75% business rates relief, but a very large chain has its relief capped at £100,000. If I have understood it correctly, independent shops will see their relief drop from 75% to 40%, while big chains such as pubcos and supermarkets may see their relief uncapped, which could give them a tax reduction of tens of millions of pounds. I would be grateful if the Minister wrote to me to share some modelling to reassure me that that is not going to happen and that we will not see independent businesses inadvertently subsidising big chain stores and multinationals.
The impact of the Government’s changes to business rates will have a massive effect on small businesses in my constituency. The oldest pub in Britain—or so they claim—Ye Olde Fighting Cocks, will see a whopping increase of £30,000 per year in its business rates alone. The Save St Albans Pubs campaign says that even an average pub in St Albans, with a rateable value of £100,000, will face an additional £19,000 in its business rates bill from April. If we assume that an average pub makes 30p profit per pint, each of those pubs would need to sell an extra 60,000 pints a year, or almost 1,200 pints extra a week—and that is before factoring in the increase in national insurance contributions.
Other low-margin, large-premises businesses, such as children’s soft play activity centres, will also lose out under these changes. DJ’s Play runs much-loved indoor play centres across Hertfordshire, which exist in large warehouse-style premises. The buildings are large, but the profit margins are not. DJ’s Play and many others like it provide a valuable and enriching educational experience for children, but they too will struggle to keep their heads above water.
The Liberal Democrats are also opposed to the Bill because it would levy a tax on education by removing the business rates exemption for private schools that are charities. We are opposed in principle to the taxation of education, because it is a public good. We believe that parents must be given choice when it comes to their children’s education. Many families feel that, whether due to bullying, SEND provision, mental health issues or other factors, the state system cannot meet their child’s needs.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
One of the first things the coalition Government voted to do was to scrap the Building Schools for the Future programme, which impacted schools in my constituency including Calder high school, Brooksbank and Todmorden high school. Will the hon. Lady reflect on whether that was a mistake by her party and whether it has prevented state schools from being able to provide for more students?
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He may know that during those coalition years, both the health and education day-to-day budgets were protected and it was after the Liberal Democrats left the coalition in 2015 that capital budgets were serially raided to pay for day-to-day spending.
To return to my point, there are almost 100,000 children with SEND in private education without education, health and care plans, and it will be those families who bear the brunt of this measure.
We Liberal Democrats have tabled our own reasoned amendment setting out the reasons why we are against the Bill, but I have a number of questions for the Minister that I would be grateful if he could address in his summing up. Will there be an impact assessment that sets out the impact on small businesses on high streets? Will he exclude any new investment from business rates valuations from April, so that businesses that are able to invest in their future will not see that investment pushing up their rates bills even higher? Will he think again and complete the consultation before unfreezing the rates relief, which could badly affect small businesses and our high streets? Will he confirm whether the change from a system of capped temporary relief to an uncapped lower multiplier will inadvertently end up with small businesses subsidising big corporations?
The Government say that they want growth, and so do we, but these business rates changes will stifle the growth of small businesses and high streets at a time when we should be unleashing it. We urge Ministers to think again.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), I will speak about the removal of the charitable tax status of private schools. I stand here as not just the Labour MP for Wolverhampton North East, but someone who has spent more than 25 years working in state secondary schools as a science teacher and a deputy headteacher. My experiences in classrooms have shown me the stark realities of the funding disparities across our education system.
Removing the charitable tax status of private schools is necessary and fair. Many staff working in state schools across the country will empathise with me when I say that in recent years, something as basic as a class set of glue sticks or reliable access to working printers has become a luxury. We have to make tough choices. We are struggling to provide subject and department capitation budgets for subjects such as science, art, design and technology and music and to provide the resources needed for students to thrive with hands-on learning. We are struggling to fix leaking roofs and fund much-needed support services for vulnerable students. These are not decisions that any school leader should face, but they are the reality in too many state schools. Contrast that with the resources available to private schools, which benefit from the charitable tax exemption, giving them a financial advantage. Is it fair that while state schools struggle to afford basic supplies, private schools enjoy tax breaks that widen the gap? I think not.
The gulf in top GCSE results between private schools and state schools is vast. This year, almost 50% of the GCSEs taken by private school students were at least a grade 7, while less than 20% of results from students in comprehensives and academies reached the same level. By removing tax exemptions on private schools, we have the opportunity to generate an estimated more than £1.5 billion annually. Those funds will catalyse the transformation needed in our state schools. Imagine recruiting and retaining more talented teachers, modernising ageing buildings, expanding student wraparound support services and ensuring that every child, no matter where they are from, has access to high-quality education. This is not about punishment; it is about fairness. Some will argue that this policy could drive up fees, putting private education out of reach for some families, but let us be clear: private schools are businesses. Many have financial reserves, endowments and donations that they can draw on. They can adapt, just as state schools and school leaders like myself have had to adapt and balance constrained budgets for many years.
This new Government’s record on education will be one of fairness and equity. We are investing in early years education, free breakfast clubs, great-quality apprenticeships and staff recruitment and retention, but we need resources to make those ambitions a reality. Removing charitable tax exemptions is a necessary and responsible step in building an education system in which a child’s potential is not defined by their family’s wealth. I have seen what state schools can achieve when they are given the resources they deserve—when a child who once struggled to find their confidence suddenly excels because they finally have the support that they need. Removing tax exemptions from private schools is not just a policy to me; for the students I have taught, the colleagues I have worked alongside and the countless young people still waiting for their opportunity, this is about fairness, just as they deserve.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
In my time as a junior Treasury Minister, one important thing I learned was that there is a really good argument against every tax: VAT is inflationary, corporation tax reduces investment, income tax disincentivises work, excise duties typically fall more heavily on lower-income groups and so on. As a result, the policy tends to be, “We will do a little bit of a large number of taxes.” That is not a bad policy, but business rates are particularly troublesome because of their fixed-cost nature—they do not flex to businesses’ sales or profitability or to the business cycle, so they can exacerbate the effect of downturns in the economy or in individual sectors. Business rates discourage start-ups and scale-ups.
Rates fall disproportionately on property-heavy sectors. With the development of e-commerce and delivery businesses, the hurt to those with costlier premises is relatively greater. Due to the accumulation of those factors, UKHospitality and the British Retail Consortium estimate that hospitality, retail and leisure account for more than a third of business rates while accounting for under a tenth of the economy as a whole. That matters to us as parliamentarians because of the role that such businesses play in our town centres, village centres, city centres and high streets. There is both the direct effect that an individual shop, café, restaurant or pub has on footfall into the town, and the indirect impact due to the interdependence of businesses and the network effect.
We often lump hospitality and retail together due to the commonality of pressures that affect both, but there are also differences between them. Hospitality has taken on more of the burden of supporting our town centres over time relative to retail, because there are different levels of opportunity in e-commerce—there is some with retail businesses, but there tends to be little with hospitality businesses, because by definition if someone takes something from a vending machine, that is not hospitality.
I support the concept of fundamentally reforming business rates. The world has changed, with the growth of e-commerce and, thankfully, the growth of wages at the lower end of the wage distribution. We need to make a sharper distinction between shops and distribution sheds, but this Bill does not do that. The distinction that the Bill makes in its reform is between large premises with large rateable values and smaller premises. A quick read of the wording of the “transforming business rates” document, which explains the policy, would almost make one think that the changes are designed to distinguish online businesses from traditional retail, but they are not. The document mentions
“properties with rateable value £500,000 or more,”
which captures
“the majority of large distribution warehouses including those used by online giants”.
That is true, but that will also capture lots of other businesses, such as department stores and hotels, which are clearly part of the retail and hospitality sectors. Conversely, some parts of the distribution network of online businesses will not be captured. One very large, well-known online retailer has already moved to a more distributed hub and spoke network with its regional fulfilment approach. I dare say that those one-hour delivery grocery people have even smaller individual premises.
In reforming business rates, I hope that the Minister will consider that they cannot do all the work. I strongly welcomed the previous Government’s introduction of the digital services tax, which was always put forward as an interim measure pending wider reform of international taxation through the OECD. I do not believe a broader online sales tax is likely to be helpful—definitions would become difficult, and the development of some of the small businesses in our town centres that we value could be impeded—but I welcome the Government talking about more frequent valuations. Any reform of business rates must address the cliff edges that the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) talked about, as well as another problem that we as MPs worry a great deal about, which is vacant premises.
Right now, I am most concerned about right now. The Government promised that they would raise
“the same revenue but in a fairer way”.
That is not what is about to happen. Let us be very clear: the amount of money to be raised from business rates is about to go up, and it is about to go up on the back of retail and hospitality businesses. The Government will say—the Minister has already said—“But we are extending a relief that was going to come to an end.” Believe it or not, ladies and gentlemen, there is even a line in the “transforming business rates” document that says the Government will save the average pub £3,300 a year. They may say that, but that is not how it will feel to that pub or to the typical retail, leisure or hospitality business in any of our constituencies when they discover that the relief on business rates is coming down from 75% to 40%. For many businesses, in real terms, that means a doubling or more of the business rates they pay, and we cannot see that in isolation—it comes on top of many other pressures.
The increase in the national living wage is a good thing. The national living wage has been a very successful policy that, since 2015, has reduced the number of people in work on low pay from one in five to less than one in 10. However, I am afraid that the further increase in the national living wage—which I welcome—comes with things that I do not welcome, particularly the great extra cost pressure on employer’s national insurance contributions. A lot of nonsense has been talked about whether that counts as a tax on working people. Everybody knows that in the end, employer taxes on labour only ever show through in lower employment figures or wages lower than they otherwise would have been. On top of that, there are the French-style labour laws. While higher employer’s national insurance contributions may result in lower employment at any individual institution, the effect of the business rates hike will be that some establishments will close altogether.
Before I sit down, I want to say a word about schools, a topic on which impassioned speeches have been made by Members across the House. Most of what colleagues have said will probably be discussed again on Wednesday, when the Finance Bill has its Second Reading—I can assure the Minister that we will be back for that debate, too. Relatively speaking, the measures in this Bill are small compared with the VAT changes. This Bill is projected to eventually raise £70 million for the Treasury and another £70 million for local authorities, compared with £1.6 billion through the VAT hike. These measures also have a relatively small effect on displacement into state schools, but let us be clear: there is still displacement into state schools. That is a cost to the state, but more importantly, when it comes to individual places, it will be a strain on some of our local school systems, on class sizes and, ultimately, on parents’ prospects of getting the first choice for their child—the school they want to go to.
Although colleagues on both sides of the House have said that we cannot talk about the rates alone, but have to put them together with VAT, there are four things happening this year that will increase the amount of money going out of independent schools into the Exchequer. Business rates is one of them; VAT is the second; the third is the rise in employer’s national insurance contributions, which will have a big effect on this sector; and the fourth is the five-percentage-point increase in employer contributions through the teachers’ pension scheme. I estimate that for most schools, that measure on its own accounts for about 3.5% of total costs. All this matters because of the uneven effect it will have on displacements into state schools. Whether a person is in Salford or in Surrey, in Bristol or in Bury, they may find that great and unexpected strains are put on the schools in their area.
This measure, as well as the VAT measure, will also have a disproportionate effect on low-cost faith schools, many of which rely partly on donations to keep going. Those are not businesses that are in some way well endowed; they are doing something because they believe it serves the needs of their faith, something that they cannot find in the state sector. Some of those schools are charging less than the cost of the average state school place in our country, and it seems bizarre that this Government wish to hammer them. It will also create a two-tier charity system in which some charities can be disfavoured fiscally even while complying with their charitable obligations and serving their communities. It is a new and most unwelcome example of state overreach, and I will be voting against the Bill this evening.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)
I will base much of my contribution on the latter part of this Bill, which deals with private schools. However, before I go into that, I welcome the changes that the Minister is proposing through this legislation that will massively benefit our high streets. The reality is that the past 14 years saw our high streets devastated by the previous Government. In particular, I welcome the permanent lowering of business rates in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, which I think will be a huge boost to our high streets.
On the schools part of the debate, it would be remiss of me not to start by mentioning the 14 years of brutal Tory cuts that have led us to this moment, in which state schools are hanging on by a thread. They were abandoned for 14 years by a Government who brought zero investment to schooling—who simply watched the sector struggle through the covid-19 pandemic and left school buildings laden with asbestos or crumbling concrete. They knew that teachers were paying out of their own pockets for school supplies and food for hungry students, but instead of supporting them, the previous Government chose to attack public workers who were close to breaking point. Teachers have long paid the price, leaving the education system in droves, and can we blame them, given the treatment they have had over the past 14 years? In my constituency of Bradford East alone, 95% of schools have faced cuts to per pupil funding—cuts of £15.6 million since 2010. That is over £680 less per pupil.
As such, it is refreshing to finally see a Government share my values and my commitment to not leave state schools at breaking point, with a clear plan to deliver a much-needed lifeline directly to those schools by ending private schools’ eligibility for business rates charitable rate relief and VAT relief. The Minister was right to note that VAT relief is dealt with in a separate piece of legislation that is yet to come before this House, but both are connected in this debate, so I will also make mention of the VAT relief that private schools currently enjoy.
Frankly, the £1.5 billion that will be raised will go towards improving the education and life outcomes of all children by funding the recruitment of thousands more teachers and much-needed breakfast clubs for children. Many will welcome the Government ending the discount on education that the richest schools and the richest parents currently get, because what kind of Government arrange concessions for the wealthiest while working-class children go hungry as they learn? Despite some of the arguments we have heard and will hear, that is not a society that champions freedom of choice; it is one where the wealth bracket of someone’s parents, their postcode and their school determines the success of their life. If we let this inequality entrench itself any longer, we will never be able to end it.
I fully understand and endorse the spirit of the decision to close the tax loophole on private schools, but I also note the growing fear and concern in my constituency and other constituencies, particularly for the smaller independent and faith schools that, as we should also recognise, provide excellent and often specialised schooling for children. That is why I am pleased that the Government have confirmed that, where private schools are charities that provide education for children with education, health and care plans, they will retain the charitable relief, as they rightly should. My view is that the impact on smaller independent and faith schools should be considered too, and I firmly believe that it is not in the spirit of this legislation to punish them. We should draw a clear distinction.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight the impact on small schools, which often have pretty low fees, so is he going to vote against the Bill tonight? The spirit of this legislation is to hit everything in the private sector, as if every institution was Eton, when he knows and we know that they are anything but.
Imran Hussain
The right hon. Gentleman is a brave soul because he often tries to defend the indefensible. He and I have often sparred between these Benches, but I would say to him that the place he comes from and the place I come from are distinctly different. I support the spirit and ethos of this legislation because I do not think it is right to give tax concessions and subsidies to the richest in society while the poorest of our kids go hungry in schools, so we come from different places. If he lets me make the point about where I am coming from about genuinely smaller and faith schools, I think it may at least answer part of his question.
When we talk about these schools, let us be clear that the average fees for some of the smaller schools are about £3,000, which is a great deal less than the average. They are maintained through community support and donations, and they are not in the same league as the Etons of this world. They do not reproduce class inequalities, and in fact they enable some of the most deprived communities to flourish. It would be a travesty if these schools were inadvertently punished by a decision designed to tackle the same inequality that some of them work so hard to break down.
If we do not consider the impact on them, the schools charging the lowest fees, which are often located in extremely deprived communities, will suffer and, sadly, the children whose working-class parents have often saved up for many years to get them into these schools will have to leave. Again, while I of course support children moving from that sector into the state sector, the reality is that 14 years of underfunding and under-investment have left us with serious capacity issues in the state sector, which is something Conservative Members may want to address when they speak.
I want to take this opportunity to recognise the massive contributions that faith schools make to society. I have a number of Muslim faith schools that do some excellent work in my constituency, and I want to put on the record my thanks to them for all they do. I must therefore urge Ministers to put in safeguards for smaller independent and faith schools, many of which, sadly, will not survive the policy in its current form. This can be achieved, because I believe the money that would be generated from the smallest of these schools is not at a level that would have an impact on the overall spirit of this legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you are staring at me in a very telling way—although there is no time limit, I know that look. To conclude, I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot keep funding tax breaks for the top end of society while neglecting the rest. This is something I have spoken on and championed my whole life, and I believe this policy is the right one for our state schools. However, I must urge the Government to reconsider, and not let smaller independent and faith schools, which are some of the lowest-charging schools, to pay the price. I must urge Ministers to listen to their concerns, and put in safeguards as this and other relevant Bills progress through to their next stages.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I own a high street café.
I am proud that there are so many independent shops and high streets in my constituency of Frome and East Somerset. Midsomer Norton, in particular, epitomises the traditional British high street, with haberdashery, hardware and craft shops. On the other side of the constituency, people need only take a stroll through Frome to stumble across independent cafés, bookshops and tailors. We know that high streets are the centre of local economies and places for community cohesion. They are idiosyncratic to the needs of the communities they serve, and offer local jobs and training opportunities. They also provide social goods. For example, Denude is a zero waste shop in Frome that helps support the local community to live more sustainably.
Yet for the last nine years, small businesses and local high streets have felt the burden of economic instability and other pressures. The shops and businesses that still exist have fought hard to protect themselves, and they have in many ways defied the odds. They have had to adapt to changing consumer trends, compete with the rise of online retail giants, navigate covid-19, and survive the mini-Budget and the subsequent impact on mortgage rates and disposable income, which is still being felt. While still feeling the impact of all this, some businesses will in the short term have to pay both high business rates and national insurance contributions. Small businesses have proven that they are excellent at adapting, but I really do fear the impact that some of these changes may have on our local high streets and independent shops.
Businesses I have spoken to over the last few months often use the phrase that they are “only one bad month away from closure.” While permanently lowering business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure is a step in the right direction, it is still not enough to help our flourishing high streets thrive again, and we know that many important small businesses fall outside these categories. The Lib Dems want to see a complete overhaul of the business rates system. Instead of targeting small businesses, which are the backbone of our high streets and local communities, we want to replace business rates with a new, fairer levy on commercial property owners rather than their tenants. Small businesses can adapt, but not endlessly, and I fear that at the moment too much is being thrown at them with insufficient support.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
At the general election, businesses in my community were crying out for change. They felt the need for stability and certainty after more than a decade of chaos and incompetence had hit them all hard. One of the things they welcomed was Labour’s pledge to reform business rates and ensure that the online giants, which suck so much out of our local economies, would pay their fair share. Small town high streets such as those in Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate desperately need the support that a change in business rates will give them. It is vital that we create a fairer business rates regime to support investment and protect our high streets.
More widely, I heard real anxiety on the doorstep about the need for more teachers in our schools and access to quality education, so often unavailable for the 94% of children who go to state schools. Reforming business rates for private schools, which serve only 6% of the population, makes sense; it is carefully costed and will make a difference to so many children in Thanet and across our country.
I hope, in particular, that this reform is a driver to increase access to the creative disciplines so that children can learn to expand, develop and harness their imaginations, appreciate the arts in all their forms, with good-quality creative education delivered by qualified teachers who love their subject. It should go without saying, but it does need to be said, that children raised with good-quality creative education have the potential to go on to contribute to our local economy through the creative industries, including by starting their own businesses.
Our business rates system has disincentivised investment and created huge burdens on our high streets. The Conservative party created a cliff edge for high street businesses across the country as temporary reliefs were due to end. Providing certainty through a 40% relief rate and the freezing of the small business tax multiplier is very welcome.
I welcome the Chancellor’s intention to permanently lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure; this is crucial for constituencies such as East Thanet, where creative industries and tourism businesses are crying out for help. I have been working with the Ramsgate empty shop campaign to revive the town’s high street. Despite its wonderful heritage, thriving creative community and extraordinary environmental assets, Ramsgate’s local economy is far too seasonal, and that makes running a business all year round harder. That in turn has driven many businesses to the brink and left the high street echoing with the silence of empty shops. Spaces that should be seen as an opportunity for entrepreneurs have become a sign of desolation. That must change.
The importance of business rate changes is also highlighted in the other aspect of this Bill: the removal of private schools rates relief. Every parent wants the best for their children; that impulse is not exclusive to those who choose to send their children to private school. There is nothing wrong with ambition. If we are to enable all families to fulfil their ambitions, we must ensure that they all have access to the very best quality education. It is our duty as a society and a country to ensure that all those children’s talents, aptitudes and interests are nurtured.
Vast swathes of working-class children do not have access to the kind of education that would be genuinely transformative. For example, the last Government cut back radically the amount of arts education in state schools, locking working-class children out of the opportunities to find their talent, tap into their imagination, and learn how to play an instrument, express themselves through dance, wield a paint brush, work with clay or look deeply and critically at the world around them and respond to it. They pursued a curriculum that damaged the prospects of those children.
In contrast, private schools know that creative education is good for children’s wellbeing and academic outcomes. That is why they put so many resources into developing it. That is why they allocate the resources, build the assets and invest in the teaching staff to ensure that their children get that access to the creative arts that contribute to society in every dimension.
Unsurprisingly, 40% of those working in the film, TV and music industries were educated at private schools. Who knows the amount of untapped talent in the 94% of children in state schools that we have lost as a country because of the actions of the last Government. It is estimated that the creative sector in the UK is worth £125 billion and employs 2.3 million people. We are limiting ourselves as a country by not giving every child access to creative education. Imagine how much more we could be producing in economic prosperity as well as greater wellbeing if those children had the same access that the 6% have. So, yes, it is right to find that money from the private schools who serve the 6%. Yes, it is right that we find the money for more and better teachers in state schools with a love of the arts; with an enthusiasm for sharing their appreciation and skills; and with an aptitude for spotting talent, rewarding effort and encouraging creativity.
Those small businesses in my community also want to know that the children in our schools become young adults as fully rounded products of our education system, with their imagination, skills and discipline developed ready for the kind of work in the creative industries that drives our economy locally, nationally and globally. If for nothing else, I urge the House to vote for these changes for our children, our small businesses and our economy.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats would like to see a much more fundamental reform of business rates. Although there are promises of further steps, it is disappointing that our new Government, with such a large majority, are not being more ambitious now.
Our high streets will remain in deep trouble. The retail, hospitality and leisure sector will now have only 40% relief instead of 75%, but sectors such as manufacturing, which is having such a difficult time adjusting to a post-Brexit world, will get zero relief. National insurance contributions will be greatly increased, with taxes having to be paid before a business even makes a profit.
On top of that, we all know that our high streets—such as Witney’s beautiful high street, as seen in The Times today—are being eaten alive by online retail. We need to do much more to level the playing field between online and offline retail, but this adjustment is a very, very blunt instrument for doing so. We need to be much more precise about going after big tech and taxing it appropriately.
There are a few steps that we would like to see. A commercial landowner levy that taxes just the land value of commercial sites, not productive investment, has worked very effectively in Australia, Denmark and Estonia. A land value tax is much more effective at capturing the publicly created uplifts in land value, rather than leaving it to landowners to pocket them, sometimes with enormous gains. This is largely how our Victorian forebears built our railway network, and it is how countries around the world, ranging from Japan and Korea to much of northern Europe, fund new transport links—something that we want to do between Oxford and Witney.
Scrapping stamp duties on commercial land would make our market in land simpler and more efficient. Switching the tax to the owner rather than the tenant would spare 500,000 small and medium-sized enterprises the admin burden of property taxation and would save money and time in collecting the tax. Ending the exemptions on empty and derelict premises would incentivise action rather than inaction.
We very much hope that the new Government will follow through on their promises to take further substantial steps. After all, they have the votes.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Over the weekend, I watched my second favourite film. At the end, the main character, or at least the main character in my opinion, utters the immortal line that
“the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
When I consider the ending of tax exemption and charitable status for private schools, I often consider that line. We want all children to have the best chance in life to succeed, and 94% of children in the UK attend state school. Like every child, they deserve the highest quality of support and teaching. I also believe that ending the tax break on private schools will help to raise the revenue needed to fund our education priorities for the next year.
But then I realised that the phrase “the needs of the many” does not quite cover it. The Conservative party talks about choice, but there are really only two reasons why parents would choose to pay tens of thousands of pounds each year to send their children to private school rather than state school—maybe three if they go to Eton. Those reasons are longer opening times and boarding facilities, and a lack of faith in local state provision. We want to take away the choice to go to private school, but not in the way that the Conservative party keeps parroting; we want to make state schools so good that no one feels the need to send their children to private school. There should be no necessity for private schools.
I think all Members in the Chamber, even on the Opposition Benches, will acknowledge the issues with SEND funding in schools. It has been underfunded. I was lucky enough to visit Newhall primary school in my constituency on Friday. I saw the work it is doing to support its SEND students, even though it is not a specialist SEND school. However, it could only do that with a small number of students. Imagine what it could do with additional funding opportunities: it could help so many more.
What many people fail to recognise is that these private schools have the choice to absorb some of the tax. We are not here to punish students or parents. Schools can choose to absorb some of the tax, in the same way that the state sector has been asked to do for the past 14 years.
Graham Stuart
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). Many private schools actually charge less than the funding that goes to state schools. Every school is not Eton. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the most vulnerable schools and the children therein? Should the proper design of any policy not be grounded in looking at the most vulnerable rather than the strongest?
Chris Vince
It is very exciting to take my first intervention from an Opposition Member, but I think the right hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the point that I am trying to make. I am saying that we need to support the state sector to be as good as it possibly can so that parents do not feel the need to send their children to private school.
The Conservatives groan when we mention the £22 billion black hole, but I do not even need to mention the £22 billion black hole—in fact, I will not mention the £22 billion black hole. What I will say, however, is that we have high streets that are already boarded up and school buildings left crumbling. I visit state schools in my constituency all the time and I see children of all ages and abilities full of compassion, intelligence and potential. I had the fantastic opportunity to visit St Mark’s Catholic school in my constituency again last Friday. The students asked fantastic questions. If they are listening now, I emphasise that they can aspire to achieve everything they want in life. However, classrooms are overfilled and underfunded. Paint is peeling off the walls, and some schools—not that particular school—have faulty heating. Despite all those things, the pupils could not be filled with more excitement or more desire to learn and understand.
I can see that you are looking at me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I had better get on. Labour is making the fair choice to support small business, to give every child the chance to succeed and to protect the public finances. I will finish with a line from my favourite film of all time, “A Matter of Life and Death”. At the beginning, David Niven says:
“Politics: Conservative by nature, Labour by experience.”
I am delighted that on 4 July, plenty of people went to the polls with that view.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Curiously, the hon. Member did not explain the movie he referred to in opening his speech.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Carrdus school in my constituency is a small private school—it is not an Eton and it is not a Harrow—but it has already announced that it may be forced to close mid-academic year because of the Budget and this Bill.
I met the headteacher the other day. She is a passionate leader who is absolutely devastated by this. She mentioned many of the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made about the four main areas. She explained that 80% of the school’s costs are on staff salaries, so the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions is crippling. The changes to business property relief are challenging, and imposing VAT on school fees means that the uplift in fees is unsustainable for many parents. They simply cannot absorb this tax.
After these consistent hits, the school faces little choice but, potentially, to close. That means that 110 children, including children with EHCPs, will now have to plan to be rehomed into different schools, with all the disruption that that causes. The burden also falls on our local councils, which now have the responsibility to find different state places somewhere that will take those children with EHCPs. This is happening when council budgets are already stretched. Our state schools are at capacity, and this will lead to more harm for many children.
The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) mentioned the importance of creative opportunities. I entirely agree that the arts are vital, but the Budget also hits opportunities for access to the creative arts. The Northamptonshire Music and Performing Arts Trust is a charitable organisation that offers children of all backgrounds access to lessons, but the increases in employers’ national insurance and the business property reliefs make it so much harder to offer those lessons. NMPAT is genuinely struggling. It would be devastating to lose such opportunity for our next generation. Regardless of politics, we must remember that it is our children’s education that is being penalised by these measures.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
I want to speak specifically about the removal of charitable tax status from private schools. We know that the total proportion of schoolchildren who are in private school is 6%. That means that 94% of children are not. Does that 6% still matter? Of course those children matter. I believe that every child should have access to a high-quality education; I say that having spent years working on the frontline in state education under the previous Labour Government, where the framework for all children’s services was “Every child matters”.
Forgive me if I feel a little angry about some of the chuntering that is going on, because I worked in frontline education when the coalition Government came in. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were working together—and in the first 18 months, what did they cut? They cut the education maintenance allowance, which supported some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children I was working with to go to sixth form. The disadvantaged subsidy pathfinder project: cut. The National Careers Service: cut. School sport partnerships: cut. Youth services: cut. Sure Start services: cut. Sure Start maternity grants: cut. That was all within the first 18 months. That caused the rot to set in within our education system, and it is the very reason why I am standing here today.
At the school gates in the morning—this is a bit of reality—when I drop off my son, I stand side by side with parents juggling jobs and home life, who have ambitions for their child that know no boundaries. Every parent I have ever worked with wants better for their child. Whether someone is financially able to send their child to private school does not change that, yet there is a huge disparity in choice. State schools are struggling. Department for Education figures released in January this year show that last year 13% of local authority maintained schools were in deficit. That is 4% higher than in 2021-22, and there are reports that 19 of those schools are in Nottinghamshire.
In my constituency of Sherwood Forest, the Stop School Cuts campaign estimates that 69% of schools have faced cuts to pupil funding since 2010. That is having a huge impact on the lives of children in my constituency and on their health, wellbeing and mental health. One area of my constituency has the highest rate of male suicide in the whole country.
I regularly meet schools in my constituency. I see how hard the staff work to ensure that children still get a quality education despite the challenges that they face. One of the main challenges is funding. I want to illustrate what that means in day-to-day life. Leen Mills primary school is a fantastic school serving its community and some of the most disadvantaged children living in my community. It is unable to afford acceptable buildings and classrooms for its children to learn in—ones that facilitate learning and are comfortable for pupils and staff. Pupils have to walk outside between buildings—temporary buildings—to use the toilets in all weather, come rain or shine. That should not be the case, yet it is so hard for the school to meet the most basic requirements without having to put up a fight.
The changes to private schools’ charitable tax status will generate additional funding so that we can improve our public services for all children and young people. With more funding for schools such as Leen Mills primary school, all pupils, no matter where they live or how much their parents have, would have the right to access a safe and comfortable learning environment.
The changes are also about making sure that we have enough teachers, in particular ones who know and understand SEN provision. We know—I have seen it—that if we better invest in our public mainstream schools, that will drastically impact pupils with SEN and those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. It should not ever be that a parent’s only option is an independent private school. That is an indictment of the previous Government—the rot set in with the coalition Government —whose failed education system continues to fail children.
The truth is that education in the state sector has been neglected. How do I know? I see it as a parent. Today, there is a 20% difference between pupils who have access to free school meals—an indicator of poverty—and those who do not at GCSE. That is not an education system achieving as it should.
I see this every day as a parent, as a governor and as a professional. When we get it right, education changes lives and transforms whole communities. This Government will once again transform education so that every child—including every child in my constituency—matters, because education should be a right, not a privilege.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Since becoming a Member of Parliament earlier this year, I have been heartened every time I have heard Ministers confirm that business rates reform is planned. I know what impact business rates can have on town centres through my work as a council leader and my time owning and operating a high street business for nearly 14 years in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole—I do not any more, so I do not need to declare that as an interest. But that was why I was so disappointed to read the Bill, which simply tinkers around the edges and does nothing to fix the foundations of our town centres or about the inequity of business rates between physical and online businesses.
I welcome the higher rate aimed at large warehouses, but it does not go far enough. Those online businesses have sucked the life out of our high streets, and if what the Bill proposes is the extent of the change, it will not support anyone.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is not just favourable business rates that benefit online businesses; they can use tax loopholes to avoid paying the taxes that small businesses pay as a proportion of their profits. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government have other mechanisms for raising such funding?
Vikki Slade
I agree with the hon. Member and thank him for his intervention. I was just about to say that we need a proper tech tax on online businesses, which should be ringfenced to stay in local communities, where councils could use it to support town centres in a way that works for them.
Many councils are not able to keep the business rates accrued in their areas; they are set externally and sent elsewhere to support other communities. That is not understood or even appreciated by local communities. I cannot remember the number of times that, as a local government leader, I was shouted at by people saying, “You’re making all that money as a council.” People think that the councils own the businesses and the properties and that they set the rates. The fact is, they are set elsewhere, and councils do not have the power to provide discounts without having to plug the gap not just for their own areas, but for what they send to Government. That is what real reform would look like.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making some wide-ranging points. I think the Government’s policy in this area is excellent. I remind her that there are a range of other policies that local government can implement. I commend my own local council in Reading, where there has been a lot of work to try to keep local small businesses active in the town centre through planning and a range of other things. It is really important to work with the business community. Would she like to comment on that?
Vikki Slade
Absolutely. We were looking to work with the rental auctions that are coming in. When I was the Lib Dem spokesperson in a Westminster Hall debate a few weeks ago, I was encouraged to hear that they are coming through. I hope that that happens quickly, and that they do not have the loopholes that I feared they would have.
I will move on to my concerns about this policy. We need to ensure that those who profit from businesses pay. Business rates as described in the Bill are not just related to the rateable value but are explicitly linked to the rental value. They bear no relationship to the type of business, its profitability or its broader benefits to the community or to society. I would like to give an example, which I know is accurate because the figures come from the business that I used to own. It predates the retail, hospitality and leisure discount, but that it is not guaranteed to be continued anyway. I think the numbers will startle you.
We owned a café on a high street in an affluent community with an older population, with competition from several sources, including a Costa franchise and a church café, which of course pays no rates. The rent on our café was £25,000 a year. Our rates bill was £19,000. That meant that I was not eligible for a penny of small business rate relief, so my rent and rates bill was around £4,200 a month. In a ward less than three miles away, a café on that high street was being marketed with a rental of just £12,500, and a rateable value of £11,000. Thanks to small business rate relief—I am sure you will say that is a great thing, and it is—it paid no rates, so its fixed outgoings were £1,900.
I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, do not think that we could charge 2.5 times more for a tuna mayo sandwich and a cup of coffee than the café down the road. That is the problem with the way that business rates work. This inequity, and the pressure it put on my business and all those I represented when I chaired the Broadstone chamber of trade and commerce, is what got me into politics. As sad as that is, that is why I got involved and why I stand here today to say to you that the Lib Dems want you to go further. We want business rates replaced with a proper landowner levy, so that it is not the tenants who pay but those who really benefit from the property—the people who own it. The Bill may be a reasonable start, but it does not go far enough. I would love to see you go further.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I say to the hon. Lady that I know she will not have intended to do so, but she said “you” repeatedly, and it was very unclear whether she was addressing me. I suspect that the last time it was to the Minister.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Charitable tax relief is meant to be for organisations that do something for the good of society. They get tax breaks because they are supposed to benefit the public, especially those who need it most. But when we look at private schools, we start to see a problem. These schools are not serving the wider public. They charge eye-watering fees, and the vast majority of people simply cannot afford to send their kids there.
Here is the real issue: private schools are benefiting from a process that should be supporting the whole of society. They get tax breaks worth millions of pounds every year, and what do we get in return? An education system that reinforces and upholds structural inequalities. Meanwhile, state schools—the ones that serve the vast majority of kids—are left to scrape by, struggling with overcrowded classrooms, outdated resources and ever-decreasing funding.
The Bill is redistributive, and it means that the moneys going into private schools will be far better spent improving the chances of all children. I want fairness, as do my constituents, and an equal chance for all our children. Those on the Opposition Benches say, “Private schools give scholarships, do charity work and help kids in need.” But let us be honest: that is a drop in the ocean. Here is the kicker: private schools are not even charities in the true sense of the word. They might not make a profit, but many of them are run by private companies that make money off investments and land. We all know that the largest private schools in the country have no shortage of cash, yet they still get subsidies that could be used to fix the mess left by the previous Government in our state schools. They do not provide a benefit for the public good; they just prop up inequality and drain resources from the schools that serve the vast majority of children.
I welcome the fact that we are taking a good, hard look at the way education works, and we are putting our money where it does the most good: raising aspirations and opportunities for all our children, no matter their background. That has to be our focus.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who spoke for the official Opposition—he is no longer in his place—described the Conservative Government’s approach to supporting business. I was going to say that I listened to him with interest, but I think incredulity would be a better word. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who is no longer in his place, was rather harsh on the Conservatives. He said that they never followed up on their commitments on business and did not have a clear policy on business. The Conservatives had a very clear and pithily described policy on business: it began with f, had k in the middle and ended with the word “business”. And believe me, they delivered on that policy with their post-Brexit trade deal. In case the message had not been rammed home hard enough, they confirmed it with a Budget that played helter-skelter chaos with the economy.
I therefore sympathise with the new Government’s approach in terms of the Budget they are trying to set and in terms of establishing stability. That is something I would want to support, but I am disappointed that I will not be able to vote for the Bill because of the effect it will have on towns like Wellington and Taunton, which will be hit by a triple whammy. Those towns support some great independent schools, which are charities: Taunton school, Wellington school, King’s College and Queen’s College. They sustain around 1,000 jobs in the constituency, many of which are now under threat. Many workers at those schools—cleaners and catering staff—are worried about what is going to happen.
There are then the very serious effects of the rise in national insurance contributions on small businesses, particularly the many small businesses whose rateable value is over £51,000. That is quite typical for SMEs in a high street in this country—at the smaller end, I would suggest. The owner of Mr Miles Tea Room, a superb place to go in my constituency, has written to tell me about the combined effects of the Budget on his business:
“Firstly, all my staff will now see a reduction in the hours they will be scheduled. As a result, no doubt, some will leave. Where many of my employees already earn over the current minimum wage, I will not be able to increase their pay rates by as much as I have done in the past. Secondly, any full-time employees who leave our employment will only be replaced by potentially 2 or 3 part-time employees. Thirdly, I will not be investing in any capital equipment in my kitchen or new decor in my restaurant. Fourthly, there is a serious potential for me to operate on shortened trading hours, thus reducing the vibrancy of the Town Centre.”
He goes on:
“I was cautiously optimistic that a new Labour Government couldn’t possibly be worse than the previous Tory one in terms of lack of support for SMEs. Sadly, in the space of 3 short months this Government has already proved my optimism was misplaced and there will be many casualties over the next 12 months as the new measures take effect.”
I urge the Minister to reconsider both the effect on independent schools, and I am a great supporter of the state school system—
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
There is an independent school in my constituency, Kingswood House school, which has around 50% of its pupils with special educational needs. Many of those pupils do not have an education, health and care plan. Does my hon. Friend agree that schools providing support to so many SEN children should retain their charitable rate relief?
Gideon Amos
I absolutely do agree with my hon. Friend. I am also concerned about the influx of children going to local authorities to apply for EHCPs because they will now need them to get the discount, and about the massive effect that will have on already overstretched local authorities. I worry about how they are going to cope with those applications, over and above the SEN crisis at the moment.
I am a great supporter of state schools, partly because of the record of the Liberal Democrats, who not only ringfenced the education budget in the first years of the coalition, but injected £1.25 billion by inventing the pupil premium, which now injects £3 billion—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) shakes her head, but these are the facts.
Michelle Welsh
The pupil premium funding was actually disadvantage subsidy pathfinder funding, introduced by the previous Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman’s party just changed the name.
Gideon Amos
The pupil premium was new money, and it went into the state school sector. It was £1.25 billion in the first year, and it is worth £3 billion now. It was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto and was delivered as part of our priority for state schools—but I do not believe in state schools just because of party policy. All four of my children attended great state schools in my constituency: Parkfield Primary School, Bishop Fox’s School, and the fantastic Richard Huish College. The idea that the only way to improve state schools is to level down independent schools shows a shocking lack of imagination and a very disappointing approach to education, and education should not be taxed.
The Minister said earlier that those of us who were going for a different approach should be willing to make clear where we would raise the money, and he was right to make that point. The Liberal Democrats have made the same point, and they have made tough decisions in the past. In our manifesto was a very clear Budget spending plan to restore the tax on the big banks’ profits. It was slashed and then taken away in 2018, but simply restoring that single tax would raise £4.2 billion for the economy. I urge the Minister to adopt the principle that if the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden, that should apply in the business sector as much as anywhere else. The big companies, the big banks, the giant online retailers, should be bearing the burden of this Budget, not the small high street firms like Mr Miles in Taunton High Street and the other businesses we have heard about, so I urge the Minister to think further about this.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
National non-domestic rating multipliers: is there any more interesting topic for nearly 9 o’clock on a Monday night? [Interruption.] Quite right: absolutely not. I am sure that the regular readers of my blog would say much the same.
Our system of taxation and local government is the product of evolution and not of design. It has its roots in Elizabethan forms of taxation that have been inherited and altered during the passage of time to adapt to modern realities, and what we are talking about today is yet again adapting to those modern realities. Like many other Members, I am a former local government leader, and I might well have been one of those who were bending the ear of the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), in asking for this change, because it is well overdue. We have heard town centres described as the heart of the community. What do we actually mean by that? Without a clear public space where the whole of society interacts, towns lack identity and a common sense of bonds between them. They tend to fall apart, and we see social degradation.
Council leaders such as me have spent the last 14 years trying to adapt to the new realities of our economy, spending a fortune in public money and investing countless hours—including countless officer hours—in trying to reinvigorate our town centres to ensure that they live on for the next generation, not simply because that is what we think best but because, overwhelmingly, it is the response that people say they want for their areas. They want their town centres to be vibrant again, and to be a fundamental part of their communities. The problem is that no matter what we do on the ground, no matter how much effort we put in, we simply cannot overcome the huge cost disparity between online retailing and physical retailing in the high street.
One would expect that, where these challenges exist, the state would use the levers at its disposal to encourage an extra boost for what we consider to be socially beneficial, as opposed to what we consider to be detrimental to society. The proposals under discussion do exactly that. They ensure that the parts of our community that our constituents want, which are fundamental to their identity, survive into the coming decades, while also ensuring that those that no longer have the profit margins they once had—surprise, surprise, in Elizabethan times the most profitable businesses were buildings next to the local church—are given a comparable break.
We have heard a great deal from Opposition Members about what parties in government over the last 14 years could, would or should have done given the opportunity, but I am sorry to say that they did not do any of it. As a council leader during that period, I was regularly making the case for changes. We were promised changes at various times, but they never happened. The one thing that we did end up with was full business rate retention. My local authority collects £120 million worth of business rates each year and we get to keep £4 million, which puts paid to the idea that words have any real meaning when they are used in connection with some of these policies.
This is the single biggest change that can be introduced to ensure that our high streets survive in the future. I am very proud that, regardless of whatever idealised form the Opposition may wish to imagine could exist, the policy being delivered in the Bill enables us to support the businesses that our communities desperately want, and will ensure that businesses that can afford to carry a bigger load do so.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I rise in support of the majority of the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Reducing the high street business rates relief from 75% to 40% will devastate the small businesses on my high streets in Batley and Dewsbury, and many of them will not be able to absorb the costs, resulting in job losses and closures. My primary topic, however, will be the implications of the Bill for private schools that do not draw their students from the richest families in our society.
When I spoke out against the introduction of VAT in previous debates, I was accused of not wanting the best for 94% of students in our country. I absolutely love state schools, and I visited Boothroyd primary academy during UK Parliamentary Week last week. The children were so excited to meet me, but I think I was more excited to meet them and their teachers. I also visited a private faith school that charges, I believe, less than £3,000 per pupil and spoke to the pupils there. There are private schools that serve poor working-class families, and there is a reason why these families have chosen to send their children to such schools. Parents would be penalised if we removed that choice. The other challenge that I have in my constituency is that schools are bursting at the seams, with very few, if any, places available to parents. Many children are going to their second or third-choice schools, away from their catchment area.
Let me come back to the removal of private schools’ charitable status, which is an extra burden on top of charging VAT at 20%. Students at such schools overwhelmingly come from low-income families, and this reality often gets lost in the debate about private schools. We are all very aware of their elitist nature. With average fees of over £15,000, rising to £50,000, they service only the children of the wealthiest. It is not the children of the wealthy, however, who attend independent schools in constituencies such as Dewsbury and Batley, where faith schools are often the only option for families who cannot get their children into local state schools due to demand, or where state schools cannot meet their religious and spiritual needs. Those families are overwhelmingly from low-income backgrounds, and the removal of business rates charitable rate relief from private schools will result in a further increase in their fees, in addition to the proposed VAT. For wealthy families, that might not be a problem. For the families in my constituency, it is a major problem.
In addition, the measures will pose a risk to the future viability of many private schools, which often charge just enough to exist. I ask the Government to consider that class is a reality in the discussion about private schools, but not in the way it is commonly presented. In many communities, faith-based schools are not the preserve of the wealthy; they overwhelmingly educate the children of ordinary working-class families. The Government’s impact assessment of the proposals shows that the average cost, per school, of the removal of charitable status ranges from £27,000 to £179,000 a year for faith schools.
This issue is more complicated than measures to raise tax, and it feels to me that some important subtleties have been lost in the debate. For many of my constituents, faith schools not only provide high-quality education; they also provide children of faith with the relative freedom to express their faith and identity without fear of stigma or recrimination. I feel that none of this reality was properly considered when we discussed VAT on private schools, and now, through abolishing business rates charitable rate relief for private schools, that imbalance continues. The Government have an opportunity now to redress that imbalance, and I request that consideration be given to extending the exclusions for special needs schools to include faith-based schools that draw their students from low-income backgrounds. One easy solution would be to exempt from VAT schools that charge below per-pupil state school allowance, and allow them to retain their charitable status.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Last week I visited Jacqueline, a franchise owner who, through sheer hard work and working her way up through the ranks, now runs a number of restaurant outlets in and around Mansfield. I witnessed at first hand her dedication to her business through the manner in which she motivates her staff as a business leader. For leisure and hospitality businesses such as Jacqueline’s, trading is tough, and has been made harder by the circumstances they were trading in—namely, the uncertainties surrounding business rates under the previous Government.
Locally, I stood on a platform to focus on five specific issues across Mansfield and Warsop, one of which was to help improve our town centre. Many in my local town centre are represented by the Mansfield business improvement district, and when I meet up with them, as I often do—sometimes together with representatives of the Shopkeepers’ Campaign—business rates come up time and again. It is clear that we need a fairer system that does not put an unreasonable burden on the small businesses that power our high streets, and that is why I welcome the reforms to business rates that are being made through the Bill.
The Bill will bring certainty and fairness to the retail, hospitality and leisure businesses that have been disproportionately disadvantaged by the current system. I am further pleased to see that the Bill creates the powers needed to ensure that we can make good on our promise to introduce permanently lower rates for those retail, hospitality and leisure properties that make up the backbone of our high streets, including in my constituency of Mansfield, and to pay for this with a higher multiplier for the most valuable properties.
As well as speaking with local businesses every week, I also visit schools across my constituency. Last week I visited a primary school that has not turned on the heating in the main part of its building for over 18 months and is reliant on the benevolence of local businesses to provide an essential breakfast club. It simply should not have to be that way, with schools relying on local businesses, and I am sure that it will not be that way under this Labour Government.
In my Mansfield constituency, more than one in four pupils are eligible for and claiming free school meals, and the schools they are taught in are crying out for additional resources to help those young people. We cannot afford to offer tax breaks to private schools operating as businesses when our children’s state education system, which is relied on by over 95% of the children in my constituency, is crumbling. That is why I will be voting to support this Bill, which will end those tax breaks on private schools and help to raise the revenue needed to fund this Government’s education priorities.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
This Bill has several issues, but its glaring failure is the lack of immediate support for the many small and medium-sized businesses outside the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors that are important to our national economy and our local high streets.
The Government claim that they would like to have a level playing field between the high street and the online giants, but this Bill fails to properly address the issue. Many small businesses fall outside the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors and will therefore see no benefit from the Bill. These small businesses need their tax burden to be reduced too.
Labour’s plan to increase national insurance contributions and business rates will prove too much for many small businesses, including charities in my constituency that tell me their increased national insurance contributions will seriously affect them and reduce the amount of money they can spend on supporting the residents of Wokingham.
Small businesses in my constituency have seen a huge increase in both rent and costs, and they had to do their best to survive under a Conservative Government who trashed the economy. As a result of Conservative policies over the last few years, a household with a mortgage now has at least £6,000 a year less to spend on our local high streets where our friends and neighbours work. What these small businesses need now is a proper overhaul and reform of the business rates system, not a Bill that meddles around the edges to provide ineffective and short-term solutions, and they do not need an increase in employer’s national insurance contributions.
My constituency has approximately 3,585 businesses outside the retail, hospitality and leisure industries, which is roughly 70% of the businesses in Wokingham. This make-up is not too dissimilar from the national picture, so the Bill will be ineffective for businesses across the UK.
The Bill fails to offer support to the vast majority of businesses that desperately need their tax burdens to be reduced. It is clear that this Bill does not do enough, and so many businesses and charities that are so important to our high streets will be left to absorb all the extra taxation levied on them by the Government.
This Bill will not fix the broken business rates system, and it will seriously damage the retail and small business sector in our economy.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak on this Bill, which introduces the powers required to reform business rates. The Government are committed to a fairer business rates system that protects the high street and supports investment, and I welcome the fact that, in the Budget, the Chancellor set out her intention to permanently lower rates for the retail, hospitality and leisure properties that make up the backbone of our high streets, including Queen Street in Morley. Of course, this will be paid for by a higher multiplier for the most valuable properties.
However, I want to focus on another aspect of the Bill. I am a teacher, so I will talk about the provision that removes the charitable relief on business rates for many, but not all, private schools. This runs alongside our general election commitment to introduce VAT on private school fees, which we will be discussing on Second Reading of the Finance Bill on Wednesday. Both measures will, of course, increase funding for state schools.
During the general election campaign in July, and in the years leading up to it, I spoke to many parents in my constituency about the removal of tax breaks for private schools. Whatever their stance was on the policy, it was clear to me that every single parent I spoke to wanted the best for their children. It did not matter whether they considered themselves wealthy or not, whether they earned enough to send their children to a private school or not, or whether they lived in New Farnley or Thorpe. Every single one of them wanted the best education for their children.
Like, I suspect, almost every Member of this House, I want an amazing education for every child, irrespective of where they come from or who they are. That is exactly what Government Members are committed to delivering, using the revenue that this Bill, and the Finance Bill on Wednesday, will raise. We live in a country where 94% of all children attend state schools. I fully accept that the parents of the 6% of children who go to private schools have worked very hard to put them there, but you know who else works hard, Madam Deputy Speaker? The parents of kids who go to state schools. They work just as hard in their jobs and professions, yet some may never be in the financial position to send their children to private schools. Those children deserve the best too, so it falls on the Government to take the decisions necessary to improve our state schools.
State schools were plagued by so many crises under the previous Government. I saw the SEND crisis, the concrete crisis and the recruitment and retention crisis myself. In my previous job as head of maths at an inner-city school, if I put out a job advert I would be lucky if I got one applicant per position, and that was not just because of me. That must change, and we must raise the money to change it. Taken together with our commitment to introduce VAT on private school fees, which I accept we are not debating today, the extra net revenue raised from this policy will be essential to recruit the 6,500 new teachers we promised the electorate we would recruit in the general election. Every child deserves to be taught by a qualified teacher in every single subject.
Alongside our commitments to roll out free breakfast clubs, invest in SEND provision, rebuild the school estate, and increase per pupil funding in real terms, we are choosing to back our children, back our schools and back our country. Given the crisis in SEND, I welcome that those in private schools mainly concerned with the provision of the education of children with EHCPs will retain their charitable business rates relief. By removing the tax breaks enjoyed by most private schools, however, we can invest in our state schools. I will be able to say to the parents I spoke to in Leeds South West and Morley that we are giving their children the education they deserve. I will be able to say that we took decisive action to break down barriers to opportunity for all, and by voting for today’s Bill and the measures in the Finance Bill, I will be able to say to them that we found the funding to fund our state schools properly.
I know that Opposition Members are opposed to these changes. However, the Leader of the Opposition has also stated that she does not object to the positive parts of the Budget, including our investment in education, so my question to Opposition Members would be: “How are you going to pay for it? What exactly is your plan? We know what you oppose, but what do you support?” I think that the Conservatives have made something like £12 million of uncosted commitments every single hour since they elected their new leader. It is hard not to conclude that we are dealing with the same old Conservative party. It is no longer a serious party of government; however, Labour is.
Education is central to our mission of expanding opportunity, enriching our society and empowering our students to be the best possible versions of themselves. Whether they live in Churwell, Gildersome, East Ardsley or Lofthouse does not matter. This Labour Government are getting on with our mandate of delivering change and ensuring that all our children have the opportunity to fulfil their true potential.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I grew up helping my mum on the shop floor of small gift shops, and my memories of the wonderful work that she did to build that business and the staff she employed is a real benefit to my life. I also saw how hard she worked and how hard things got. She went down from four shops to one, then came across the classic problem of whether she was able to keep her shop open and battle with online retailers. The costs went up, business rates were too much, and she decided to close and go online.
Frankly, I am tired of us not taking support for small businesses seriously and making a change. This Government had an opportunity to make a difference, but they have squandered opportunity when it comes to business rates reform. I see the impact on businesses in my high streets. I have the privilege of representing several magnificent high streets, in Tring, Berkhamsted, Harpenden, Wheathampstead and Redbourn, but businesses there are struggling yet again. Michelle from Graze Life told me time and again about the impact the cost of business rates had on her business; eventually, she closed her high street shop down. I spoke to Peter from the Oakman Group, a booming business that started in Tring in 2007. The company is a rising star and has received prizes for being one of the best places to work for employees, but Peter now says it is on the edge of extinction. He employs 1,200 people but he says the Budget, including business rates changes, will have an impact of up to £2 million on his business, so he will look to close many of his premises.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentions several businesses in her constituency that will be impacted by the changes. I spoke recently to a small restaurant owner in my constituency. They have six restaurants across the south of England and they say that the business rates changes, plus other Budget measures, will cost their business £150,000 just to do what they are doing today. Does she agree with me that that will not encourage such businesses to invest in the UK, open new restaurants and help grow the economy, which we all want?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. That is the message I am hearing again and again. Another business owner in Tring said that they would love to open on the high street but they just cannot afford it. The broken business rates system is affecting our businesses, the people who work there and our communities, which are losing out on fantastic local businesses.
The Minister talked about building a confidence to invest, but business rates directly tax capital investment, rather than taxing profits or fixed stock of land. That needs to change. I reiterate the Liberal Democrats’ call for absolute reform of business rates and the introduction of a commercial landowner levy. That will tax the land value of commercial sites, not productive investments, and boost that productive investment, support our local businesses and help communities and local employers.
Many families have written to me about the changes to charitable rate relief for private schools. I support the calls from the Government Benches to improve all state schools, but parents decide to send their children to private schools for many reasons, including special educational needs, supporting their children’s specialist skills or because of bullying. We have a choice about how we raise that money. Instead of taxing the banks, is it fair to be taxing the education of other children to raise that money?
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Just a few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition highlighted a £2.4 billion black hole in the local government budget, arising from the recent Budget. Some £3.7 billion of extra spending was announced, with only £1.3 billion of funding to pay for it. And in this Bill we begin to see how this Government propose to fill that gap. First, they came for the pensioners; then they came for the farmers; then they came for the students; then they came for the employers; and now they are coming for our high streets, our pubs and our shops, with another whammy of tax rises.
Let us not pretend that this is an essential step. The choices that were made by the Chancellor and this Government in their Budget are driving up inflation and borrowing costs, with the Government borrowing a record amount last month. They are driving up employment costs and councils will be hit, just as they are hitting the rest of our economy.
I reflect that the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), said in 2023:
“Pubs are the beating heart or the anchor of many communities, and the place where people can get together to tackle loneliness and isolation.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 238.]
Indeed, those are sentiments that many Labour Members have expressed in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall recently. But all those Members who came here to express their support and champion their local pub are about to vote for a Bill that, on average, will put up its taxes by more than £5,500 a year. All this from a Government who promised to replace business rates! Indeed, Rachel from accounts—I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I mean Rachel from complaints admin—went so far as to promise in 2021 to abolish them.
We all know from personal experience, whether in our own families or in our former lives in local government, the value of the diversity of our education system. We know about the increase in attainment brought about by the huge growth in the number of independent schools, in the form of academies, started under the last Labour Government and developed under the previous Government. But we continue to see this spiteful class war attack on schools, and this Bill continues Labour’s war on education.
Several Liberal Democrat Members have mentioned Britain’s former membership of the European Union, and of course this measure to become the only country in Europe to tax education would be illegal under EU law. The Bill still does not fully consider the needs of our special needs schools. Many have a mix of fully private and EHCP-funded pupils, and the balance will change over time. An example is the Gesher school in my constituency, which provides for a significant number of children on the autistic spectrum. One year nearly 100% may be privately funded, and the next year the vast majority will be EHCP-funded. The Bill simply does not usefully answer the question of how such settings will pay their taxes.
Several Members around the Chamber, including on the Labour Benches, have set out their serious concerns about the impact on small faith schools. The Government face ongoing legal challenges on the subject, which is incredibly important if our country is to have the diverse base of education that many Muslim communities in particular have struggled to find in the established mainstream state sector.
Labour Members have poured scorn on our education system, but I remind them of the transformation in state education standards over the past 14 years. Having been a local authority lead member for education for that whole time, I would be the last person to claim that everything in the state sector was perfect. However, we saw amazing progress on closing the disadvantage attainment gap in England under the previous Government, in the context of our progress in international league tables. When we left office, class sizes were stable at 26, which is less than the statutory limit that the previous Labour Government introduced.
As in any democracy, we must ask whether the harm that the policy does to some families and to some children’s education is outweighed by its benefits. We should reflect that if every single penny raised by these policies finds its way to state school budgets—although we already know that that will not happen, because they will also be funding the big increase in Ofsted bureaucracy that the Secretary of State set out for us a few short weeks ago—it will cover less than half the cost of a single teacher in each of those state schools, at a time when pupil rolls in England are falling. It is quite clear that the motivation for this policy is spite and class war, and that it has nothing whatever to do with standards in our schools.
If that were not enough, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has set out the very serious concerns about this plan that we hear from across business and particularly from the retail sector and licensed trade, from the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents the small corner shops that enable our residents to access the goods they need at all hours of night and day, to the very biggest retailers such as Sainsbury’s, which have set out in detail the damage that this Budget and this Bill are already doing to workers’ pay and to the prospects for investment, for pay growth and for training and employment growth in this country.
In reflecting on what we can be proud of from the past 14 years, I draw the House’s particular attention to the fact that when the Conservatives left office there were 4 million more people in work in this country than when we took office; youth unemployment was half what it was when we took office; and the proportion of people in this country earning their own living had grown exponentially. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) have set out very clearly the importance of getting it right for our communities. We need to ask whether what is proposed today will generate the transformation. Under the last Conservative Government’s 14 years in office, we saw a 70% increase in school funding, with 77.9% per-pupil growth alone over the past few years, above inflation. It is clear that we have a decent and honourable record on investment in education.
Our retail sector is the largest part of our private sector employment, with nearly 5 million workers. It is clear that businesses in that sector, from the largest to the smallest, are looking at the impact that the Bill will have on their bottom line and are translating that into lower jobs, lower growth and less investment. They are warning this Government very clearly, as Opposition Members do.
I invite the Minister to intervene. Will he tell me whether he is willing to promise that small business rates relief will be maintained? So far, the Government have refused to answer that question, causing a huge degree of concern among small businesses of all kinds up and down our high streets. As the Government move to introduce higher multipliers on business rates, we have to ask whether that signifies that they will also move—as the Labour Government in Wales have done already—to introduce additional higher council tax bands for our residential properties?
It is very clear that as well as coming for the pensioners, coming for the students, coming for the farmers and coming for the employers, the Government are coming for every council tax payer and business rate payer in this country. That is not to fill a black hole, because as we know, the black hole does not exist—[Hon. Members: “Read the OBR report!”]
David Simmonds
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will take the hint. I am sure that Government Members have read the views of the Office for Budget Responsibility as avidly as Opposition Members.
Politics, we know, is about choices. We are proud of the choices that we made, which have enhanced quality of life, wages and the economy in our country. We are deeply concerned about the impact that the Bill, and the wider Budget of which it is a part, will have on our national economy and the prospects of our people. We are concerned about the damage that it will do to the life chances of our children. We are concerned that it continues to leave a black hole in our local government finances. For those reasons, we recognise that this is not really a Budget; it is a bodge-it. That is why we will vote for our reasoned amendment tonight.
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this enthusiastic and impassioned debate. Whether they were speaking from the Government or the Opposition Benches, their speeches were genuinely rooted in the communities that people live in and that we represent. In a way, it has brought out the best of Parliament, but we could not quite avoid the party politics and the rewriting of history from the Conservative party.
Shall we really take lessons on saving the high street from the Conservatives, who oversaw mass bank closures and the decimation of retail on the high street, with 6,000 pubs closing in local communities? They are now the farmers’ friends, but when they were in government they oversaw the closure of 7,000 agricultural businesses. Where were they when the energy market and labour supply challenges were decimating farmers? They were nowhere to be seen. Now, though, they come riding on the horse—[Interruption.] Would the shadow Minister like to intervene? Come in, please.
David Simmonds
Because he was here for it, as I was, the Minister will recall the last Government’s massive intervention in the energy market to keep our lights on in this country. Will he tell the House whether the Government will keep the small business rates relief? Will he answer that question?
Jim McMahon
I can answer this question: it is the impact that matters. Whatever Opposition Members say as the farmers’ friends, the truth is different: 7,000 businesses closed on their watch. That is what the evidence says.
Let me move on to the reasoned amendment. This Government are fully committed to protecting and supporting our valuable high streets. The fact is that retail, hospitality and leisure rates relief was due to end in its entirety by the end of March 2025, which would have meant a cliff edge for businesses. At the Budget, we stepped in to prevent that by extending the relief further this year by 40%, with a cash cap of £110,000. We have also frozen the small business rates multiplier for 2025-26. Taken together with the small business rates relief scheme, that means that more than 1 million properties will be protected from any inflationary increases next year. That is 1 million properties protected by this Government.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
By the Minister’s logic, are we to assume that support on business rates for hospitality and retail is to end in April 2026?
Jim McMahon
That really was not worth giving way for. I have literally just said that 1 million properties will be supported against inflationary increases next year. The 40% will continue, with a cap of £110,000. That is exactly what this Bill is intended to do. If the hon. Gentleman supports it, he can join the Government in the Aye Lobby and vote for it.
We know from businesses that the current scheme of discretionary relief does not provide the certainty needed. That is why the Bill will enable a permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from 2026-27 through new lower multipliers, ending the year-by-year uncertainty that the previous Government hardwired into the system. That is doing what businesses have been calling for. That rebalancing—from out of town to in town, from online to on street—is exactly what people have called for in communities and in business, and Opposition Members know it. Their frustration is that they did not do it in the 14 years that they had in office. It is down to us to take the steps that are needed in government now, and we are happy to do so.
The reasoned amendment raises concerns about the impact on schools in the state sector. I can assure the House that protecting and improving state education is at the forefront of the Government’s mind. In fact, we estimate that only 2,900 more pupils will enter the state sector as a result of the removal of the business rates relief for private schools. Let us be clear about what that means in reality: that goes down to about 300 a year. In any given year across England, 60,000 pupils will move between schools; this is 300. We need to keep that in context, because we have heard a lot of scaremongering about the transfer, but that is what the evidence says. That evidence is placed in the House of Commons Library, in case Members want to take time after this debate to go and look. There might even be enough time to find the documents before the vote if they want to bring themselves up to speed.
Importantly, this is about providing much-needed investment in the state school sector. Just how many parents say, “We need specialist support for SEND, because the mainstream provision is not adequate”? How many parents—by their own admission, among Opposition Members—choose to pay for private education because they do not have faith in mainstream provision? Despite what Opposition Members have said about the glory years of the past 14 years, the truth that parents and pupils on the ground feel is very different, and they know it. We have to repair mainstream provision so that parents and pupils can go with confidence to their local school, knowing that they will get the support that they need—support for all pupils, not just some.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the impact on faith schools. I want to offer some comfort. Of course we value and understand parental choice, but based on the evidence submitted through the HMT consultation, as well as the analysis undertaken by the Department for Education on removing the charitable rate relief, it is not apparent that private faith schools will be affected by this measure any more than non-faith schools. There is no evidence of disadvantage.
Jim McMahon
I want to make progress in the time that I have, and to wind up within the 10 minutes.
The key point is that all children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one, and all schools—and they know this—are required to follow the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 relating to British values and to promote an environment that encourages respect and tolerance towards families of all faiths and none.
A number of Members have rightly mentioned SEND provision—it has been a significant part of the debate, for understandable reasons. We have ensured on the face of the Bill that private schools that are charities and “wholly or mainly” provide education for pupils with education, health and care plans remain eligible for business rates charitable rate relief. Furthermore, private schools that benefit from existing rate exemptions for properties that are wholly used for the training or welfare of disabled people will continue to do so. Taken together, we believe those policies mean that most private special educational needs schools will not be affected by these measures at all.
We recognise that some pupils with special educational needs and disabilities will be in private schools, but without local authority funding in place, as it is judged that their child’s needs can be provided for within the state sector. Of course, parents will still be free to choose whether to be in the state sector or to remain in the private sector—that is a very important point to make. Local authorities aim to process all education, health and care plan applications in time for the start of the next school year, but in special cases, the local authority is able to prepay one term’s fees if the process is not complete. Likewise, some private schools will forgo the first term’s fees for pupils who are expected to receive their education, health and care plan in the future.
Turning to high streets, the Government are wholly committed to rejuvenating our high streets. We want to support the businesses and communities that make our town centres successful. That is why through this Bill, the Government intend to introduce permanently lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure from 2026-27, in order to protect the high street. That tax cut will be fully funded and sustained through a higher tax on the most expensive properties—the 1% of properties that have a rateable value of £500,000 or more. The new tax rates will be set out in next year’s Budget to factor in the business rate revaluation outcomes and the broader economic and fiscal context at that time.
We were clear in our manifesto that we would look at the business rates system and support our high streets, and we meant it. We know that our high streets and town centres are the beating heart of our communities, but over the past 14 years, they have struggled to keep their heads above water. Think about all those household names that have gone to the wall—that are a thing of the past, not the future. Think about all the banks and pubs that have closed, and about the shutters that have come down on shop premises that were once the lifeblood of where people live. The previous Government had 14 years to get this right, but they oversaw the decline and decimation of our high streets. People feel that in their hearts, because town centres are more than just a place to do business; they are a place for a community to come together. That is something the Tories never understood when they were in government, but it is something that this Government absolutely understand.
With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate. This Bill is the first step on the road to transforming the business rates system. The measures within it will provide certainty and support to our vibrant high streets, enabling the delivery of a permanent tax cut that is sustainable and that finally levels the playing field between the high street and online. The Bill will also help break down barriers to opportunity, supporting all parents to achieve their aspirations for their children. We need to bear in mind, of course, that the vast majority of children in this country—over 90%—are in state schools. This investment will see them given the support that they need and deserve, and that, frankly, they have waited a long time for. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Because of a problem with the Division bells in Portcullis House, I am going to allow an additional minute for this Division.
Business without Debate
Proxy Voting
Delegated Legislation
Administration
Finance
Human Rights (Joint Committee)
National Security Strategy (Joint Committee)
Petitions
Women and Equalities
Homeless Families: Relocation outside London
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise a very important issue that reflects not just a housing crisis, but a crisis of fairness, compassion and accountability, involving the relocation of homeless families outside London.
At first glance, it may seem unusual for someone like me—a Member of Parliament for County Durham, some 250 miles away from London—to seek this debate, but the unlawful actions of some London borough councils have transformed homelessness in London into a national crisis that has reached directly into my constituency. In recent months, I have been made aware of multiple cases of vulnerable families being pressured into relocating to my constituency by London borough councils such as those in Redbridge, Hillingdon and Enfield. The families are being forced to choose between homelessness in London and moving hundreds of miles away, isolated from their communities and support networks.
A recent case involved a young mother being threatened and coerced by Hillingdon Borough Council to move to County Durham. In an email to her housing officer, she wrote:
“Now I am scared. I feel anxious and completely pushed into a corner…that if I don’t take this accommodation, I will be discharged from your books and made homeless. I don’t understand why you are doing this to me and my son. All I wanted was your help in finding a place, as you have put me in temporary accommodation in Slough and then you rang me today offering me a place in County Durham miles away from anyone and everything I know. You said I have to give you decision tomorrow or I must get out of the place I am in, be discharged from the Council’s books, sleep on a friend’s sofa and look after myself, how is this fair, like I said I am scared.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate. This is happening not only in London boroughs, but in my constituency. The current system means uprooting children from their schools and placing them in temporary homes that are too far away to make it work. In my constituency, a child being schooled in the Ards peninsula was moved to Enniskillen, nearly three hours away—away from family, friends and schools. It really does not stack up. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the educational needs of children must be taken into account? Indeed, they must be paramount.
Grahame Morris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The whole purpose of this debate is to draw attention to the fact that the actions of some—not all—local authorities are illegal and should be subject to some sanction. I hope we will hear a bit more about that from the Minister.
Is it right that a young mother and her child can be threatened with homelessness if she refuses to uproot her life and leave the community where she was born and raised, where she grew up and where she has lived all her life? There was no consideration of her needs, the welfare of her child, their health or their need to maintain family and support networks.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. A similar thing has happened in my constituency. Does he agree that the way councils are acting is inhumane? They are uprooting people’s lives and relocating them to unfamiliar places, often into properties with not even the basic amenities. Does he agree that that needs to stop?
Grahame Morris
I completely agree. This is not care; it is coercion.
Homelessness is an ever-present spectre of our time. According to a survey by the Big Issue, two thirds of private renters are worried about paying their rent and the potential adverse consequences for their housing situation. At a time of desperate need, people should be able to trust their local authority to provide advice and support, but what do they find? They find a system in which some families are being threatened, intimidated and pressured into making potentially life-changing decisions in a moment of profound vulnerability.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He talks about the number of people who are vulnerable. In my constituency of Wyre Forest, we discovered that so many people were being moved from Brent to Birmingham that Birmingham filled up and they had to come to Kidderminster as well. This is a huge problem that has been going on for a long time. It is absolutely tragic for families who are separated from their family networks, their friendship networks and the possibility of getting a job.
Grahame Morris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not suggesting that it is a problem that affects only Easington or County Durham; I am trying to highlight that it is an illegal practice. I hope to persuade the Minister that there should be redress and some sanction against local authorities that are breaking the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) said that the practice is immoral. It is certainly questionable, but it is also unlawful. In 2015, a Supreme Court judgment made it absolutely clear that local authorities
“have a statutory duty to provide accommodation in their own area ‘so far as reasonably practicable’…The accommodation must be suitable to the needs of the homeless person and each member of the household, and the location can be relevant to its suitability…The obligation to secure accommodation as close as possible to where the household had previously been living was strengthened by Supplementary Guidance on the homelessness changes in the Localism Act 2011 and on the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 (‘the Supplementary Guidance’), including the need to seek to retain established links with schools, doctors, social workers and other key services and support.”
How is it possible to retain established links to key services and support when a family is relocated to an unfamiliar location over 250 miles away?
Section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 requires that where someone is relocated out of the area, councils must notify the receiving local authority. However, that is not happening. In response to my representations, my local authority, Durham county council, said:
“We are aware of some households moving into County Durham with financial assistance from London Boroughs, largely discharging their homelessness duties into private rented tenancies. Placements tend to be in selective licensing areas through a small number of managing agents—notably Reloc8 Lettings and Capital Letters. In accordance with homelessness guidance, councils who make a referral to another local authority area should notify the receiving authority, but this is generally not happening in these cases, and our referral numbers remain low.”
The issue is not unique to Durham County Council. There has been nearly a decade’s worth of press articles documenting cases of London boroughs—some London boroughs—breaking the law and secretly relocating families. I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for writing to council chief executives to remind them of their legal obligations, but I must be candid about this. I contend that council chief executives know their legal responsibilities and are choosing to break the law.
What we need is enforcement and accountability. I ask the Minister directly: what practical steps will she take to end these unlawful practices? What sanctions will be imposed on councils that continue to intimidate families, disregard their legal obligations and fail to notify the receiving authorities? The families affected by these actions deserve better, and so do the communities being asked to bear the burden of a broken system.
County Durham, like many areas, faces its own housing challenges, which were overlooked and ignored by the previous Government. Our council budgets are overstretched; we have limited means to raise revenues, owing to a low council tax base; and service demand, especially for social services and SEND provision, is overwhelming. Our north-east mining communities are resilient, but we do not have the resources to absorb the fallout of the London housing crisis without additional support.
Respectfully, I do not underestimate the task facing the Minister. The unlawful system of forcibly relocating vulnerable families through threats and intimidation was created by the previous Government. I am pleading tonight with the Minister not to allow it to persist under a Labour Government. Councils that knowingly break the law need to be held to account. I hope that she will explain how that is going to happen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing this important debate. We can all agree that homelessness and rough sleeping levels are far too high, which has had a devastating impact on those affected and has caused serious harms to families, children and communities.
Addressing the current high levels of homelessness and rough sleeping is a priority for this Government. Like the Deputy Prime Minister, I absolutely recognise the pressures that local authorities face and the soaring costs of temporary housing. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the challenge posed by out-of-area placements is also putting pressure on councils in many parts of the country, including County Durham.
Homelessness and rough sleeping have increased dramatically, as Members across the House will be aware. In England, homelessness is now at record levels. In March this year, more than 117,000 households, including over 150,000 children, were living in temporary accommodation. A third of the households in temporary accommodation—some 36,000 households—were in accommodation in different local authority districts. That is an increase of 25% in the past year. My hon. Friend raises an important point about the impact on different areas: in Durham, as of 31 March this year, there were 128 households and 150 children living in temporary accommodation.
It is an absolute scandal that families with children are living without a permanent place to call home. As my hon. Friend poignantly pointed out, it is even more distressing that many of the families are forced to move away from the area they know—away from their friends, families, schools and healthcare providers. I know how disruptive and tough that is, because it has happened to constituents of mine, who have been moved much further away from where they grew up or where they were used to living. This is the scale of the challenge we inherited from the previous Government, but we are absolutely determined to address this and to deliver the long-term solutions that are desperately needed.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, the relocation of homeless families outside London is driven by wider issues to do with supply and the fact that many local authorities struggle to find accommodation for the homeless.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We have an enormous homelessness problem in Birmingham, with some 25,000 families currently waiting to get on to the property ladder, but Labour-run Birmingham city council is selling the Commonwealth games development’s approximately 1,400 family units, which could be used to accommodate these families. Birmingham city council, with the support of the commissioners appointed because of the budget deficit, will sell those units at a loss of some £300 million to the taxpayer. Would it not make sense for the Government to help retain those units and put them to proper use?
Rushanara Ali
I will shortly come on to the proposals we are considering to support councils.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington said, councils should place homeless households within their area in the first instance. Councils should place households in another area only if no suitable accommodation is available in their own area. However, the lack of affordable housing options, including temporary accommodation, means that local authorities often do not have a choice but to place people out of area.
Although I recognise the challenges that lead to families being placed outside the areas they are from, I am acutely aware of the impact on communities in places such as Easington, and the other places that colleagues have mentioned.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Rushanara Ali
I am conscious of time, but I will give way if my hon. Friend is very brief.
Amanda Hack
I stress how devastating it is when families are moved so far away from home. A family from Islington have been placed in my North West Leicestershire constituency and, sadly, the older child is still in Islington. Families are being split, so I would appreciate a response.
Rushanara Ali
Thank you.
Earlier this month, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to local authority chief executives in England, asking them to remind their councils of the requirement to notify receiving areas when out-of-area placements are made, and to assure themselves that these notifications are being made. It is crucial that local authorities work in partnership to ensure that both host communities and the households placed out of area receive the appropriate support. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington highlighted some of the concerns about that. In legislation, local authorities are also responsible for safeguarding.
This Government are committed to delivering on a bigger agenda. We have set up a dedicated inter-ministerial group, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, to develop a long-term strategy to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, and the group includes a number of key Departments. We will deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, to provide 1.5 million homes over the next five years. And the Budget made an extra £0.5 billion available for the affordable homes programme, which will deliver up to 5,000 new social homes.
There have also been proposals in relation to the right to buy and allowing councils to retain capital receipts so that they have the resource and flexibility to take action to increase supply, and a new five-year social housing rent settlement, which will give the sector certainty on funding and allow it to invest in tens of thousands of new homes.
We recognise that the supply of housing is crucial if we are to bring an end to the plight of those who face homelessness, and who are having to live in temporary accommodation and being moved away from the places that they call home. We are also committed to abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, and the Renters’ Rights Bill will give renters greater security and stability to stay in their homes for longer and avoid the risk of homelessness.
On resources, the Government will increase funding for homelessness services by £233 million next year, following the Budget announcement. That brings the total spend on homelessness and rough sleeping to nearly £1 billion in the year 2025-26. That increased funding will help to prevent families from becoming homeless and will reduce the numbers entering temporary accommodation, which is crucial. We have to tackle the root causes of temporary accommodation use and the issue of out-of-area housing. Alongside that, I have already announced £10 million of funding for local authorities for rough sleeping pressures. We have to recognise that some people end up going from temporary housing to rough sleeping, which is also a major concern.
Hon. Members raised the issue of sanctions. The legislation in relation to temporary accommodation requires that it be suitable for applicants and all members of their household. When determining the suitability of accommodation secured under the homelessness legislation, housing authorities as a minimum must ensure that all accommodation is free of category 1 hazards, as identified by the housing health and safety rating system.
Grahame Morris
The Minister is being very generous. The point that I am trying to make is not about sanctions against the tenants; they are the victims in all this, often moved against their will, with coercive methods employed. I do not know whether the Minister has ever seen the film “I, Daniel Blake”, in which a young woman called Katie is put on a bus from London and lands in the north-east. That is the scenario that we are facing. Some of the London boroughs that I mentioned are knowingly breaking the law, and there is no sanction against them. They are not notifying the receiving authority; they are using managing agents and circumventing the rules.
Rushanara Ali
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s frustration. As I pointed out, the Deputy Prime Minister has already contacted local authorities and we will continue to keep what local authorities are doing under review. I commit to working with my hon. Friend to ensure that we support local authorities as much as we can. The resources that have been announced are key to reducing the need for local authorities to send their residents to other places far away from the area in which they should ideally be housed, but we recognise that local authorities face multiple pressures. It is important that we prioritise identifying where the barriers are in terms of house building, providing appropriate support to local authorities and ensuring that we monitor what happens in relation to the actions of specific authorities.
As I said to my hon. Friend, I am keen that we work collaboratively to ensure that local authorities take the necessary action to support those who are vulnerable. We all know the vulnerabilities of many of our constituents who are in temporary accommodation. It is key that they are kept as close to their network, including their schools and health providers, as possible. I sympathise with the points my hon. Friend makes.
Other hon. Members made interventions, which I hope I have covered. I am happy to continue the conversation on the specific issues they raised, but broadly speaking I hope I addressed many of their points.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington for securing this important debate, on a subject that affects not only his constituents but many others. As a London MP, I am concerned that we ensure that local areas have accommodation available to keep those in temporary accommodation close to their networks and support structures. That is why this Government are determined to take action across Departments in order to develop the strategy required to tackle the deep-rooted causes of homelessness, to ensure that we increase the supply of housing through our house building programme, and to use the funding that has already been made available for social and affordable housing.
If we do not tackle the root causes of homelessness, we will continue to have similar such debates. I am determined that we take the action necessary to address not only the short-term pressures, but the underlying causes that are creating so much harm and making the lives of children and families who are living in temporary accommodation an absolute misery. We are determined to tackle the challenges they face. I very much hope that I can work with colleagues who have a strong interest in this agenda, as we move forward to tackle the homelessness crisis.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ombudsman Scheme) (Fees) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ombudsman Scheme) (Fees) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. These regulations are made under powers in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. The Committee may be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised this statutory instrument as an instrument of interest in its second report, which was published on 5 September.
This instrument will enable the Financial Ombudsman Service—the FOS, as it is commonly known—to charge case fees to claims management companies and relevant legal professionals when they bring cases to the FOS on behalf of complainants. The FOS enables consumers and financial services firms to resolve disputes without having to go through the courts, which can be expensive and time consuming for both parties. To deliver a service that is cost-free to consumers, the FOS is funded by a combination of case fees paid by firms subject to complaints and an annual levy on industry. The FOS is designed to be an accessible service that consumers can use for free, and the majority of consumers raise their complaints directly with the FOS.
However, some consumers choose to use claims management companies or legal professionals to bring claims to FOS on their behalf. Collectively, they are known as professional representatives. These professional representatives normally take a cut of any compensation awarded as payment for their services. This payment can be as much as 30% of the compensation awarded to a consumer. Currently, while these professional representatives can make money from bringing a case to the FOS, they cannot be charged for doing so.
Many of these professional representatives act responsibly, but there is evidence that some are taking advantage of the cost-free nature of the service that the FOS provides. Rather than properly assessing complaints and taking forward those with merit, these representatives submit large numbers of complaints that are poorly evidenced. This behaviour is negatively impacting the ability of the FOS to promptly resolve other consumer complaints. As firms are required to pay a case fee of £650 regardless of whether or not a complaint is upheld against them, this practice also has significant costs for industry.
Firms subject to large numbers of complaints from professional representatives can face significant bills in case fees, despite not being found to have committed any wrongdoing at all. The Government have also noted concerns that firms experiencing this treatment might feel pressured into settling claims early. In order to reduce the overall cost to a firm, they may simply offer to settle for an amount below the £650 case fee, even where they feel that the claim itself is without merit.
In order to address those exploitative practices, the regulations will enable the FOS to charge a case fee to professional representatives for bringing complaints on behalf of claimants. This will ensure that there is a financial incentive for those professional representatives to carefully consider the merits of any cases that they are bringing. There will now be a cost to flooding the Financial Conduct Authority with templated complaints that have a low chance of success. Charities bringing complaints on behalf of consumers are not included in the instrument and will therefore not be charged by the FOS. Of course, the FOS remains completely free for consumers to access directly. The FOS will be responsible for determining exactly who is charged and any level of fee. This is in line with how the system already works for financial services firms subject to complaints.
In anticipation of this instrument, the FOS consulted on its proposed detailed approach to charging fees to professional representatives. It published a statement on 15 November detailing the feedback it had received to the consultation, and its initial response. In that feedback statement, subject to Parliament approving this instrument, the FOS proposes that professional representatives will be charged a fee of £250 for each case they bring. When the FOS finds in favour of the claimant represented by the professional representative, the fee will be reduced to just £75. In addition, each professional representative will not be charged for the first 10 cases that they bring each year. In that way, we hope, the FOS has sought to disincentivise bad behaviour while ensuring minimal impact on those professional representatives bringing cases with merit.
If this instrument is approved, the FOS will confirm its final plans, having considered the responses to its consultation. The approach taken through this SI ensures that the FOS will remain cost-free to consumers while ensuring that the poor behaviour of some professional representatives does not undermine the ability of the FOS to deal with consumer complaints properly. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I think the Minister and I are going to have an outbreak of unanimity in just about everything we do; we have yet to find something we disagree on. Members will be aware that this legislation was originally due to be implemented in May, but we got caught up in a bit of a general election, which unfortunately did not go quite so well for us. The Opposition therefore fully support the instrument, as Members would imagine.
The Minister made a good point about why the regulations are incredibly important: there are far too many people gaming the system. To support what she was saying, banks incur a great deal of costs as a result, and those costs are inevitably reflected on to consumers; so although it sounds in the first instance like the claims management companies are doing everybody a favour, they are actually increasing the cost of financial services for absolutely everybody. We are therefore wholly supportive of this instrument.
I have a couple of questions. To make sure the instrument does not affect some people badly, can the Minister set out how the Treasury proposes to monitor the changes to ensure that they go according to plan and that, where there is a two-tier system, vulnerable people do not unwittingly find themselves not represented if they use a claims management company?
My other question is on a technicality, and the Minister may not know the answer. The first 10 claims are free of charge for professional representatives. After that, claims cost £250, reduced to £75 if they are successful. Can claims management companies put in class actions—for example, a claim for 1,000 people 10 times—hoping to get a lot of people covered, and thereby potentially increasing the return they could get for each claim, since it is a class action rather than an individual claim, or is the intention that each claim will be an individual case, rather than a group of cases? If the Minister does not know the answer to that now, she should feel free to write to me.
We have absolutely no intention of opposing the instrument. It is a fantastic piece of legislation, brought in by the previous Government, and it is good to see that it has survived the general election, unlike the Minister who signed it off in the first place.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the shadow Minister for his support so far on all the SIs we have debated; long may it continue, but I have a feeling we may disagree on some things in the future. There was cross-party support for the enabling power behind the instrument when it was debated during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. He will remember that at the time, I also supported the then Government, because a lot of the legislation was fit and right for the sector.
We are committed to tackling poor behaviour from professional representatives, as were the previous Government. We want to ensure that the FOS can focus on promptly resolving consumer complaints, as the shadow Minister said, and to reduce the impact of complaints on financial services firms when they are not appropriate.
The shadow Minister asked how long it will take the FOS to implement these rules and how we will monitor them. If the SI is approved, we expect that the FOS will shortly announce when it will start to charge fees. We will then work closely with the FOS and the FCA to progress that important work. There is not really a deadline on it; we just have to see how it progresses after the SI. I guess those organisations are waiting for us to approve the SI before they take on the work, but as he can imagine, we work closely with the FCA and the FOS to monitor progress.
I am afraid I will have to come back to the shadow Minister on his technical question, because I am not sure that we have any answers. It looks like my officials want me to write to him, if that is okay.
I thank the Committee for its consideration of the draft regulations. They may sound simple, but they will have a huge impact on people bringing complaints and how much that costs them. They will play an important role in ensuring that the FOS can properly focus on resolving consumer complaints, a lot of which will come from people who live in our constituencies, and reduce the impact of spurious complaints on financial services firms.
I thank all hon. Members for supporting me and for turning up on a Monday evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Members may remove their jackets if they wish to, if they are hardy or foolhardy enough.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024.
As always, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. The draft order was laid before Parliament on 22 October 2024. To give a bit of background, the UK emissions trading scheme was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020, as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme contributing to the UK’s emissions-reduction targets and net zero goal. The scheme is run by the UK ETS Authority, a joint body comprising the UK Government and the devolved Governments. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets.
We have introduced this statutory instrument to enable several important changes and improvements to the scheme. It resets the UK ETS cap to be in line with the top of the net zero-consistent range. The cap sets a limit on how many allowances can be created over the trading period, which runs from 2021 to 2030, and in each year. That level reduces over time to drive down total emissions. When the scheme was established, the cap for the legislated period of the UK ETS—from 2021 to 2030—was set at 5% below the UK’s expected notional share of the EU ETS cap for the same period. However, that was not consistent with the UK’s net zero trajectory for the traded sector. This statutory instrument brings the overall UK ETS cap in line with our net zero target and carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act.
The statutory instrument also reduces the industry cap, which is the total number of allowances that can be made available to existing installations for free if no cross-sectoral correction factor mitigation is applied. The SI reduces the absolute level of the industry cap while increasing its proportion of the overall cap. While the share of allowances set aside for this purpose will increase from 37% to 40%, the reduction in the overall UK ETS cap means that the industry cap will fall. That will help to mitigate the risk of carbon leakage across participating sectors while maintaining an effective incentive to decarbonise.
The statutory instrument creates a flexible reserve of allowances for maintaining market stability and sufficient carbon-leakage mitigation. In addition to allowances specifically created for the reserve, unallocated free allowances from the industry cap and designated free allowances that are returned by operators due to changes in participant eligibility or activity level reductions will also stock the flexible reserve. The flexible reserve can be used to increase the allowance supply for market-stability purposes if the cost-containment mechanism is triggered. The flexible reserve can also mitigate the application of the CSCF through a uniform reduction to all eligible existing participants’ free allocation if the eligibility for free allocation exceeds the industry cap.
I will move on to venting and flaring. Under current legislation, carbon dioxide released through flaring in the upstream oil and gas sector is included in the UK ETS, as it is within the scope of the regulated activity of combustion. This SI introduces CO2 that is released through venting in the upstream oil and gas sector into the scope of the UK ETS for installations already covered by the scheme. That means that such emissions will also be subject to a carbon price.
The controlled processes of venting and flaring can sometimes be essential for safety purposes. They are also used in more routine situations where the oil and gas hydrocarbons are unable to be used, exported, or reinjected without CO2 being removed. The removed CO2 can then be released in the process of flaring, when waste gas, including the stripped-out CO2 as well as combustible elements, is ignited, or in the process of venting, when unignited gas is released through a vent. The legislation will remove a perverse incentive whereby operators could routinely vent gas that contains carbon dioxide without it being subject to a carbon price, even though it would, if flared, constitute reportable emissions for the purpose of the scheme.
I will now move on to Northern Ireland. In line with the original policy intent, the statutory instrument extends legislative amendments made by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2023 to Northern Ireland. The amendments include capping the aviation free allocation at 100% of emissions, clarifying the treatment of carbon capture and storage plants, and freeing the allocation rules for electricity generation.
In 2022, a memorandum of understanding between the UK and Swiss Governments was signed, setting out the intention to include flights from the UK to Switzerland in the UK ETS. Such flights were brought into the UK ETS scope on 1 January 2023 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2022. The statutory instrument extends the scope to cover flights that depart from an aerodrome in Northern Ireland and arrive at an aerodrome in Switzerland.
Scheme regulators are responsible for enforcing compliance, including operational functions such as the issuing of penalties. The statutory instrument makes a number of amendments to the levels of scheme penalties to ensure the consistency and proportionality of enforcement for all operators. It also introduces a new deficit notice, with an associated penalty, to strengthen the enforcement of the fundamental scheme obligation to surrender allowances equal to an operator’s annual emissions.
Finally, the statutory instrument makes several corrections and clarifications to existing legislation. The changes follow appropriate and comprehensive consultation with stakeholders. In the “Developing the UK Emissions Trading Scheme” consultation in 2022, the UK ETS Authority considered proposals on changes to the rules for sectors covered by the UK ETS to ensure that more greenhouse gas emissions were covered by the scheme, along with changes to the cap.
The authority response to the consultation was published in two parts, in August 2022 and July 2023. A majority of respondents agreed with the UK ETS Authority proposals on creating a flexible share reserve of allowances, on bringing venting in the upstream oil and gas sector into the scope of the ETS, and on the addition of a new penalty and deficit notice. Several respondents expressed concern regarding the reduction of the cap and the changes to the industry cap; an assessment of these responses informed the decision to set the cap at the top of the net zero-consistent range.
Between 23 February 2024 and 8 March 2024, the UK ETS Authority ran a targeted consultation on the minor penalty amendments. The responses to this consultation were in broad agreement with the proposals, or noted that they were not affected by them. The authority response has been published in advance of the laying of this statutory instrument.
The changes in the draft order will deliver on commitments made by the UK ETS Authority and improve the operation of the scheme. The alterations to the UK emissions trading scheme will support its role as a key pillar of the UK’s climate policy. They show that we will take action to extend and improve the scheme where necessary. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Nothing could bring me greater pleasure than to be here this evening to discuss this SI.
The previous Government brought the emissions trading scheme into UK law to provide continuity during the Brexit transition, and our framework became operational from January 2021. We did that to provide a mechanism for industry and to reduce emissions using cap and trade, to allow the market to take responsibility for our journey towards net zero.
As the Minister said, this draft order makes a number of changes to the legislation. It expands the scope to include flights from Northern Ireland to Switzerland, in line with the Great British standard. That was not previously possible due to the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The draft order brings carbon dioxide venting from upstream oil and gas installations under the scheme. It also enacts the reduction in the cap on allowances and strengthens enforcement and penalties for non-compliance, including by introducing the deficit notice, and it accounts for a reserve price for stability during excessive market volatility.
When the UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme was introduced in 2020, it was decided that its purpose was to encourage cost-effective emissions reductions that will contribute to the UK’s emissions-reduction targets and net zero goal. Today, we address the draft order in the context of satisfying that ambition. We all have a common ambition when it comes to tackling climate change, and the introduction of the cap-and-trade scheme was a component of our national efforts towards that. However, as we know, that comes at a cost, and there are inevitable trade-offs.
We have seen recently that the Labour Government’s climate policies take precedence over any financial or economic concerns—through the damage done to the North sea oil and gas industry with the extension of and increase to the energy profits levy and the ending of investment allowances, through the £58 billion cost of the Secretary of State’s plan to decarbonise the grid, and through the new ambition for an 81% reduction in omissions by 2035, with no detail on how that will be achieved. On that point, will the Minister clarify whether it is indeed the Government’s policy to see the carbon price rise to £147, as necessitated by the National Energy System Operator report? If so, what assessment has been made of the impact of that huge increase on employment, industry and households?
Specifically on this statutory instrument, and in the context of the Government’s overall energy strategy, we have serious concerns about the direction of travel, and particularly about the Labour Government’s continued attack on our North sea industry. The SI includes within the scope of the UK ETS upstream oil and gas sector activities such as carbon dioxide venting. Although that may incentivise lower emissions, it imposes significant new costs on companies that are already navigating a complex and changing regulatory environment.
There is also a concern regarding carbon leakage. As a result of the growing burdens on the North sea companies, we will see an exodus to more price-competitive, unregulated markets for production. That will not reduce omissions overall, but it will ensure that the UK sees none of the benefits. The Minister spoke about the protections against carbon leakage; I would be grateful for some more detail on that, if she would be so kind.
His Majesty’s Opposition would like to put on the record our concerns regarding the Government’s direction of travel, and we urge them to look again at the scale of anti-industry measures being continually levied on the North sea. For the sake of employment and the economy, the supply chain companies investing in new clean technologies, our energy security, and the employers and further investment that will suffer as a result, we will vote against the SI.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. As I said, the UK emissions trading scheme is a key pillar of the UK’s net zero policy regime. I am slightly surprised by his decision not to support the SI —perhaps not from a political point of view, but because I am pretty sure that if he was still in the Department occupying the post I am in now, he would have supported the measures. As I said, they are just about ensuring that the scheme retains its credibility and moves forward and adapts to circumstances.
With the Northern Ireland Assembly established, it is absolutely common sense that Northern Ireland should be treated in the same way with regard to venting and flaring—
Kerry McCarthy
I am glad the shadow Minister agrees on that. He asked a specific question about the pricing. As the market conveners, we cannot comment on the price. I will leave it at that, other than to say that the market determines the price of the allowances, and opting for the top of the net zero-consistent range means that more allowances will be available while we can still deliver against our net zero trajectory.
The shadow Minister also brought up some broader issues about carbon leakage. Again, there will be plenty of opportunities to debate the issue, but we are absolutely committed to providing certainty to industry about the steps we will take to protect against carbon leakage. That is why in July 2023 the overall level of free allocations that will be provided from 2026 were set out. We have since consulted on how best to target those free allocations from the next allocation period, to ensure the smooth functioning of the market and the continued protection of at-risk sectors.
As the shadow Minister will know, the UK Government have announced that from 2027 a UK carbon border adjustment mechanism will be in place for certain at-risk sectors, and the authority has consulted on aligning free allocation charges with the start of that CBAM. I assure him that the UK ETS Authority will work the UK Government to ensure that a CBAM will work cohesively with the UK ETS, including with free allowances. No doubt that will be revisited—perhaps in this very room —over the coming months.
The draft order is a key part of our net zero policy regime. We believe that the maintenance of a strong UK ETS will play a key role in making Britain a clean energy superpower and in delivering our mission of having secure and clean electricity by 2030. By driving green investment as part of our industrial strategy, the UK ETS will also help to deliver a just transition, thereby growing the UK’s economy and securing good jobs for people throughout the country.
As I said, the changes proposed in the SI will bring in a net zero-consistent cap. I remind the shadow Minister that it was his Government who legislated for net zero, and at one point they were proud of having done that. The SI will also alter the industry cap and expand the scope of the ETS to the venting of CO2 in the upstream oil and gas sector. The change follows a comprehensive consultation on developing the UK ETS that was carried out in 2022. The proposals deliver on commitments made in the response to that consultation in July 2023, when the UK ETS Authority set out a comprehensive package of reforms to the scheme. The proposals have the long-standing support of the four Governments of the UK.
We, as part of the UK ETS Authority with the devolved Governments, are determined to manage and improve the scheme effectively. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets. We are committed to being attentive to views and to carrying forward changes as required to ensure that the scheme operates efficiently to achieve emissions reductions. The changes to the UK emissions trading scheme in the SI will support the scheme’s role as a cornerstone of the UK’s climate and net zero policy. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put.
Petition
CCTV cameras along river banks in city centres
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Holidays in School Term Time
(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
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 658365 relating to holidays during school term time.
It is a pleasure to address you, Sir Edward, in what is an important debate and my first attempt at presenting a debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I am chuffed to do so, because this subject is really positive. I am sure that everyone in this Chamber has fond childhood memories of family time away from home. When I look back, I have clear memories of spending a lot of time in north Wales with my family. I was fortunate that both my parents were teachers so, as soon as the school holidays came around, we were all available. I thank my parents very thoroughly for that.
Later in life, I followed mam and dad into the family trade by becoming a teacher, where I saw at first hand the impact that absence can have on attainment and progress at school. Often through no fault of the child or the parents, kids were unable to be in school and they fell behind, which made life difficult for them. I am sure all Members in this Chamber would want to avoid a situation in which any kid is unnecessarily held back for any reason, particularly attendance.
This issue is complex, and I have experience of both sides of it, as I am sure many Members have; I am sure that very soon we will hear a similar speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who is also a former teacher.
There is a reason that this petition has received so much support from so many people from right across the breadth of the United Kingdom: who can say anything to a parent who wants to spend more time with their kids? It is so fundamental and so positive, and I think everybody would support that, which is why this petition was started and why it has been so clearly supported.
The debate is about those really positive things, but it boils down to an issue of affordability. Anybody who has looked into this will know of the significant increases in the price of holidays, whether domestic or foreign, whether travelling by air or by train. The price of holidays flies through the roof during school break periods, and that has a real impact on parents. They want to spend time with their kids away from home to build memories but, for far too many people, doing so in the 13 weeks of the school holidays has become unaffordable because of the escalating cost.
I spoke to the petitioners last Thursday, and they made it clear that they completely understand the importance of kids being in school. One of the first things they said to me was that they enjoy the fact that their kids come home from school, tell them what they did that day and are so full of life and the learning of the day. But the petitioners also understand the holistic benefits of kids spending time away from a formalised learning environment for some self-directed time and a change of scenery, even if that is just some different walls.
However, one of the things the petitioner raised is that, unfortunately, a lot of families who want to build those memories are unable to do so during the school holidays because of affordability. They therefore have to take the kids out of school during term time, because they believe it important to enable their kids to enjoy their childhoods. However, parents can be fined for that, which leads to their feeling criminalised and as though they have done something wrong, although I am sure that everybody would agree that taking kids on a break to help them to build childhood memories is really positive.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is not just about the joy of the holiday; the problem is that there is no compassion in the system. I was contacted today by a resident who took their child out of school for two weeks because their grandfather is dying in India, and they have just been fined. They know that their child needs education, and they are passionate about it, but they face the risk that, because the grandfather is dying but has not died, they may get some sort of parenting order if they take their child out again for the funeral—he should go, as part of the extended family. That is ridiculous, so we need to recognise that this is about not just money but compassion.
Dave Robertson
It is hard to follow that intervention, because how could anybody disagree with that? Spending time with a dying family member at the end of their life is so important not just for those who pass away but for those who remain, because those memories live with us forever. I am sure those parents were between a rock and a hard place, but made the only decision that any of us would have made, despite the difficulties that they now face. It is clear from stories such as that and others that I have heard over the past few weeks that there is a real problem.
The petition mentions the equalities impact, and says:
“This can be a particular issue for…children that have additional needs”.
Parents raising children with additional needs may already face significant extra costs, whether because they have to buy things for the home, or software and other things to support their kids in school, or because they are simply fighting through a special educational needs and disabilities system that does not work and they face additional costs from having to raise things through tribunals.
In preparing for this debate, I was supported by our excellent Petitions Committee staff to meet members of the National Autistic Society, who said that they valued the opportunity to contribute to it. They said that, because of the issues in the SEND system, they spend a lot of time talking to people about the importance of kids being in school and helping parents to get their kids into school as often as possible. That is sometimes not easy, but a person should face no detriment if they spend some time with their kids, go away or, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) said, take some time for compassionate reasons.
We also met Parentkind, which highlighted some really interesting data from Wales. It recently carried out a consultation about changes to the school year, and a majority of the parents it surveyed support a change so that the long holiday period in the summer is shortened a bit and some of those weeks are moved to other parts of the year. But although 56% of all parents support a more evenly spread school year, 59% of those on a lower income are in favour. That may not seem like a huge difference—it is only 3%—but those parents are contained in the other number, so it is probably closer to 6%, and various other points can be made about the data. The important point is that people from lower income backgrounds—people who are not as rich as their peers—feel more strongly that stretching out and moving around the school holidays would be positive. Part of that may be that it is easier to arrange childcare when they do not need to do six weeks back to back, and part of it may be due to things that are happening in Wales—processes, festivals and things that I am not aware of because it is a while since I have been there. The cost of holidays might be one of the driving factors that led to that slightly different opinion between the two income brackets.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend think that there needs to be an impact assessment carried out by the Government on the way the current rules impact particularly on low-income families?
Dave Robertson
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He is somewhat skipping ahead to the later parts of my speech, but I like him, so I will let him off. The Government need to do something about this, and as I will touch on later, there are a lot of proposed solutions. A lot of parents—obviously, the 250,000 who signed the petition in just three months, before the general election brought it to an end—think that there needs to be some type of solution. The petition proposes giving parents the opportunity to have up to 10 school days—two weeks—away from school with their children, but a variety of different things have been suggested. My hon. Friend has suggested another, and I am sure the Minister is listening.
As part of the preparation for this speech, I spoke to a range of organisations to take their views. Every single organisation that I spoke to recognised that there was an issue here, and that there was real value in kids being able to access a field of learning or a different experience from being at school in a formalised learning environment. I cannot say that any of them were absolutely jumping on and saying, “This is definitely a solution to that.” Actually, all the organisations I spoke to suggested slightly different solutions.
I spoke to the National Association of Head Teachers, which I thank for its helpful input. It suggested that returning some discretion to headteachers—as was certainly the case when I was in school and at the start of my teaching career—could be used to support parents, where appropriate. The headteacher would have the discretion to say no, should there be other issues with a child and their attendance. Parentkind kindly talked me through a significant amount of information on how the school year is organised, the potential for changing it, and whether that might be able to drive some changes.
The National Autistic Society recognised the issue, but emphasised how important it is to get kids into school. A lot of its work is on ensuring that kids are able to access education, but it recognised that there was maybe space for some work in the area. It suggested talking to market organisations and travel providers about whether we could change the affordability issue, which might then lead to a different situation for parents across the school holidays. The Centre for Young Lives was clear that the free market is not delivering for families. It is certainly not delivering for kids, and that is leading to some of the issues.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point about the free market. We have a clear supply and demand issue. We have a huge glut during the summer holidays, and then a drought. I will give an example—I will not reference the British holiday destination, but it would be a firm favourite with most people. A typical family of four to six could spend five days there for £500 or £600 one week, but in excess of £2000 for the exact same holiday the following week because it is outside of term time. Does he agree that because of the supply and demand issue, giving discretion or allowing more variety in how schools use their time might be options worth pursuing, rather than trying to constrain business?
Dave Robertson
The hon. Gentleman has almost taken me to the conclusion I was coming to anyway, so I thank him for the appropriate segue. As ever, there are more solutions than problems for Government, but finding the right one is difficult. In the work and engagement I have done on this, it has really come through that there is a problem. There are lots of ideas about what we could do, and although it is unlikely that there is one instantaneous solution, there is potential around discretion, working with the market, and changing school days—although a significant caveat is that teachers are often parents too, and if they do not teach in the same local authority area in which they live, then moving the holidays around might cause them significant additional issues. There are also issues with teachers being able to afford holidays with their families.
It is a real vipers’ nest, and I do not envy the Minister having to try to find his way through it. There are probably more solutions than we need on this issue, and finding the right one will be a real challenge for the Government. I am very eager to hear the Minister’s response because, as I am sure a lot of people would say, the system is not working at the minute. Hopefully, we can use the great power of the British state to look into this issue and find a better way forward for parents and pupils.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for introducing the petition and the debate in Westminster Hall. As I have said previously, I am a teacher of 30 years’ experience, but I also have fantastic and wonderful children in my family who have certain difficulties. In the past, it has absolutely been the best possible thing for us go away on a family holiday for various reasons. We still think we did the right thing, so I see this debate from both sides.
As we have heard today, school attendance is absolutely vital to children’s development, for not just their academic skills but their social skills, as well as their mental and physical wellbeing. I am proud to support a Government who are committed to properly resourcing our education system. However, with an absence rate of 6.7% last autumn, we risk far too many children being left behind, and we have a unique situation at the moment post-covid. There are more difficulties with school attendance and in addressing the mental health problems of children, so I appreciate that we are in challenging times.
As we have heard, there are some very good reasons why a child may be absent, and there are children and families in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South who are in difficult—but sadly not unique—circumstances, including bereavement. Bereavement is never just a one-off but often a long sequence of events, so the point from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) was well made, and I thank her for it. Fines will not only beat those people down but fail to encourage attendance. If a family has a child with special educational needs and disabilities who is having a particularly difficult time, and who needs more time, the fine is not an incentive; it is a punishment for looking after their child.
As the petition clearly sets out, there are families for whom travelling outside term time is quite impossible. While costs are higher, planes and trains are also overcrowded, so it is not just about the costs, although there are families in financial difficulties. For children with special needs or in unique situations, travelling at very busy times can be challenging. We sometimes need family holidays in difficult times, and those difficult times do not respect term times, so taking our child out of school is the only option.
Again, this unfairly punishes already struggling families, and worse, it compounds an issue that already exists. I understand that there are still some exemptions at the discretion of headteachers, but as we have just heard, more needs to be done with them. From speaking to parents who have contacted me, and I spoke to one only this morning, I can say that that discretion is not always evenly exercised, so this is not hypothetical. In Stoke-on-Trent South, my constituents are 20% more likely to be living with learning disabilities than the national average. The parent whom I spoke to today has a neurodiverse child who, as frequently happens, went undiagnosed. As a result, he faced a series of circumstances in school, from which he experienced quite severe trauma, and he eventually became a school avoider. I want to stress that I know the mum of that family; they are good parents who have given up a huge amount for their child, and indeed they have a second child with special educational needs. The threat of fines does nothing to help them or their child, and it just adds stress on to stress.
I want to take a little time to go deeper into that story, which I heard only today. That parent was taken into school and told, “Right, we need to talk about fines. We are going to take you down the court process.” The threat of court was used against the parents, and as the child was having significant problems, when they tried to get him into school, he would have a meltdown. As we have all seen, if a parent is dealing with a very young child who does not want to do something, that child kicks and lashes out. The teacher saw the child being violent to their parents and it was even suggested that they use the youth offender system with a primary school child. They do not need that sort of stress. In the parent support group my constituent was given advice—and other parents report this too—such as, “Try making your home life more miserable so that they want to go to school.” That indicates the experience of parents who are fighting to do the best by their child, with children who do not want to go to school. They are just trying their best to manage, and the fines system is causing supreme difficulty for them.
I was a teacher for 30 years, so I know what it is like from the teacher’s perspective. When there is absenteeism teachers have to try to catch up a child who has been away while still trying to teach the other children and bring them forward. There are the gifted and talented children who are flying ahead, the children who need more direct support, and then there is the child who has been absent for two weeks and is saying, “I don’t understand anything, Miss, what’s going on?” It is really challenging, so I understand the perspective of the school. The education system and the teachers want the other children as well as that child to get the best possible education, but it is challenging to work in those environments. I see that side of things.
I have also seen countless children and parents struggling with attendance, not because the child just does not want to go to school, but as part of a more complex and unique set of needs that cannot be solved with fines. For those parents, especially those on lower incomes for whom the fines will be more damaging, there must be exceptions. With 30% of children in my constituency living in relative poverty—again, above the national average—the whole fine and court process is too punitive. Having to travel at expensive times is difficult.
The process does not produce the intended outcome of improving attendance. It taxes an already overwhelmed system, and places further burdens on those who need support, not punishment. We need a balanced approach that tackles those who take their children out for unwarranted reasons—I understand that—but that supports families who are struggling to best help their children. Sometimes that means taking them outside school in schooltime, to have a break and some respite—it is not a holiday; it is a period of respite. I therefore support the principle of the petition.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank those Members who have made contributions, and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for bringing this debate before us on behalf of the petitioners. I thank the 250,000 members of the public who made their voices heard by signing the petition so that it could be heard in Parliament.
The UK is facing an absence crisis in schools, it is fair to say. While the pandemic gave rise to a huge spike in pupil absence, since the restrictions were fully lifted in 2022, absence rates have yet to drop back down to pre-pandemic levels. In fact, the general absence rate in the 2022-23 academic year was still over one and a half times higher than the rates recorded during the six years before the pandemic. Persistent absence—missing 10% or more of lessons over a year—does a huge amount of damage to children’s education and prospects, both academically and socially. To emphasise the point, 19.2% of children in England were persistently absent by that definition during the last academic year.
The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the Government’s mission to lower school absence rates. The announcement of free breakfast clubs in all primary schools in England, in a programme due to roll out next year, is a very good way to start addressing the persistent absence problem.
However, the Liberal Democrats also believe that the use of increasingly punitive measures to tackle pupil absence more widely is wrong. Parents and other primary carers of children are responsible not just for their academic attainment but for their overall wellbeing and learning. Inflexible fines, which have also recently increased, are not the one-size-fits-all answer that they are often made out to be. Of course, fines work as a deterrent in many cases, but we have to encourage—demand, even—that schools first work with parents to understand the root causes of absences, which involves addressing the needs of absent children, and then work to find the solutions to get them back in school. Simply slapping parents with financial punishment for issues that are often completely out of their control is not the answer.
The petition concerns the specific issue of absence due to holidays. I am sure that no hon. Member here would doubt the importance of family holidays for children. Whether abroad or in the UK, the chance for a child to have a break from their usual routine, perhaps while visiting and socialising with relatives or seeing historical sites, is important. The hon. Member for Lichfield has fond memories of childhood holidays in Wales; perhaps he is a budding Dylan Thomas. Such experiences of other cultures are invaluable for personal growth.
For many families, organising holidays during the 175 days a year that their children are not expected to be in school is absolutely not a problem. Many parents can afford to pay the frankly enormously hiked holiday package prices during periods of high demand, and being packed into tourist attractions at the busiest times of year is just accepted as a fact of life. However, as other Members have already pointed out today, for some families those factors, particularly the financial ones, are completely prohibitive. For a child who is unable to go on holiday outside term time, the lesson in which they are tasked with writing an account of how they spent their summer may well be one they completely dread. Feeling excluded, singled out or sidelined in daily life is the antithesis of an inclusive education.
Does the Minister agree that the burden should not be on parents to shell out thousands of pounds on the additional costs of a holiday or risk facing inflexible fines, and that instead airlines and travel operators should stop taking advantage of such families? Nearly doubling the price of the same holiday package from one day to the next is simply exploitative and completely out of line with any surge in demand. We have talked in other contexts about surge pricing this year; it is exploitative.
The school holidays issue is indicative of a wider issue, which is that school absence is generally—indeed, inherently—linked to a family’s financial situation. In the 2022-23 school year, 36.5% of children eligible for free school meals were absent from school, compared with only 15.6% of children who were not eligible. The Government’s very provision of those meals and the new breakfast clubs that I mentioned indicates that they see the correlation between a family’s finances and a child’s attendance. I therefore ask the Minister what the Government will do to relieve holiday-related financial burdens for those who clearly need it most.
Aside from financial concerns, we should also consider that term dates are decided by local authorities and schools, so we could encourage them to organise term dates in such a way that the largest number of families in their communities can benefit from the 175 days a year that can be used for holidays. For example, giving a lengthy Christmas holiday to a community where a large number of families are not Christian can mean that those communities are effectively barred from properly celebrating their own religious festivals, or face fines if they take their children out of school to do so.
Some schools have found a way around that issue by pushing together all their inset and training days, rather than spreading them out over the year, so that families have consecutive days to celebrate those festivals or even to book some time away together outside high-demand times. That indicates part of the answer: a way forward that is about collaboration, rather than simply punishment.
I am trying to highlight that, in many cases, it is not that parents are actively choosing to take their child out of school, but that their child has been forced out of the school system by factors outside their control. I have only scratched the surface of financial burdens, but we should not debate the issue without addressing the point of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) regarding the needs of pupils with SEND, to which group I would also add young carers or those with mental health conditions. Their needs are consistently not being met in the classroom or at home, because of the knock-on effect and pressure.
I will give an example from my constituency. Across Cambridgeshire, the rates of school absence for those with SEN support and those with EHCPs—education, health and care plans—are quietly rising year on year. I suggest that that is a direct consequence of inadequate SEND and EHCP funding, which, in Cambridgeshire’s case, is stuck at levels decided nearly 10 years ago.
That is a multifaceted problem that needs to be tackled constructively, not punitively. The Liberal Democrats have long called for measures, particularly around mental health, such as having a dedicated, qualified mental health professional in every primary and secondary school, and giving local authorities extra funding to reduce the amount that schools have to pay towards the costs of EHCPs.
The bottom line is that we need to understand why a child is not attending school, whether that is because of holidays, the financial reasons that I mentioned, SEND or young caring responsibilities. Understanding that is the most effective step towards beginning to reduce the problem; we have to understand it if we are going to do anything about it. I suggest that the Government adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal of setting up a register of children who are not in school to build that understanding and, therefore, remove the underlying barriers to attendance.
The solution to this petition, and indeed the wider issue of school absence, is not to make children attend school, but to ensure that they are able to do so—not forcing but enabling them. The Government, parents and care givers jointly have a duty to provide children with the education they deserve. Costly punishments are not the solution.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I declare an interest: as a parent of two primary school children, I am acutely aware of the cost of doing anything fun with small children. Like other Members who have spoken, I wince when I look at the cost of going on holiday anywhere and see that it is radically cheaper just a few weeks before the school holidays, so I completely understand the motivation behind this petition and why so many people have signed it. I echo what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) said about the importance of those memories. I will have the memories of being on the north coast of Scotland this summer with my small children forever.
I will come to what we can do to make it easier for parents, but I will first touch on the very good speeches and interventions from the hon. Members for Lichfield, for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). I agree that we have a major school attendance issue, so we need to address the petition in that context.
People often think, “Well, if we’re out a bit, it’s not so bad. Being absent a lot is a problem, but is being absent a bit really a problem?” The statistical truth is that it is a big problem, unfortunately. If there is a 10% decrease in pupils’ attendance at school, the number who get a GCSE grade 5 or above in English and maths halves: 55% of those in the 0% to 5% range of absence get grade 5 or above, but only 22% in the 10% to 15% range do so. What seems like not a huge decrease in attendance has a huge impact. As Members who are former teachers expressed well, those pupils lose the thread, start to fall behind and find it difficult to follow the sequence of what others have already learned, so the problems compound. That is why it is a problem for them not to be in school when they need to be.
When the Conservatives were in office, we took steps to address this major challenge, which has become particularly acute since the pandemic. Schools have always had a duty to keep a register of children not in school, but we worked with local authorities to make it more accurate and we committed to making it statutory. In January, we committed to double the number of attendance hubs to support about 1 million extra children with attendance.
We did things at different levels. We invested £15 million in one-to-one monitoring for 10,000 children with particularly severe attendance issues. For a wider group of pupils with quite serious attendance problems, we put an extra £200 million into the Supporting Families programme—an early intervention programme—taking the spending to £700 million a year. As the issue overlaps to some extent with special educational needs, we increased spending on the high-needs block by 70%—£4 billion extra a year. People may say, “It’s not enough because the need is ever expanding,” and I completely understand that. We need to do more, but it is worth noting that that money has gone in. We also need to tackle the root causes of the growth of demand. I am sure the Government agree with that and want to do more about it.
We were making progress on the attendance challenge. In school year 2022-23, we had 440,000 fewer persistently absent pupils than the year before, but there was still a long way to go because the patterns of attendance had not got back to pre-pandemic levels. In truth, even before the pandemic, although the proportion of pupils with good attendance was about 70% in primary school, in secondary school it dipped down in years 9 and 10 to just above 60%, and the problem was radically compounded after the pandemic.
There are a lot of different bits to this—people working from home with their kids there, or taking days here and there; people having the challenge of wanting to go on holiday; and much more serious social problems, with children who are routinely and significantly not in school a lot of the time—but we cannot lose sight of, and would do a disservice to parents if we did not share with them, the evidence that what might seem like small amounts of non-attendance have pretty bad effects on pupils’ attendance.
I am absolutely not saying, however, that nothing can be done; Members have alluded to some of the ideas. The hon. Member for Lichfield did a good job of talking to all the different people who care about the issue. He mentioned the Parentkind idea about when the school terms are, and I have some experience of that in Leicestershire: we are out of step with everybody—for historical reasons to do with how the factories used to shut in Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, we finish our school year a week earlier than everyone else and go back a week earlier than everyone else.
The last Government looked at whether, as Members have suggested, we could do more to stagger school holidays around the country. Obviously, Scotland often has different holidays, but the challenge—I have direct experience of this—is where we have a border. There was a brief moment when schools in the city of Leicester and Leicestershire had their holidays at different times, which was a massive pain for parents, because of course if they had one kid in school, but one needed looking after at home, they could not go on holiday.
I think there is potential in staggering holidays, and I understand why local authorities might want to explore that to give parents the benefits of finding cheaper holidays, but I would add that caution is needed. If we create borders with parents’ kids on either side of them, we can create problems for the parents, rather than making any of the problems better.
I am entirely sympathetic: the Government could do a huge array of things to make it easier to go on holiday, such as improve the cost of living for parents, and think about the taxes on holidays and on flying in this country. I am supportive of schools, and of course they have to be compassionate and sensible, in particular about bereavement as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole pointed out, as well as using their discretion.
My own schools on the edge of Leicester do a good job of using their discretion to be sensible about the fact that they are often juggling the festivals of at least four different major world religions at the same time, which is not easy. We also have to be careful and honest with parents about the risks of deciding not to attend school and to miss a couple of weeks, which might not seem like a lot, but which we and the educators in the Chamber know can have a particularly bad effect on kids’ education. We must balance our desire to make things cheaper for parents with our desire for children to get a good education. We must continue the work—which I am sure the Government will do—of ensuring that we get school absence under control, because it is such an important driver of overall achievement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I welcome to his place the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), who made some very reasonable remarks. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for introducing the debate and all Members who have contributed, on both sides of the House.
Let me start by acknowledging the points made by Members across the Chamber on the issue of holidays in particular. I sympathise with families who, for a variety of reasons, wish to avoid the busier and more expensive periods. As we heard from Members, including a number of former teachers, school attendance is clearly an important issue that a lot of people in this country care deeply about.
This Government are acting decisively to tackle absence via a new approach rooted in responsibility, partnership and belonging. That includes supporting schools and recognising that they have important responsibilities to create a welcoming, engaging and inclusive environment for children, and it also include parents’ legal responsibility to send their children to school every day that they can. That is why we will not automatically grant two weeks of term-time absence to every pupil.
Tackling absence from school is at the heart of our mission to break down barriers to opportunity. Sometimes, of course, children are too poorly to attend school, but we are currently facing an absence epidemic in this country, with one in five children persistently absent, missing the equivalent of a day every other week. Thanks to the hard work of the sector, there has been progress, but we remain a long way off pre-pandemic levels.
If children are not in school, it does not matter how effective or well supported teaching or learning is, as they will not benefit. That is why the Government have the highest possible expectations of all children’s attendance at school, and why we will ensure that school is the best place for every child, with free breakfast clubs in primary schools so that every child is on time and ready to learn; better mental health support through access to specialist mental health professionals in every school; and inclusion for children with special educational needs and disabilities within mainstream settings right across the age range. We will make sure that parents are supported to send their children to school and that schools are supported to welcome them.
The reason that this such a top priority for the Government is that we know the overwhelming benefits of regular school attendance for children’s attainment, mental wellbeing and long-term development. The most recent DFE data shows that an increase in absence is associated with dramatic reductions in attainment, with 18% fewer children who miss two weeks of the school year achieving good GCSE results compared with those who are in almost every day. Other independent studies support that finding.
Some Members have questioned whether that evidence applies specifically to absence for holidays, and there is clear evidence that it does. Analysis undertaken by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in 2023, for example, shows that any amount of holiday during term time is associated with lower GCSE results. We also know that absence for term-time holidays cannot be seen in isolation. Children inevitably miss some school due to childhood illnesses, and based on the most recent census data, a child who is taken out of school for a two-week holiday every year and has an average number of days off for sickness and medical appointments will have missed the equivalent of a full year of school by the time they finish year 11 at age 16. Let me repeat that: a child who takes a fortnight’s term-time holiday and has an average number of days off due to illness will miss a full school year over the course of their education.
I have spoken about how we are adopting an approach rooted in partnership and belonging, and I would like to highlight that term-time holidays do not impact only the child missing school. Children thrive on stability, and a steady churn of absences disrupts the learning of every child. The hard work by school staff to cultivate a sense of community and belonging is wasted, and teachers have to replan lessons, making it more difficult for them to cover the curriculum. Even if we assume that that takes just one minute per missed day, it adds up to the equivalent of 1,000 teachers working full-time on nothing else for an entire year. The impact of absence on other children is not spread equally; it hits the children who already face greater barriers to opportunity the hardest. Research by the National Foundation for Educational Research shows that in year groups where there was higher absence, disadvantaged pupils had worse attainment.
A number of hon. Friends and Members have raised points on children with SEND. We know that parents have struggled to get the right support for their children, particularly through the long and difficult EHCP process. We have announced extra funding for this year: over £1 billion to help schools with the additional costs that they face, including the costs of supporting their pupils with SEND. We will work across the sector to provide support for children with SEND and to restore parents’ trust.
We know that some pupils face more complex barriers to attendance. This can include pupils who have long-term physical or mental health conditions or special educational needs and disabilities. However, those children have the same right to an education as any other pupil. It is also worth noting that the national framework for penalty notices strengthens protections for SEND parents in, for example, absence cases other than holiday, including an expectation that attendance support will have been provided before a penalty notice is used. Our updated guidance on attendance includes more detail about additional support where a pupil is not attending due to unmet or additional needs. It sets out clear expectations on how schools, local authorities and wider services should work together to access and provide the right support to improve attendance.
A number of Members raised issues relating to holiday prices and term times. Of course, we recognise the concerns that they raised on behalf of their constituents about the cost of holidays at peak times. However, travel companies, airlines and hotels are private companies that set their prices based on their costs, competition and profit margins. The Government do not have the authority to dictate pricing strategies for private companies and businesses.
However, as has been mentioned, schools and local authorities have the flexibility to plan term dates, and to hold inset days and other occasional such days at less busy times of the year, which can help families to plan breaks at times that suit them. For example, I know of councils and school trusts, including in my constituency, that have trialled a two-week half term or slightly later summer holidays. Similar points were made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). I stress that we are interested in anything more that holiday companies and other businesses in the sector can do to make holidays in peak times more affordable for families.
Several Members made remarks about penalty notices, which came into force following a national consultation. They are designed to embed our support-first approach and to improve consistency and fairness across the country, but they should always be used as a last resort. On bereavement, our guidance requires schools to take a support-first approach. Schools have the discretion to authorise a leave of absence in exceptional circumstances.
In conclusion, I once again thank all Members for their contributions. I acknowledge the strength of feeling behind them and that family holidays can be enriching activities, but we are not ashamed of the importance that we place on children attending school. Absence is one of the biggest barriers to success for children and young people. Minimising absence of any kind is crucial if we are to ensure that they reach their full potential, and we will continue to work in collaboration with the sector to take steps to achieve that.
Dave Robertson
I realise that I may have omitted to say how much of a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship at the start of the debate, Sir Edward. I am happy to correct the record in this instance.
Although we have had only a small number of speakers, the depth of research that has been done, and the depth of understanding of the issue across the Chamber by Members from the vast majority of parties has shown that this is being looked at by individual Members, the Government and all political parties. It has been a very good debate, in that we have heard a lot of different viewpoints, and it was good to hear the Minister’s response.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 658365 relating to holidays during school term time.
Written Correction
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Commuters at Arlesey and Hitchen stations in my constituency are driven to despair by the shocking state of Thameslink services, with delays and cancellations an all too frequent feature of everyday commutes. I welcome the urgency with which the Secretary of State is starting to tackle the long-term causes, from industrial disputes to fragmentation. In the interim, will she meet me to discuss how we can push Thameslink to do more to make sure we finally make these delays and cancellations a thing of the past?
Louise Haigh
I am grateful for those comments. Govia Thameslink had an improvement of 3% in its cancellations on last year, but it is still falling behind on punctuality.
[Official Report, 11 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 528.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh):
Louise Haigh
I am grateful for those comments. Govia Thameslink had an increase of 3% in its cancellations on last year, and it is still falling behind on punctuality.
Written Statements
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
International Treaty on Plastic Pollution
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Plastic pollution is one of the greatest environmental challenges that the planet faces. The world produces 400 million tonnes of plastic waste each year. Scientists predict that there will be a threefold increase in the amount of plastic entering the ocean between 2016 and 2040. A global agreement on plastic pollution is urgently needed to co-ordinate a response to this complex issue.
United Nations Environment Assembly resolution 5/14 initiated discussions to agree an internationally legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. An intergovernmental negotiating committee was established with the ambition of completing its work by the end of 2024. The fifth and final planned meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating committee is being held in Busan, in the Republic of Korea, from 25 November to 1 December 2024.
The draft treaty under discussion includes provisions on production and consumption of primary plastic polymers; problematic products and chemicals of concern in plastic; product design; waste management; emissions and releases of plastic into the environment; existing plastic pollution; just transition; financial assistance, technology transfer and capacity building; implementation and compliance; national plans; reporting; effectiveness evaluation and monitoring; awareness raising, education and research; health and final provisions on processes necessary for the establishment of an international treaty.
The Government have an ambition to catalyse the transition to a circular economy and the treaty is one of the key levers available to us to achieve the systems-wide changes needed to make that a reality.
Plastic waste has for too long littered our streets, polluted Britan’s waterways and threatened our wildlife. This Government are committed to cleaning up Britain and cracking down on plastic waste. We will roll out extended producer responsibility to incentivise businesses to cut plastic packaging and the deposit return scheme to incentivise consumers to recycle.
The UK is an active member of the High Ambition Coalition, a group of 67 countries seeking an ambitious treaty that will end plastic pollution by 2040 by taking a full-lifecycle approach. At INC-5 we will continue to take a leadership role and work closely with other countries to push for agreement of an ambitious and effective treaty in Busan. The science tells us that in order to be effective we must take action at all stages of the plastics lifecycle, from production to waste management and emissions.
In developing the UK negotiating approach, we have worked closely with the devolved Governments and UK overseas territories, as well as a wide range of stakeholders, including producers, manufacturers, retailers, eNGOs and academia. On 6 November, I hosted a roundtable on the treaty for leading businesses and financial organisations, ahead of His Majesty’s international sustainability reception. Participants of the roundtable agreed a statement calling for an ambitious treaty that will create a more harmonised regulatory environment and a level playing field.
The UK remains committed to securing an agreement in Busan as a critical step towards ensuring the global action needed to end plastic pollution by 2040.
[HCWS247]
Pandemic Accord Negotiations and International Health Regulations
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I would like to update the House on the most recent round of negotiations on the legally binding international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response—the pandemic accord—at the World Health Organisation (WHO), as well as the outcome of negotiations to agree targeted amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). The most recent round of pandemic accord negotiations took place between 4 and 15 November.
Pandemic accord negotiations:
As outlined in my statement of 9 September 2024, infectious diseases do not respect borders. The risk of another pandemic is very real—a question of “when” rather than “if.” All countries would benefit from strengthening our collective ability to prevent, prepare for and respond to the next pandemic threat. The pandemic accord is an important opportunity to establish a framework for a comprehensive new global approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.
Co-operation with countries around the world does not compromise our sovereignty; it strengthens our security, and no amendments to the accord have been proposed or agreed that would give the WHO powers to impose domestic public health decisions on the UK. The UK Government remain committed to negotiating a pandemic accord that enhances UK and global health security and is firmly in the UK’s national interest.
Member states of the WHO have until the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2025 to reach an agreement on the pandemic accord, following an extension agreed at the WHA in May 2024. Member states have reached provisional agreement on over 70% of the text, while negotiating on the principle that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” At the latest round of negotiations, provisional agreement was reached on the issues of regulatory systems strengthening, and sustainable and geographically diversified local production.
On Monday November 11, a discussion was held by member states on whether to call a special session of the WHA in December with the aim of agreeing the accord before the new year. Given the number of outstanding issues on which consensus is yet to be found—including on prevention, One Health, technology transfer, and the pathogen access and benefit-sharing mechanism—and the legal form and status of the accord, member states chose not to call a special session in December. However, the Government remain committed to working with others to secure an effective agreement as soon as possible and will continue to work towards the May 2025 deadline, with the option to conclude negotiations earlier if this is deemed feasible while still delivering a good agreement.
As negotiations continue, we will keep working closely with the devolved Administrations, the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories to ensure that the process reflects their interests, and we will keep engaging with civil society organisations, institutions, academia and the private sector. The latest public version of the text and other relevant documents can be found online here: https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/index.html.
The International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR):
The IHR are an important, legally binding technical framework that helps to prevent and protect against the international spread of disease. Amendments to the IHR, were agreed by countries at the World Health Assembly that took place from 27 May to 1 June 2024. The amendments aimed to reflect lessons learned from recent global health emergencies, such as the covid-19 pandemic, including by improving information sharing and collaboration for public health emergency response. On 19 September 2024, the WHO’s director general formally notified all states parties of the official amendments adopted by the WHA. From this date of notification, the UK has 10 months to complete the domestic review of IHR amendments and then notify the WHO director general whether we wish to reject or reserve on any or all the amendments by 19 July 2025. Adopted amendments —that we have not rejected—would then come into force for the UK in September 2025.
Department of Health and Social Care officials have been leading work across Government to confirm the implications of the amendments for the UK. Officials are also working with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations and in our overseas territories and Crown dependencies, to ensure that all relevant territories are considered. This analysis will inform the decision about which amendments are in the UK’s national interest and whether we wish to reject or reserve on any or all of them before the July 2025 deadline. No decision has yet been made.
In parallel with the approach to the pandemic accord negotiations, respect for each country’s sovereignty has been a fundamental element of the IHR amendments. The UK Government will of course only formally adopt amendments to the IHR that are in the UK national interest.
The latest available full text of the agreed IHR amendments can be found online here: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA77/A77_ACONF14-en.pdf
Given the significance of the pandemic accord negotiations and the IHR amendments, and their potential to make our country stronger and safer, I am committed to keeping the House updated at relevant and important junctures.
[HCWS246]
Grand Committee
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, in the unlikely event of a Division, the Committee will be adjourned for 10 minutes. Much more likely is that some Members may have been adversely affected by Storm Bert and may not be able to join us for this session.
Clause 1: Product regulations
Amendment 11
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(4A) The Secretary of State must also by regulations make provision aimed at promoting investment, fostering innovation, and encouraging economic growth in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom.(4B) Regulations under subsection (4A) must support—(a) the creation of economic incentives for businesses that contribute to economic growth, and(b) the alignment of product regulations with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the regulations in the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 11, I shall speak also to Amendments 104A and 124A in my name.
As highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Clause 1 in its current form should be removed—a theme that we have explored already and to which we will no doubt return. This amendment, however, directly addresses a critical gap in the current Bill by ensuring that regulations do not focus merely on product safety, environmental concerns and operational efficiency but actively promote investment and foster innovation.
The news coming from today’s CBI conference makes sobering reading. The chief executive of the CBI has said that employers have been forced into “damage control mode”. The head of the company that makes McVitie’s digestive biscuits said that
“it’s becoming harder to understand what the case for investment is … to make a difference in the growth rate of the economy”.
Again, the chief exec has said that CFOs are asking, “Can we afford to invest?”
I have no wish to talk down the economy or try to score cheap party-political points, but the fact is that life has got harder for big business recently. No doubt noble Lords opposite will say, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” But they are also committed to providing an environment that fosters growth and I know them to be sincere in that ambition, so we should all take these comments seriously.
It is not just big business. Last week, analysis by the Altus Group said that the planned reduction in business rates relief would lead to a more than doubling of rates for shops, pubs and restaurants next year. Coupled with rises in national insurance contributions and other operational pressures, SMEs are facing difficult times. But they represent the heartbeat of our economy and some of them will hopefully go on to become big businesses.
In today’s competitive global economy, economic growth cannot be secondary. The Bill should prioritise creating an environment where businesses can thrive, develop new technologies and compete internationally. It is vital that our regulations should be aligned with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation. In the post-Brexit world, the UK’s economic success is intrinsically tied to its ability to lead in innovation, which is why my Amendment 11 is critical. It ensures that product regulation supports the creation of an environment conducive to technological advancement and cutting-edge industrial leadership. It strengthens the Bill by ensuring that it is not about just managing risks or regulating product use but about creating a dynamic, forward-thinking market where businesses have the tools, resources and incentives to innovate and expand. Without these provisions, there is a risk that the UK could fall behind in the global race for innovation and business growth. If we do not explicitly ensure that our regulations align with our growth objectives, we could inadvertently stifle entrepreneurship and technological progress.
So how are we to become a global leader? The answer surely lies in aligning ourselves with the strongest global partners in the world today. If we are to maintain and enhance our position as a leading economy, we must look beyond a single trading bloc, particularly one whose economic influence is shrinking on the global stage—a theme we explored in debate last Wednesday. For example, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP, represents some of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Countries such as Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, as well as emerging markets in Asia, are showing much more significant economic growth potential than others.
To lead the world, the UK must be flexible in its approach to trade and regulation. We need to reduce barriers and align ourselves with the economies that will drive future growth and innovation, rather than being tethered to a bloc that is not growing as fast as others. Amendment 11 in my name will enable us to do just that: focus on fostering global partnerships with the most dynamic economies.
Regarding Amendment 104A, a regulatory sandbox means an environment that allows businesses to explore and experiment with new, innovative products under regulatory supervision. This amendment is important for the development of innovative products affected by the Bill. It is an important step forward in fostering a regulatory environment that encourages creativity and innovation while ensuring safety and compliance. Regulatory sandboxes are an effective and proven model used to support businesses in testing innovative ideas. By introducing the importance of regulatory sandboxes in the Bill, we are not just helping businesses to navigate regulatory hurdles but promoting innovation by giving businesses the space to trial and refine their ideas.
Regulatory sandboxes will create a framework in which businesses can develop and test new products, contributing to the growth of the economy and the success of British businesses in the global marketplace. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment to pave the way for more innovation, more competitive businesses and, ultimately, a stronger economy.
I thank my noble friend Lady Lawlor for bringing forward Amendment 11A. The amendment is a clear and strong signal that we are committed to ensuring that our regulations actively foster economic growth, innovation and the global competitiveness of UK businesses. By encouraging the marketing and use of products in domestic and foreign markets, we are helping to open doors for UK businesses to grow their customer base, create jobs and increase exports. I commend my noble friend for this amendment. I look forward to a positive reception for all these amendments from the Government. I particularly look forward to the positive impact that they will have on businesses across the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 11A, which would insert a new subsection to the effect that regulations
“must promote growth and effective production, foster innovation and encourage the use and marketing of products in the UK’s domestic and foreign markets”.
I declare an interest in that I have commissioned a number of studies and analyses at Politeia, the think tank where I am research director, which aim to examine and promote UK international trade and the UK economy. I support the aims of safety, containing costs and compliance with safety regulations, but I urge that we think about products having to operate efficiently and effectively. The problem we face is how best to do this consistent with promoting the entrepreneurial and innovative instincts of those bringing new products to the market, who my noble friend Lord Sharpe mentioned, and the growth this allows. I support my noble friend’s amendment to put growth at the heart of this measure.
During the consultation process for a product regulatory framework since 2021, of which this Bill is the outcome, producers and their representatives stressed their priorities for regulation. I am grateful to the Government for their response to this long consultation process. Producers stressed that it should be outcomes-focused and risk-based, should have greater simplicity, proportionality and consistency across legislation and powers and should deal with the serious challenges and opportunities that this country now faces. A further consultation to develop the product safety regime took place in August 2023, with businesspeople and business representatives that are listed in the Government’s helpful response. It found broad agreement on the need for a regulatory approach that promotes a regime ready to respond to hazards but that allows temporary derogation during emergencies for supplying essential products—in other words, it is dynamic—and makes for safer online shopping and promotes digital labelling and an enhanced national regime.
The Minister said at Second Reading and has reiterated to this Committee that the Government have listened to business. Their priorities are summarised in the Government’s consultation document. They are designed to allow for effective operations and to promote growth as a priority, which I and my noble friend Lord Sharpe are urging we need. The rules should be demand-led and reflect the capacity of our businesses to innovate, be entrepreneurial and grow their workforces and their range of products along with the high standards and competitive costs that consumers want.
Nowhere in the Government’s response document do we find businesses wanting a regulatory regime that brings greater rigidity in process rather than being outcomes-led, one that is risk-averse rather than equipped to deal with the real level of risk posed by products or processes, one that treats every product as bearing the same risk or being under a one-size-fits-all rule, or a regime that is disproportionate, untargeted and unduly complex. Yet that scenario, rejected by business, is inherent in the EU legal arrangements that the Government wish to be able to adopt for our businesses under Clause 1(2), to which my amendment is addressed. That can only stymie growth, contrary to the express wishes of the Government. For those reasons, I propose that growth should take priority over the arbitrary exercise of power to introduce the rigidity and complexity of an EU system which is not outcomes-focused or risk-based; nor is it proportionate or known for simplicity.
I will give your Lordships an illustration, for which I owe thanks to Professor David Collins, who holds the chair of international economic and trade law at City, University of London. He draws attention to the unnecessarily burdensome EU REACH regulation—on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. Collins explains that it has extensive requirements for registering very low-risk substances. For example, certain food-grade natural substances that have been used safely for centuries will require expensive registration. Under the EU’s REACH, if a company uses more than one tonne per year of natural fruit extracts or oils, and products such as soaps or cosmetics, it needs full registration, including extensive safety data packages, even when these substances have been safely used in food for ages. This can cost tens of thousands of euros per substance. The relevant EU legislation is Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 REACH, and the key sections on registration requirements are primarily in Title II, Articles 5/24.
The EU’s post-Brexit UK REACH maintains similar core principles but has proposed a more proportionate approach for these well-established natural substances, with simplified registration requirements planned for ingredients with long histories of safe use. Although the overall goal of chemical safety is vital, requiring extensive registration for substances such as olive oil or lemon extract when used in non-food products adds to cost without proportionate safety benefit, and it is not needed. The safety of these materials could be adequately assured through simpler mechanisms. The UK REACH regulation, created through the REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, Statutory Instrument 2019/758, aims to do this and does it very effectively.
Moreover—I refer to my noble friend Lord Sharpe urging that we align the UK economy with the strongest, most dynamic economies in the world—by relying on our own laws it will not only help our businesses but will allow us to do exactly that. My noble friend Lord Sharpe mentioned the CPTPP agreement; as Professor Collins says, it
“does not mandate blanket mutual recognition of conformity assessments for food safety among its members”
but it does
“include provisions that encourage members to accept other members’ conformity assessment results. It also facilitates acceptance of conformity assessment results through mechanisms like technical discussions and explanations of requirements. It also allows for sector-specific mutual recognition arrangements to be negotiated between members”—
which are very important. Professor Collins continues:
“So the CPTPP promotes regulatory cooperation and transparency but preserves each member’s right to maintain their own food safety standards and assessment procedures. Members must ensure their requirements are based on science and international standards where they exist, but aren’t required to automatically accept other members’ assessments. This is similar to what the WTO TBT Agreement does, but it goes further in terms of cooperation”.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I came here full of hope and expectation this afternoon; indeed, I even indicated to my noble friend Lord Sharpe that, on this occasion, I was here to support his Amendment 11 and Amendment 11A in the name of my noble friend Lady Lawlor, because, as one reads them on the page, they seem to have a lot of merit. However, I regret that, as my noble friends have spoken, they have in their speeches used these amendments to diminish the importance of our major market in Europe and our relationship with the European Union. Noble Lords will be delighted to know that I am not, therefore, going to concentrate any further on those matters but shall instead turn immediately—to my own relief and that of those parties—to Amendments 104A and 124A.
I want to refer in particular to sandboxes, a very interesting area that most members of the public probably do not have a clue about, other than from their visits to coastal regions during the summer holidays. Of course, sandboxes are terribly important in the context of this Bill. My noble friend Lord Sharpe was right to allude to them and to say how important they are; indeed, there are already in place regulations referring to their use, to how IP can be protected, as has been mentioned to me, and so on. However, I want to broaden this issue out a tiny bit. In winding up on this group, can the Minister clarify the way in which sandboxes are protected and how, from the point of view of UK plc, we can make use of them without danger either to the thinking that goes into innovation in them or to the overall position of this country apropos markets, wherever they may be in the world?
I am particularly interested—I know that other noble Lords present this afternoon may well speak on this—in sandbox use in the development of technology and AI. This is an area in which this country has every opportunity to lead the world. Certainly, sandboxes are one way that one can experiment and bring in new ideas without the risk or danger of them being exploited by others, against the interests of this country. I merely say that I support Amendments 104A and 124A, in the principles that they debate, but I would like the Minister to clarify how we can bring together sandboxes, in whichever field they may be deployed, to the benefit of the country.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to be with the Committee on its first day, nor will I for much of this afternoon, but I look forward to returning for my amendments on Wednesday. I support my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s amendment.
When we debated the regulation of medical devices in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, we established that safety and safeguarding public health was its overriding objective. However, we went on to say in what is now Section 15(3) of that Act that in considering whether regulations should be made, and whether they would contribute to the objective of safeguarding public health,
“the Secretary of State must have regard to”—
I commend that language to my noble friend, rather than “must support”, which I think takes it a bit far and creates conflicting duties—
“the safety of medical devices … the availability of medical devices … the likelihood of the United Kingdom being seen as a favourable place in which to … carry out research relating to medical devices … develop medical devices, or … manufacture or supply medical devices”.
I draw attention to the third of those. The structure of the existing legislation on the product requirements for medical devices already incorporates an expectation that we consider economic activity, economic growth and our comparative position in the manufacture or supply of such products. I say to my noble friend that that is an alternative formulation which thoroughly supports, through the precedent of a very closely related area of regulation, the idea that economic activity of that form should be part of the consideration of whether and how regulations should be made.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for their contributions on Amendments 11 and 11A, which specify that regulations made under the Bill should promote investment, foster innovation and encourage economic growth and investment. This Government are committed to attracting investment, as illustrated by the £63 billion pledged at the recent international investment summit. Britain is open for business.
I assure noble Lords that growth is the number one mission of this Government and our new industrial strategy, to be published in the spring, is central to it. The strategy will focus on tackling sector-specific and cross-cutting barriers to growth for our highest-potential growth-driving sectors and places, creating the right conditions for increased investment and high-quality jobs and ensuring a tangible impact in communities right across this country.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his Amendments 104A and 124A, which seek to create regulatory sandboxes where new products could be trialled under regulatory supervision, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. I recognise and welcome the intention behind the amendments, which seek to encourage innovation. The Office for Product Safety and Standards within my department already works to provide businesses with guidance and support as they develop and market products. We also support local authorities in their work as primary authorities. This allows businesses to receive assured and tailored advice on meeting environmental health, trading standards or fire safety regulations from a single local authority, then applying this advice nationally. The underpinnings of our product safety regime are based on extensive engagement with businesses. Whether it is on regulatory change, the development of standards or the work of the OPSS as a regulator, the relevant bodies consult extensively across industry.
I am always open to new ideas on how to support businesses to innovate. I understand that in 2022 the Office for Product Safety and Standards supported the Home Office in a regulatory sandbox trialling electronic ID for alcohol sales. However, I am concerned about mandating regulatory sandboxes in the Bill. Product safety is, after all, about avoiding potentially serious risks to people and their property, and anything that would relax regulations in this way, even as a trial, would need careful consideration. It could also commit local responsible authorities to run trials in their areas without sufficient consultation or preparation. This could place an undue burden on local authorities, diverting resources and capacity from their primary responsibilities.
This Government are committed to ensuring that any regulations made under this Bill will support the interests of UK businesses and consumers, providing regulatory certainty and creating the conditions for investment, innovation and economic growth. The Government are always open to debate to ensure that we can support businesses to deliver safe and effective products. I hope I have demonstrated to the noble Lord the extent to which regulators already work closely with businesses to achieve this.
In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about SMEs, I was an SME once; we do not want to burden SMEs with additional regulatory or financial cost, if possible. This Government are pro-business and pro-worker and have provided certainty, consistency and confidence—for which investors have been looking for a very long time. Massive tax reliefs are available to investors through the EIS, the SEIS, VCTs and all kinds of grants, including patent grants for any new industries. The Government have shown that we are committed to investment and growth.
I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to fostering growth through all our policies. This will be set out in more detail in the forthcoming industrial strategy, which we will publish in the spring. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all speakers, in particular my noble friend Lady Lawlor for so eloquently introducing her amendment. I say to my noble friend Lord Kirkhope that my remarks are in no way meant to diminish any of our trading relationships; the point is that these amendments are designed to look after our national interest. It may well be that aligning with the EU is in our national interest, in which case we absolutely should, but if it is not, then we should not, and any reference to relative economic growth is merely factual. I thank my noble friend very much indeed for his supportive remarks on Amendments 104A and 124A.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his perspective, which will be very helpful when we come to later stages of the Bill. I also thank the Minister for his remarks, which provided helpful clarity. I take comfort from the fact that he remains open to new ideas. We will consider his remarks carefully but are very pleased to hear his reassurances regarding SMEs. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Crawley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would broaden the definition of items subject to the new regulatory framework of product regulation to ensure that all digital as well as non-digital products are within scope.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 12 in my name and those of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, I also support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to his new post and thank my noble friend the Minister for his courtesy in organising several meetings for Peers and organisations interested in this Bill; it was remiss of me not to do so earlier.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments. No doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will shortly set out his amendments but, as I understand them, by deleting bits of the Bill they provide an opportunity for us to have a debate on what is meant by a “product” and by the “use of products”. The other two amendments are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and my noble friend Lord Fox and have a similar purpose. My noble friend cannot be with us today because he is abroad on parliamentary business in connection with NATO. These amendments will help us to get more clarity on what is covered by a “product” and its use and will help to future-proof the legislation, in the case of Amendment 12 by ensuring that all digital and non-digital products are within scope and in the case of Amendment 13 by ensuring that all operating systems and internet-connected products are within scope.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, very clearly set out the arguments for why this is needed, and I fully support her, but my noble friend Lord Fox’s amendment, which is also a probing amendment, seeks to find out whether the Government’s intention is that operating systems and interconnected products will be covered by the provisions of the Bill. Some may recall that in an earlier grouping I expressed concern about what appears to be the limited way in which the Government consider products as just things. I sought to explain that we cannot always consider a product in isolation as some products are installed as part of a system, and I argued that we should take the whole system into account.
My noble friend’s amendment expresses a similar point. It seeks to ensure that the Bill recognises that the operational characteristics of many products are, effectively, changeable. For instance, household products are increasing controlled by operating systems that can be and are controlled by the vendor remotely. The legislation needs to take this into account in two separate ways. The first, and most simple, is that there should be a clear obligation on the vendor to demonstrate good faith in ensuring its products’ operating systems are up to date and are protected, for example, from external malign attack. Secondly, there needs to be a process whereby material changes in the characteristics of a product continue to meet regulations that they met before the changes.
Many noble Lords will already have heard my noble friend Lord Fox’s particular concern about references to the health and safety of domestic animals in the Bill. He has picked it up on several occasions. He sought to explain his amendment to me in relation to those references. He pointed out that, for example, a remote vacuum cleaner may be programmed to behave in a way that ensures that family pets are not in danger of being harmed by it. He went on to point out that a remote change might disregard this safeguard and so endanger the health and safety of domestic animals. My noble friend argues that without his amendment, or something similar, it would appear that there is no way in which the measures in the Bill could enable the policing of such remote revisions to product properties.
More generally, these amendments in this group seek to probe the Government further on what they believe are covered by “products” and which uses of products are covered by the proposed legislation. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on those issues and to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, explain his amendments more effectively than I have sought to do.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for her remarks. Obviously, defining “products” is a key consideration in much of what we have to discuss in this Bill. It is a subject to which we will return later today. I thank the noble Lords for introducing their amendments. It was very eloquently done. They certainly deserve consideration and comprehensive answers from the Government.
I will speak to Amendments 18 and 19 standing in my name. The Bill as it stands—and I am afraid this is going to be rather labouring a point that we discussed a lot last week—has been widely criticised for being skeleton legislation with much of the substance being delegated to Ministers through statutory instruments. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has rightly pointed out that this leaves “almost no substance” or perhaps, as the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, described it, no clear markers in the Bill, giving Ministers excessive and unaccountable discretion to regulate in important areas, such as product marketing and safety, without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny or oversight.
Clause 2 is a prime example of this, because it grants wide powers to Ministers to make regulations on a wide range of product characteristics—but without any clear or substantive detail. By keeping paragraph (a), the Bill opens the door to the possibility of Ministers creating regulations that lack transparency or specificity. I find the wording concerning and unnecessarily vague. For example, the phrase “other characteristics of products”—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, described it, “just things”—is far too broad and could allow the Government to regulate anything under this clause, with little or no clear limit or definition.
The lack of clarity here is a significant issue, not least because businesses and producers rely on clear, specific regulations to know what is expected of them and to ensure that they remain compliant. Under this clause, they are left in the dark. What exactly are we talking about when we refer to “other characteristics”? Are we talking about the design of products, marketing methods or even the raw materials that are used in manufacturing? Small businesses and start-ups are especially vulnerable to such unclear regulations, as they may struggle to interpret or comply with such an open-ended provision.
This provision, in effect, gives Ministers the power to define and change the scope of regulations without sufficient clarity or transparency. Ministers could, under this clause, make regulations to cover an incredibly wide range of product characteristics, creating significant uncertainty for the market. We believe that this is an unacceptable level of ministerial discretion. With such a clause, the Government could, in effect, regulate anything and everything related to products. We do not think that we can afford to pass a Bill that leaves businesses and consumers in the dark and subject to the whims of ministerial power. This clause should be completely rewritten or removed. If the Government cannot provide a more specific targeted framework for these regulations, we must consider removing it entirely on Report.
With Amendment 19, there are the same issues. At present, there is no clear definition of what constitutes the “use of products”, nor any explanation as to how the Government intend to regulate it. This lack of clarity presents a significant issue, as it allows Ministers broad and undefined discretion to determine how products should be used and how they are to be regulated. This could easily lead to overreach, and, given how the Government have argued so far in some areas, regulations could be imposed with little or no accountability or scrutiny, leaving businesses uncertain about the future of their operations.
I am very pleased that the Minister has talked repeatedly about giving businesses certainty, particularly in aligning with EU regulations. However, we need more in the Bill to suggest certainty in the areas that I have just described, and I hope that he will be able to provide some reassurance.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, as technology and regulation continue to develop, we need new powers to address future threats and hazards and to ensure a continued supply of safe, accurate and compliant goods.
I thank my noble friend Lady Crawley and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their Amendments 12 and 13, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, who introduced the latter. I agree that we need a robust product safety framework that can reflect the latest risks and hazards and keep consumers safe and protected. The Government have worked hard to ensure that the powers in the Bill capture the multitude of products that fall within our product safety framework, as well as new products that might be placed on the market and present risks to consumers in future.
For the purposes of the Bill, products are defined as
“tangible items that … result from”
a “method of production”. This definition ensures that we can capture a wide range of manufactured products marketed or used in the UK, from cosmetics to complex machinery. There are a number of instances where our current regulation and product safety work covers software: for example, where certain products are reliant on software, or our work to enforce certain software security requirements under telecommunications legislation. Following my noble friend Lady Crawley’s comments on smart doorbells, I confirm that an app connected to a smart doorbell would be covered by the Bill where it affects the physical safety of the product. The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill would ensure that our general ability to regulate the safety of all products can take account of software, as well as the impact of software on the performance of any particular product.
Let me assure noble Lords that we have carefully considered the scope of products that we seek to cover, and we are future-proofing as much as we can by allowing regulations to also cover intangible components of physical products. This includes things such as software, as I mentioned, where they form part of a tangible product. As such, the Bill will allow us to regulate interconnected products in so far as the safety of the physical product is affected. In this way, we can ensure that we are able to regulate the role of these intangible components in the risk that physical products may present.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
I am grateful, because this takes this back in a sense to an earlier group. The Minister has again referred to the issue of installation. Can he say categorically, on the issue of use, whether use will always include installation—or is it that it “may” include installation, as he said? Is it “will” or “may”?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I can give the noble Lord the assurance that it is “will”.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Foster, who have contributed to this short but useful debate.
I will not repeat the valid and important points that have been made, but I ask the Minister to have another look at the Bill’s definition of “product” in the light of our discussion this afternoon. However, I accept his explanation of software regulation going forward: that was an important point he made. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this second day of Committee on the Bill, and a pleasure to speak on this group of amendments. I will move Amendment 14 in my name and speak also to Amendments 54, 75 to 78 and 99 to 101. In doing so, I declare my interests, not least my technology interests, as set out in the register, in particular as an adviser to Socially Recruited, an AI company.
The purpose of these amendments is to bring greater clarity to consumers, citizens and indeed our whole society and economy when it comes to the interaction of AI across so many sectors of our lives, not least in product production, deployment and use. Each amendment has a specific focus. When taken as a suite, they would make a significant difference to citizens’ and consumers’ understanding of where AI has been used in the production of a product or is inherent to the deployment and use of that product—which can only be a positive thing.
Amendment 14 seeks to amend the definition of “production” to highlight where AI has been involved in the production process. As with the previous group of amendments, I could just as easily have drafted an amendment expanding the definition of “product”, because it seems that, with the Bill as drafted, we have a product regulation regime and a production of product regime that do not really fit the economy, society and methods of production we now have across our daily experience.
I will give another example. We have had doorbells and out-of-control vacuum cleaners, potentially. Now let me give you the Minister’s fridge. After a hard day in Committee, the Minister returns home and takes out a lovely piece of soft cheese. Unfortunately, because the AI involved in that fridge has decided, for whatever reason—we know not—to increase the temperature in the fridge to 25 degrees, the Minister becomes very ill as a result of his midnight snack. How does the Bill help the Minister in his travails? The fridge is clearly a product and would be covered, but in no sense can the safety, operation and use of the fridge be of any benefit in the set of circumstances that resulted from AI acting in the way it did. That is what Amendment 14 is all about and I look forward to the Minister’s response on how the Bill could be amended to give better protection, certainty and understanding where AI is involved in the production of products, and indeed in the products themselves.
Similarly, that theme continues through Amendment 54. I believe that, if we are to have greater clarity and consistency, it would be helpful for the Government to undertake a review of all product legislation and regulation, both to see how it would deal with all the issues, opportunities and challenges around artificial intelligence and to assess all that statute and regulatory framework’s ability to look at competency in addressing AI, in terms of how it is operating and having an impact on so many people’s lives because of the products in which it is already embedded, whose use it is part of and which it controls. Oftentimes, it has an impact on people without them even knowing that AI is in the mix. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this potential review.
Amendments 75 to 78 look at labelling. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for signing Amendment 75; similarly, I should have thanked the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for co-signing Amendment 14. If consumers are to have greater understanding of the products they are buying, it would seem helpful for there to be labelling of that product—simple labelling stating that AI was involved in the production of the product and/or is involved in the product. By this, I mean not only a simple label to alert consumers if that is the case but a QR code with far more detail so that all consumers can be aware of the AI elements of a product’s production, particularly in terms of its power usage, water usage and compute usage. Clause 5 of my Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill, to which the Minister in opposition gave full-throated support, covers a number of these issues. I am interested in the Minister’s response to the concept of labelling around product where AI has been involved in the production of a product or is involved in its use.
Amendment 76 goes specifically to the music industry, where artificial intelligence itself has created music products. Again, to my mind, this should be labelled so that consumers know how music has come into being—that is, if it is simply AI-generated with no human involvement.
Amendment 77 offers a statutory option for the Minister to consider amending the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which would give far greater clarity to musicians—indeed, to all creatives across our economy and our society. The current situation is that many creatives find themselves on the wrong end of AI usage of their creative works, with no respect, no consent and no remuneration.
Amendment 78 moves us on and takes us into the areas of likeness and other elements of our personal IP. If AI products take such IP rights, this is not currently covered. I am interested in the Minister’s response as to how we can give our creative community greater clarity, greater comfort and greater support—and, through such labelling and statutory amendment, give far greater legislative cover not just to musicians but to all of our creatives, right across our society and our economy.
Amendments 99 to 101 look at potentially developing new metrology standards for AI data centres and search. Again, they cover these recurrent themes of consumer knowledge, consumer understanding and clarity around what is involved in AI-created products and products with AI in them. It is unlikely that many people who conduct an AI search or query, particularly on the new generative AI models, know the impact of every search in terms of its power usage, its water usage and its compute usage. Similarly, how many of us consider the water usage and compute power of what might seem like a more heritage search—that is, how much is involved in each and every one of those searches? Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful for the Government to undertake a programme of consultation to see whether new metrology standards could be developed? This would be helpful for consumers, businesses and developers in delivering clarity around what is involved in these new product creations.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful for the explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, of his amendments on AI and digital products, which are particularly appropriate, given the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the first group when we were discussing sandboxes, because of his experience during the passage of the digital medicines Act three or four years ago. A number of noble Lords in this Grand Committee worked on that—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in particular.
I raise this because one area that concerns me about new products, especially those using AI, is that we do not have the same mechanisms that we have, full of fault though they are, for being able to allow our personal information to be used and to give our consent. I have mentioned before the issue of my dentist. Before you go to see your dentist, you have to go online to fill in a consent form, and at some point mid last year I noticed that there was something about the IT suppliers and it said, “It is assumed you give your consent”—and 10 layers further down they had a completely different set of consents that breached UK GDPR law. Had I not been working on another Bill about digital consent, I would not have looked much further. I have to say that the moment my dental surgery was aware of this, that firm was not just told to change it but was sacked. My problem with AI is that none of that work is visible; it is completely invisible.
My question to the Minister is, in the discussion about sandboxes but also about products that will come under this Bill: will he ensure that our current GDPR laws—and indeed our copyright laws in relation to music—are complied with at all times, so that there would not be any freedom for somebody using AI to develop a product to breach those? I say that in light of the final remark the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made about consultation. Two sets of Government Ministers have had a very bitter time about patient data and care.data—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is smiling at me—when the public were not fully informed about what was going on, and in both cases the proposals had to be abandoned.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, Amendment 14, seeks to ensure that the production reliance on software and artificial intelligence are included in the scope of the Bill. Clearly, all our remarks are somewhat irrelevant if the Minister gets up and says, “No, they are not”. However, on the assumption that the Minister is going to say, “Yes, they are”, I draw particular attention, if I may, in supporting all the noble Lord’s amendments, to Amendments 75 to 78, on the issue of labelling. This seems to me to be an opportunity for real joined-up government thinking.
The Minister will be well aware that the Communications and Digital Committee, on which I had the opportunity to serve at the time of this, produced a very detailed report on the development of LLMs, large language models, and AI. In so doing, we particularly raised concern about the way in which these large language models were being trained by scraping tons of data from a variety of sources, then creating products over which they were then able to get intellectual property coverage. In so doing, they had scraped a great deal of data.
Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in respect of the labelling and so on, requires the Secretary of State to lay
“regulations to ensure no product or content … uses an individual’s image, likeness or personality rights without that individual’s express consent”.
Had I been drafting the amendment, I would have gone much further, because it seems to me that a large amount of other data is scraped—for instance, novels written by authors without their permission. I could go on; it is well worth looking at the Select Committee report.
Does the Minister accept that this is a real opportunity to have joined-up thinking, when the Government finally decide what their position is in relation to the training of LLMs and people being required to get the permission of all data owners before they can bring their product to market? Does he agree that the labelling of such products, when developed, should include specific reference to them having gained the appropriate permission, paid the appropriate fee or got the appropriate licence to make use of the data that was made use of in the training of those AI products?
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 75, which was very eloquently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. My academic background is in the research of communication and how people make decisions based on information that they are given. That touches quite a lot on how people assess the reliability and trustworthiness of data.
Amendment 75, on the labelling of AI-based products, includes a proposal about communicating the data used in the training of the AI. I think it is really important that people who have products that provide information on which they might be making decisions, or the product might be acting, are able to know the reliability and trustworthiness of that information. The cues that people use for assessing that reliability are such things as the size of the dataset, how recently that data was gathered and the source of that data—because they want to know if that data, to use the example of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is on American cheeses, British cheeses or Italian cheeses, all of which might need a different temperature in your fridge. I urge the Minister to look at this, because the over-trust or the under-trust in the outputs of data make such a difference to how people respond to products. I think this is very important.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, as one of the unfortunate authors of the GDPR, I am very interested to hear the remarks that have been made about possible abuse of the use of data. First, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes very much for his amendments because, obviously, without proper consideration of the effects in technology and the fast-moving developments of AI, no legislation, particularly the sort of legislation, will really pass muster, so I support his amendments very much.
However, as far as GDPR is concerned, we brought into all of that a term that many of our European Union friends were not going to include at the time: proportional. In relation to how we deal with alleged data abuse, whether or not it is simply a question of small areas of data that have been used for good purposes or otherwise, it is important that we remember at all times that the heavy hand must be looked at carefully and that proportionality must always be remembered as being relevant to the way in which we deal with the use of data.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for his superb introduction to this group. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for confirming my suspicion of dentists.
I shall speak in general terms because I cannot improve on the eloquence with which my noble friend Lord Holmes put his arguments. To return to the point, these amendments illustrate the limitations of Clauses 1 and 2, I am afraid. These amendments have considerable merit on a stand-alone basis but, in aggregate, they—Amendments 75 to 78 in particular—would in effect seek to define artificial intelligence. This is obviously a fast-moving and rapidly evolving subject; frankly, it deserves a national, never mind parliamentary, debate, as my noble friend Lord Holmes eloquently argued. AI will clearly demand definition and regulation, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, rightly pointed out. Philosophically, I am not even sure that it qualifies as a product in the traditional sense; frankly, what is in this Bill suggests that we do not really know.
I cannot help thinking that some of the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Leong, in our debate on the previous group reinforce this point to some extent. AI can be benign, obviously, but the same application might not be. So, how do we define risk in these terms, even if it regards only the temperature of cheese? I therefore question whether this Bill is the right vehicle for these amendments or whether AI deserves a stand-alone debate and argument. The fact that they are in scope again illustrates, as I said earlier, the inherent weaknesses of Clauses 1 and 2. They are too broad and lack definitions. Ideally, they should be removed; at the very least, they should be extensively rewritten and tightened. I hope that the Government will listen but, if they do not, I will certainly have conversations with my noble friend Lord Holmes about what we shall do next.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken. The use of software and AI in physical products covered by our product regulation regime is still in its early days. It is important to take the opportunity of this Bill to ensure that future regulation can keep pace with technological change.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would require a review of all product regulations in terms of how AI may impact them and a specific labelling requirement for AI. The Bill gives powers to ensure that product regulation can be updated or new regulations can be passed to cover emerging risks. They include measures such as labelling and verification requirements. However, mandating specific measures in the Bill would limit our ability to determine the most effective ways to protect consumers. A more flexible approach will allow us to adapt as this technology evolves and to ensure that protections remain robust and relevant.
To be clear, this Bill does not seek to regulate digital products or artificial intelligence in and of themselves; it is focused on the regulation of physical products and future-proofs our ability to keep product and metrology regulation up to date with emerging technologies. The Government have a wider programme of work on the regulation of artificial intelligence, where, in most cases, the UK’s expert regulators are responsible for enforcing the rules on AI in their domains; we are working with regulators to ensure that they have the resources and expertise to do this effectively.
Additionally, as set out in the King’s Speech, the Government will bring forward separate legislation to ensure the safe development of AI models by introducing targeted requirements on companies developing the most powerful AI systems. We will undertake a full public consultation to hone these proposals before presenting them to Parliament in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, raised the issues of data protection and intellectual property. As we know, UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 form the legal framework for protecting personal data in the UK; this already covers things such as personal data, photographs and voice recordings.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who took part in this debate and the Minister for his response. I am convinced that there will be a number of issues to discuss between Committee and Report—certainly to return to when we reach Report—but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Brinton
“(c) EU REACH regulation restrictions that are applied to the manufacture, placing on the market, and use of certain chemicals to mitigate unacceptable risks to human health or the environment;”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment ensures that EU REACH regulations covering certain chemicals are included in the Bill.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, REACH regulations cover the safety of chemicals. We simply ask: how can the Bill regulate cosmetics without considering the safety of the chemicals used to manufacture them? I do not buy the idea that Defra is in charge of chemical regulations—in the same way that the DWP is in charge of the chemicals database, other than via its responsibilities in managing the Health and Safety Executive. I will come back to a regulation that the DWP presented to the Grand Committee last year. So, should the Bill ignore chemicals or not? We need an explicit reference in the Bill to cover it. We have talked a lot about AI but the use of chemicals is equally important, particularly in online marketplaces.
I am sure that the selection of EU REACH rather than British REACH will raise certain hackles. I would grab any REACH in a storm, but the EU one is a system that functions, unlike its British cousin, which has proved expensive to business and is failing to react to new challenges.
Over a year ago, I was substituting for my noble friend Lord Fox when the biocidal products regulations 2022 were being discussed in Grand Committee. I think that none of us, including the then Minister, if she were honest, knew very much of what we were talking about. However, it was the most illuminating regulation that I have ever taken part in. We discovered that this was, in essence, a time extension for the use of the EU chemicals database, because Whitehall had not understood that the day we left the EU, we would lose access to the chemicals database. As a result, the Health and Safety Executive had to take on a very large number of staff. Its chemicals sections had increased by 30% to try to rewrite the chemicals database while also consulting with users, whether they were manufacturers importing, exporting or creating in this country. We know that there are systems out there that work but because of our bizarre structures, we tend to have government departments that are not focused on chemicals.
The cosmetics industry imports many of its ingredients from the EU, and often in very small quantities. These would certainly be covered by EU REACH, because these sales represent such a tiny proportion of total production. If there were a substantive difference between EU REACH and British REACH, it is unlikely that the manufacturer would invest in accrediting its products in the UK, causing the UK cosmetic manufacturer either to stop making its product or to move manufacture to the EU—hence my noble friend Lord Fox’s proposal about REACH in this amendment.
Can the Minister confirm whether, under the terms of the Bill as it stands, if a product contains a chemical that was allowed by EU REACH but blocked by British REACH, and yet it conformed to QC standards, it would be legal in Britain? That is what this amendment seeks to clarify. Given the interconnected nature of the UK and EU chemicals industries, it offers a route for aligning the UK chemical regulation with that of the EU. But perhaps the Minister thinks that the current wording of Clause 1(1) means that it could be used to amend and update UK REACH to align with EU REACH. I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to both amendments in this group, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her introduction of them.
When examining the purport of these amendments and considering whether to include provisions that require us to adopt regulations that correspond with the EU’s REACH provisions, I suggest that the metric by which we should judge that is simple. Would doing so make the people of this country safer? Every other consideration should be secondary to that.
As I said both at Second Reading and in Committee last week—I apologise to those who have heard this before, but it is worth repeating—the past few years have seen a significant divergence between the UK’s approach to chemical regulation and that of the EU. The previous Government decided to leave REACH—the EU’s body responsible for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals and their regulations—and 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 three.
In considering why that is the case, I point to two contextual factors. This is not a function of the legislative constraints. The Government have the power under the EU withdrawal Act and Schedule 21 to the Environment Act to adopt new restrictions and controls where necessary. However, reviews undertaken by the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee in 2022 pointed to a lack of operational capacity and insufficient data as factors that have hampered the ability of the UK’s chemical regulator properly to do its job. For instance, brominated flame retardants were identified as a risk to health and globally significant exposure rates were identified in this country. Indeed, they were identified as a regulatory priority over two years ago and a review was promised. So far, no review has been published and it is difficult to discern how this apparent priority has been acted upon, if at all.
However, while the EU has added eight flame-retardant chemicals to its list of substances of very high concern, no substances in this category have been added to the parallel UK list. The EU restrictions road map has proposed a ban on brominated flame retardants while no equivalent step has been proposed, let alone planned. This is not because we have data which diverges from that upon which the EU has based its conclusions but because we are working more slowly. I vividly remember the promises of greater regulatory agility and speed which would inevitably result once we were free of the sclerotic influence of the EU. This example is but one of many—including lead in PVC, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in synthetic football pitches and formaldehyde in wood furniture—which suggest that far from being more agile and responsive, our current system of chemical regulation is slower, less efficient and consequently less safe than its predecessor.
In April this year, Hazards magazine published a parallel analysis of the 25 new standards that have been introduced across the EU since our departure in 2020 and the UK’s response. Of the 25 standards, 12 were identical. There were 10 in which the UK’s standard was weaker, sometimes significantly. Only in one case has the UK adopted more protective measures than the European standard. Again, this is suggestive of regulatory incapacity as much as a deliberate exercise of our power independently to regulate.
Fiscal stringency creates significant challenges in remedying this situation, but both these amendments obviate the need for the otherwise necessary significant increase in investment in our chemical regulator. Ensuring that our domestic regulations correspond with those of REACH not only offers greater safety but removes a barrier to trade and promises to ease the burden on our chemical regulator which, as I said earlier, the NAO and Public Accounts Committee suggested has compromised its ability to work with appropriate speed.
At Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister said, in response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the Government are currently considering the best approach to chemical regulation in the UK separately to this Bill. In deciding our approach to these amendments, it would be extremely useful if my noble friend who is responding to this debate could at least give us an idea of the direction of travel on this. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, made the point also at Second Reading that the absence of such a Bill from the King’s Speech makes it unlikely that we will see it in this Session. That being so, what plans do the Government have, in the absence of adopting the amendments that are the subject of this discussion, to exercise the powers in Clause 2(7) to ensure that we catch up and keep pace with the EU chemical regulation?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I will make a very brief intervention because I want to repeat my illustration from the first group about the REACH regulations. I have concerns about including this amendment to Clause 1 at line 13 of page 2 of the Bill as I do not agree that the EU REACH regulations are necessarily better equipped to target sectors and individual products than UK regulations. I will not go through the reasons I gave earlier. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whose introduction I learned a great deal from and am very grateful for, mentioned cosmetics. In my earlier intervention I pointed to the use of olive oil and lemon in some soaps and said that UK REACH regulations recognise that these products can be eaten safely and, indeed, have been used for a long time. Requiring, as EU REACH does, that they go through stringent chemical REACH processes and labelling is a bit over the top and would put expense on our producers. I urge us to think of the wider implications of unsensitive or disproportion regulation where we can.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will speak to Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Regarding the EU’s REACH scheme, I shall refer to a specific example which relates to my time at the Home Office in the previous Government. It relates to cosmetics, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Lawlor. In 2019, the Home Office aligned UK policy with two decisions by the European Chemicals Agency board of appeal which related to the testing on animals for the registration of cosmetics-only substances—specifically homosalate and 2-ethylhexyl salicylate. The marketing of cosmetics tested on animals is banned in the EU under cosmetics products regulation, but the ECHA—the European Chemicals Agency—confirmed that under REACH substances used solely in cosmetics may sometimes be tested on animals, as a last resort, to prove their safety for workers or the environment.
An NGO called Cruelty Free International, quite rightly, in my view, took the Government to court arguing that the UK’s alignment in effect led to the weakening of the long-standing—I think it was a 25-year—ban on animal testing of cosmetics and cosmetic ingredients. The UK court found in the Government’s favour but as the then Minister for Animals in Science, which somewhat surprisingly sits with the Home Office, the Home Secretary and I were firmly of the opinion that this was unjustified, so as of May 2023 we decided that no new licences should be issued to carry out this function. A small number of licences had been issued between 2019 and 2022.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, made persuasive arguments about why it might be in this country’s interest to align with the EU but, equally, it might not be, and this is a very nuanced subject. Failings of the domestic chemicals regulator—real or imagined—are an entirely separate subject. Alignment with, or invention of, our own rules that suit our national and public interest most definitely is in our interest. When I say public interest, in this case 76% of the public are against animal testing according to the RSPCA. So can I ask the Minister to guarantee that this ban on new licences in these cases will be maintained? I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is not here because I was going to ask him if, in the spirit of nominative determinism, he would withdraw his Amendment 16. However, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that it certainly raised hackles, not necessarily human ones.
On the subject of dynamic alignment, I have two questions for the Minister about an apparent contradiction in our debates last Wednesday. I pored over Hansard, and I found that he said:
“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”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. GC 74.]
However, he went on to say:
“The powers in the Bill do not allow regulations to make automatic or ambulatory references to changing EU law. I reassure noble Lords that the Government will return to Parliament to make any changes to references to EU law within our regulations”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; cols. GC 74-5.]
On careful reading, these statements seem a bit contradictory. So, although I am totally willing to be persuaded otherwise, perhaps the Minister could write to explain to the Committee exactly what is proposed and what was meant. If I am being particularly thick, I would be very happy for him to explain why.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who spoke to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
From listening to the debate, I suggest that the defects identified are not so much in this Bill or other legislative provisions that we have in place but more, as my noble friend suggested, in the energy with which the previous Government used the provisions at hand., I shall first explain why this is covered in existing legislation, and then I will come on to the energy, if you like, with which this Government will approach these important matters. I shall also set out the distinction between the regulation of chemical substances under REACH and other regulations, and the regulation of consumer products that contain chemicals.
The UK has a comprehensive regulatory framework for the use of chemicals. The REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—regulation controls the manufacture, import, supply and safe use of chemical substances. The CLP—classification, labelling and packaging—regulation requires companies to classify, label and package their hazardous chemicals before placing them on the market. The REACH model operates in both the UK and the EU, but the systems have been independent since UK REACH entered into force on 31 December 2020, after we left the EU, and the EU REACH regulation was brought into UK law. So the regulation of chemicals must be managed separately under UK REACH and EU REACH.
REACH ensures a high level of protection for human health and the environment from risks imposed by chemicals. This includes minimising harm to workers who may handle chemicals during manufacturing processes, as well as minimising health impacts on our population and environmental damage from chemical substances. Chemical safety is governed by several interacting regimes. For example, certain products regulated by sector-specific regulations, such as cosmetics or toys, may contain chemicals that are also regulated by REACH and CLP. One of the aims when applying these regimes is to avoid putting in place overlapping or conflicting duties, which is the issue that we would have with the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. That amendment risks having overlapping or conflicting duties.
I know that the noble Baroness mentioned Defra, but the Secretary of State for Defra already has powers to amend UK REACH through the Environment Act 2021 and through REACH itself, which sets out a bespoke regime for imposing restrictions and other regulatory controls on chemical substances. The primary statutory purpose of UK REACH is to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment from substances that contain chemicals. In some cases, animal studies may be necessary to understand these human health or environmental hazards but, of course, I very much take on board the noble Lord’s point about animal testing, and I know of no plans to change the rules laid down by previous Ministers on that.
The Bill, as we know, relates to consumer products, and the definition of “product” stated in the Bill means that many of the substances regulated under REACH, and the ways they are used, are out of scope of the powers, regardless of these amendments. It should also be noted that the provision in Clause 1(2) is limited to the mitigation of the environmental impact of products. This limitation is reinforced in Amendment 51. As I have already commented, changes to REACH may be prompted by human health and safety, rather than environmental, considerations. The UK REACH work programme, published annually, sets out the work that has been done under UK REACH.
The fact is that the amendment would not provide the Secretary of State with the powers sought by the noble Baroness. We think the powers within UK REACH enable human health and environmental concerns to be considered alongside each other, where necessary. Existing sector regulations, such as those for cosmetics and toys, already include powers for the Secretary of State to regulate the use of chemicals in specific products beyond the overarching restrictions that can be applied under UK REACH. These powers can be, and already have been, used to make provision by regulation in UK law that corresponds, or is similar to, provision in relevant EU law. Such changes to UK regulations have been informed by independent expert scientific advice provided to the Office for Product Safety and Standards by the scientific advisory group on chemical safety for non-food and non-medicinal consumer products.
We have used these powers to make regulatory changes based on advice from that advisory group, following the EU’s introduction of new or amended prohibitions on the chemicals used in cosmetics and toys. My understanding is that, in some circumstances, the Government implemented scientific advice that was different from advice received by the EU. I am sure that the previous Government would have said that this demonstrated regulatory sovereignty to choose what products can be placed on the GB market and also demonstrated our status as a global leader in product regulation, supporting businesses and protecting consumers.
Powers in the Bill, alongside existing sector regulations, will ensure that we are able to regulate the use of chemicals in consumer products, including cosmetics and toys, as well as other consumer products with similar chemical exposure risk, so we will be able to continue to protect consumers from product-related harm. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked whether chemicals blocked in Britain but permitted in the EU would be available for use in this country. If we decided to ban chemicals that the EU continued to permit, those chemicals would not be permitted to be used for the GB market, because we have sovereignty.
I will confirm the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on animal testing. The ban on using animals to test cosmetic products or ingredients has been in place, as he said, since 1998. We do not wish to revise the ban and do not wish to risk any unintended consequences that might result from bringing REACH within scope of the Bill.
On my noble friend Lord Browne’s point on the pace of reform, at the moment the Government are pursuing a programme of work on a wide range of hazardous substances to gather evidence of risk and exposure pathways. Publishing the work programme 2024-25 late in the financial year has not prevented the continuing development of ongoing streams. Obviously, the UK work programme 2024-25 was prepared under the previous Government. Once approved by Ministers, it will be published on the Health and Safety Executive’s website. But let me say that I understand the essential point that has been raised. My point is that there is nothing wrong with the legislative framework. The point of contention is the vigour with which any Government use their sovereign powers in the way that noble Lords want.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
If I have understood my noble friend’s response to this debate, do the Government accept the NAO and Public Accounts Committee’s assessment that UK REACH lacked capacity to do its job? If so, has Defra allocated sufficient funding to bring it up at least to the productivity of EU REACH in the quantity of assessments, recommendations and decisions that it makes? The statistics show that it is not doing anything much in this space.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the quick answer is that these matters are being considered by Ministers at the moment, but I will feed back to them what noble Lords have raised today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I would be glad to give way to the noble Baroness, but as we will come back to her in any case—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I have a question. I am very grateful for the Minister’s response, but he has not yet responded to my final question and, following his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I need to repeat it to check. I said that this was a probing amendment to clarify the interconnected nature of, and differences between, the UK and EU chemicals industries. Under its current wording, Clause 1(1) says:
“The Secretary of State may … make provision, in relation to”.
Could that be used to amend and update UK REACH to align with EU REACH? I ask this in light of the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Leong, wrote to colleagues on 17 October:
“Though the Bill is not intended to cover REACH specifically, chemicals have not been excluded from its scope … We are currently considering the best approach to chemicals regulation in the UK and will set out priorities”.
That is the fundamental bit of this amendment. We can debate EU REACH and UK REACH, but it is about the influence on this Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the quick response is that we do not envisage it being used in that way because we already have separate legislation to deal with that. I will follow up with a more detailed response, but I do not believe that the provisions would allow that to happen. However, I will double-check and clarify that.
On my noble friend’s point, I have listened to the debate and understand the concerns. I know that Ministers are considering this, and I will ensure that the strong points raised here are put to them as they consider how to take forward this work.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the short debate on this group. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for covering the 10 restrictions adopted in the EU but not in the UK, since it left the EU. I was debating whether to raise them or not; I am glad that I left them to him. He pointed out the cost-benefits of using REACH. Manufacturers have made it very clear that they want things as simple as possible and, usually, would prefer one form of REACH—the one to which they are likely to export or from which they will have products coming in. I recognise that other Members of the Committee will disagree with that. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor; lemon and lavender sound like a lovely, simple way of looking at it, but cosmetics are much more complicated. We need to be very careful about that. I look forward to hearing from the Minister but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will enable discussion of what information might usefully be marked on the product, such that the liability for regulations and charges can be clearly established.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 20 and speak to the others in this group. Each of these amendments has a role, I hope, in improving or at least elucidating the provisions of the Bill, but they are also put together from the point of view of “Let’s collect the tax”.
This Government have not been shy of hurting people in pursuit of a few hundred million pounds in tax per year. They have threatened the basis of family farms, chucked children out of school in the middle of their exam years and frozen old age pensioners. Why, then, are they leaving a billion pounds a year lying on the floor, uncollected, from scamming Chinese and other—Asian, by and large—traders? It is quite extraordinary. It not only fails to collect the tax but damages the British businesses that would be doing the business if we were not giving a 20% price advantage to the likes of Shein and Temu. Now we see that Amazon has to follow them down this track because it has been so damaged by Shein and Temu that it has to go into the same business. This is economically illiterate and ridiculous.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for arranging a meeting to discuss this. He very kindly invited a Treasury official along. I have had a reply now from the Treasury saying basically, “Don’t ring us, we’ll ring you”. I find this extraordinary, but I do not particularly blame this Government. The last Government was just as bad on it. However, it is extraordinary not to collect tax when the Government are going to such lengths to collect additional tax now.
I will add one more thing: for goodness’ sake, make the marketplaces liable for VAT. Stop trying to make the individual traders liable for VAT. They are here today, gone tomorrow, registering 500 new companies with Companies House, with lots of new VAT numbers. As soon as you put your finger on them, they are gone. Make the marketplaces collect VAT. It would be simpler and easier for them and for us, and much more effective.
Amendment 20 asks that we get a sensible amount of information on the origin, the identity of the local representative, the value and the beneficial ownership of the goods, so that everybody involved can see where the liability for product regulation sits, where the liability for any charges can sit and how things can be enforced. The more difficult you make it to track down who should be collared, the less it will happen. In these regulations, we must make it easier to chase people.
Amendment 24 basically says, “Make sure the representative who is appointed has the financial strength to stand behind what’s going on”. If the Minister cares to browse Amazon when he has the time and looks for, say, a three-terabyte drive—the sort of thing I shall need to pack up my 30 years in this place and carry it away with me—he will find that there are some very reputable products on the market for around a hundred quid. That is astonishing. I remember buying my first serious computer, which had 20 megabytes of hard drive, and thinking that was extraordinary. So—three terabytes for a hundred quid from a good manufacturer.
However, there are also products on the market for fifty quid from weirdly named companies. The game being played there is that the products do not contain three terabytes. They probably contain only 256 megabytes. But it does not show on the outside and by the time that anyone gets around to complaining and putting bad reviews in place, the company has changed; it has gone; it is someone else and there is no one to pursue. With a product such as a hard drive, it takes a while for someone to realise that it has been mis-sold. If you are going to pursue these people properly, you need to know that you can go after them for several months of turnover and succeed, which means that the representatives in the UK have got to be good for the money. Otherwise, you just do not have effective product regulation.
Amendment 25 also relates to “Let’s collect the tax”, since we are creating these structures to look after product quality, which could quite easily be used to help collect tax. Amendment 26 says, “Look, we’ve got a trading standards system that is really short of money, so let’s make it easier for us to extract money from the process we are creating in the Bill and feed it through to trading standards so that we get an effective and efficient system of enforcement”. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his proposed amendments to Clause 2, which, as highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, has been recommended for removal due to the broad and vague nature of the powers it grants. The liability for regulations and charges related to products is a matter of extreme importance. Without clear guidelines and transparent information, businesses could face significant uncertainty, which in turn undermines their ability to comply effectively.
The Government’s focus on clarity in other areas will ring hollow if they fail to address the critical need for clarity in liabilities—an issue that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to address directly. Regarding Amendment 20, by ensuring that products are marked with clear and comprehensive information, such as origin, local representation and ownership, we can establish clear responsibility for product compliance. This would not only improve regulatory transparency but foster trust with consumers and businesses alike.
I urge the Government to take this opportunity to acknowledge the importance of clear liability and responsibility frameworks. Although these amendments are to Clause 2, and we continue to discuss its broader issues, nevertheless the noble Lord’s proposed changes are a necessary step towards ensuring both accountability and transparency in product regulations.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Sharpe, for their comments in this interesting debate. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was able to meet my noble friend and officials. I am sure they have taken note of his concerns, although he obviously has some reservations about that. I have also noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about the shape of the Bill, which we have already well debated and no doubt will continue to do so.
Despite the noble Lords’ concerns about the Bill, the fact is that we are trying to produce a workable yet robust framework for regulating product safety in what I think we all acknowledge is a rapidly changing and evolving marketplace. We want to ensure that businesses, whether operating through traditional channels or online marketplaces, are held accountable for the safety of the products they distribute. The Bill’s approach is targeted, addressing the need for traceability and enforcement while avoiding excessive regulatory burdens that could stifle innovation and growth. I believe most noble Lords think that is the right balance, although some are somewhat critical of the way in which we have sought to do it in the Bill.
Amendments 20 and 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, propose to allow regulations to make requirements in relation to the marking of products, including their origin, the identity of the local representative, their value and their beneficial ownership, while also allowing regulations to require authorised representatives to accept liability and demonstrate financial strength. The amendments reflect important concerns, particularly around traceability and accountability, especially in the context of online marketplaces: for example, where a product creates a consumer safety concern, or the circumstances which the noble Lord mentioned in his introductory speech. Our view is that Clause 2(2)(e)(ii) and Clause 2(3) already provide the necessary mechanisms to ensure that authorised representatives and other relevant parties carrying out activities in relation to a product can clearly be identified for product safety purposes.
While I can see where the noble Lord is coming from with the proposed additional requirements, such as marking the product’s value or beneficial ownership, they would create an additional administrative burden for businesses without providing significant additional benefits for consumers or enforcement. The Bill as drafted aims to ensure that sufficient information is available for product safety and enforcement and we are not convinced that the extra information would offer clear advantages in those areas.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s comprehensive reply. On Amendment 24, I remain unclear whether the powers in the Bill allow for representatives to have to demonstrate deep pockets. I would be happy to be written to if the Minister cannot reply now. If he could point me in the direction of homework related to Amendment 25, such as the OBR analysis and so on, I would be most grateful.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that people are aware that they are often buying from China when buying on Amazon/eBay and the product hasn’t undergone any quality checks.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I will also speak to Amendment 22. Amendment 21 is fairly self-explanatory. It asks that people be made aware of where the goods they are buying come from and, therefore, what confidence they can place in their quality. Secondly, it explores whether we might place liability on marketplaces for the quality of the products they allow to be listed there, which is clearly not the case at the moment.
My view is that Amazon makes a great deal of money out of selling what are, essentially, counterfeit products. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs. Amazon is quite well enough off to do a bit of investigation, which does not take long with these products, to make sure that they are what they say they are. This would result in greater stability and higher quality of companies doing business through Amazon. I do not think it would lose Amazon any business, but I am prepared to be shocked to find that the Government disagree with me. For now, I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 45 in this group is in my name. I also support my noble friend Lord Foster’s Amendments 117 and 122.
I come back to an issue debated at some length on the first day of Committee. I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, in his place because my amendment relates directly to his Amendment 33, which questions whether Clause 2(3)(h) should stand part of the Bill; my amendment also looks at paragraph (h). He spoke about it in the context of parliamentary scrutiny and consultation, but my focus is a different one: I am trying to look at how it will work in practice. During our debate last week, my noble friend Lord Fox said that
“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”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. GC 40.]
We are moving from products to people in this debate.
At Second Reading, I asked the Minister who is caught by this very wide, catch-all paragraph. In his letter of 17 October, in which he responded to issues that he did not have time to cover at Second Reading—I thank him for it—he said:
“These supply chain roles may be undertaken by individuals as well as by businesses. The Bill will enable the responsibilities of supply chain actors to be rationalised and modernised, including to reflect the development of new business models that were not anticipated by current legislation, such as online marketplaces”.
I read his reply carefully, but it did not answer my question. That is partly because “actors” could mean anybody; it does not necessarily mean somebody mentioned in one of the clause’s previous paragraphs. I remain concerned about that in the context of Clause 2(3), which identifies the
“persons on whom product regulations may impose product requirements”.
It appears that paragraph (h) can include absolutely anyone involved in selling a relevant product, without limitation. This matters because a private individual selling an item with a lithium-ion battery, for example, on eBay or Vinted may be an actor at the very end of a long supply chain, but that does not mean they are a professional in the business. The wording is important.
Where does the responsibility for satisfactory compliance lie? In our Second Reading debate, there was some discussion about online marketplace platforms having responsibility for ensuring compliance but, frankly, eBay and Vinted cannot check the detail of a regulated item—in the case I gave, a lithium-ion battery in a bicycle—or how it meets the regulations. Also, the individual at the end of the supply chain has no obvious way of finding out whether they are responsible for ensuring that the item they wish to sell meets the regulations. Of course, there is a future actor in all of this: the person who buys it.
Which?, in its very helpful briefing prior to Second Reading, pointed out that the Bill needs strengthening in a number of areas, including clearer definitions of key terms, so that existing and future online marketplaces cannot take advantage of gaps to avoid responsibility. Clause 2(3)(h) is one such area. Will the Minister help by making it clear who is covered? Can he also explain exactly how the online marketplaces can manage the extension of liabilities for defective products sold by individuals, which those online marketplaces have not seen themselves? Alternatively, if individuals selling items are covered by Clause 2(3)(h), how do those individuals become aware of their responsibilities under the Bill for ensuring that the goods they sell meet the requirements and are not defective? Frankly, eBay sending them an email saying, “You are entirely responsible” is not good enough for compliance. If this is not clarified, we have a gaping hole in the Bill.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 48, 71, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123 and 124 in this group, on the topic of online marketplaces, which are in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay.
Turning first to Amendment 48, I recall that, in the King’s Speech, the Government made a commitment to ensure that the responsibilities of those involved in the supply of products, such as online marketplaces, are clear. That commitment is to be welcomed, but the clarity and detail will be in the secondary regulations after the Bill is passed and not in the Bill itself. As set out in the explanatory statement, the proposed new clause in the amendment
“provides a non-exclusive list of duties that must be imposed upon online marketplaces by regulations made by the Secretary of State … to be made to Parliament within 3 months of Royal Assent regarding the exercise of the duties conferred by this section”.
These duties include an explicit provision to place a duty on online marketplaces to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety of products offered on their platforms and a commitment to publish any draft secondary legislation on how this duty and related provisions will work in practice in good time before the measures are due to come into force. Finally, there is a duty to consult with key stakeholders on the design of these regulations.
I make it clear to my noble friend the Minister that the duties in this amendment are about the transparent process by which the Government will ensure a safer online marketplace, rather than a long list of possible actions taken to bring this about. The Office for Product Safety and Standards, in its 2021 research, found that 81% of the products it found online failed safety tests. I am sure that the figure would probably be far higher if they were tested today. Which? tells us that around 23.4 million consumers in the UK make monthly transactions on these marketplaces, yet they are unwittingly putting themselves at risk because, at present, they do not have the same protections as they have come to expect when buying from traditional high-street retailers. This evidence should encourage us to reform online marketplace regulations as urgently as possible.
Amendment 71 allows for regulations to provide liability of online marketplaces for defective and unsafe products and to ensure redress for those harmed by these unsafe and defective products, including civil litigation. It is important that the law on product liability can be updated to take account of the responsibilities of online marketplaces and others in the supply chain, and to provide effective redress for consumers who suffer harm from these dangerous products. We know that online marketplaces have become a mainstream method for people to shop, particularly when they are looking for value for money in these difficult economic times. This amendment seeks to ensure that there is redress for those online shoppers if they buy unsafe or faulty goods.
From the briefing sent to us by the London Fire Brigade we know that e-bikes and e-scooters are one of the capital’s fastest-growing fire risks. On average, there was a fire every two days in 2023. Sadly, deaths and injuries have resulted. Many of these fires are caused by incompatible chargers and faulty products that are purchased online. The London Fire Brigade believes, as many of us do, that product innovation has gone far ahead of proper safety standards and that there is inadequate regulation, especially for conversion kits, batteries and chargers. A strengthened version of the Bill would go a long way to answering these safety gaps online.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the probing Amendment 45 from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as she referenced my earlier Amendment 33. She expressed in a more erudite and articulate way what I should have said last week on Amendment 33. However, I think we have both alighted on the fundamental problem in that subsection, which is that despite its opacity and the fact that it is drawn very widely, it does not achieve what we all hope it will achieve—in other words, to point out the obligations on buyers and sellers. The noble Baroness quite rightly pointed out the lacuna inherent in that.
My very brief question to the Minister is whether it might be possible—this is not a criticism but merely an observation in respect of the drafting—for this subsection to be redrafted before Report so that that confusion that we see now, which could potentially give rise to substantial amounts of litigation, is ameliorated and we could have tighter wording to address some of the issues that the noble Baroness and I have pointed out.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, so many of our deliberations in our various sittings have been seeking to put some flesh on to the skeleton nature of the Bill before us; I have done that on a number of occasions, as have many other noble Lords. For instance, in our last-but-one grouping, I proposed that we seek to use the Bill to address concerns about data scraping for the development of new AI products. I gently point out to the Minister that he told me that this would be covered by the Data (Use and Access) Bill. I have double-checked Hansard and can tell him that at the end of the debate on that Bill, when this was raised with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the Minister responsible, she replied that this issue was not covered by that Bill and that DCMS and DSIT Ministers are jointly working and looking forward to bringing forward proposals in due course. She ended by saying:
“We will announce more details in due course”.—[Official Report, 19/11/24; col. 197.]
So it is not covered, and this is a good opportunity to do it.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and other noble Lords who have spoken have pointed out, this is an area, in terms of online marketplaces, where there is an urgent need to put flesh on the bones and to have a clearer understanding of the definition of an online marketplace and of what regulations should apply to them. I have frequently raised in your Lordships’ House my concerns that consumers have far less protection from faulty products bought online than they have when they purchase them on the high street.
It simply cannot be right, as we have seen from all the evidence that we have all received from various organisations, such as the British Toy & Hobby Association, Which? and Electrical Safety First, as well as others, that so many unsafe products are available for sale online. In an earlier contribution, the noble Baroness referred to the fact that 86% of toys sold online do not comply with UK safety requirements. I have referred to the sad fact that many electrical appliances purchased online do not meet appropriate safety requirements and, sadly, have led to loss of life and damage of a great deal of property.
It certainly cannot be right that products that have been withdrawn by a manufacturer, often because of concerns about safety, can still be purchased online, and it certainly cannot be right that consumers have not only less protection but fewer opportunities for redress when purchasing products online compared to what they have when purchasing them on the high street. I support all the amendments addressing those concerns because collectively they would improve consumer protection by ensuring accountability by imposing a clear and enforceable duty on online marketplaces to ensure the safety of products sold on their platforms, especially those coming from third-party sellers overseas. Incidentally, I shall later propose an amendment that would strengthen the extraterritoriality covered by the Bill.
The amendments that we have before us further protect consumers by removing anonymity so that third-party sellers can no longer hide behind platforms to evade product safety regulations and by making it easier for them to seek any form of redress. It establishes direct liability on platforms for unsafe products sold throughout them, which leads to the opportunity for much greater fairness in terms of redress because, at the moment, consumers dealing with faulty high street products expect and receive a full refund or replacement, but when problems arise with online purchases, particularly from overseas sellers, consumers often seem to have no recourse. Amendments in this group deal with that issue. Finally, the amendments would clarify something that is lacking in the Bill at the moment: the issue of accountability. Who is actually accountable in the multinational marketplace structures that we have to deal with now?
Given that these platforms are evolving at an incredibly rapid rate, with people almost daily finding new ways to market their products, we need amendments that ensure that there is no room for manoeuvre to get around the regulations by online marketplaces now and, crucially, in future. We need a clearer definition of what we mean and what is covered by an online marketplace, and I welcome and support the amendments in the group that do just that.
I add one additional point. In Clause 10, the definition of an online marketplace includes,
“any other platform by means of which information is made available over the internet”.
Clause 10 does not define “the internet”, despite quite a point being made of doing so in other legislation. Indeed, other pieces of legislation prefer the phrase “internet service”, not just “internet”. To avoid further ambiguity, I have proposed in Amendments 117 and 122 that the Bill uses “internet service” instead of “internet” and that the definition of “internet service” is exactly as set out in the Online Safety Act 2023.
Given, for instance, that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill has this definition simply copied and pasted into it, I see no reason why this Bill could not do the same. Failing to do so would unhelpfully leave the definition to common law. We should be aiming to ensure that levels of protection and redress are as powerful online as they are on the high street. Amendments in this group will achieve this and will also ensure that we have a future-proofed definition of “online marketplace” and that clear duties and responsibility towards consumer protection are imposed on all relevant bodies. On these Benches, we certainly support them.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for introducing their amendments in this group. I shall briefly speak in favour of Amendments 48 and 71. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for bringing attention to the critical issue that addresses the responsibilities of online marketplaces and also, if I may, pay tribute to her wider work in this area as well as that of my noble friend Lord Lindsay, who is not in this place but whose exemplary work as president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute deserves a mention.
This sector has grown exponentially in recent years and plays a dominant role in modern commerce. This amendment, therefore, highlights essential duties for online marketplaces. For example, a 2023 TSB study found that Facebook Marketplace accounted for 73% of purchase fraud cases. If you think about fraud and its growth in terms of the British crime statistics, that is a significant percentage of British crime, not just online crime. Over one-third of adverts on Facebook Marketplace are scams, we are told, so this amendment would help to level the playing field by ensuring that online marketplaces meet the same safety standards as physical retailers. This would foster fair competition and ensure that businesses prioritising consumer safety are not undermined by unscrupulous practices.
It is vital that we ensure online marketplaces, which facilitate the sale of billions of products, do not become conduits for unsafe goods or fraudulent activity, as all noble Lords have rightly highlighted. Without robust regulations, consumer trust and market integrity are at significant risk. We ask noble Lords to take seriously this amendment to uphold consumer protection, market fairness and safety standards, and think that the Government ought to recognise the urgency of addressing these concerns and act decisively.
On Amendment 71, I support it as a necessary step to protect consumers in the rapidly growing online marketplace sector. The extension of liability to online marketplaces and others under Section 2(3) ensures that those who facilitate the sale of unsafe or defective products are held responsible. Such measures are crucial to maintaining consumer confidence, especially as online shopping becomes so dominant.
We think it is essential that the Government protect consumer rights in all the marketplaces, especially online. We urge the Government to listen to those two amendments in particular but, frankly, there is merit in all the amendments we are debating in this group, and I hope to hear some positive news from the Minister.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to this group, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that I will write to him in respect of the points he has raised.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and for Amendments 21, 22, 32, 45, 48, 71 and 117 to 124. These amendments have raised important points on the scope and application of the Bill’s powers, and I hope to provide clarity and reassurance. Around one-third of UK retail sales are now conducted online, but our product safety legislation has not kept pace with changes in shopping habits, in particular the development of online marketplaces and other platforms.
Online platforms may sell goods themselves and/or provide a platform for third-party sellers—in the UK or aboard—including consumers, to sell goods. The most well-known online marketplaces in the UK are probably Amazon, eBay, ASOS and Etsy, and others are widely used. The online marketplace industry in the UK is booming. In 2023, the UK e-commence market was valued at close to £137 billion and is projected to grow to £152 billion this year. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for setting out the landscape of online fraud and scams on online marketplaces; we really need to take note of that.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I thank the Minister very much for the detail he has gone into in his answer, but there are two types of regulation. The one he has described is the one that you would expect the Government, trading standards and other bodies to take. But, in litigation terms, if somebody bought an electric bike in good faith, who would they sue? Paragraph (h) does not make it clear. This is not purely about the parameters of the products and the Bill; it is about the consequences of having something that is very general. I think platforms will say, “It’s nothing to do with us”, and the individuals will say, “But I’m not part of the chain, as described”. I am genuinely struggling to understand and I wonder whether the Minister can help me.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that; I will come to it. We are talking about product liability to some extent; I have a paragraph on it in my brief, if she will bear with me for a moment.
Amendments 32 and 45 highlight some of the different actors in online supply chains that may need to be captured appropriately in these new requirements. The Bill gives powers to introduce requirements on online marketplaces to improve the safety of products sold online. These requirements can be tailored and updated appropriately to reflect the wide range of online marketplace models, and other relevant supply chain actors and their activities, now and in the future. Clause 2(3) is therefore sufficiently broad to enable requirements to be introduced on any persons carrying out activities in relation to a product. This could include, where appropriate, private individuals selling products via online marketplaces, whether in return for payment or free of charge.
I will now focus on Amendments 117 to 124, which seek to broaden the definition of online marketplaces. The definition of online marketplaces in the Bill has been created in a way that is broad enough to capture the full range of online marketplace business models, including social media platforms such as TikTok Shop, which was mentioned earlier. I assure the Committee that all the changes proposed in the amendments are captured within the existing definition. For example—and of relevance to Amendment 123—the expansion of the term “marketing” within the definition of an online marketplace is not required due to the definition of “marketing” within the Bill, meaning the “making available” of products. This in turn is defined as goods
“supplied or advertised for distribution or use on the market, whether in return for payment or free of charge”.
Amendments 117 and 122 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, seek to change the definition of an online marketplace, replacing “internet” with “internet service”, as defined in the Online Safety Act 2023. The definition we have used in the Bill includes a service on any other platform by means of which information is made available over the internet. We are therefore confident that the issue the noble Lord raises in his amendments is covered by the Bill as drafted.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his clarification about data and GDPR being captured by the Data (Use and Access) Bill. I shall read Hansard and confirm accordingly. I totally agree with him that all unsafe products should never be allowed to be offered for sale on any online marketplaces, whether original or second-hand. We have to address his point about accountability. Who is accountable to be held responsible for some of these unsafe products?
The Bill also includes a power in Clause 10(2) that allows for the definition to be amended later by regulations, if this were necessary to capture any future models not captured by the current definition. I will come back to the issue of product liability.
Amendment 71, tabled by my noble friend Lady Crawley and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, would allow the Secretary of State to make provisions to ensure that online marketplaces can be held liable for products purchased via their platforms. The primary route to seek damages for harm caused by defective products is through the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Depending on the specific facts, an online marketplace may have responsibility under this legislation. The Government are currently reviewing this legislation and we will consider the UK’s product liability regime holistically, including the question of how it should apply to online marketplaces. This is not a change that we would seek to make without considering all the evidence, so we do not want to pre-empt this important work by adding to the scope of the Bill.
Product liability also covers products that extend beyond the scope of the Bill, including, for example, food and medical devices. A considered review of this area would be the most appropriate way to ensure that our product liability laws are up to date and fit for the future and to take account of the broad-ranging interests in this body of law. I will keep the Grand Committee updated on the Government’s progress with this review and plans for wider engagement.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and other noble Lords: we have listened to the debate and reflected on all the points made. We are aware of the Grand Committee’s strength of feeling on a number of points, including the scrutiny of secondary legislation. With that, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that these amendments are therefore not required to achieve their laudable aims. Consequently, I would ask for the amendments in this group not to be pressed.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Clause 1(5) says that
“‘marketing’ means making available on the market”,
which is a much shorter definition than the one that the Minister just read out at the Dispatch Box. Is he telling me that I am not correct in saying that I market a product on eBay when I put it up on eBay?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
This is very important, because this is partly about liability and partly about the clarity in the Bill about who has responsibility. Whether it is a buyer or, as I think the Minister argued, an individual seller, someone has to tell them that they have to follow the regulations, and they need to know how to do that. When he read out the definition of marketing in his speech, he gave a whole sentence more than is included in the definition in the Bill, which very simply says,
“‘marketing’ means making available on the market”.
It goes on to discuss “related terms”, but they are not relevant to my problem. While he ponders between Committee and Report, can he look at that? More than one of us is likely to come back with amendments on Report on this issue.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. We are trying not to be too prescriptive because it is constantly changing. I am sorry about this, but the Bill defines “marketing” as
“making available on the market”.
Clause 10, line 8, states,
“a product or goods … supplied or advertised for distribution or use on the market”—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
That is exactly what happens with a private individual. They will advertise an item on eBay. The language the Minister is using is what I would describe as the old-style manufacturing and business model. It does not take into account all the comments that people have made about where online marketing is in the 21st century. Therein lies the problem, and I would be very grateful if the noble Lord would look at that.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that as well. Online marketplaces are changing overnight. I have just learned over the weekend of dropshipping. Dropshipping means that if someone orders a product on eBay, the person supplying it is not eBay or whoever claims to be on eBay. It is dropshipped by AliExpress straight to that buyer’s home. How are we going to control that? How are we going to capture that? That is why we cannot be too prescriptive. We need to have the flexibility to address ever-changing marketplaces. That is what this Bill is trying to do. If the noble Baroness is still unclear or unsure about this, perhaps we can have another follow-up meeting so we can discuss this in depth.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I think a number of noble Lords who have participated in this debate might be interested in a meeting, if that is okay. I shall very briefly respond to the Minister to say that flexibility is fine, until the point at which there is nobody to hold accountable. That is the problem.
Lord Leong (Lab)
The Bill is drafted in this way to address who is going to be accountable. My invitation to all noble Lords to a meeting stands, and I welcome each and every one of them. I hope this amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the long and detailed reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Leong. I recommend a meeting with him to anybody. He is a most welcoming and courteous Minister, and you get good results out of a meeting with him. If, on rereading what he has said, I have any further questions, I shall attend the meeting. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this might be a convenient moment to adjourn the Committee.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Domestic Solar Panels
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they plan to increase the number of homes fitted with solar panels.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, rooftop solar on homes and buildings will play an important role in the drive for clean power. Details about how the Government will increase deployments of domestic solar panels will be set out in the forthcoming solar road map.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, Labour promised a rooftop solar revolution, which I welcome, tripling solar power by 2030. It now appears that this commitment has not survived contact with the housebuilding industry. Are this Government still requiring that, as part of the future homes standards, all new homes will have to have solar panels installed, as promised? If not, why? Further, France is maintaining solar panel installations on all parking lots greater than 80 spaces, generating power for 8 million homes. What consideration has been given to doing the same here?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we are not moving away at all from the idea of a solar revolution. The noble Earl will know that, in its scenarios for 2030, the National Energy System Operator—NESO—reckons that we will need 47 gigawatts by that time. We are committed to publishing a clean power action plan, which will embrace solar plans, very soon. The Solar Taskforce is there to provide clear advice and actions on how we will take that forward. What the noble Earl said about French car parks was interesting. There has been an easing up of development rights in this country in relation to that. On the 1.5 million homes that we pledged to build in the lifetime of this Parliament, we are in close discussion with our colleagues across government about mandation, and we very much take his point on that.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was indebted to the Minister for his courteous reply to us at the end of the Second Reading debate a week ago. He will recall that I raised with him specifically the use of Uighur slave labour in the manufacture of solar panels in Xinjiang, and the use of 25,000 children in child labour in the DRC in lithium production, which is essential to our green technology. The Minister was unable to answer some of the questions I put to him during that debate. Will he undertake for his officials to write and give replies, so that we can consider them before Committee? Will he place a copy of the replies in the Library of your Lordships’ House?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I think the Lord will recollect that he asked me rather a lot of questions and, given that my winding-up speech was 20 minutes, with the best will in the world, I said that I would write to him. On the general principle, he knows that I have long shared his concern, particularly about Xinjiang province and the appalling use of the Uighurs. We understand those issues and are committed to tackling them. We have given guidance on the risk to business of trading in Xinjiang province, and we have pointed out the penalties for those who fail to report under the Modern Slavery Act. The noble Lord will find an invitation to meet in the next two days to discuss those issues.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, further to that point, does my noble friend the Minister agree that one of the keys to tackling this issue, especially in terms of exploitation in other countries, is to ensure that solar panels are built in this country and that our industrial strategy matches up with the energy strategy and Great British Energy to make that happen? Can he assure us that he is focused on that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, that is a very interesting point put forward by my noble friend. One of the responsibilities of the Solar Taskforce is to look at the supply chain, and we will pick up the issue that she mentioned. It is also worth pointing out that if we look at where the content comes from in relation to placing solar panels on a roof, it is reckoned that 60% of the value of the work—including scaffolding and whatever else has to happen—is bought in this country.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, would it not be a great help if the owners of listed buildings could find it easier to obtain planning consent for solar panels? I also declare an interest in that members of my family have listed buildings.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
One of the main benefits of solar is that, in general, planning consent is not required. However, in conservation areas, there are many more constraints. I cannot give the noble Viscount a commitment, but I will make sure that the relevant department is made aware of his views.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I now call the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to make a virtual contribution.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
With the price of panels a key consideration in housing costs, and with 75% of the world’s production in China, why can the Government not sponsor a taskforce of engineers and chemists et al with the task of designing and establishing a polysilicon manufacturing plant facility for use in wider solar panel production? The site could be located under a regime of regional development with climate incentives. Polysilicon stands at the heart of competitive solar panel production internationally. That is why the Chinese lead, and why we should be investing now.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for that very helpful suggestion. I will make sure the taskforce gives it earnest consideration.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, as the Government’s Great British Energy Bill enters Committee in the coming weeks, can the Minister confirm whether this will include the deployment of solar panels as part of its strategy? Given that I have the Minister’s attention, and following on from the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I draw his attention to GB-Sol, a spin-out from Cardiff University, which manufactures Welsh slate-looking tiles, which are suitable for both listed and heritage buildings.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
That is a very interesting point. It is worth making the point also that a number of British companies are assembling some of the solar panels imported from China. I agree that we need to look at all these areas.
In relation to the GB Energy Bill, the noble Baroness will know it is not our intent to place in the Bill the exact amount of energy generation we require from each source. That will be a matter for the GBE board in light of the Government’s overall priority-setting towards clean power and net zero.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have had solar panels on my roof for many years. There is a local town in Devon near Exeter—Cranbrook—which is growing vastly and does not have a single solar panel on any of the buildings, and there are thousands of houses and other buildings. Can the Minister make sure that cannot happen again?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am intrigued, my Lords, to learn as to why there should be a desert in a particular part of the noble and learned Baroness’s county. Certainly, if she would like to send me more details, I will have a look at it.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, the Government have pushed for solar panels on roofs, but they have not got a strategy on batteries associated with those panels—it seems to be left up to the individuals. Can the Government say whether they are going to bring forward a storage strategy linked to solar panels?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, storage is of course important. If you apply to have a solar panel, you are usually asked whether you wish to opt for battery or not. This is part of the work that the Solar Taskforce will take forward.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, the Government clearly believe it to be of great strategic national interest to get so many solar panels built in a very space of time. As for heat pumps, a tiny fraction of heat pumps were actually built in this country—that was the last Government’s obsession. This Government want to massively expand the use of solar panels. How is the Minister going to ensure that, between now and 2030, the majority of solar panels will be built in this country? How will he also ensure that they are not filled with Chinese chips?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, of course, I cannot guarantee that the majority of solar panels between now and 2030 are going to be built in this country. What I can assure noble Lords is that, as part of the work we are taking forward, we will look at the UK supply chain. However, the essential point here is that we must strive towards clean power. I do not discount the positive impact of heat pumps. The Government, in their warm homes plan, are as committed to heat pumps as they are to solar.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, one of the best ways of increasing solar panels on the roof is to incentivise people to put excess capacity over their own usage requirements. What assessment have the Government made of peer-to-peer trading arrangements, which would allow people to sell their excess to their neighbours at a price higher than the smart export guarantee but lower than the retail price? I hope the noble Lord will agree that would be a win-win situation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The noble Lord has raised this with me, and I think mentioned it at Second Reading of the GBE Bill, so we are giving it consideration. Of course, one should say that in terms of the incentives for people to invest in solar panels, we already have the smart export guarantee, which is a payment for excess electricity generated. However, as part of the warm homes plan, we are looking at the role of incentives and the use of private finance to find a way to help people with the upfront cost, which—even though solar is cheaper than other renewable energies—is always one of the main problems in relation to people being able to invest in their own solar panels.
Cladding Remediation
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made on remediating flats with dangerous cladding.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I wish the noble Lord better—I know he is not feeling so great today. The pace of remediation has been far too slow, with only 50% of identified buildings beginning or completing works, and just 29% fully remediated. This has caused untold distress and expense for all those concerned. Further strong measures will be detailed in the forthcoming remediation acceleration plan. As set out by the Prime Minister, we are willing to legally require those responsible to assess their buildings and promptly enter remediation schemes. We will bring the full power of government to bear on this task.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. In the debate on Grenfell on Friday, the Minister’s colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said:
“Yesterday the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government published its monthly remediation statistics. They show that, of the 4,834 residential buildings 11 metres and over in height with unsafe cladding that the department is monitoring … 50% … have still not started remediation”.—[Official Report, 22/11/24; col. 431.]
That is 250,000 families living in buildings that are not safe, in flats which they cannot sell, and who are confronted with high insurance premiums and service charges; and some of them are also confronted with unlimited remediation costs.
None of these leaseholders are responsible in any way for the difficulties they find themselves in. The NAO has now said that it may take until 2037—20 years after the Grenfell fire—for all the dangerous cladding to be put right, and we still have not identified all the dangerous buildings. I appreciate that the Minister has come to this relatively recently, but does she accept that if we do not get a grip on it, it will be the next major national scandal?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am very glad to say that we now have a Government, and a Deputy Prime Minister who is responsible for this area, who take this incredibly seriously. We will soon be publishing a remediation acceleration plan, which outlines the specific measures we are going to take to increase the pace of remediation, to find all the at-risk buildings quicker and to ensure that the residents at the heart of this terrible issue are supported in the process. There is no longer any excuse for those responsible failing to fix dangerous cladding on their buildings. The message is clear: use the routes we have created to get buildings fixed, and get on with the job.
The Deputy Prime Minister recently held a national roundtable with mayors, regulators and national building safety bodies to press home the urgency of this work, and most developers have now signed up now to the plan that she set out. But please be assured that we will not hesitate to use enforcement measures, and we have provided local authorities with funding to undertake the enforcement necessary.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, there are still limits to access to funding for social landlords, despite the welcome measures the Government have taken already on funding, meaning that those with the lowest incomes still have to pay for unsafe buildings to be fixed, when private developers profited from constructing them. Will my noble friend respond to End our Cladding Scandal’s call for housing associations to have the same access to the building safety fund and the cladding safety scheme as private building owners?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the action she has taken already in this respect. The Government are committed to improving building safety, and to accelerating the remediation of unsafe social housing just as much as we are for those in private rented and private owned property. Investment in remediation will rise to record levels of over £1.5 billion across 2024-25 and 2025-26, and that includes new investment to speed up the remediation of social housing. The Government will set out further steps to accelerate remediation in the remediation acceleration plan. Social landlords have access to existing government grants, and the Government are committed to providing £400 million of grant funding to the social housing sector for the removal of unsafe cladding. With social housing, as with other types of housing, there is no excuse now for not getting on with this as quickly as possible.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, following on from the Question of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, this Labour Government have allocated only £1 billion of funding for the removal of the cladding, in contrast to the £5.1 billion allocated by the previous Government to fix the most dangerous cladding through the cladding safety scheme. Can the Minister explain how the Government came to the figure of £1 billion, and will she commit to comparable levels of support to those seen under the last Government?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we have waited seven years for action to be taken on this. The remediation acceleration plan will set out the full details of how we intend to take this forward, and the funding that has been set aside. Of course, we would have wanted to put more into this, but with a £22 billion black hole, it has not been possible to do so.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
The National Audit Office recently published a report showing that of the £16.6 billion total remediation cost, £6.5 billion would be met by developers, private owners and social housing providers. But what about the manufacturers of the cladding, who the inquiry found had been systematically dishonest and deliberately misled through the test data, so as to mislead the market about the safety of the cladding in question? Are they going to foot any part of the total bill?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very important question. The Prime Minister stated on the day the inquiry’s report was published that we
“will write to all companies found by the inquiry to have been part of these horrific failings, as the first step to stopping them being awarded Government contracts”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/9/24; col. 312.]
Preliminary letters have been now written to all those organisations mentioned by name in the report, each of which bears a different level of responsibility for the failings that led to the Grenfell tragedy, including construction project manufacturers. We recognise the failings of the system for construction projects, and we announced our commitment to bring forward proposals for reform of the regulatory regime in a Written Ministerial Statement on 2 September.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the very serious fire in a high-rise block of flats in Dagenham in August has resulted in the residents losing their homes and not even being able to access their belongings. They are also in real financial hardship. They are really grateful for the support from their local council, Barking and Dagenham, which has stopped them having to pay any council tax and provides weekly support meetings. Last Thursday, the owner of the building announced that it was to be demolished, without any discussion at all with the leaseholders and residents. The council cannot force the owner to the table, so I was very pleased to hear the Minister talk about enforcing remediation and working with people. Is there anything she can do to help these residents get the owner in front of them, so they can find out what is actually happening?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that issue, and to Barking and Dagenham Council, which acted very quickly to support the residents. A great deal of action is being taken on building owners who are not progressing remediation works, getting them to do so as quickly as possible. The enforcement action is strengthened by funding for local authorities, as I said earlier.
We all know that one of the great failings in the Grenfell situation was the failure to take residents’ voices seriously enough. We are clear that all projects should comply with the guidance in the code, and we will take action where needed if there is a failure to comply with the resident voice. The code is not currently legally binding; however, it does include references to legislation and has been developed in accordance with guidance and requirements. We will keep the status of that code under review, but there is redress for residents should they need to seek it.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, guidance note 9980 is being used as an excuse by developers. It enables them to look at the safety of buildings with dangerous cladding on a holistic basis, so that they can claim that if the fire escapes are okay, they do not need to remediate. Can the Minister commit to having a look at that guidance note? I declare an interest as a part-owner of a building with cladding issues.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that point. I will have another look at it, but that guidance is very clear. They are industry-accepted standards, so they should be adhered to.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Why do the Government not arrange for the blocks of flats that still have dangerous cladding to be fitted with equipment to prevent neutral current diversions causing a fire in the first place? The fear of fire has got to be a serious issue. Given that the most expensive three blocks of flats in London are fitted with such equipment, I do not see why it should not be fitted to all those flats where people are living in fear and still with dangerous cladding.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, who has raised this point in previous debates. I hope he received a written response, but I will endeavour to seek another response for him on the specific point he makes today.
Taipei Representative Office in the United Kingdom
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D'Souza
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the status of the Taipei Representative Office in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK’s long-standing position on Taiwan has not changed. The UK does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan but does have a strong unofficial relationship based on deep and growing ties in a range of areas, underpinned by shared democratic values. The Taipei Representative Office works in the UK in the absence of those diplomatic relations. The UK does not have plans to review the status of the TRO but continues to work constructively with it in pursuit of our shared interests and within the parameters of our long-standing position.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
I thank the Minister for her Answer, and I acknowledge that this is a difficult area. However, the London Taipei office is not invited to or included in any diplomatic events; does not receive protection from the police protection unit; is not exempt from council tax or business rates; cannot open a bank account with any British bank; and cannot secure meetings with Ministers or FCDO officials beyond director level, among many other restrictions. I wonder whether the Minister will say whether she feels that this is adequate support for a thriving but threatened democracy.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, whenever I am asked about my feelings on these issues, I know that it is probably wise to choose my words incredibly carefully. To reiterate: the Government do not have any plans to change the current long-standing position, but we have deep ties with Taiwan through various means, as do our Parliaments. Much as I hear and understand the noble Baroness’s concerns about the current situation, at present the Government do not plan to change it.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, are there any steps, short of full recognition, that would recognise that Taiwan/Taipei is a democracy with very warm relations with the United Kingdom?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We do recognise that. I know that several noble Lords in this Chamber have undertaken many meetings with and visits to Taiwan. This Parliament and representatives of Taiwan enjoy that connection and relationship. Long may that continue.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, unlike our trade with China, with which we have a trade deficit of £23.7 billion—which is a strategic vulnerability—the UK has a trade surplus of £1.1 billion with Taiwan. As discussed in our first Question today, it is a liberal democracy that respects modern slavery standards, labour law rules and intellectual property rights. Surely it is in our strategic interests to grow trade with Taiwan over trade with China. In the context of the previous visit to Europe by former President Tsai, can the Minister confirm that no FCDO official was in contact with the TRO to suggest that her visit be postponed?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to point out our good trading relationship with Taiwan. We do not see this as an either/or. We have a good trading relationship with both China and Taiwan. I can only reiterate the answers given about the visit in the other place and in this Chamber. The characterisation that has been given to this visit is not one that the FCDO recognises.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, considering the UK’s commitment to supporting democracies around the world, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the Minister, how are the Government leveraging their relationship with Taiwan to promote the shared values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law in the region?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are very keen to promote our values of democracy and the rule of law in the region and elsewhere in the world. I would not say that we are particularly leveraging our relationship with Taiwan. I think it is more important to us than that, and we will promote these values throughout the world whenever we have the opportunity to do so.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. In May this year, the then United Kingdom Government published on their official website a joint statement signed by several international partners, including the British Office Taipei, reaffirming the joint support for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the work of the World Health Organization and as an observer at the World Health Assembly. Does the Minister support this statement on behalf of the present Government? If so, will she use her good offices as a Foreign Office Minister to back the increasing momentum towards the establishment of a fully fledged UK embassy in Taiwan?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we support Taiwan’s participation in multilateral bodies, particularly when statehood is not a prerequisite, such as at the World Health Assembly, and we have supported its participation as an observer in other ways, including at the WHO.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has just said about the World Health Organization. Is it not particularly reprehensible that China, the place of origin of Covid-19, should have blocked Taiwan from becoming a member of the World Health Organization? Given that we can do more, at the Human Rights Council, in the General Assembly and elsewhere, to influence these events, should we not be pointing out to others that those who fund the WHO feel some anger, having provided money to that wonderful organisation, that a country of 23 million people is excluded from its membership?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we value the work of the WHO and the contribution that Taiwan has made through the World Health Assembly. We will continue to support its participation, because we believe that everyone who has something to contribute to this important organisation and its work should be supported in doing so.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Chinese say that, if necessary, they will surround and besiege the island of Taiwan in three hours. That is their estimate and they have positioned forces to do it. They will then be surrounding an island that produces about 39% of the world’s larger industrial chips and probably an even greater percentage of domestic microcircuits, which really create the modern world, so we would be in a very serious position. Can we work closely with the Taipei Representative Office here and all our Taiwanese friends to foresee and prepare for the problems with such a situation in various ways, including by developing our own microchip industries 10 times more vigorously?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to remind us of the precariousness of a situation arising such as he describes. It would be very dire indeed for the world economy. It would take around 10% of the world’s GDP, and no country, including China, would be immune to that impact.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, during the election campaign, the Labour Party talked about change. Does the Minister not think that change should take place in this area—in Taiwan and Somaliland? Somaliland had peaceful, democratic elections 10 days ago; is it not about time that the British Government, who owe these people something, supported their rights? Now is the time for that change.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I hear the noble Lord. There are many countries in the world that I wish we could change for a statement or a shift in position. But we need to tread carefully and respectfully, and work alongside allies, putting all the interests of the United Kingdom front and centre. That is the way this Government will proceed.
NHS: Dentistry Provision
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fuller
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to tackle the issue of ‘dental deserts’, areas with no NHS provision for dentistry; what plans they have to establish new dental schools to meet demand, and on the basis of what criteria decisions about new dental schools will be made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, 28% of the population of England needs but cannot access NHS dentistry. We want to ensure that everyone who needs a dentist can get one, including by providing 700,000 more urgent dental appointments and recruiting dentists to areas that need them. Government approval is not required to establish new dental schools; we encourage prospective providers to approach the General Dental Council, and we will work with partners to assess the best distribution of training places.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I live in Norfolk which, alongside its neighbouring counties, is the only part of our nation not to have a school of dentistry. Even the Secretary of State says that our county is the “Sahara of dental deserts”. It is important: poor oral health is the principal cause of admission to hospital for children of primary school age, and incidences of mouth cancer are being missed locally. The last Government announced plans to recruit 1,000 more dentists a year and to build completely new schools of dentistry in which to train them alongside hygienists. Will these plans be taken forward by the new Government? Does the Minister agree with me that, where entirely new schools of dentistry are to be established, it makes much more sense to put them where we do not have very many dentists, rather than to have even more schools where we do have them? I hope she will say that the Government look favourably upon the proposals from the University of East Anglia to establish a brand-new school of dentistry and oral hygiene in Norwich.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I commend the noble Lord for raising his long experience of facing and dealing with these problems locally in Norfolk. I note the report in September that the Norfolk and Waveney area has the worst ratio of NHS dentists to patients in England, with 1,000-plus people having to attend Norfolk’s casualty department last year due to serious dental issues, so this is a serious point. We are aware of the University of East Anglia’s interest in this area, and my colleague Stephen Kinnock, the Minister responsible for this area, recently met with east of England MPs to discuss this matter. However, as I have said, it is not the Government who make these decisions, although we encourage those new dental schools to be in areas of particular need. I encourage the University of East Anglia to take its proposals to the General Dental Council.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, has any extra allocation been made in-year—this year—from the Budget’s NHS allocation for the extra appointments the Government wish to see in dentistry, or is this expected to be bought from existing ring-fenced dentistry budgets?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are investing around £3 billion in dentistry each year. As the noble Lord will be aware, I cannot yet confirm 2025-26 dentistry budgets, but they will be confirmed in planning guidance published by NHS England in due course. I know that the noble Lord will be aware that, despite the tough fiscal circumstances the Government have inherited, the Budget set out a big increase in day-to-day spending for health and social care. Regarding the process, and our planning, it is entirely normal that we set out matters in planning guidance. We are, of course, keen to reform the dental contract with a shift to focusing on prevention and the retention of NHS dentists. That work is immediately under way.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, no one fought harder for the elimination of dental deserts than Lord Colwyn, who died recently and whom most of us in this House remember. Would not the best memorial to Lord Colwyn be to place a new priority on dental services particularly for children? As well as making that a priority, and to show that it is, should we not allocate it a budget?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would like to associate these Benches with the comments made by the noble Lord about the late Lord Colwyn, whose contribution was indeed considerable. I agree that that would be a very appropriate legacy to his memory. The fact is that we are in the position that the previous Government’s dentistry recovery plan did not go far enough and, as we all know, there are too many people struggling to find an NHS appointment. As part of our 10-year plan we are working to assess the need for more dental trainees in areas including the east of England, which the previous noble Lord referred to, because many people continue to struggle. This cannot go on, not least because prevention is absolutely crucial as we move towards making an NHS fit for the future.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register as chair of the General Dental Council. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for twice referring to the General Dental Council, but she has, perhaps inadvertently, given the impression that all that is required for a new dental school is that somebody rocks up to the General Dental Council and says they would like to open one. What consideration has she given to where the resources will come from for the training of extra dentists through a new dental school? Can she say what is being done to look at the best use of the number of dental professionals that exist around the country in order to make the best use of the skills mix between dentists and dental care professionals?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend makes, as ever, very important points, and I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that it is not a matter of just rocking up to the General Dental Council. However, we may find—I am sure that we will—that, in order to deliver our workforce ambitions, we need to work with partners such as NHS England and the GDC to explore the creation of new dental schools in currently underserved areas of the country. We have already had one such example. Provided that a prospective dental school meets the requirements of the GDC and the Office for Students, it will be considered for future government-funded training places. I absolutely agree with my noble friend that there are a number of layers to this, and I also agree that we need to look at the whole dental team, including dentists. There are a number of people involved in care, and it is crucial that the workforce plan can deliver on that.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said that it was not only about rocking up to the General Dental Council, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, but about having conversations. Can the Minister confirm what specific conversations the Government have had with the NHS, with the General Dental Council and with other dental bodies to encourage the opening of schools of dentistry in so-called dental deserts, especially in areas such as Norfolk, which my noble friend Lord Fuller described as the Sahara of dental deserts?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the noble Lord will know, we are very keen to see that the areas that are most underserved—as I know from my own experience in Lincolnshire—are targeted. One of the reasons is the problem of recruiting and retaining dentists, as there is not a dental school to call upon. That point is well understood. We are keen to target the areas that need the most, as well as providing additional urgent dental appointments. Early conversations have also taken place with the Minister for Care, Stephen Kinnock, about reforming the dental contract, which is absolutely key, and that work will continue at pace.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, the Child of the North report, published in September, on the crisis in oral health in children, reported that 20% of children in the north-east have tooth decay in their permanent teeth. What plans do the Government have to implement one of the report’s recommendations—namely, to have a national strategy for children’s oral health, of which the establishment of new dental schools could be a part?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very good point. The fact is that the overall state of our children’s oral health is very poor, including in the north-east, as she rightly identifies. One of the shocking facts is the impact on children’s ability to sleep, eat, play, socialise and even learn. It is also shocking that tooth decay is still the most common reason for hospital admission in children aged five to nine years. We will indeed look at the report, but we do have a strategy, including the introduction of supervised toothbrushing for young children in disadvantaged areas.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the next two items of business are questions on Urgent Questions asked in the other place. The clue is in the title: questions. We have 10 minutes for each, so please ask short, sharp, succinct questions and, equally, give short, sharp, succinct responses.
Police Reform
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, having spent 32 years as a detective officer investigating crime in the police, I never thought I would ask this question, but does the Minister agree that it is important that police spend their time actually investigating crime, not policing thought? Will he agree to change the guidelines urgently on non-crime hate incidents?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Yes, the Government are reviewing the guidelines on non-crime hate incidents. We will work with the police college and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to review that. The police should concentrate on serious crime, street crime and neighbourhood policing accordingly.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, additional investment in neighbourhood policing is of course most welcome, but it is also crucial that forces have adequate support staff, to free up front-line officers. The uplift programme’s ring-fenced funding model forced police officers into back-office roles, damaging efficiency and morale. Does the Minister agree that greater flexibility is needed to deliver neighbourhood policing—for example, allowing chief constables to decide the most operationally effective workforce mix of both officers and back-room staff, crucially without them then incurring financial penalties?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government are committed, as part of our manifesto commitments, to encouraging and supplying resources to fund 13,000 neighbourhood police officers. How police and crime commissioners and chief constables determine the use of that resource is for them. We will have the overall policing Statement in December, but last week my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced an extra £264 million for policing, a £0.5 billion fund to support wider policing, and additional measures on respect orders and anti-social behaviour. I hope the noble Baroness will await the Statement in December, but I hear what she says about the flexibility we require.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are significant savings to be made by a greater harmonisation in procurement policies among police forces? If he does, how does he intend to press that forward?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I agree absolutely. One of the options that the Home Secretary announced last week was a police performance unit to look at more centralised procurement. There are savings to be made in the police budget by 43 forces working together in certain areas. That will be part of the establishment that will be taken forward by the police performance unit, and I hope that the noble Viscount will welcome it in due course.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will my noble friend have a word with the National Crime Agency to see if it can speed up and report early on its inquiry into Michelle Mone—the noble Baroness, Lady Mone—and her husband and the allegations of criminality against them? Until the National Crime Agency reports, we are unable to get a report from our own commissioner, who has investigated whether or not she has broken our rules as well.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend will know that the investigation by any police force, not least the National Crime Agency, is a matter for that police force, not Ministers. Additional resources will go into policing next year, so if that is a problem for the National Crime Agency it can call on those additional resources, but it is not for me to determine investigations.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister might find this question familiar: with police and crime commissioners deciding police priorities, police budgets and how those budgets are spent in consultation with their chief constable, and with chief constables having operational independence, how much influence can the Government realistically have over policing under current arrangements?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government have quite a lot of influence over policing. As the noble Lord will know, we set the budget for policing and will do so in December. As he will also know, particularly after my contribution today, there is £264 million of additional funding going in, along with £0.5 billion going in overall. Police national insurance contributions will be covered by central government, and a new policing unit is being put in place. There is a push on violence against women and girls. New respect orders are going into place. There will be new powers to tackle off-road bikes. We are giving priorities to police on those issues. This is a partnership. Police and crime commissioners are there, as are chief constables. The Government set a framework and set decisions—for example, the changes in law that we will bring to this House on shoplifting and shop theft. There is a serious central role, but self-evidently there is a local decision-making process as well.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on White Ribbon Day, whose slogan is, “It starts with men”, will the Minister note the irony of the British Transport Police’s new policy allowing a male officer who identifies as a woman to conduct intimate searches of women? Will he add that to the police reform agenda and condemn, along with me, what some women’s rights campaigners are calling state-sanctioned sexual assault—that is, police violence against women and girls?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Trans people have a right to exist and be employed in communities to work with communities, and I will defend that right for trans people to hold responsible positions in society. If the noble Baroness wants to write to me with a specific example, we will look at that but, as far as I am concerned, let us get round to the basics that trans people are people.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my policing interests in the register. Is it not the case that successive Governments have focused almost to the exclusion of all else on the question of police numbers? Does my noble friend agree that there is a case for allowing chief constables and police and crime commissioners much more flexibility about the way in which they use the total police workforce, perhaps not always using police officers but instead using PCSOs or police staff to carry out the functions that need to be carried out? It is not necessary to have a fully warranted, fully trained constable to carry out all the things that a police force needs to do.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for the experience he brings to the Question. It is certainly the Government’s wish to give flexibility to local police and crime commissioners and chief constables to determine their local priorities, but we still need to set central advice, guidance and funding. One of the key things that will come out of the December settlement will be a focus on neighbourhood policing. It was a manifesto commitment to invest in 13,000 neighbourhood police officers to ensure greater engagement at a local level on crime detection, support from the community and a wider neighbourhood policing role. Within that flexibility I am very happy for chief constables and police and crime commissioners to allow a range of roles to be undertaken to achieve the Government’s objective of reducing crime.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, as an ex-police and crime commissioner some years ago now, I agree with the Minister in his reply to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I know from bitter experience that, because of government settlements, the number of police officers went down year by year and there was nothing that a police and crime commissioner let alone a chief constable could do about it. It may not be all important but it is pretty important, so are those years over now?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are trying to reset the relationship between central government and the 43 police forces. That resettlement includes a £0.5 billion boost to policing generally; a new standards authority; £264 million announced up front to help support police to deliver good services; a settlement in December which I am not at liberty yet to talk about, because it is right and proper that we announce that to both Houses in December; and a range of new powers on anti-social behaviour, shop theft and violence against women and girls to set the tone that we need to take action on serious organised crime, violence against women and basic neighbourhood policing issues such as shop theft. I hope that will reset that relationship and I will be held to account by this House and others in doing so.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I refer back to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Might the Minister wish to reconsider his reaction that a legitimate question about the sanction of the British Transport Police of transgender officers being able to conduct intimate searches of women was a suggestion that she was casting any kind of aspersion on trans people?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will reflect on what the noble Baroness has said, and on what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley—in the county of Flintshire—said about that issue, and I will write to both of them. There might be a need for some guidance, but the key point I am making is that we have to recognise that trans people can fulfil roles in policing and should be encouraged and supported to do so.
Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, there were 213 hotels in use by the Home Office at the time of the election; there are now 220. That is an increase of seven which have opened under this Government, notwithstanding the commitment in the Labour manifesto to “end hotel use”. When does the Minister envisage reducing the number of hotels again and when does he envisage ending the use of hotels, as his party promised?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government have closed 14 hotels since July; there have been additions, so there is a net increase of seven hotels. The key point that the Government are trying to undertake—I know that the noble Lord will know this—is to reset the agenda on this issue. That means putting money into a secure command at sea to ensure that we do not have those small boats coming in the first place; speeding up asylum claims; encouraging deportations of those who do not have a right to be here; and looking at the long-term issues of hotel accommodation.
In answer to the noble Lord’s question, it remains the Government’s ambition to exit hotels as soon as possible, because he left us with a bill of £8 million per day and with £700 million of expenditure on a Rwanda scheme that sent four people to Rwanda, all voluntarily. We inherited a scheme that would have cost billions of pounds and would not have deterred or stopped the use of hotels. We need to speed up asylum accommodation. We will do that and, at the appropriate time, exit hotels and save the taxpayer resource by doing so.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, as I am supported by RAMP. I appreciate the position that the Government find themselves in: a huge backlog of people to deal with, some of them here for a very long time indeed. Has the Minister considered that a way of releasing some accommodation would be to allow people who are here now and have been for more than six months to start to do some work, even on a temporary basis, and therefore fend for themselves? That would be just like the rules used in every country in the European Union.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I appreciate the suggestion and will take it as a representation from the noble Lord as to government policy. We are concerned with trying to reduce the use of asylum as a whole, to stop people coming and to undertake deportations where they are appropriate. On the asylum figures, 10,000 claims every month are now being taken through the system. When the noble Lord, Lord Murray, was the Minister it was 1,000 a month, so it is a massive increase in relation to asylum support. We put additional officers in to do that. We have put an additional £75 million into the border security scheme, with a brand new border command, and stopped the wasteful Rwanda programme, which has cost us £700 million to date and would have cost us billions of pounds accordingly. I will take the representation but the Government’s focus is to speed up asylum claims, stop the boats in the first place, ensure that we repatriate that money and, in answer to the noble Lord’s question, exit hotels as quickly as possible to save the taxpayer resource.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend did not mean that he wanted to reduce asylum, because it is a legitimate—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Good. I am glad and wanted to put that on the record. Last week, a round table of academics and stakeholders heard of children wrongly assessed as adults being put in hotels with adults, to the detriment of their mental health. Are the Government looking at this as an issue?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I reassure my noble friend that the Government have a proud role in accepting people with legitimate asylum claims. The key question, which relates to the questions from both Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople, is about the speed and efficiency, and the prevention of illegal entry where there is no asylum claim. The Government will take that on board and I will certainly take away the point that my noble friend mentions. I will look at whether we have figures and facts on children being used and accommodated in that way. If she will let me, I will report back to her and place any letter in the Library of the House.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, what are the Government doing about getting rid of those who should not be here?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can help the noble and learned Baroness on that point. Between 5 July and 28 October this year, which is the only time that I can account for as Minister, the Government have returned 9,400 people who have no right to be here. Of those 9,400 returned, 2,590 were enforced returns, which is a 19% increase on when the noble Lord, Lord Murray, held this post not 12 months ago.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Uniquely in the OECD, the previous Government made the decision to overturn many years of UK practice to score as 100% official development assistance the first-year immigration costs, including hotel costs. This has meant that the ODA budget has been massively squeezed, to the extent that under the previous Government in their last full year, more ODA was spent in the UK on immigration costs than on bilateral programmes abroad, in direct contravention of the 2002 legislation. Many people thought the new Labour Government would reverse this calumny, but they have not—in fact, they are doubling down. Can the Minister tell me what the ODA costs are for the first year of immigration under this new Government and why they have taken the decision to penalise the most vulnerable and poorest around the world for the failures of the previous Government?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
With due respect to the noble Lord, I will look into his point, but we are four and a half months into this Government. The focus the Government have had so far—and I say this genuinely—has been the removals of people with no right to be here, putting extra resources into speeding up the asylum system, stopping this failed Rwanda scheme, and putting money into border security. These things take time. I will reflect on the points he has made, but it is not the long-term aim of the Government to spend the overseas aid budget on supporting issues to do with asylum in the United Kingdom. The aim of this Government is to speed up the asylum system, stop people fraudulently coming, and welcome people who, as my noble friend Lady Lister said, deserve and require asylum under our legal obligations. But we have to try to move this tanker in a very slow and difficult way. The tanker is slowly and surely being moved. I hope the noble Lord will recognise that.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Does the Minister acknowledge that the existence of the international convention does make it extraordinarily difficult to turn the tanker?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
No, we respect our international obligations—and we can take action. As I said a moment ago, the 9,400 total returns is a 19% increase over the past year; 2,590 were enforced returns. It is an important step by this Government to remove people who have no right of abode in this United Kingdom. But we will respect asylum claims that are legitimate. We will speed them up and, by doing so, we will ensure—to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German—that people, having had that asylum approved, will be able to go out and contribute to society. It is a very difficult tanker to turn, as the noble Viscount will understand, but it is one that we are determined to turn.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, back in April a joint report from the APPG on Poverty and the APPG on Migration recommended that asylum seekers should be allowed to work after six months in the country. Given the enormous asylum backlog and the costs to which we are referring, surely the Government are considering allowing asylum seekers to work after six months, so that they can both support themselves and contribute their skills and energy to our economy, while we deal with this enormous continuing backlog.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I refer the noble Baroness to the answer I gave earlier to the noble Lord, Lord German. Those are issues I will take as a representation, but the prime focus of the Government currently is to increase the use of asylum cases being approved and we have done that—up from 1,000 a month to 10,000 in the last month. That has been a big focus. I repeat myself, but it is important, the focus is on the issue of small boats, the Border Security Command and the issue of trying in the long term to reduce the number of hotels and to scrap the Rwanda scheme. Those are initial proposals the Government have brought forward. We will look at other options in due course.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, are we not seen as a soft touch by those who want to get into this country and as having little control over the number of people coming in? According to reports, there may be close on a million people who are not registered as British citizens. Should we not be exploring again the use of a modern identity system? The abolition of the ID cards by the coalition Government was a serious error. Is it not the case that we will have to return to it, and the sooner we look at that, the better?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I respect the question from my noble friend. I reassure him that this United Kingdom Labour Government are not a soft touch on migration to this country. We have invested in Border Force. We are investing in additional measures to prevent illegal entry and in a e-visa system which will allow people to come into this country through a controlled mechanism.
On the aspirations for an identity card, I was in the Home Office when we introduced the identity card. It went through the noble Baroness, Lady May, in her actions as Home Secretary. It is not likely to return soon.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, my apologies for inadvertently cutting off the Minister.
G20 and COP 29 Summits
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I will repeat a Statement the Prime Minister made last Thursday:
“Thank you for your earlier words about John Prescott. We woke today to the deeply sad news that we have lost a true giant of the Labour movement and of this House; a man who fought for working-class ambition because he lived it. As one of the key architects of a Labour Government, John achieved that rare thing: he changed people’s lives and he set the path for us all to follow. I will always be grateful to him for that. He did it in his own way, with humour, pride, passion and total conviction. He truly was a one-off. There will be a moment for fuller tributes, but today I send my deepest condolences to John’s wife Pauline and his family, to the city of Hull, and to all those who knew and loved him. His legacy lives on in all of us.
I would like to update the House on my engagements at COP and the G20. We live in a dangerous and volatile world. We all wish that that were not the case, but it is, and it means that global problems are reaching into the lives of our constituents more and more. Climate change causes extreme weather, such as the terrible floods that we saw in September, and drives down economic growth; conflicts drive up the prices of fuel, food and energy and threaten our stability and security; and both are drivers of migration. To serve the British people we must tackle these problems head-on, because they do not stop at our borders—and that is the fundamental point. At every meeting I had at COP and the G20, and in every agreement I entered into, my focus was on tackling these problems to deliver growth and security for the British people.
At COP, I made the case that we must act on climate change and nature loss as some of the greatest long-term threats we face, and in doing so we must seize the opportunities of the low-carbon economy for investment, for UK businesses and for British workers. At COP, I was proud to announce the UK’s new nationally determined contribution, with a 2035 target to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% on 1990 levels. I called on other countries to match that ambition to limit global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees, and I made the investment case for the transformation that we are leading here in the UK.
By launching GB Energy, creating the National Wealth Fund to build new energy infrastructure and setting a path to clean power by 2030, we will not just boost our energy security and protect bill payers, but put Britain in pole position to claim the clean energy jobs of the future. That is why at COP, I was able to announce a £1 billion wind turbine investment that will support 1,300 local jobs around Hull—something of which John would have been proud—and produce enough clean energy to power 1 million homes. That is in addition to the recent investment in carbon capture in Teesside and Merseyside, which will create 4,000 jobs, and the investment announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor for 11 new green hydrogen projects across Britain.
Tackling climate change is a global effort, of course, so at the G20, together with Brazil and 10 other countries, I launched our global clean power alliance to speed up the international rollout of clean power, accelerate investment, and cut emissions around the world.
We came together at the G20 to meet other challenges as well. I was pleased to join President Lula’s Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty to bring an end to the lost decade in that fight, because this is also an investment in stability and in tackling the factors that force people to leave their homes and make long journeys that too often end with criminal gangs exploiting them and putting their lives at risk in the English Channel. We will smash those gangs. I am sure the House will welcome last week’s news from the Netherlands, where the National Crime Agency, operating with European partners, arrested a man suspected of being a major supplier of small boats equipment. We will hit these organised criminals with the full force of the law, but we will also work with our partners to address the root causes of the problem.
The G20 represents 85% of global GDP, so we have a shared interest in driving up growth and investment. I held productive bilateral meetings with many G20 leaders to that end: Brazil, Japan, Italy, South Africa, the Republic of Korea and others. I also met Italy and Japan together to take forward the Global Combat Air Programme, which will build the next generation of fighter jets, create highly skilled jobs and strengthen our national security for the longer term.
I also had a good discussion with Prime Minister Modi about deepening our bilateral ties. We agreed to raise the ambition of our UK-India comprehensive strategic partnership, covering security, defence, technology, climate, health and education, building on the unique bonds and cultural ties between our two countries. Crucially, this work will start with trade and investment, and I am pleased to say that we agreed to launch FTA negotiations early in the new year.
I also held a bilateral meeting with President Xi. This was the first high-level leader meeting between the United Kingdom and China for six years. We had a frank, constructive and pragmatic discussion. As G20 economies and permanent members of the Security Council at a time of huge volatility, we both recognise the importance of engagement. I was clear that we will always act in our national interest, but we need to work together on challenges such as climate change and delivering growth. We agreed to a new dialogue on these issues, which my right honourable friend the Chancellor will take forward with the Vice-Premier in Beijing. Of course, there will continue to be areas where we do not agree, and we will address them clearly and frankly. They include a number of human rights issues, the sanctioning of Members of this House and, of course, Hong Kong, but here too we need to engage. The lesson of history is that we are better able to deal with problems, and the world is safer, when leaders talk, so we agreed to keep this channel of communication open.
Although it was not on the formal agenda of the G20, the spectre of conflict loomed large over the summit. Conflict is spreading misery, destruction and despair, and causing children to starve and families to flee their homes. I called again for the immediate and unconditional release of the hostages in Gaza, who are always uppermost in our minds. I also called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and a massive increase in the flow of aid to Gaza, which is desperately needed. Yesterday, we backed a UN Security Council resolution to that end. We must find ways to make this international pressure count, to end the suffering on all sides.
The G20 coincided with 1,000 days of conflict in Ukraine. For the third year running, Putin did not attend. Instead, on the eve of the summit, he launched Russia’s biggest attack for months, killing yet more innocent Ukrainians and hitting civilian energy infrastructure at the start of winter, and he indulged yet again in dangerous, irresponsible rhetoric. This is a member of the Security Council acting with contempt for the UN charter. Whereas Brazil made finding solutions to hunger and poverty the focus of its presidency, in recent weeks Russian missiles have continued to rain down on civilian ships carrying grain bound for Africa. It could not be more clear: this is a man who wants destruction, not peace.
After 1,000 days of war—1,000 days of Ukrainian bravery and sacrifice—I am clear that we must double down on our support. We will not be deterred or distracted by reckless threats. We have consistently said that we will do what it takes to support Ukraine and put it in the best possible position going into the winter. The UK’s support for Ukraine is always for self-defence. It is proportionate, co-ordinated and agile, in response to Russia’s own actions. It is in accordance with international law: under Article 51 of the UN charter, Ukraine has a clear right of self-defence against Russia’s illegal attacks. I say again that Russia could roll back its forces and end this war tomorrow. Until then, we will stand up for what we know is right, for Ukraine’s security and for our own security, and we will back Ukraine with what is needed for as long as it takes.
In challenging times, I take the view that British leadership matters more than ever. For the sake of our growth and security, we are making our presence felt, giving the British people a voice on the global stage once again and standing up for the national interest. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I repeat the genuine sadness that we on this side also felt in losing a great comrade in this place: the late Lord Prescott. He was a man of the deepest conviction and principle. He was a great party man but, at the same time, a true patriot.
I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement, although I felt that a few of the Prime Minister’s words were somewhat self-congratulatory. Perhaps third-party congratulations for this Government are running a little short. The Statement pumps up unilateral announcements on energy policy that did not require the Prime Minister to go to Rio or Baku. Has the noble Baroness an update, asked for last week, on the costs of flying 470 UK delegates to Baku?
We will study carefully the conclusions of COP 29 on the important questions of climate change and nature loss, although I see with some regret that many developing countries have already criticised them. Can the noble Baroness confirm the new $300 billion annual climate finance target by 2035? Will she say what the contribution of the UK will be and whether the great polluter China will now contribute to this? How many countries have pledged to match the Prime Minister’s new long-term commitments?
The Statement claims that domestic energy initiatives will “protect bill payers”, yet Labour recently voted against enshrining in law a pre-election promise to bring down energy bills by £300, and it has accelerated policies to festoon our countryside with pylons and raise costs for consumers. The Government now admit that their energy policy will push 100,000 pensioners into poverty by 2027. How can the noble Baroness defend that?
The Statement referred to action against illegal migration, and we welcome that. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister met with the Prime Minister of Italy—there is always good advice to be had from real Conservatives. But is he aware that Italy and the EU are both actively pursuing what President von der Leyen has called “return hubs”, while the Labour Government have abandoned that course and are reopening asylum hotels, as we have just heard. The Prime Minister boasts of an arrest in Holland in the Statement, but, under the last Government, 246 people smugglers were arrested in one year.
On defence, we welcome the recommitment to pursuing the Global Combat Air Programme with Japan and Italy, but we still await any credible route to the 2.5% target on defence in the face of Russia’s aggression, which the Statement rightly condemned. But it was disappointing, at the very least, not to see this aggression called out by name in the G20 communiqué. We welcome and we back the Government’s continuing support for Ukraine. Putin’s aggression must be and will be stopped, and the noble Baroness has our support.
However, it was disappointing to see in paragraph 8 of the G20 communiqué no meaningful recognition of the terrorist onslaught on Israel, against which it has every right to protect itself. Instead, the Prime Minister again called for an immediate ceasefire. There was no mention in the communiqué of UN Resolution 1701, so flagrantly breached by Hezbollah. Does the noble Baroness agree that that resolution is fundamental? When she replies, will she assure the House, and indeed Jewish people in this country, that there will be no question of the UK Government undertaking or permitting an ICC-inspired arrest of Prime Minister Netanyahu, should he come to these shores? There can be no ifs and buts on this question, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar has explained.
The G20 rightly laid emphasis on the challenge of hunger, so much of which results, as the Prime Minister accurately said, from conflict. It is important that we play our full part in addressing that. Perhaps the Minister could say a little on our efforts in Sudan, which, sadly, went unmentioned in the communiqué.
Paragraph 15 of the G20 statement states that the world is capable of producing the food it needs. It is, but to do so it needs farmers. I doubt that world leaders were lining up outside the prime ministerial suite to ask for his advice on how to treat those hard-working people. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will give a lead to the world and think again about their cruel assault on small farming families?
I welcome the positive commitment to improving and maintaining relations with India, a great friend and a key strategic partner. On the Indian Ocean more widely, can the Minister tell us if, after the Government’s stampede to surrender the Chagos Islands without any consultation with the Chagossian people, President Milei of Argentina has asked for the handover of the Falklands? On Diego Garcia, President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, Senator Rubio, has said that the deal poses “a serious threat” to United States security. Will the Government undertake to pause the deal to allow for discussions with the incoming US Administration? Was that discussed with President Biden?
More widely on US-UK relations, can the Minister say something about the Government’s engagement with the incoming Administration? President Trump had a British mother; he hugely values that, and he loves Scotland. He may well be the last US President ever to have those credentials. Would it not be a historic act of folly if the UK Government, in their search for a so-called reset with an economically stagnant and divided EU, spurned the opportunity for a close and productive relationship with a pro-British US President?
The Prime Minister is clearly proud of meeting President Xi of China. He declared that he wanted a strong relationship, but when the Statement said, in a rather throwaway phrase,
“and, of course, Hong Kong”,
it sounded as if the snuffing out of freedom by China, contrary to treaty obligations, was a done deal; perhaps it was time to move on. [Interruption.] Someone says it is, but it is never time to move on on the strangling of freedom.
We hear that the Prime Minister mentioned the case of Jimmy Lai. I thank him for that, although the Statement was silent on it. But what assurances did we get in return? Was it not unfortunate that this glad-handing should go on in the week when the heroic Hong Kong 45 await their unjustified sentences?
Meanwhile, President Xi praised Labour’s economic policies. Had some Labour spin doctor sent him a line to take? Perhaps the president should see the comments from the CBI, British retailers and other business voices who say, correctly, that the Budget will destroy job creation and force up prices. Is that the message the Chancellor will be taking to Beijing: tax the living daylights out of wealth creators and innovators? I do not think they will roll out the red carpet in the Great Hall of the People for that. The Chinese are a little shrewder than that—although they may be quietly smiling at one of their international rivals dashing towards economic self-harm.
There was much that could be productive, and which we welcome, in the G20 discussions. However, surely it is now time that this globe-trotting Prime Minister turned his attention to problems at home: promises broken, growth stalling, inflation rising and business frankly reeling from the most brutal tax on jobs ever seen. It may have been high summer down in Rio, but here at home pensioners, farmers, small businesses and savers are wondering what tempest has hit them—and it was storm Starmer, not Storm Bert.
Lord Newby (LD)
I begin by joining from these Benches the tributes to Lord Prescott. With colleagues, I send our condolences to John Prescott’s family and friends.
I completely agree with the Prime Minister when he says that the world is safer when leaders talk. Given the many conflicts and challenges facing the world today, the need for international dialogue has never been greater. The Statement covers a very wide range of issues, of which I would like to refer to just five.
First, on our climate reduction commitments, it is a good start to set the target of an 81% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, but we still need an action plan to do so. The Statement stresses the important role which GB Energy and the National Wealth Fund will play in achieving this, but will the Leader accept that there is currently a complete muddle as to how the National Wealth Fund will operate at all? Its relationship with GB Energy is unclear, to put it mildly. Given the need to maximise investment on green energy from both these bodies, will the Government clarify this situation and present a detailed plan to explain how their laudable aspirations for decarbonising the economy will actually be met? As part of any plan, could the Government say what steps they are taking to ensure that the benefits from new wind farms are not delayed because they cannot get a timely connection to the grid, as was reported today in respect of BP’s Morven wind farm? We need a new sense of urgency in this whole area.
Secondly, we welcome the Government’s decision to join the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty, but can the noble Baroness the Leader explain how we can really step up to the plate on this so long as our commitment to aid continues to fall so far short of the 0.7% target? In the absence of any proposal to increase the currently planned 0.5% level, what will joining the global alliance mean? What is going to change?
Thirdly, on Gaza, we share the Government’s call for an immediate ceasefire and a massive increase in the flow of aid to Palestinian civilians, but does the noble Baroness accept that Israel shows not the slightest inclination to move in this direction, and is instead maintaining a programme of massive destruction and of denying aid to Gaza? The UK’s ability to influence events in the region is extremely limited, but one thing we could do would be to recognise Palestine as an independent state. Will the Government stop prevaricating on this issue and recognise Palestine now, without further delay?
Fourthly, on Ukraine, we support the Government in their determination to double down in our support for the Government in Kyiv. We welcome the long-delayed decision to allow the use of Storm Shadow missiles into Russian territory, but we believe that we should also be freeing up frozen Russian assets so that they can be used by Kyiv to support the war effort. This is an area where the Government could take a lead, by calling a summit of European leaders to unblock these assets. Will the Government now do so?
Finally, on China, the Prime Minister has had what he called “frank, constructive and pragmatic” discussions. This is welcome. The Statement refers to Hong Kong but is not specific about exactly what was discussed. Did the Prime Minister raise the case of Jimmy Lai and the 45 jailed pro-democracy campaigners? If so, what was President Xi’s response? When the Prime Minister says that we need to work together with China on delivering growth, what does that mean in practice?
The previous Government succeeded in trashing the UK’s global reputation, and we welcome the Prime Minister’s attempts to rebuild it, but action must now follow the promises he has made if we are really to punch our weight again on the international stage.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for most of the comments made by both noble Lords. I will do my best to answer as many as I can in the time remaining. I thank them for their comments about our friend John Prescott. John and I were introduced into this House on the same day. My mum still tells with great affection the story of meeting Pauline in the loo and having a chat afterwards. He was a one-off, and we miss him greatly.
I have to say that I thought the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition’s comments about the Prime Minister were really unwarranted and unworthy of him. This country has a role to play on the international stage. We have not really made our weight and our presence felt in the way that we should. The fact that this was the first time in six years that there had been a meeting between the Chinese Premier and a Prime Minister does not serve the best interests of this country. The Leader of the Opposition asked specifically about that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and we have to co-operate where we can with China; we have to compete where it is appropriate; and, as my noble friend Lord Collins has said on many occasions, there are times when we must challenge as well. The frank discussions that were had were very important. Yes, the first item on the agenda was Jimmy Lai. The world will have seen that was the first issue that the Prime Minister raised, because the cameras were there at that time—although they were ushered out soon after.
The Secretary of State will make a further Statement on the detail of energy policy, but the thing that will make the most difference and will help enormously in bringing down prices and protecting our energy security is GB Energy, where we have been dependent on an international market buffeting us around. We will hear more about that, but in answer to both noble Lords, I say that we will publish our clean power action plan by the end of the year. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was absolutely right to talk about the national grid connections, which are poor and need to be improved. My right honourable friend will say more on that, but we are working on improving those connections at pace.
I think the noble Lord, Lord True, was a little confused when he talked about return hubs and the Rwanda policy, comparing to what has happened in other countries. There is a real difference between offshoring and outsourcing. This country has had offshoring arrangements with other countries for some time, but when you outsource or offload your immigration policy, that is when there is a significant difference. Given the amount of money spent by this country on the failed Rwanda policy—frankly, more Home Secretaries, Prime Ministers and journalists went to Rwanda than those seeking asylum or who had to have their claims assessed—I will take no lectures from the party opposite about that. What will really make a difference is the kind of international discussion which is being had about tackling the gangs. I was surprised that the noble Lord did not congratulate the Government and the National Crime Agency, because working with other countries is really important. Think of the arrest in the Netherlands last week. He shakes his head at me, but it is a significant step forward and one we hope to see more of.
The noble Lord also asked about the Falkland Islands. I do not know how many times we have to say from this Dispatch Box that the Falkland Islands and the Chagos Islands are completely different. We have made clear our support for the Falkland Islanders time and again, and I am entirely happy to do so again. The sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is not up for debate; it is an absolute commitment. I remind him that it was the previous Government who started negotiations on the Chagos Islands back in November 2022. Those discussions were not concluded, and that put the military base at risk. Under the agreement secured with Mauritius, the UK/US military base on Diego Garcia is now secured. That is the first time in 50 years that it is undisputed and legally secure. That was not the case before.
The noble Lord asked for an assurance about US engagement. I thought that it was clear that it has been the policy of this Government, and will continue to be, that we engage with foreign Governments. He described the Statement as self-congratulatory. It was not. It made clear that we have a place in the world. We have to find our place in the world and show our commitment to negotiations. In the relationship so far, the Prime Minister has met the President and the President-elect; there is ongoing dialogue and discussion and there will continue to be so. The noble Lord should recognise that it is an important relationship for this country, but we also recognise that relationships around the world are crucial as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about aid into Israel and Gaza, and he is absolutely right. There are two sides to this: the hostages must be released—just imagine the agonies of those families not knowing if the hostages are dead or alive or what state they are in—and that is a prerequisite; but, at the same time, given the amount of suffering of the people in Gaza, getting aid in as quickly as possible, particularly with winter coming, is absolutely crucial. Both those issues were discussed at the G20, and we will continue to put pressure at every opportunity possible.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we now move on to 20 minutes of questions. To get as many noble Lords in as possible, we need questions, not speeches.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader referred to GB Energy. Are the Government looking at small nuclear reactors?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am happy to give a very quick answer to the noble Baroness: yes, they are.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
It was a comprehensive Statement, but it included wording about
“a 2035 target to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% on 1990 levels”.
I know a clean energy mission is coming and we will learn the details there, but could the noble Baroness just explain how that squares with the aim of decarbonising all power by 2030 and an all-electric economy—or is that by 2035? Some of us are getting a bit confused with this and other developments. If we could just know roughly where we are going and whether these things are remotely attainable, that would help.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Targets are there to be attained and reached, and every effort is being made. The difference is that 2030 is the national target; 2035 is the international agreement reached at the summits. I hope that is helpful.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
While I applaud the Government’s policy of being civilised, nice and supportive of President-elect Trump because we have to work with him, will it be made abundantly clear, without qualification, that this country will not import hormone-treated beef or chlorinated washed chicken?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
From a sedentary position, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggests that was an application to be ambassador—I think not.
On all these things, the food safety agency will be involved to ensure that all products must be safe. The issue of chlorinated washed chicken previously caused enormous concern to the public, and that is why labelling is important. But I am sure these issues will be discussed as part of a new trade deal.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that this is an appropriate moment to mention Lord Prescott’s involvement in the Kyoto Protocol? I think it was one of his outstanding achievements.
Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House say a little bit about the forward look for next year’s COP meeting in Belém in Brazil? With a good Brazilian Minister of the Environment who is genuinely committed to stopping the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, there are surely major opportunities now to have a somewhat less contentious approach than we had to this year’s COP. Can she also say a little bit about what we are going to do on food security, because Brazil is very relevant there. Brazil has enormous capacity for agriculture and food production but not a very active programme of development in developing countries; we have a development policy. Can we not make them work a bit better together?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments about John Prescott and Kyoto. It was one of the things of which he was most proud, and in many ways he was a man ahead of his time—many derided him on that issue but he was proved to be absolutely right. It remained an abiding passion of his right until the very end.
The noble Lord is right that the Brazil COP presents a major opportunity. Discussions are difficult when so many countries are trying to reach an agreement, so how these discussions are managed and how the countries work together is really important. The noble Lord has made the point about how the climate emergency affects every part of our lives in terms of food security and migration; they are interconnected, and that is why the role on the world stage is important. Food security is an issue that will be discussed at the next COP, because it is part and parcel of what is happening to the world with the climate emergency. The noble Lord is also right that the relationship between our country and Brazil has grown in the last few years. Certainly, at this COP, both Brazil and the UK were asked for advice on many occasions. After a very difficult COP this time, we must try to be as optimistic as we can to see what progress can be made in Brazil.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I think that many international and national observers will be surprised that we should have a Prime Ministerial Statement covering COP 29 in which the term “fossil fuels” does not appear once. Sadly, there were many disappointments coming out of COP 29, one of which was the key negotiating item known as the UAE dialogue, which was meant to follow on from the commitment in COP 28 to “transition away from fossil fuels”. What was put forward in Baku was rejected because countries said it was too weak. Saudi Arabia suggested that this was only one of the options which countries had agreed at COP 28. Does the noble Baroness agree that this is not correct? Are the Government considering showing real leadership such as we saw this week from Glasgow City Council—following London, Edinburgh and many other local governments around the country—in calling for backing for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty? Surely the UK should be showing leadership in the area of fossil fuels.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness will have seen the clean power objective—the plan that will be coming out before the end of the year—which I think will address many of these concerns. I understand her concerns about the last COP just gone, but we have to build on this. There are two alternatives: either we give up and walk away saying, “We did not get what we wanted, so why continue?” or we just have to keep going, because each time progress is being made. The noble Baroness will know that nothing happened for 11 years about the issues that were agreed in Paris to proceed on carbon markets; at this COP, we finally agreed the rules, so progress is there. It is not enough, and it is not fast enough, but that is why we have to keep on going. The noble Baroness will see that we are making progress on clean power. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, we have already started working with Brazil about what will happen at the next COP. Perhaps I am just an optimist, but I think we just have to try to make progress at every stage we possibly can.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I heard what the noble Baroness said about the Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia. Surely the strategic issue to be squared within the treaty is not the security of the base but the permissions of the US forces stationed there, particularly the B52 bombers, to prosecute operations from there without being subject to any form of a red card from the Mauritian Government. Can she confirm that the wording of the treaty is sufficiently clear that American operations mounted from Diego Garcia will not in some way be prejudiced?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point. We are confident that the treaty does provide those assurances. That was part of the discussions which took place during the last Government prior to the treaty being signed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is to be welcomed that the UK will join the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty. However, in the next clause, the Prime Minister’s Statement said it was
“to bring an end to the lost decade in that fight”.
One of the reasons why that fight was being lost is that the richest countries in the world—including the UK, in breach of legislation—have reneged on the commitment they gave on previous development support of 0.7%. Can I read from the Statement that, during this Parliament, this Government will provide more development partnership assistance to such countries to alleviate action on hunger and poverty?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we would certainly wish to be in a position to do so. That has been the case in past Labour Government responses. We are disappointed by the financial situation that we inherited, with a—dare I say it?—£22 billion black hole, but the noble Lord will know from his experience that this is something to which the Government and the Prime Minister personally are committed. We will do all we can.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I would like to follow the injunction of the Chief Whip by asking a question but, before I do so, perhaps I may join in the wonderful words that have been said about John Prescott. He was an MP in Hull, when Hull was facing terrible education. I remember him persuading us that Archbishop Thurstan School, which was a secondary school, should be renamed—believe it or not—Archbishop Sentamu Academy. He said, “The Government may lose the election, so make sure you get your £45 million ahead of this”, so we applied and we got it. Within a week, the coalition Government came into place and stopped all the school-building programmes that had been planned. The people of Hull want to say to John Prescott, “You have lifted us out of poverty and out of poor education”. For the first time, the Sentamu Academy has pupils leaving Hull to go to different universities and continue education.
In paying tribute to John Prescott’s work on COP, my question to the Leader of the House is: what more lessons could be learned from the way that he tackled poverty, particularly that of children?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his recollections. Many people have similar, personal recollections of John. One of his great strengths was his ability to negotiate. Many felt that he would play up to his gruff exterior at times, but anyone who had watched him in a room of people disagreeing find some way to get some kind of agreement would have understood the brilliance of the man in that regard. That plays into COPs, in that people go in with their own objectives and do not always get what they want, but the worst thing they can do is walk out of the room, leave and make no progress. The lesson I take from John’s life is never to give up.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Ukraine war was a recurring theme at the G20, and it looks very much as though this appalling war of attrition will continue for the foreseeable future. Obviously, funding is a key matter, and I noted the point from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about frozen Russian assets. Can the Minister elaborate on that and give the House some explanation of whether there will be a breakthrough there?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My apologies: I did not address that point in the time I had. Yes, there are ongoing discussions with others to make further progress on that.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister will ignore the bleatings from those opposite and continue to attend all these important meetings with world leaders? That is far more useful than, for example, Boris Johnson going to Italy to be entertained by Russian oligarchs. Given the record of the Tory Government over the last 14 years, does my noble friend not agree that the statement by the shadow Leader of the House shows a brass neck of which a kettle would be proud?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I always love my noble friend’s mixed metaphors, but I am not sure that a kettle has a brass neck. If it does, he has found it. One of the things that I find most useful, and I am sure everyone in the House agrees, is that whenever you attend a conference or meeting you make contacts and get to know people. In the few months that he has been Prime Minister, my right honourable friend has had to attend various conferences and summits. When you make good relations with people in the good times and have easy discussions, it makes those difficult discussions and harder negotiations easier in the longer term. There is no way that a bad or absent relationship helps this country. I hear the noise around the House, but I am grateful that we have a Prime Minister who recognises that good relationships with leaders of other countries are useful to this country, in good times and in bad. They promote the national interest, which is extraordinarily important.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for all the appreciation of the life of John Prescott, whom I knew and worked with for 40 years—indeed, I was his Minister in this House for four years. He was always prepared to negotiate, and that is what our current Prime Minister is doing in all these contexts. Negotiation is a multi-faceted thing, and you have to talk to people other than the person in apparent charge. The absence of America from the climate change talks, and its probable withdrawal under President Trump, is a real problem. But President Trump is not all of America. There is importance in keeping our lines open to American states, corporations, individuals and institutions so that pressure can be brought to bring America back into that process, because there are as many in America who support the reduction of fossil fuels as there are in the many countries that were present in Baku.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend’s experience, and his work with John Prescott, really shone through in that question. There are some exciting developments in the US on clean energy and clean power. Our relationship is with the Government—whichever Government are in power, we maintain that relationship—but also with, as he says, companies, civic society and the people of the US. We have a lot we can learn from them and share with them. I can give him an assurance that that will continue. It is a very important relationship for this country.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I agree very much with the Leader of the House on the need for continued international diplomacy, whatever the issues. Lord Prescott indeed played a distinct and valuable part in that work.
China is no longer a developing country, so why is it not contributing directly to the $300 billion fund for loss and damage rather than just counting what it is already doing towards the important climate change objectives agreed at COP?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that China is still defined as a developing country, but I think we found a greater willingness to engage, and I hope we can make progress from that. That dialogue, and the fact that China is playing such a role and wants to play a greater part, is something that we should be optimistic about and try to build on, rather than reject.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord True asked a couple of questions. I know that time was short, so I am sure that the noble Baroness will be grateful to be asked the questions once more. What was the cost of sending those 450-odd government attendees to Baku? What did they actually do? Furthermore, can she explain to the elderly people across this country deprived of their winter fuel allowance what amount of their future taxes will be Britain’s contribution towards the $300 billion by 2035?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord’s last question is a calculation that I doubt he or I have made yet. On the conference attendees, the Prime Minister went to show leadership on this, which was important, but there were fewer attendees in the UK delegation than there were last year under the previous Government. I do not have the costs; no doubt, they will be available in due course, and the Secretary of State will make a broader statement.
I think that eight Ministers attended along with officials, the devolved Governments and businesses. It was a wide-ranging group because we want to have that wide range of discussions. To anybody who questions the value of attending in person I say that a conference that runs over by 30 or 35 hours because of the difficulty in reaching agreement is proof that it is not something you can do over a video link, Zoom or Teams. You have to be there in the room and in person to try to make a difference.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, should we not be proud of the fact that we now have a Prime Minister who is an internationalist who recognises that by pursuing internationalism we find the solution to so many domestic problems? Is this not a contrast to Boris Johnson, who spent his time insulting our closest friends and partners, and to Rishi Sunak, who could not be bothered to go abroad?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, yes, I am very proud of the role that our Prime Minister is playing in getting Britain back on the world stage as a force for good. That is crucial for the well-being and the interests of this country and for establishing a place in the world that shows what we can do and what we can achieve together. At a time when countries can make the changes they want and the greatest difference only when they co-operate, it is one of the crucial aspects of the premiership of any serious Prime Minister. I reiterate the point I made earlier: when you build up relationships with leaders of other countries, those relationships allow you to have not just the easiest discussions but the difficult discussions. There are lots of difficult issues that need to be discussed internationally, and our Prime Minister is putting himself in the best place to have such discussions.
Defence Programmes Developments
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the marvellous men and women in our Armed Forces, and the civilian cohort who support defence in such an extraordinary manner and help to keep our country safe. Sometimes, in our political badinage, we are inclined to forget that. I know that noble Lords entirely support what defence is doing in our name and for us. I also pay tribute to the Government’s clear resolve to continue supporting Ukraine. I know, again, that this enjoys universal support in the House.
Prompted by the Statement, there are so many questions that I could ask that I am going to try to keep this simple. Looking at the recent antics of the Government, you might think that the pantomime season had arrived early: an embattled Prime Minister and his Chancellor telling business and farmers, “We’re on your side”, to be met with a chorus of, “Oh no you’re not”; an isolated Secretary State for Defra being told, “Look behind you” as the Prime Minister and his Chancellor hover above British farmers with a guillotine.
On defence, the Government’s approach is clearly predicated on the premise that ignorance is bliss. Defence spend will rise to 2.5% of GDP, but we do not know when. Will that decision, when it is known, inform the strategic defence review? We do not know. Will the strategic defence review inform the fiscal imperative of pinning down a date for 2.5% of GDP? We do not know. What impact is the imposition of VAT on school fees going to have on our Armed Forces? We do not know. Is it going to impact on recruitment? We do not know.
What do we know? We know that any significant question asked of the Government about capability—GCAP, the progress of AUKUS, the development of drones—is met with, “Wait for the strategic defence review report next year”. That response might be disappointing to inquisitive nuisances like me but, in fairness, it is a sustainable position if consistently adhered to by the Government—but it is not, because without awaiting any SDR outcome, the Defence Secretary announced in the other place last week that we are scrapping ships, including HMS “Albion” and HMS “Bulwark”, and helicopters. Given the Government’s steadfast fallback on the SDR to explain their reluctance to talk about anything, this is an odd aberration.
Let me explain, however, what makes it even odder. Earlier this year Luke Pollard, now the Armed Forces Minister, said that HMS “Albion” and HMS “Bulwark”,
“play a key role in the Royal Navy’s ability to project power and deploy Royal Marines at scale”.
He even criticised the Conservatives for not ruling out the mothballing of the two amphibious assault ships, which he said in January
“are important for the Royal Navy and should be retained”.
He also said on Twitter in January—this has been reported to me, because I have nothing to do with Twitter—that:
“Mothballing HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark when they still have a decade of planned active service ahead is bad for Plymouth and bad for the Royal Navy”.
I put the following questions to the Minister—or should that be Prince Charming? He is certainly one of the more acceptable faces of the Government. If his honourable colleague Mr Pollard was so right in January, how is he so wrong now? If, as he identified, these ships are a classic illustration of a capability that is not going to be used every day but must be held in readiness, to what extent is the operational mobility of the Marines compromised by this decision? Does the Minister anticipate, ahead of the strategic defence review report, more precipitate announcements about assets being scrapped and decommissioned? Lastly and in particular, will he reassure the House that there are no plans to mothball either of the carriers?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I do not plan to engage in any pantomime discussions, which we are getting perhaps because we are slightly close to Christmas, because it is important that we remember the significance of defence. Something that is appreciated, not just in your Lordships’ House and the other place but by our Armed Forces, is the extent to which the political parties are united in the tributes that we pay to them, and the fact that we recognise their commitment to our country. We also owe them a duty to ensure that defence expenditure means that the equipment for our Armed Forces is the best appropriate and that we are putting the right resources into defence.
We have a strategic defence review where we understand that there is a cap. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, we do not know at this point when the 2.5% is going to be introduced, so that is an uncertainty. We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State brought forward a Statement on defence programmes and that the Minister is in his place today to answer questions on it, because a lot of questions that require further probing.
The Statement from the Secretary of State seemed to suggest that the answer to a lot of the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is, “We didn’t know the state of either the Budget or our Armed Forces when we took office”, and that is why the issues about decommissioning are being brought forward now. Could the Minister say whether the decommissioning of equipment is being done now because the Secretary of State has discovered that the time has come and in fact it would cost more to keep these ships and other pieces of kit operational? How much is the decommissioning going to cost? Has that been taken into consideration? Are the further pieces of equipment part of an ongoing review programme? It is important for us to understand what the Secretary of State and the chiefs are actually looking at.
Beyond that, what scope is there for the Secretary of State, and the Minister of State in your Lordships’ House, to tell us what is planned for defence procurement? In the Statement, the Secretary of State made the repeated point that the Treasury has understood the importance of defence for growth. We agree, yet the Budget increased expenses for the defence industry, like every other business, because of employers’ national insurance. The Minister has reassured me, both in Grand Committee and in private discussion, that the national insurance increase will not impact on the cost of the Armed Forces. We accept that, and it is very welcome. However, presumably the defence industrial base will pay the increased national insurance costs. While the primes might be able to take that as relatively small change, is that true of the sub-primes? What impact will it have on the small and medium-sized enterprises so vital for the defence industry?
I turn to something that could be either a vicious circle or a virtuous circle. If defence is indeed able to contribute to the growth of UK plc and we see our economy grow, that will, by definition, also help with defence expenditure if the 2.5% is part of a growing GDP. But if the defence sector and the economy as a whole go into decline—and there have been suggestions that the Budget might lead to a decline in our national GDP—what impact is that going to have on our defence expenditure? These are some clear questions that we need to understand. They are not intended to be unhelpful, but simply to ask whether we are really giving the support needed to the defence industrial base.
Finally, one of the things we heard across the Chamber in discussions about the G20 and COP summits was the importance of internationalism. The Secretary of State mentioned the Trinity House agreement on British-German defence co-operation. What are we expecting in terms of a Lancaster House refresh? Also, what is His Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the reports in today’s Financial Times that France has begun to step back from its attempts to veto non-EU countries such as the UK being part of the European defence investment programme? That, presumably, will assist the UK in strengthening our defence relations not just with France but with the European Union.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I want to start by thanking the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their comments and by reiterating that defence is an issue that unites us across this Chamber: we all want the best for our country and for our Armed Forces, and here there is no division between us. I also thank the noble Baronesses for their ongoing support in respect of Ukraine, just as we supported the previous Government when we were in opposition. Again, this House is united in that regard, and I am grateful that reiteration.
I hope the House will bear with me while I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Levene, who gave his valedictory speech a few days ago, when I was unable to be in attendance. We all know of the noble Lord’s work on defence, and I want to put my personal thanks to him on record and to wish him well for the future.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, paid tribute to our Armed Forces across the globe and they were right to do so. Not everyone in the Chamber will agree with everything I will say today, but there is no division between us on our respect for our Armed Forces and the work they have done, are doing and will do. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was particularly right to remind us of that, and perhaps we should start every debate by saying it, because I know that many members of the Armed Forces read such debates.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, mentioned the 2.5%. As I have said, the pathway to the 2.5% will be laid out at a future fiscal event in the spring. She asked about the sequencing with respect to the SDR. The SDR will come prior to the 2.5%. I hope that clarifies that point.
The noble Baroness mentioned my honourable friend Luke Pollard MP, who campaigned hard for clarity on the landing platform docks to which she referred. He fully supports the Government’s publicising and making it clear that, following the mothballing introduced by the previous Government, neither ship had been to sea since 2023—indeed, HMS “Bulwark” had not since 2017. On current planning, neither ship was due to go to sea again before their planned out-of-service dates of 2033 and 2034. In a sense, the previous Government had effectively got rid of those two platforms themselves, while all this Government have done is to announce something that had already happened.
I would also point out that, as the noble Baroness will know, we have three Bay- class landing ships, “Lyme Bay”, “Mounts Bay” and “Cardigan Bay”, and a further RFA “Argus”, which will do virtually the same for us as the two ships that have been decommissioned. As the defence review will no doubt point out—I see that my noble friend Lord Robertson has walked in—the Royal Marines will play a full and proper part in the future defence of this country, as they have done already this year without the use of those two landing platform docks. They have been in Australia, in Gaza and all over the world, conducting their various activities. As the noble Baroness says, we should be proud of the fact that they have done that—and they have done it with two landing platform docks mothballed in Plymouth.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, what the Government are trying to do is to get rid of outdated equipment that is no longer being used. All of this has been backed by all the chiefs in the Ministry of Defence, who have supported every single thing laid out in these proposals. If noble Lords object to it, they are objecting to something the professionals have told us they support. They support the decommissioning of the landing platform docks and of HMS “Northumberland”, which is beyond repair. We are trying to accelerate the replacement of the Type 23 frigates with eight of the world’s most advanced, Type 26 anti-submarine ships.
The Wave-class tankers are being got rid of because we do not need them any more. Instead of having two that were last at sea in 2017 and 2022, we will have four RFA Wave-class tankers that will provide the same commitment and resource to the Royal Navy as the two that are being decommissioned. I would have thought that was a sensible thing to do.
We are getting rid of Watchkeeper because that system has been in service since 2010 and, according to all the military chiefs, is out of date. The Ukraine war has shown that we need to replace it with something else. The Chinook helicopters are going—14 out-of-date helicopters that have been in service for more than 35 years. They are to be replaced with new, state-of-the-art helicopters. The contract for the Pumas is not being extended and they will have to be renewed in due course.
These pieces of equipment are all currently on the books, and we believe they can be decommissioned and that new equipment can replace them, so that the Armed Forces of this country have the modern equipment they need to prosecute the conflicts we send them to work in on our behalf. I would have thought that all noble Lords could support that. If we do not support such decommissioning, we will have equipment that is 50, 60 or even 80 years old. That is ridiculous. You have to move on and, at times, take difficult decisions because that is the way to ensure that we move forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, mentioned the continuity education allowance with respect to providing for the education of the military. The CEA will be increased to be consistent with the current policy of meeting the increase in VAT fees. She will know, as will the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that, notwithstanding the defence review, the Government have made a clear commitment that the nuclear deterrent and AUKUS will be protected. There might be better ways of doing both, and we would always search for savings within them, but it will not be at the cost of the ability of those systems.
The noble Baroness asked me about the carriers. The thing to point out for this country is that next year the “Prince of Wales” will lead a carrier strike group into the Indo-Pacific with our allies, with ships all around it, taking hard power from this nation with our alliances, to show that we support the international rules-based order, the rule of law and the freedom of navigation on the seas. That is where the carrier the “Prince Wales” will be next year, and I think that is something we should be singing about and talking about. Not only will that be demonstrating hard power, but defence diplomacy will go on all around the world to reassure our allies that this country, along with America and everyone else, stands up for the rules-based order that seems to be threatened by others who seek to undermine it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about procurement. Defence procurement will be at the heart of everything we do. Noble Lords can see the point we are making about new equipment. We hope that much of it will be built within the UK, across the whole of the UK, benefiting all the regions and nations.
On national insurance, the noble Baroness will also know—again to confirm the point I made—the Armed Forces will not pay or will not have a cost, though there may be accounting issues. Of course, national insurance will have an impact on other firms as it will for all firms.
The defence equipment plan before us seeks to decommission equipment that we believe is out of date. New equipment can be better placed to meet the threats we face, and it is those new threats that we need to face: it is the wars of the future we need to fight, not the wars of the past.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether the chiefs would have been happy to accept these cuts, as the Minister says, if there had been 2.5% available now—it is against the amount of money that is available. In addition to the equipment that has been taken, there are serious shortfalls in personnel, particularly engineers. What steps are the Government taking to overcome these particular shortfalls?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is a really good question. On the first point about spending, the noble and gallant Lord will know that, notwithstanding the amount in the budget—there is 2.3% at the moment, and we have laid out and talked about the pathway to 2.5%—whatever amount of money the defence chiefs have to spend, they will always want to spend it in the best possible way. We have discussed with them a way of doing that ensuring that we have the newest and best possible equipment available to our Armed Forces, and that at times will mean decommissioning older equipment.
On the noble and gallant Lord’s second point, in terms of retention payments for aircraft engineers, as part of the Government's commitments to renew the nation’s contract with those who have served, eligible tri-service aircraft engineers will be given £30,000 when they sign up for an additional three years of service. From April 2025, this will be applicable to around 5,000 personnel in total. That is one practical way we are trying to deal with the specific point the noble and gallant Lord raised.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Can I press the noble Lord on the number of fast jets that are currently in service and are expected to be in service, say, over the next five years, and also on the number of fast jets pilots that we are training? In one constituency alone, the Vale of York, which I had the honour to represent for 13 years, we had at that time RAF Linton-on-Ouse, RAF Leeming, Dishforth airfield and Topcliffe airfield as well, so I hope he will give me some encouragement that we are going to be on track for a number of fast jets going forward.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We certainly will be purchasing a number of fast jets—the exact number will obviously be subject to debate, but we expect a number of F35Bs to be purchased. On the training of pilots, which the noble Baroness raised, the training and retention of pilots is something for which we have an ongoing review within the Ministry of Defence; we are looking at that very carefully, but she is right to raise that as an issue.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, a bigger reason for the number of Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships stuck alongside is not the age of the vessels but the absence of seafarers to staff them. Can the Minister update the House on the ongoing industrial action affecting the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, which is obviously having a significant impact on the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for raising the point about the industrial dispute affecting the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The only thing I can say is that discussions are ongoing. We obviously hope it can be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction in due course.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement says that “difficult decisions” are required. Should those difficult decisions—or at least, difficult considerations—not include giving serious consideration as to whether we should continue a nuclear weapons programme? Philip Stephens, a contributing editor at the Financial Times wrote in a piece this week that the defence review, as currently constituted, is
“a necessary start, but an inadequate one”
to considering our defence policy. Stephens says in that article:
“A brave government would also ask whether it is wise to spend so many billions on a nuclear system maintained by the US”.
Is this a brave Government?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are certainly a brave Government, but it has been a consistent policy of whatever Government have been in power to support the nuclear deterrent. The nuclear deterrent will continue; we will renew the nuclear deterrent. I just say to the noble Baroness, who is quite entitled to the opinion she holds, that I think it incumbent upon us to do that, given the threats we are seeing from President Putin—the irresponsible threats at the present time raise the prospect of it. Let us be clear about this: we support the nuclear deterrent, and we support its renewal. That is an important part of our defence.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
I draw Members’ attention to my relevant registered interest as a member of the Thales advisory board. I offer some sympathy to the Government regarding their defence inheritance, which must appear to be an appalling mismatch between requirements and resources.
When I was in the MoD, when we needed to save money, it often had to be found where savings could be made—that is, in money that was uncommitted—as opposed to where savings should be found, often on money that was committed on historic mistakes. Can the Minister therefore confirm that the process applied has been truly rigorous in respect of operational priorities? Within those priorities, the Minister mentioned the deletion of Watchkeeper. Did its deletion recognise the potential associated sensitivities to defence export sales in the Middle East, including sensitivities that involve GCAP?
Secondly, the Statement mentions a
“fully fledged national armaments director”.
Can the Minister perhaps offer the House some insight into what is the defining element of this fully fledged national armaments director? Particularly, what will define his relationship with the defence industrial primes? Will it be a relationship that ensures that, going forward, defence capabilities are principally bought in the context of benefit to the taxpayer and defence as opposed to shareholders of defence industrial primes?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
First, we recognised the sensitivities around the deletion of Watchkeeper and they were a consideration. In terms of operations, the decisions around decommissioning were made in a way that would not compromise operations. The chiefs were clear to us that operations would not be compromised by any of the decommissioning taking place.
The point about the national armaments director is an extremely important one. The national armaments director is to give greater strength to the idea that we need to rebuild our arms industry and ensure that the stockpiles we have are of sufficient size to meet the threats of the future. In doing that, the relationship with the defence industry—whether the primes or the smaller companies—will be important. The important point is that it is not to be something that is in the interests of the shareholders but something that we need to discuss, which is that it is to be in the national interest and in the interests of our international alliances. That is what is important to us all. We have to have an armaments director which drives forward an arms industry which gives us the weapons and stockpiles we need.
In answer to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I have not seen the Financial Times article with respect to the European defence industrial strategy, but that is certainly something we have been discussing with our European friends.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, in concluding his remarks the Minister pointed to the need to be prepared for future threats. The United Kingdom has extensive infrastructure within the contiguous exclusive economic zone around these islands, be that oil and gas pipelines, gas and electricity interconnectors, or the vital undersea cables that are so important for the City and the two-thirds of financial services and professional business activity conducted outside London. Britain’s leading industry is very vulnerable. In view of the events last week in the Baltic and the fact that there are three warships around this possibly offending Chinese vessel down off the Skagerrak, and the continuing grey zone activity of Russian vessels around our coast and this vital infrastructure, is the Minister content that we have it adequately protected for the future and for today?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is certainly one of the questions the defence review is looking at: how we protect underwater cables, pipelines, et cetera. We are considering the capability that we have to deal with that. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord. I was in Copenhagen last week, where we discussed with the Northern Group of states what more we could do together to protect underwater cables and work together. Indeed, without going into too much detail, we have conducted a number of operations together to try to protect and deter with respect to these particular cables. He will also know that there has been other activity around the world where we have also sought to defend those cables from those who would do us harm and undermine the ability of our industry, and that of others, to operate in the way that it should be able to.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Relevant document: Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill, Session 2022-23. Welsh legislative consent sought.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to move the Second Reading of the Mental Health Bill—a Bill which Members of both Houses have been waiting for and working on for some considerable time.
There is much consensus that our mental health laws are not fit for the 21st century. Many elements of the Mental Health Act 1983 are outdated. Its operation is associated with racial disparities and poor care for people with a learning disability and autistic people, and it fails to give patients an adequate voice. Modernising the Mental Health Act is a vital manifesto commitment for this Government, so I am proud to introduce reforms that will ensure that care is appropriate, compassionate and effective; give patients more say over their care; improve support to help patients understand and exercise their rights; and protect the safety of the public, staff and patients.
The wait has been too long. I know that a number of noble Lords were involved when the Act was last amended substantially in 2007, but, although attitudes to mental health have, thankfully, changed since then, the law has not kept up. The Bill is the product of the combined effort over some years by Members of both Houses and many outside Parliament, and all parties have rightly come together to support it. Sincere thanks are due to many, but I will highlight just a few, starting with Members of your Lordships’ House who served on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee in 2022: the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, as chair, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker, Lady Berridge, Lady Hollins and Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. All have given a huge amount of time, expertise and energy, which has informed and motivated this Government to strengthen the Bill. I confirm that we have improved the previous draft Bill by heeding the committee’s recommendations to include guiding principles and advance choice documents in this revised Bill.
I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady May, whom I had the pleasure of meeting earlier today with the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness, Lady May, identified the need for modernisation and set up the independent review of the Act in 2017. Without this, we would not be here today. I thank the independent review chair, Sir Simon Wessely, and his vice-chairs, including the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, who made the case for change and provided the blueprint to follow. I know they will continue to be champions for reform. I also thank the many stakeholders and parliamentarians who have engaged with us ahead of Second Reading and over the years, and those with lived experience, who have bravely told their stories.
The Bill will complement other major reforms that this Government have announced. The Budget announced £26 million to be invested in new mental health crisis centres to reduce pressure on accident and emergency departments. To cut mental health waiting lists, we will go further still, recruiting an additional 8,500 staff. As part of our mission to reduce the number of lives lost to suicide, these NHS workers will be specially trained to support people at risk. We will improve support for young people, with walk-in hubs in every community, making support workers more accessible to children, and a specialist mental health professional based in every school. The NHS has asked every provider of mental health services to review its offer for serious mental illness. By focusing on early intervention—prevention is the key—we seek to prevent people reaching crisis and to reduce the need for detentions in the first place.
I turn to what the Bill seeks to achieve. The Mental Health Act is there to protect people. Its core purpose is, and will remain, to be able to intervene, detain and treat when someone is so unwell that they present a risk to themselves or others. The overall aims of these reforms are to improve the care and treatment of people with severe mental illnesses when detained under the Act, to improve patient outcomes and recovery, and to protect the public, patients and staff. The existing Act confers certain rights on people who are detained, including the right to appeal their detention at a tribunal and a right to an advocate as well as to a medical second opinion in certain circumstances. The Bill seeks to strengthen and expand these rights. It will require the inclusion in the statutory code of practice of the new and revised guiding principles recommended by the independent review, which in turn informs professional practice around the Act. By doing this, we aim to improve things for patients and support a change in culture.
We are strengthening and clarifying the detention criteria to make clear that people will be detained only if they pose a risk of serious harm to themselves and/or others, and if there is a reasonable prospect that they will benefit from the proposed treatment. We are reforming the use of community treatment orders—CTOs—to reflect the revised criteria, to increase oversight and scrutiny of decision-making, and to improve the transfer of patients under a CTO from hospital to community services. We are also introducing statutory care and treatment plans for patients detained under the Act, except when under very short-term sections, to provide a clear plan for a patient’s recovery and a path to discharge.
Where the patient’s voice has previously been unheard, the Bill will place them at the centre of their care and treatment. We are introducing a new clinical checklist requiring clinicians to, as far as possible, involve patients in decisions about their care and to take their feelings and wishes into account.
We are making sure that patients know they can create an advance choice document and that appropriate support is available to help them do so, allowing those at risk of detention under the Act to outline their wishes and decisions while they are well. This document helps them retain control over decisions about their admission, care and treatment if they later become too unwell to communicate these preferences. Last week I saw and heard about the differences that these can make on my visit to the South London and Maudsley, where the words of welcome from service users about these measures highlighted the contribution that advance choice documents can make, particularly to tackle racial inequalities.
We are allowing patients to choose a nominated person to look out for them and their interests when detained and will be increasing their powers. The independent mental health advocacy service was a notable success of the 2007 reforms to the Act. It is a thriving sector, with advocates and volunteers working for excellent organisations such as VoiceAbility, making sure that people are involved with decisions about their care.
We are now looking to expand these services in two ways. First, we are making sure that patients who come into hospital voluntarily can access an advocate to help them understand their rights and be involved in decisions about their care. Secondly, for detained patients, access to advocacy will be on an opt-out basis, ensuring that patients are proactively offered this support when detained to improve advocacy uptake among detained patients.
I know only too well that noble Lords are acutely aware that for some people with a learning disability and autistic people, detention is both non-therapeutic and unnecessarily long. In order to better meet people’s needs in the community, we will limit detention so that people with a learning disability and autistic people can no longer be detained beyond 28 days, unless they have a co-occurring mental health condition that requires hospital treatment. This will affect only civil patients. Hospital will remain an option for those in contact with the criminal justice system, where the only alternative to detention in hospital is prison.
For people with a learning disability and autistic people, the right measures and support are very much needed alongside this change. That is why the Act will require that when people are detained, there is a care (education) and treatment review to be given due weight in decision-making. We are also creating new duties on commissioners to hold registers to help manage the risk of people going into crisis and being detained, and to better meet the needs of people through appropriate community services.
I am grateful for the work of the Ministry of Justice Minister, my noble friend Lord Timpson, and his department, to improve access to mental health care and treatment for people in the criminal justice system. The Bill will end the use of both prison and police cells as places of safety. It will end the use of remand for own protection under the Bail Act where the court’s sole concern is the defendant’s mental health.
We will introduce a statutory 28-day time limit for transfers from prison and other places of detention to hospital when a person requires treatment for their mental health under the Act. We will also introduce a subset of conditional discharge, called supervised discharge, to support the small number of restricted patients who are no longer benefiting from being in hospital.
We are aware that there have been concerns about public safety and are therefore ensuring that our reforms do not weaken the ability to detain people who could pose a risk of serious harm to themselves or others. I assure your Lordships’ House that these reforms do not change the core function of the Mental Health Act. Clinicians will remain able to intervene, to detain, and to treat whenever someone with severe mental illness presents a risk to themselves or others.
We are confident that this is the right package of reforms. However, the Bill further strengthens the measures in respect of public protection. The Bill improves on the previous draft Bill by: first, accepting the Joint Committee’s recommendation to remove “how soon” from the new detention criteria, making sure the Act cannot be misinterpreted to mean that a harm must be imminent to justify detention and early intervention; secondly, introducing a new requirement for the responsible clinician to consult another person when they are making a decision about whether to discharge a patient; and thirdly, strengthening the code of practice’s guidance on discharging patients and promoting the need for discharge planning tailored to the individual needs of patients and their circumstances. We will consult on changes to the code.
I am very grateful to noble Lords across the House for their ongoing support for and interest in the Bill. It has been a long time coming, and I know that we all want to get this on the statute book, which is why it is a priority piece of legislation for this Government. There has been a failure to reform, but today we begin to change that. I look forward to what I know will be a collegiate and constructive debate, which many will follow—inside both Houses and outside. I beg to move.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by extending my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for introducing the Bill into your Lordships’ House and for her very clear exposition of its contents. It is a Bill that we on these Benches warmly welcome. That welcome should not come as a surprise because, as the noble Baroness said, the Bill before us is the successor to a draft Bill prepared by the previous Government, a draft that owed its origin to my noble friend Lady May, on whose watch a review of the 1983 Act was initiated some seven years ago during her time as Prime Minister. Much of what we see laid out here is the product of diligent work carried out by Professor Sir Simon Wessely and his review committee, as well as the Joint Committee of both Houses, so ably chaired by my noble friend Lady Buscombe.
The passage of the Bill presents us with a golden opportunity to address both the current state of mental health provision and the law that governs it. The last major update of the Act took place in 2007 under the previous Labour Government. That may not sound like a long time ago but, as we shall no doubt hear from others, experience gained in the intervening years has taught us that a further update is indeed warranted if we are to ensure that the Act remains relevant and appropriate, and that its powers are proportionate.
Wherever the state uses its powers to deprive an individual of their liberty, the necessary safeguards must be in place so that those powers are used sparingly, proportionately and with the highest regard for human dignity and autonomy. That is why the Bill is so important. Since the last set of changes to mental health legislation in 2007, the number of people being detained under the Mental Health Act has grown exponentially. In fact, since 1983, the numbers have nearly doubled to a total of over 52,000 new recorded detentions between 2023 and 2024.
Within that total, we have also seen a stark disparity in the classifications of those being detained. Black people are 3.5 times more likely to face detention under the Act. Shockingly, to my mind, there are currently over 2,000 people with autism and learning disabilities detained in mental health hospitals across the country. I was equally shocked by the realisation that people with autism can be detained even if they do not have a mental health condition, leading to disproportionate, burdensome and wholly inappropriate treatment.
These issues occupied centre stage in the Wessely review, which proposed the formal recognition of four key principles that should from now on govern both theory and practice in this area of the law. The principles are: choice and autonomy; least restriction on liberty; therapeutic benefit; and the person as an individual. The previous Government fully accepted these four principles and—giving life, as it were, to those principles—the draft Bill set out to make a number of important changes. It strengthened the rights of patients with a learning disability, it gave patients greater autonomy in choosing how they wish to be treated, it introduced duties on commissioners to better understand and support people with a learning disability or autism, who may be at risk of crisis, and it sought to update community treatment orders, which are one of the key drivers of racial disparities in the numbers of people subject to restrictions under the Act.
It is therefore very pleasing indeed to see this Government’s firm commitment to enacting exactly these reforms, and I, for one, hope that as the Bill proceeds, we can come together as a House to implement and, where necessary, improve this hugely beneficial set of changes.
With consensus as the thread that, happily, we expect to run through our consideration of the Bill, there are nevertheless certain themes within it that are likely to require our particular attention. The first of these is community treatment orders. CTOs were first introduced in the Mental Health Act 2007. The Joint Committee on the earlier draft Bill was very clear that CTOs had been widely overused and that they are one of the leading causes of the racial disparities that I referred to a minute ago. The Bill before us makes a number of changes to the criteria governing the use of CTOs, all of them designed to support two of the key principles in the Bill: those of least restriction and therapeutic benefit.
As far as they go, these changes are desirable. However, the Bill stops short of including the full suite of recommendations made by the Wessely review. The Centre for Mental Health has raised this as a key concern. It points out that there is still no persuasive evidence of the benefits of CTOs. Against that background, it argues that a number of checks and balances are needed on the use of CTOs in future, over and above those already in the Bill. In particular, it notes that the committee recommended a full statutory review of the use of CTOs to report within a fixed timeline, which, on the face of it, is the least that we should be doing. I think we will want to debate in Committee why the Government have not felt it appropriate to go as far as the Joint Committee and the independent review recommended in this area.
The next important theme is children and young people. According to NHS data—and this was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, in his recent review—932 children in mental health units were subject to restrictive interventions in 2023-24. In total, more than 84,000 restrictive interventions were carried out on these children, which is a 51% increase from the year before. This is the highest number of restrictive interventions recorded since figures were made available in 2019, and that is despite the number of children in mental health units appearing to decrease.
We have a duty to use the Bill as an opportunity to identify ways of reducing such restrictive interventions and using them more humanely and more proportionately. Two years ago, the Government launched the Oliver McGowan training for NHS staff to help them better deal with young patients with autism. Noble Lords may remember that this was in response to a truly harrowing and appalling set of occurrences that ended with the death of a young man. It is fair to say that the case shook the health service to its core. I believe we have in the Bill the opportunity to take forward those lessons so as to protect children who may be at risk from unwarranted detentions.
The independent review and the Joint Committee had much to say about how treatment of children under the Mental Health Act could be improved. Unfortunately, by no means all those recommendations have found their way into the Bill. One such omission relates to the inappropriate placement of under-18s into adult wards or facilities that can sometimes be miles away from their home. The Joint Committee found that in each of the years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, over 1,000 children were placed out of area, and that in 2020, 21% of children and young people were placed as in-patients more than 50 miles from their home.
It is perfectly obvious that being taken to an unfamiliar environment in a place far away from friends and family is almost guaranteed to exacerbate the issues young people face when experiencing a mental health crisis. On top of this, data from the Care Quality Commission showed that in 2021, 249 children and young people admitted for mental health treatments were housed on adult wards for more than 48 hours, some for a good deal longer than that. These are uncomfortable figures; I hope noble Lords on all sides of the House will want to ensure that, through this Bill, we take all possible steps to bear down on the scale of these problems and strengthen the protections afforded to children and young people.
One of the core themes that has remained prominent throughout the process that has led to this Bill is that of choice: giving patients as great a degree of autonomy as possible in how they are treated and maximising their ability to determine what happens to them if they are detained. In that regard, I think the Bill succeeds on many counts, but one measure recommended by the Joint Committee was that there should be a statutory right to an advance care document for every patient who has been or may be detained under the Mental Health Act. The Bill, as it stands, does not follow up on this recommendation. Instead, it places a duty on NHS England and integrated care boards to make information regarding such documents available to patients. I do not doubt that this is a beneficial reform, but we should debate whether it goes quite as far as it usefully might. Guaranteeing patients and service users the chance to state and record their preferences for care and treatment plays directly into the key principles of choice, autonomy and treating every person as a rounded individual—so what are the barriers to doing that?
There are a whole host of detailed issues which we will need to cover in Committee. The final, major area I want to touch on is that of the role played by the police. Inevitably, circumstances arise in which the police are required to become involved with people who may be a risk to themselves or to others. There is a strong feeling that encounters with the police are far too common for people with mental health conditions. As the independent review and the National Police Chiefs’ Council have pointed out, the presence of the police in situations where a mental health issue poses a risk of serious injury or death can be counterproductive. In its written submission to the Joint Committee, the Metropolitan Police stated that:
“Our officers simply cannot provide the specialist care needed, exposing both patients and officers to extreme risks”.
The NPCC has also expressed its concern that the role of the police in mental health pathways must be reduced.
It is welcome that the Bill goes some way to addressing this. Clause 46 removes police stations and prisons as places of safety, thereby preventing patients experiencing mental health crises from being locked up inappropriately. However, there is a potential knock-on effect that we should talk about in Committee. Well-intentioned as the provision is, it could well lead to a rise in people being admitted to accident and emergency departments, escorted by the police, and having to wait in crowded spaces with the lack of the necessary, specialised facilities until they can be assessed by clinicians. In this environment, the risk of harm could well be multiplied. We need to ask how this risk can best be mitigated. I fear that any realistic answer will need to involve resources, by which I mean taking steps to ensure that the requisite arrangements are made for NHS trusts to deal with an increase in the number of mental health patients being admitted to hospitals as places of safety. This is not an easy set of issues, but it is a subject that we cannot duck.
Parliament must see to it that wrongful, inappropriate and untherapeutic detentions of those undergoing a mental health crisis are brought to an end. The Bill provides us with a necessary and welcome opportunity to transform the treatment of those with mental health conditions and to bring both doctrine and practice well and truly into the 21st century. Along with my noble friend Lord Kamall, I look forward to working with the Minister and with noble Lords on all sides of the House to scrutinise and—where we can—improve the Bill’s provisions. Many thousands of the most vulnerable members of our society are depending on us to do so.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of an advisory panel for Rethink Mental Illness.
The House of Lords is an institution that is frequently criticised. Those of us who are often called on—not least by schoolchildren—to defend it often find ourselves having to give examples of work it has done which would not have been done by anybody else. As a veteran of the pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny of the Mental Capacity Act, the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Mental Health Act 2007 and all the various bits of subsequent legislation, I think that we have arrived at the point with this piece of legislation where we can make a defensible case for the unique contribution of this place to legislative progress. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, was generous enough to say in her introduction, there are a lot of us in this place who have got form on this. Specifically, there are an awful lot of us who have detailed knowledge of all those bits of legislation and of the workings of the 1983 Act.
If the noble Baroness will not mind me saying, we come to these pieces of work in two minds. It is great to have the opportunity to go back, look at what we did in the past and rectify some of the mistakes. However, it is always also deeply frustrating because, in truth, here we are again putting another patch on the 1983 legislation. We will never get the mental health system that we so badly and desperately need until we do more than that.
Having said that, along with other noble Lords, I congratulate Sir Simon Wessely and his team, and specifically the working groups that worked with him. If any noble Lord who has been inundated with briefings from all the interested parties, as we all have been, is ever in doubt about a subject, they should go back to the report of the working groups to understand how people have arrived at their conclusions and what we should perhaps strive for. I say that as the person who sat here night after night during the passage of the 2007 legislation, arguing for an advance choice document against a lot of entrenched opposition, not least from practitioners. It is really important that we use the privilege of our position—I mean that: privilege—to work away at this legislation as we did with that so that, perhaps uniquely, we can make some progress.
Those of us on these Benches will support anything that makes clinicians have to be more accountable and transparent in their work. We can have any legislation we like but, until such time as we call decision-makers to account, we are not going to get anywhere on behalf of people who are detained. They may be detained for their own good. They may be detained for the safety of others, but they are none the less detained. Their opportunities to challenge the decisions made are quite rare. As ever in this House, in the end, when we are coming to a decision, we always have a duty to defend human rights. Human rights legislation exists to defend the people that nobody in society likes. Quite often, that means the people subject to this legislation.
On the issue of principles against the Bill, having gone through the Mental Capacity Act, and having then subsequently reviewed it and its implementation, with serried ranks of professionals coming in to tell us that they just ignored the principles which had been in that Bill since the beginning, I am not overjoyed that they are going to be stuck into a code of conduct. This will surprise the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, not a lot. I do not honestly think it will make any difference at all. They are very good principles but, unless and until they are in the Bill and practitioners believe that their decisions will be judged against them, they will be useless.
Lots of other people can speak about learning disabilities far better than I can. I want to say just two things. First, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about training professionals in relation to young people. Increasingly, people are diagnosed with learning difficulties, and particularly autism, as older adults. We should listen to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has been telling us for years and require all mental health practitioners to have training in the diagnosis of learning disabilities and autism. That is the one thing that would make a swift and tangible difference in this area.
Secondly, the alignment—or non-alignment—of the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act has been problematic. We have known about that for more than 20 years. To everybody who knows about it, I simply say “Bournewood gap”. To those who do not, I say that the two pieces of legislation are built on completely different bases. Two people, sitting side by side, can be treated according to one or the other depending on who is in the room at the time. If you get banged up under one, you have quite a lot of rights; if you get banged up under another, you do not. I understand why Sir Simon and his team thought that it would be too long and too difficult a job to sort this out. It was much better that we carried on to do some of the more urgent things in this Bill, but we have to go back and do it. Other jurisdictions are going down that path.
The one thing that the noble Baroness and the Government have to do is give a commitment that they will monitor that and, upon the passage of this Bill, put in place a system of funded research about the change to bring in what is known as fusion legislation. If we do not, we will just consign a load of people to being wrongfully treated, so I hope that she will do that.
In a similar vein, Dr Lucy Series and Luke Clements, who are academics and practitioners who have worked on this for a long time, sent us a briefing that explains in characteristic detail the deficiencies that arise under Section 73 of the Care Act 2014. It means that people who are being treated in private settings, even though their treatment was commissioned by the NHS, are not being properly protected by the Human Rights Act. They have written a very short but effective paper for us, and I simply ask the noble Baroness to commit to a meeting of interested Peers—there are a number of us—with Dr Series and Luke Clements, so that we can deal with that. Can we stop treating people differently just because of the person or organisation that happens to be providing their care?
On CTOs, we are not allowed to wear T-shirts in here but, if we were, I would be sorely tempted to wear one that reads, “Told you so”, because we did. In 2006-07, we sat here night after night saying, “You are telling us that this is not going to be used very often or used disproportionately against some people. That is not true, is it?” It really was not. Because of that and the racial disparities, I and others were for a long time of the view that CTOs really should go because they were enabling bad practice by practitioners. What changed my mind was listening to patients and their families, because there are a small group of people for whom CTOs work, are the least restrictive option and are beneficial. We should therefore keep them. I am reluctant to admit that, but we really have to change all the processes around them to make sure that practitioners are sticking to the intention.
Advance choice documents are another “I told you so”. I am so pleased that they have done what enlightened practitioners said they would back in 2005-06; they have improved care for people. I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for telling the joint scrutiny committee about the work that was done in the field of palliative care to make sure that advance choice documents are electronic, and therefore more widely available, and to minimise excuses on the part of practitioners: “Well, I didn’t know about it”. A team from King’s has been looking at that. I hope that, during our discussions, we can go into that in greater depth. I do not quite know how that will work, but it is important.
On prisons and police stations, we were very lucky in the joint scrutiny committee because one of our members was an A&E doctor so we talked about this quite a lot. The truth is that people will still turn up in A&E because the lights are on. That is where people in distress will go. There will also be people who, faced with somebody who is having an episode, still call the police, because they are frightened and do not know what to do. During the passage of the Bill, I hope that the Minister will explain how £26 million will deal with what is quite a big problem and that we look at the transition to the police stepping back to leave everybody else to deal with people who, at the point they meet them, are very ill and disturbed and who need help.
Finally, some of us argued strongly for a mental health commissioner. That was not because we wanted another commissioner—we have lots of commissioners for things already—but because we were trying to deal with a key issue. We do not have a system of mental health care or joined-up services. We have episodes of care, some of which are very good at the time but do not work together as a system. After the hours that we have sat in this place and looked at the various different bits of legislation in great detail, we do not understand why we lock up more people, year on year, and what the best use is of the resources available—they are not infinite—not only to deal with people who are experiencing real crises and trauma but to ensure that we use the best of what we have to put as much as we can into services that are also preventative.
It is a great privilege to be in this House. It is an enormous relief that we can do our work in great detail and largely away from the pressure of headlines, which I know people in the other place always feel whenever there is a failure. It may well be that, during the passage of the Bill, something in the media changes the national mood on this, but our job, privilege and responsibility is to think of the people who are in the worst possible place under this legislation and to do the best possible job that we can for them to make sure that we get the best out of this legislation.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the previous three speakers. I declare my interests as a non-executive member of the NHS England board and 45 years as a registered mental health nurse.
I warmly welcome the long-overdue reform of the Mental Health Act and congratulate the new Government on bringing it swiftly in their term. I appreciate the opportunity that the Minister has taken in holding discussions about the Bill prior to Second Reading and offering to consult further about potential amendments to strengthen and clarify particular sections. Modernising the 1983 legislation provides a real opportunity to reduce injustices in implementation and provide equitable support for people suffering from a mental health crisis, giving them more autonomy and choice and including a new right for service users to choose a nominated person to advocate for their interests.
First, I am pleased that the Bill aims to end the unnecessary detention of those with autism or learning disabilities, yet I share the concerns of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and other professional bodies that further clarity is needed around assessment and treatment. For many, the proposed 28-day limit for assessment may not be long enough to reach a comprehensive diagnosis, especially considering that those with autism often present with additional complexities. It may be difficult to admit, assess and support some patients within the time limit outlined in the Bill, risking recurrent use of overstretched A&E or admission and detention under Part III of the 1983 Act should there be safety concerns. The NHS Confederation drew on the example of New Zealand, where similar changes to mental health legislation saw a temporary increase in patients being sent
“to prison, left neglected in the community or admitted to forensic facilities as secure patients”.
Failing to allow for thorough assessment may worsen mental health care provision and further racial inequalities, as currently Part III detentions disproportionally affect black men.
To combat this, an emphasis on continuity of community care would cut the number of people admitted for an assessment, while ensuring that patients remain safe within the community, yet there is a chronic lack of community-based workers, with a third of all nursing vacancies being in mental health services. I therefore ask the Government to provide clarity on how they will ensure that those who, in the past, would have been detained for assessment and treatment will still be able to obtain a full diagnosis and the support that they deserve, preferably without hospital admission. Careful consideration of workforce planning in the community for social work and allied health professions, as well as psychiatrists, general practitioners and nurses, should form a significant part of the preparation for this Bill’s implementation; then patients and cares could more often be appropriately assessed, treated and cared for by both mental and physical health services, in community and primary care settings, thus avoiding admission.
The Bill offers an opportunity to improve support for those under the age of 18 who are admitted formally under the 1983 Act, yet it is estimated that 31% of under-18s are—thank goodness—admitted informally to hospital for assessment and treatment. I fully support the introduction of new statutory care and treatment plans, but I ask the Minister if they could be extended to those admitted informally, if it is a correct solution.
The Government are right to state that these plans will encourage patients to engage with treatment towards their discharge and beyond. Care and treatment early in a person’s life provides better outcomes than later intervention, so extending these plans to the significant number of informal patients aged under 18 could provide a solid foundation for later life. Additionally, ensuring the availability of quality community services would also reduce childhood detention. I therefore ask the Government to confirm their plans to encourage this early intervention via both the community and the care and treatment plans.
The Bill would be strengthened if it were to improve the environment for young patients. I will not repeat what has been so ably explained by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. However, we really ought to move to a statutory requirement that young people are not allowed to be kept in adult wards for treatment in crisis, or treated miles from home.
There must also be an exploration of the place of parental responsibility before the Bill is finalised. The introduction of a “nominated person” as well as “advance choice documents” are commendable steps to improve agency for those detained under the Mental Health Act. Some young people will choose not to include their parents for either of these. I therefore ask whether the Government can provide clarity as to how this will function with expectations of parental responsibility.
Healthcare professional bodies support the principle of ensuring that prisoners with severe mental health conditions are swiftly transferred to hospital, where they can receive proper treatment, but I have questions of practicality for the Government. What is the plan to ensure capacity in the in-patient sector? What happens to those who clearly cannot be properly treated in the in-patient sector, or who are a significant danger to others on the ward? As a former ward sister, I know that this is a real question from people working in those environments at the moment.
Will there be an assessment at the end of a patient’s treatment to determine whether they are recalled to prison or given a community treatment order if it is safe to do so and better for their mental health? I would welcome working with the Government to get clarity on this issue, particularly in relation to a code of practice.
As I have already said, continuity of care in the community will be essential to prevent unnecessary detention and to provide support to patients after detention. I therefore ask the Government to clarify the implementation timetable for the Bill in order to ensure that current staff have time to receive the development needed and that the necessary new staff are recruited.
I ask too whether there should be a research investigation into safe staffing ratios in the community. The Royal College of Nursing is calling for a maximum caseload for mental health community nurses to ensure that community treatment orders are conducted properly and that nurses can assist in preventing crises, but very little research into this ratio issue has been done outside in-patient facilities. It seems right that research and planning be done to ensure that the community can help fulfil the Bill’s admirable aims. A recent paper by King’s College refers to “frugal innovation” in healthcare. Investing properly in community care will reduce the costs overall.
I trust that the potential shortcomings of the Bill as it stands can be amended and/or resolved through the code of conduct to ensure that it is future-proofed and significantly enhances mental health service provision for patients, which is the aim of His Majesty’s Government, the vast majority of Members of this House and healthcare professionals themselves.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I am grateful to be able to participate in Second Reading of this important Bill. It is a privilege to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Watkins, who have a real breadth of experience in this field. I too welcome, along with many noble Lords, the reform of the Mental Health Act, which is long overdue.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, highlighted the over-representation of minoritised communities detained under the Act but also placed on community treatment orders. Some groups are also more likely to be detained through contact with the criminal justice system or emergency departments. It is important to remember that we are speaking about these inequalities in the wider context of health inequalities; some groups present to health services far later, when their symptoms have worsened. The Royal College of Nursing notes in its briefing that mental health services are
“not seen as accessible to all communities”,
and that:
“Many black men have a first interaction with a service via the police during a crisis”.
Many of the organisations that have helpfully sent briefings ahead of the debate have acknowledged that the legislative actions available to address this issue are limited. The Minister highlighted the advanced choice directives, which are a welcome step towards this. As the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill notes, this is important for those who have experienced trauma, disempowerment and discrimination.
Data collection has also been discussed during scrutiny of the Bill. Although data collection is improving, capturing more complex data on ethnicity is important when looking at health inequalities in this way. In much of the work I have done on health inequalities with the NHS and faith groups, ethno-religious identity is significant if communities are to be better understand at an ICB level or higher how to reduce inequalities.
It is also important that, in evaluating the changes to the Act, the Secretary of State has the appropriate data to do so. What steps are the Government are taking in the Bill or in other ways to mandate this kind of data collection, so that racial inequalities are monitored?
The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists also emphasises that communication considerations are important to the Bill. In my experience, some faith communities find it very hard to discuss mental health, and that is made worse by the biases and discrimination they meet when they seek help. The patient and carer race equality framework is to be welcomed as the first ever anti-racism framework for mental health trusts and service providers. In order to assist in this, the Royal College of Nursing has recommended that mandatory training on equalities be given to all working under the Mental Health Act. As I often say in this place, faith literacy is an essential component of that.
Much of this is still about trust and culturally competent care. It is critical that services be accessible and effective for people with different traditions, cultures and faiths. Empowering patients to offer their data is as important as mandating that it be collected.
Many briefings note that the Bill will be effective in reducing racial discrimination and health inequalities only if there is investment in community services and other actions. Not everything we can and should do is medical; the involvement of the voluntary and community sector is also crucial.
I welcome the provisions in the Bill to restrict the long-term detention of autistic people and those with learning disabilities. I support the Joint Committee on the draft Bill’s recommendation of clearer duties for ICBs and local authorities to develop robust community services and social support.
I pay tribute to the work of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the independent care and treatment review programme to expose the serious harm and trauma inflicted by the use of solitary confinement, detention and long-term segregation in mental health and specialist learning disability hospitals. I too support the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, with regard to young people.
The right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester is the lead Bishop on prisons for the Church of England, and she apologises for not being in her place. She and I commend the Government on bringing forward the long-overdue provisions to end the use of prisons and police cells as places of safety. The right reverend Prelate has told me that last year more than 300 people suffering mental health crises were taken not to a hospital but to a police station. According to the recent report from the Chief Inspector of Prisons, the average time to wait to transfer mentally ill patients from prisons to hospitals is 85 days—almost three months. We welcome the statutory time limit of 28 days, but I highlight, as other noble Lords have, that if this is actually to happen, it needs to be resourced. As the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, highlighted, there is a question of resource not just on this point but for much of the Bill.
Shortages of mental health nurses and doctors impact on those detained under the Mental Health Act and in the community. The learning disability nursing workforce in the NHS has dropped by 44% since records began in 2009. Investment in the workforce will be key to the success of the Bill. Community services can be developed and resourced only as far as the NHS, local authorities and directors of adult social care are supported to do so. I welcome the Bill and look forward to following its passage and working on what is an extremely important reform.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society, a role I share with my good and dear friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning.
I welcome the Bill. It has been a long time coming, and I passionately hope that it will allow us to end once and for all the myth that autism is a mental health condition. Autism is most definitely not a mental health condition, and our failure to address this has meant decades when autistic people have been wrongly incarcerated, often in appalling and degrading conditions, and robbed of their human rights. More than 2,000 autistic people and people with a learning disability are in mental health hospitals in England, a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in his opening remarks. The National Autistic Society tells us that 68% of these people are autistic.
Some 93% of autistic people and people with a learning disability in mental health hospitals are detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. The average length of stay is five years, but for a great number of autistic people the detention lasts for decades. Professor Sir Simon Wessely’s review of the Mental Health Act in 2018 found that the experience of detention was often damaging and traumatic. The Bill includes measures to improve care and support for autistic people, reducing reliance on hospital-based care. That certainly is good and is welcomed.
However, there are aspects of the Bill that concern me, and I have had a chance to discuss them with my noble friend the Minister. I have been fortunate to have had a number of fruitful meetings and discussions with a team from the Autism Centre of Excellence at Cambridge and, as a result, they and I share some concerns. First, the Government have said:
“For those with a learning disability or autistic people, the act will be amended to place a limit of 28 days for which they can be detained unless they have a co-occurring mental health condition”.
My noble friend mentioned this in her opening remarks. I stress again that autism is not a mental health condition, but given that eight in 10 autistic people experience mental health issues, without the right safeguards there must be concern that the new provisions could simply lead to a continuation of the current intolerable situation. I hope my noble friend, who kindly met with me recently to discuss these matters, will seek to assuage my fears on that point.
The Government have also said:
“Police and prison cells will also no longer be used to place people experiencing a mental health crisis … Instead, patients will be supported to access a suitable healthcare facility that will better support their needs”.
The right reverend Prelate referred to this in her remarks. The Lampard Inquiry was set up to look at more than 2,000 deaths of people in in-patient mental health facilities, specifically in Essex, and it is believed that many of those who died were autistic. I say to my noble friend that it would be wrong to assume that simply switching the location where autistic people are detained is going to achieve a much better way of protecting them.
The Government have also said the reforms will
“introduce statutory care and treatment plans”.
I share the Cambridge centre’s belief that every autistic person who needs support should have access to a statutory plan to enable them to get the help they need. It should not take an autistic person falling into crisis and being detained in a mental health hospital for such support to be provided, as is often the case today. Autistic people who are at risk of falling into crisis should have a similar right to such plans to prevent in-patient detention becoming a risk in the first place.
A focus on prevention would be in line with Wes Streeting’s idea of reforms of the National Health Service. It is recognised that the current system does, in fact, have a range of provisions, legal rights and safeguards that should, in theory, have reduced the number of people detained in in-patient mental health services. But published statistics show us that this has not happened, with thousands of people still inappropriately detained, so I ask my noble friend to consider these concerns as the Bill passes through the House in Committee and so on.
There is a danger of allowing, even unintentionally, the creation of a critical gap between what happens at a policy and legislative level and what happens on the ground. Without reckoning with this gap and setting up measures to ensure that what is said by government turns into real action on the ground, these reforms will not change the decades-long scandal of thousands of autistic people being detained inappropriately. To do this will require clear measurement, consistent and regular accountability and the necessary funding to enable the National Health Service and other agencies to deliver the hoped-for change that we need from this Bill.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, it gives me enormous pleasure to speak in this debate. For me, this legislation is above politics: it is a real opportunity for constructive opposition. I welcomed the call in July from the Secretary of State for Health, Wes Streeting MP, asking whether I would support the Bill and assist in its progress. Yes, there are some aspects of the Bill on which we on these Benches will wish to press the Government. However, our view is that it is overdue and critical for so many people who have felt misunderstood and suffered serious neglect for too long.
I feel lucky to have chaired the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill. Everyone on the Committee apart from me had professional and practical expertise and experience and/or powerful personal experience and knowledge through friends and families. We received evidence from more than 50 organisations and many people who were service users, to whom we remain eternally grateful. We had many hours of strong debate and always managed to find a way through. Results sometimes involved compromise but were also consensual. I thank each and every member for their invaluable contributions, together with our advisers and the brilliant Alex Ruck Keene KC for his extraordinary drafting skills. I also thank the clerks and officials who worked skilfully against a very strict timetable.
I pay tribute to all our medical staff who work in this complex and, in many ways, challenging field of medicine. My sincere admiration for them, and the difficult choices and decisions that they must make, knows no bounds.
A key point for me—I speak as a lawyer—is that so much that directly affects the well-being of patients must be improved, not necessarily by legislation, which can hamper positive change, but through a step change in culture in order to genuinely value every individual and improve their life through choice, dignity, support and advocacy. The Bill seeks to address that, although it lacks a key tool: the use of technology and the drive for data, which I urge the Minister to consider.
The process of amending the current Act speaks volumes. Would that we could have torn up all the current Acts and started again with a fused approach to treating mental health, but we were persuaded that that would just take too long. It has taken too many years to get this far, and now change is urgent.
I have time to touch upon just a few of the many aspects of the Bill. It is right that the Government have agreed—here I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that we have good news—to embed in primary legislation what I call the Wessely principles: choice and autonomy, least restriction, therapeutic benefit, and the person as an individual. Each principle should be tested against the implementation of current proposals, future reform and change to ensure that patients as individuals remain the heart of the matter.
Least restraint is a key reason for reform, although in practice it is a difficult balance to strike. As the Wessely inquiry report makes clear, as a society we now benefit from a greater understanding of mental health. However, at the same time society has become much more risk-averse. Much of our debate centred around the need to address all avenues of least restraint, particularly given the current inequalities of outcomes, against the risk of unintended consequences for the protection of society and the therapeutic benefit of the patient.
To apply the principles, we need the data to track every patient and their outcomes. I remain appalled at the lack of information and communication across the NHS, which has a negative impact upon so many lives. Each time a person is moved, they are registered as a new patient. How much does that contribute to flawed data and poor outcomes? I urge the Minister to look at that.
A key missing element is technology, as I have said, and I do not mean some clunky, one-size-fits-all NHS-wide system. In short, we need to swiftly develop a national dataset to allow for real-time monitoring and accountability, evaluating variation and inequalities, understanding medium- and long-term trends and informing future policy decisions.
For choice, dignity and autonomy, we recommended a statutory right for patients who have been detained under the Mental Health Act to request an advance choice document to be drawn up and recorded in a way that is accessible digitally. There is no mention of digital in the Bill. Instead, it introduces duties on integrated care boards, NHS England and local health boards in Wales to make arrangements so that people at risk of detention are informed of their ability to make an ACD, a written statement, and be supported to make one.
Our report referenced the potential for creating ACDs via an app, similar in some ways to one already working for end-of-life palliative care, to support all patients. Simply put, it is a no-brainer and transformative, easily accessed by anyone, either on a mobile phone or even on a patient’s clothes, so that when that person is in crisis there is an instant critical guide to who that person is. That would greatly assist the police, if they are in attendance, and those in A&E. I am hopeful that this approach and other smart, cost-efficient moves will be in the code of practice.
The implementation of reform requires constant oversight. We recommended the appointment of an independent mental health commissioner with overarching responsibility to ensure consistency of delivery of the Government’s priorities for patients across England and Wales. This is not about the Government losing control; on the contrary, it is about an overarching small body with the ability to focus upon consistency across the whole sector, ideally using digitised national data to track and monitor the implementation of the reforms over a period of years, working with the associated NHS bodies to promote better outcomes. I ask the Minister: who else will do that?
Furthermore, we must address unacceptable racial disparities and inequalities, particularly among black men, who, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Howe, are three and a half times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act and seven times more likely to be placed on a CTO. But how is that data collected and verified? Indeed, the facts could be worse. Our report was clear that better outcomes would be achieved and inequalities reduced if each health organisation introduced culturally appropriate advocacy and appointed a responsible person to collect relevant data and publish and oversee policies to address these inequalities. A mental health commissioner could ensure that that was done.
Mental health services currently operate in a static world. What happens when someone has a crisis far away from their local authority? We heard on a visit to SLaM in Lambeth that patients sometimes travel miles to Lambeth when on a downward spiral to receive, in their view, better treatment there than within their local authority. That is another reason to have accurate data.
Another critical area is children and young people. Issues highlighted in our report, including the role and profile of nominated persons, detention in adult wards and conflict with the Children Act, must be clarified and assurances given to families and their young. Investing in and building the right community support and action plan for people with learning disabilities and autism no longer detained under Section 3 is critical, as is monitoring the outcomes for those with learning disabilities and autism who may be at risk of being detained under the Mental Capacity Act or through the criminal justice system instead. This is an area where our committee had a strong debate, concerned about unintended consequences that might impact on the patient and/or society at large if the right protections, including safe spaces, were not in place. Are the Government content that they have achieved the right balance?
I feel I must record—because I want to be helpful to the Government—that our committee had one opportunity to put some of the crucial questions to, and test the opinions of, around 18 officials from the DHSC and the MoJ who had worked on the Bill for four years. That meeting was cut very short because one official said she had to collect her child from school, so all 18 walked out. That must not be allowed to happen again.
Priorities must be set for the implementation of the many proposals, and there needs to be a significant increase in capacity right across mental health services, all of which requires enormous investment. I wish the Government, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, well.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, this is a long-overdue Bill, as many have said, and I hope it will progress through the House as quickly as possible. Quite why it has taken six years for Sir Simon Wessely’s report to be acted on, I am not sure, but I am particularly pleased that we have got advance directives in, even if in a slightly watered-down form.
However, there are some rather troubling changes that have been squeezed in recently for reasons that are difficult to understand, and I shall want to explore those in Committee. There are differences between the criteria for Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill, for example, which is bizarre, and I am scared that the changes in relation to learning difficulties and autism, in spite of all the good intentions, will be extremely difficult to implement. Throughout the Bill, there is an assumption that if you change the legislation, it happens, but we know very well that it does not—it takes years to implement—so I am concerned about that overall. Having said that, I will remain on the theme that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, picked up. We will leave the rest until Committee, where we are going to have very detailed debates.
It is now 20 years since I came into this House with the certainty of the optimistic new girl that we would see a new mental health Bill that addressed the deeply flawed legislation that we had been living with since 1959, but I am pretty sure now that I shall leave the House having seen no fundamental change. I am ashamed that in England and Wales we are falling so far behind many other countries, when we used to be in the advance in devising mental health law that was fit for purpose. Scotland is 20 years ahead, as is Northern Ireland.
I was told back in 2017 by Simon Wessely and others that it would take 10 years to develop a unified mental health and capacity Bill. If we had started then, we would be almost there by now. We tinkered with the 1959 Act in order to produce the1983 Act. We added a new Mental Capacity Act in 2005 that cut across mental health legislation. Then we added the ludicrously undeliverable deprivation of liberty safeguards and added tiers of bureaucracy to an already overburdened system, all reducing the time for clinical and social care professionals to spend with patients as they had to spend more time filling in forms. The new Bill makes no attempt to address the complicated relationship between the 1983 and 2005 Acts or how they are meant to be used for individuals, and this is particularly difficult for patients with learning disability and mental disorders and also older people with dementia where people are tossing up which Bill is going to be used. It is clinically ridiculous.
I would have liked to see a Bill that addressed all mental health and capacity issues, putting capacity for decision-making at its heart, consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which we currently contravene and have done since its implementation by the UN in 2008. The human rights implications of the current Bill are profound. It does not address the fundamental rights of thousands of mentally ill people, primarily because of the absence of having decision-making capacity at its heart. We accept that patients with physical disorders can make decisions that may be seriously detrimental to their health or safety. In contrast to this, in mental health law capacity plays little or no role in decisions to initiate psychiatric treatment against a patient’s wishes. The criteria for the involuntary treatment of mental disorders fails to respect the autonomy of the patients. The key considerations are the presence of a mental disorder and risks to the patient’s health or safety. For persons with physical disorders, their personal values are given dominion. Those with mental disorders are not accorded this privilege in this Bill, even though we make such a meal of it in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. There is an underlying assumption that mental disorder necessarily entails an inability to make sound or rational judgments, but even among the most ill patients—those admitted to acute psychiatric wards—40% to 60% retain capacity.
People with mental disorders are unusual in being liable to detention, usually in hospital, because they are assessed as presenting a risk of harm to others before they have actually committed an offence. This constitutes a form of preventive detention that is selective. We spent some time in this Chamber a couple of weeks ago debating indeterminate sentences for people in prison thought to pose a continuing risk in the community. There was widespread agreement here that it was an iniquitous thing. And yet mental health law allows the detention of those with mental disorder on the basis of risk alone. How can that be justified? There is no evidence that risk is easier to assess in those with mental disorder or that violence is more predictable in this group, and it is an expression of the prejudicial stereotype that people with mental disorder are intrinsically dangerous, contrary to research evidence.
This does not mean that people’s dangerousness is unimportant. If it is reliably linked to an individual’s mental disorder, then, if the person lacks capacity, involuntary treatment may be justified, but if the patient has capacity, protection of the public becomes the sole interest. I do not deny there are problems with a capacity-based regime. Many people think you have to fudge the decision, but I would say it was because they do not understand the fundamental ways to assess capacity and the full influences on it.
One of the aims of this Bill is to reduce sections. The number of new sections, as we know, has rocketed again. Last year, there were over 52,000 sections, a further 5,000 or so placed on a community treatment order, and 140,00 people on mental capacity deprivation of liberty safeguards. If the aim of the new Act is to reduce detentions, I cannot see how. The discharge rate from tribunals has reduced from 25% in the mid-1980s to about 6% today. How is it going to happen exactly under this legislation?
I do not see how the overrepresentation of black people in the detained population is to be addressed by this Bill. We need a completely different new way of assessing people and allowing people to get access to services that are sensitive to their needs, providing something that they want to access. I cannot think that there is anything new in this Bill which reflects new thinking that is going on about how you encourage people to access services when they first begin to feel ill.
The Bill has nothing to say about restraint and seclusion. It does not address the hundreds of people in the prison system and their non-consensual treatment except to speed up those that are suitable for transfer. The majority of the mentally unwell will never even be considered for transfer, but they have terrible problems which impact on the prison system tremendously.
Finally, it is now 14 years since the Mental Health Act Commission was abolished and replaced first with the mental health commissioner and now by the totally inadequate low-profile CQC, which has no legally qualified members and no mental health representation at executive board level. Whereas the former chair and vice-chair of the commission had direct access to the Secretary of State for Health, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, will remember—she got tired of seeing us, I should think—mental health does not now appear to have the same direct influence. Perhaps it is not surprising that mental health appears only on the government agenda when there is some crisis that has been brewing for years or, as now, after meandering for years through our scrutiny and committee systems.
I have had my say. I am not going to raise this issue again. I felt I had to say it once. I will throw myself into Committee with enthusiasm and hope we can get this Bill through, but I do hope that one day we will get the mental health and capacity legislation that we really need.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to contribute to the Second Reading of this very important Bill, albeit, as other speakers have already said, a Bill that has been too long coming. I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill and I thank the Government and commend them for bringing it forward so quickly in their term of office. I also thank the noble Baroness the Minister and the Secretary of State for the meeting that they held with me earlier today. Like others, I also want to look back and thank Professor Sir Simon Wessely and his team—including, not least, the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger—for the invaluable work that they did that has led to the Bill before this House today. I want to say a particular thank you to those with lived experience who were willing to come forward and inform and advise the review panel, but also the pre-legislative scrutiny work and at other stages too, so that the Bill could be based on real experience, not just on what politicians and, dare I say it, the civil servants thought would be the right thing to do. So I welcome this Bill.
When in October 2017 Sir Simon Wessely was commissioned to undertake the review, there were a number of reasons that led to that. The first was the one that the Minister has already referred to: the Mental Health Act 1983, which was in place for over 30 years, had had some amendments subsequently but was felt to be out of date. Society and clinical treatments had moved on, so there was a need to look at it. But, for me, there was a more fundamental issue, which was the fact that so many people who found themselves in mental health crisis felt that, somehow at those points of crisis, they were people to whom things were done, to whom society did things, rather than people who were able to be part of and involved in that decision-making—they lost their human dignity in the processes that they went through. There were also issues about family members who were concerned that they were not listened to, when they felt that they knew when people were coming to points of crisis, or family members who felt that they were shut out from the discussions about their relative who was potentially at a point of crisis.
Then there was the overuse of detention. Reference has already been made, and I am sure will be made by others in this debate, to the racial disparity in the use of detention, a matter which should concern us all. There was also the question of the use of detention for those with autism and learning disabilities. All those issues underpinned the reason for looking at reviewing the Mental Health Act 1983.
The first point has been that issue about the loss of dignity and the way in which people in mental health crisis are treated. I hope that will be dealt with by those very first principles that appear in Clause 1. I draw particular attention to the fourth of those:
“The person as an individual”.
Under “Matters to be addressed”, it says:
“treating patients with dignity and respect and considering their attributes and past experiences”,
although I accept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, just said, that it is not enough simply to put it on a page of legislation. For that to be enacted requires changes of culture and attitude from all those who deal with people in mental health crisis.
Part of this sense, though, of people being able to feel that they are making decisions for themselves is the advance choice document enshrined in this legislation. I am sure that the Government will want to think carefully about the matters that it might encompass, and about its interaction with potential future legislation.
I want to pick up the issue of the nominated person. I mentioned families feeling that they are sometimes cut out but of course, as we know, sometimes for the individual with mental illness or mental health problems the nearest relative—that family member—might not be the most appropriate person to be their nominated individual. That individual may actually be somebody with whom—how can I put it?—the tensions can lead to increased difficulties for the person with mental illness, rather than reducing them. That ability to nominate somebody else as the person who someone wants to be there is critical. The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, referred to this in relation to children but I think that, in general, it could create some tensions with family members who feel that it is their right to be that person alongside the individual in mental health crisis. Having said that, I believe that the nominated person point in the Bill is absolutely appropriate.
I want to focus also on the questions of detention. I have referenced how we need to look carefully at the inappropriate racial disparity in detention, but I also want to comment on the police issue. I am pleased to see the outlawing in the Bill of the use of police cells and prisons as first places of safety. This is of course the culmination of work in progress. There was voluntary work with the police and the health service, in 2012 and subsequently, to encourage and help them to ensure that the first person who someone in mental health crisis saw was not a police officer, and that they were not taken to a police cell as a place of safety. We then ensured that work in the Policing and Crime Act 2017, so that police cells could not be used as places of safety for those under the age of 18. The Bill takes it that bit further and it is absolutely right that it does—and right to do it for the individual who is in mental health crisis.
It is also right to do that for the police, because one issue that police officers themselves constantly made reference to me about was their fear and concern about being expected to deal with somebody who was in mental health crisis, when they had no training and no capability of knowing what to do in those circumstances. Of course, it is bad for the individual too if they are faced with somebody who has no actual understanding of what their condition is or how they should be dealt with.
Perhaps I may gently say to the Minister that in 2015 we put £15 million into providing alternative places of safety and in 2017 the Government put £30 million into providing them. This Government are now putting £26 million into providing those alternative places of safety. It is easier to say this from this side of the House, but the Government might wish to consider those figures, if I can put it like that. I also suggest to the Government that they consider alternative places of safety as not necessarily being a healthcare facility. Many places in the third sector are able to provide those facilities and the Government should look at that as well.
Finally, we also need those facilities to try to ensure that people are less likely to get to the point of crisis. If they are less likely to get to that point, they are also less likely to turn up at A&E because they are in crisis. That would be a win-win for the individual concerned, for the Government and for the health service.
Overall, I welcome the Bill. There are some very good provisions in it. As we have heard, it will be subject to detailed scrutiny in this House but it is no bad thing—I can say this now—that it started in this House. I welcome it and look forward to its passage.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I remind the House that I worked clinically as a psychiatrist for about 35 years and had been a consultant for two years by the time that the 1983 Act was introduced. I argued then, as now, that mental handicap, as it was called, had no place in legislation—although others disagreed. Profound changes in societal attitudes, alongside advancements in the understanding and treatment of mental illness, have occurred during my career. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and my noble friend Lady Murphy that fusion legislation really should have been considered.
There is no minimum age limit in the Mental Health Act, meaning that its provisions apply to children and young people as well as adults. The Joint Committee, of which I was a member, recognised their unique needs, saying that this is
“a crucial opportunity for the Government to strengthen the rights and protections for children and young people”.
We must never forget that the mental health of babies, children and young people is fundamental to the mental health of the adult population, and that we cannot legislate for the treatment of serious mental disorder without taking mental health seriously from the very beginning of each person’s life.
Psychiatry’s past has included some harmful and forced interventions, rather than the preventive approaches, early intervention and evidence-based treatments that are so needed. The Bill aims to safeguard dignity and autonomy, and ensure best practices for all, including people with learning disabilities and autistic people. A major current concern for me is that there are nearly 2,000 people with a learning disability and autistic people in psychiatric hospitals. Usually, that is because of a lack of individually tailored support and housing—they have an average stay of five years—and because of the shortage of effective treatment options in the community and lack of training for the wider mental health workforce.
My Heart Breaks, the report of a review that I chaired and which was published by the Government last year, shed light on the harrowing realities faced by many of the 100 or so of those 2,000 in hospital who are detained in long-term segregation at any one time. The systemic failures we found reflected a troubling overreliance on detention as a substitute for meaningful care, despite such detentions often lacking therapeutic goals, a pattern that unfortunately affects other patient groups as well, including those with personality disorders.
Historically, policy and practice have overlooked complex intersectional vulnerabilities, including learning disability, autism, gender, race, poverty and physical health issues. Marginalised groups, especially people from racialised communities, are detained more often. Trauma histories may be compounded by the excessive use of medication and restrictive practices which contain people, with an eye to safety, but disempower and just do not support recovery. People need better-adapted psychological therapies but are less likely to access them, and poorly co-ordinated discharge processes further trap individuals in a dysfunctional system. This violates people’s human rights and ethical care standards.
As a long-time advocate for people with learning disabilities and autistic people, for me, one of the Bill’s most significant reforms is the removal of learning disability and autism as stand-alone grounds for detention under Section 3, part 2. This change is complemented by new duties on health and care bodies to provide the community-based support and therapeutic approaches needed to prevent unnecessary detentions. But legislation alone will not provide better care; the right people in the right place with the right skills are needed. So the Bill introduces mandatory care, education and treatment reviews, which aim to create personalised care plans and facilitate timely discharges. Additionally, dynamic support registers are intended to track those at risk of crisis, allowing for early intervention before issues escalate. Advance choice documents could also be valuable for choice, safety and care.
The National Autistic Society, Mencap and several other charities have welcomed the Mental Health Bill as a step toward safeguarding the rights of individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people. All stress the need for robust support systems, including housing and social care. These are essential to prevent unnecessary admissions, emphasising that the Bill’s success depends on effective implementation, accountability and substantial investment in community services. They also request a new action plan to replace the Building the Right Support action plan. This is particularly urgent, given that targets to reduce in-patient numbers of people with a learning disability and autistic people have been repeatedly missed over the last decade, and only one in five integrated care systems have currently met the March 2024 target for reduction of in-patient numbers.
Can the Minister confirm whether a plan such as that being requested will indeed be co-produced and implemented with the help of people with lived experience, families, campaigners and relevant bodies, alongside the implementation of this legislation? Both the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the BPS have cautioned against removing autism and learning disabilities as stand-alone criteria unless there are substantial improvements, warning that this could divert unsupported individuals into emergency services or the criminal justice system. Easy to say, better not to do it—but we must use this as a lever to change the culture of care and support for these groups of people.
We do not want to risk criminalising people’s mental health needs, and we do not want to disproportionately impact already marginalised groups. I ask the Minister, what assurances can Government provide to ensure adequate funding to deliver minimum safe services in the community, such as early prevention measures, rapid response teams, crash pads and effective therapeutic approaches in the community? Indeed, could these alternatives be mandated?
Compulsory detention and treatment of individuals with personality disorders under Part 2 of the Mental Health Act is another issue. Personality disorders stem from relational difficulties and cannot be effectively treated in restrictive in-patient settings. Research shows that admissions without structured, evidence-based psychological interventions provide no benefits and can indeed worsen symptoms.
Why is Section 117 aftercare limited to Section 3? Social and health care should be integrated for all patients based on need, not the section they were detained under. For example, a financial crisis causing suicidal thoughts in a farmer might lead to a Section 2, when a social prescription might have been effective. After assessment, they will return to the same situation without appropriate support, such as legal or financial advice to resolve the crisis.
The new Mental Health Bill gives us an opportunity to address the stigma that shaped policy in the 1980s and create a legal framework which keeps pace with scientific advancements. We need to reframe our focus from risk management to supporting accessible, evidence-based community interventions, ensuring that care aligns with ethical and therapeutic principles and prioritises a rights-based, person-centred approach.
Our actions now will shape mental health care for the 21st century. Let us enact compassionate and progressive reforms that future generations will respect.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, with her expertise in this area. I declare my interests as listed in the register and am pleased to make a short contribution to this debate. It has been some time coming.
Following the excellent review of the Mental Health Act, initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady May, Sir Simon Wesley produced his report in 2018 and a draft Bill was published by the last Government, as we have heard. This was followed by detailed scrutiny by the Joint Committee of both Houses, which I was pleased to be a member of and which was so admirably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. It was disappointing at that point that the deliberations were paused, but I was delighted that the new Government, following a manifesto commitment, immediately introduced this Bill, which everyone has welcomed today.
In the time available I will focus on only a few areas, the first of which is the proposed changes under Part 3 of the Bill—essentially, the interface between mental health and the criminal justice system. I am delighted that Clause 35 proposes a statutory time limit of 28 days for the transfer of acutely mentally ill patients held in prison to appropriate hospital provision. It is now well recognised that the prison environment and care capacity is detrimental not only to the prisoner but to other prisoners and the staff who care for them. I made a similar recommendation in my independent report to government in 2009, nearly 16 years ago—albeit with the perhaps unrealistic time limit of a 14-day transfer. Clearly, you have to be patient and persistent to achieve legislative change.
Secondly, on Clause 46 and the removal of police stations and prisons as places of safety, I made related recommendations back in 2009, and I am obviously now pleased that there is overwhelming recognition that both facilities are not appropriate as places of safety. Clearly, detailed examination of these proposals will be required in Committee to ensure that the wording delivers their intention. For example, when will the clock start on the 28-day limit?
Thirdly, for this to be effective, investment in alternative community-based healthcare provision will be required for places of safety, as will investment in liaison diversion services, to ensure that only those who need to obtain a place of safety. Otherwise, as we have heard, A&E departments will continue to be the default position, at huge cost to the NHS and to the police service. We also need additional acute mental health beds in every local area to ensure timely transfers and to make the legislative changes a reality.
There is also concern, well articulated by the Children & Young People’s Mental Health Coalition, that children and young people are still inappropriately placed in settings outside their local area, and on adult wards. It is imperative that the Bill strengthens safeguards against this and recognises the Joint Committee’s recommendation for stronger procedural requirements where such inappropriate placements are considered, including a requirement that such a placement is demonstrably in the child’s best interest.
There are many positive elements of the Bill, as the Minister clearly outlined in opening this debate, including improving the patient experience, improving patient choice and autonomy, and limiting the detention of people with learning disability and autistic people without qualifying co-recurring mental health conditions—all of which and much else, as we have heard, will be carefully considered in Committee.
However, I believe we need further debate on where the principles outlined by Simon Wessely are placed in the Bill. I am particularly disappointed that the Government have not currently accepted the recommendation to establish the role of a mental health commissioner and seemed silent on the issue when the Bill was introduced. As we have heard, the Joint Committee recommended that this post be statutorily positioned and that the mental health commissioner should be created with a number of roles, which I would like to briefly elaborate on.
The mental health commissioner should be a voice at a national level, promoting the interests of those who are detained and who are likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act, as well as the interests of their families and carers, raising awareness of their needs and challenging stigma and stereotypes. They should work in conjunction with the Care Quality Commission and other bodies to make recommendations on further reforming mental health law in the direction of more rights-led and fused legislation, such as we have heard on the Mental Capacity Act.
Critically, the commissioner should be a mechanism for tracking the implementation of the reforms in and associated with this Bill and other legal changes, essentially and particularly with the inclusion of the provision of data to understand how the Bill is operating. We saw the role of the commissioner as primarily to act as a watchdog to oversee the direction of travel for the key reforms in the Mental Health Act and mental health policy generally, overarching the whole government system. This has been supported by many organisations working in the mental health field, including the Centre for Mental Health, of which I am an ambassador. The centre added that, in addition to overseeing the reforms to the Mental Health Act, a commissioner could play a wide-ranging strategic role across all government departments.
Finally, I will say a few further words about resourcing and implementation, which will be crucial to the success of this legislation. Again, the Joint Committee recommended that the Government publish a comprehensive implementation and workforce plan alongside the Bill with key milestones detailing the implementation of the Bill and, crucially, how they link to milestones in the implementation of the NHS 10-year plan and other government initiatives. These should include milestones on workforce development, not only for mental health staff but allied health professionals, such as speech and language therapists. I declare my interest as honorary vice-president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.
The plan should also include milestones on training, advocacy and community care capacity, as well as on numbers of detentions, length of stay and, critically, reducing racial and ethnic inequality. There should also be a statutory duty to report annually to Parliament on the progress against these milestones during the implementation period. Disappointingly, unless I have misunderstood the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, the Government have so far offered only a financial assessment over a 20-year period, which is not at all coherent with the NHS 10-year plan.
However, in conclusion, I am very pleased that we are debating this incredibly important Bill now and in the coming weeks and months to try to ensure that we go a long way to producing a progressive Mental Health Act which is fit for 2025 and years beyond. I look forward to the Minister’s response at the end of the debate.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, who was the MP for the constituency I lived in when I was a student. In those days, I campaigned against him, but, from listening to his speech today, I am sure that we will campaign together in Committee on some of the reforms that may be required in the Bill.
This Bill is a welcome direction of travel for mental health legislation in the United Kingdom, but it is only an extra stop. As other noble Lords have said, sometimes we have to look at the bus we are on—the underlying legislation. That bus was built when I was 17 years old, if we go back to the 1983 legislation, and it had its last MOT 17 years ago, in terms of its amendments. I believe that, although these measures are welcome, there is still a fundamental issue in terms of the basis of what we are traveling on. I understand the problems with that.
The questions we are really asking in this Bill are quite limited in the sense of the balance between individual freedoms and public protection when it comes to the detention of individuals. Because we look at such legislation infrequently, we must do our best in Committee to ensure that the balance is at its best and that, wherever we can, we take a person-centred, rights-based approach to this legislation. Having said that, there are some pleasing points in the Bill, including the tightening of the criteria for the detention and compulsory treatment of individuals. It is welcome that the four key principles are mentioned but it is a shame that they are not on the face of the Bill and are down as guidance only. It is important that those of us who really support the principles fight for them to be on the face of the Bill in Committee.
The advance choice documents are a welcome provision but, as many noble Lords have said, they need to be fully accessible 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to those who care for people who have given an advance choice document. I question why they are only for people aged 18 and over. If we are looking at Gillick competence, there are issues around those who are younger, who should be able to provide an advance choice document. I worry that they are not a right or a duty but are only to be given as a consideration.
I welcome the right to a nominated trusted individual but many people who have been involved in healthcare will know that it is not just about having that person as a right; it is about the way in which professionals listen to them and carry out the advocacy that they provide. I am not sure, as we start with this Bill, that the balance is correct; I believe that certain issues will have to be addressed in Committee.
I have also looked at the potential implementation of the Bill. It is always good to start with the impact assessment. It has in it some quite startling issues that I think we will want to look at in Committee. For example, community treatment orders are not meant to change for at least another seven years, but the implementation start is in seven years. The existing CTO regime will last for another seven years and, from the Government’s impact assessment, it looks as though the new regime will start in seven years at the earliest.
I will come back to people with learning difficulties and autism in a second, but the implementation of the measures for them not to be held for more than 28 days and for other provision in the community to have to be available will be in three years’ time, according to the impact assessment. However, there is no money in the next two years to start to provide for those community facilities. It is as though they will come on stream the second the implementation date is reached; I question the Government’s planning on that and whether it is a realistic adaptation for people with learning difficulties and autism.
My passion and focus in Committee will probably be learning disabilities and autism, because they are personal to me. I have close family members who are loving and warm but very misunderstood by those who do not have a close relationship with them. It is scandalous that, in 2024, having those labels attached to you means that you could be detained under the Mental Health Act for more than 28 days. I welcome the fact that the Bill’s provisions will move away from Section 3 and towards Section 2 detention, but I worry that it will not stop detention of people with learning disabilities or autism. For example, DoLS will be used, because these people are misunderstood. The legislation in itself will not change what happens to them. Individuals who are seen not as a threat but as difficult will be detained. As other noble Lords have said, fused legislation needs to be used to ensure that those individuals are not detained using different pieces of legislation.
As other noble Lords have said, it is also worrying that people with learning disabilities or autism who are under a Section 2 detention or detained under the Mental Capacity Act will not have access to Section 117 community facilities. It is quite fascinating that the very things under Section 117 that need to be in place to ensure that these people are not detained are the very facilities that they do not have a statutory right to. That needs to be looked at in this legislation.
There are many things to welcome, but many further questions need to be asked and drawn out, particularly regarding some of the contradictions in different parts of the legislative process on mental health provision within the UK and around the rights-based approach, which the Government seem not to have in place. We will want to explore that as we go forward.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, consideration of this Bill has been greatly assisted by the thorough scrutiny and analysis undertaken by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill and its compelling report, published in January 2023. Parliament will now need to look with care at its recommendations, including those not incorporated into the Bill as now presented, and the justifications for any omission.
The first question tackled in that report was whether what is now required is fundamental reforming legislation rather than another amending statute. If I may follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, the bus was not built in 1983; its chassis was built in 1959, and we are still dealing with it. The report states:
“The Mental Health Act 1983 is … forty years old. It has been amended multiple times over those years, making it hard to use even for experienced professionals. It is overly complex, especially where it interacts with the Mental Capacity Act 2005”.
For example, the committee noted:
“Attempts to both protect and empower children in these settings have resulted in a complex mixture of statute law and case law alongside the MHA that … makes assessing a child’s rights to access certain safeguards in this draft Bill complex and obscure”.
For essentially good and pragmatic reasons, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, explained, the Joint Committee did not wish to introduce further delay or uncertainty, so favoured the form of the Bill considered by it, which is now before Parliament. However, for the courts, tribunals, lawyers and all the other consumers of the legislation, the question will remain, as per the quote in the invaluable Mental Health Act Manual:
“If the Mental Health Act is to be modernised, is it appropriate to base the modernisation on a legislative structure that was established over 60 years ago by the Mental Health Act 1959? The process of bolting on multiple miscellaneous amendments to that structure over the years has resulted in an Act which is overly complex, confusing, and expensive to operate”.
Inevitably, those problems will be exacerbated when this Bill adds further amendments to the 1983 Act. It is therefore to be hoped that the Government will see the Bill, as the Joint Committee put it, not as
“the end—or even a pause—in the process of reform of mental health legislation”.
Meanwhile, the code of practice under the 1983 Act will need, and I understand will now receive, further revision and updating once the Bill is enacted to cover the stronger requirements of the new legislation and provide clear guidance to meet the needs of patients and for all those who operate the changes.
I turn to some of the Bill’s detail. It is certainly welcome that it recognises the real problem that too many autistic people and others with learning difficulties have been detained inappropriately and for far too long. It is also welcome that the Bill removes police stations from the definition of a place of safety in the 1983 Act. Inevitably, the police will continue to have to deal with disturbed and distressed people suffering a chronic or temporary mental health crisis, but these are people who should not be in police stations any longer than absolutely necessary, particularly if expert assessment or treatment are required.
It is to be hoped that the changes will relieve the police of some of the difficult decisions as to risk required under the existing code of practice, but, as others have said, these changes will not work without sufficient community alternatives. As the noble Earl said, it will not be helpful if they simply pass the problem on to an A&E department. I do not want to get anecdotal, but I had a brief admission to A&E. It was, happily, not long lasting, but it was extraordinary to watch the staff in that hospital cope with a very determined and disturbed man. Unfortunately, I did not see the end of that because, luckily, I was released. Nevertheless, it is a problem that needs to be thought about hard.
By contrast with the ethos when I started as a lawyer, all courts now strive to ensure that people are not defined by their mental health problems, even if it is not always possible to prevent those with mental health problems entering the criminal justice system or to divert them from it once they are in it. Professionals in that system need help to deal with these people and their problems. Therefore, the improved provisions for transfer of prisoners to hospital, including those detained under the Immigration Act, should be valuable, but will always depend on compliance with the code of practice, which requires the need for in-patient treatment for a prisoner to be identified and acted on quickly.
The same problems apply when the criminal courts consider sentencing options. The courts depend on the Probation Service and legal representatives to draw attention to the possible need for psychiatric reports and detention. Having sat as a judge in the Crown Court, I can convey the real exasperation of the judiciary when necessary reports are not available or when suitable hospital places cannot be found without further delay and hearings in an overloaded court system.
I turn to a different topic, which has been referred to. The Bill will implement recommendations about replacing the existing “nearest relative” with “the nominated person”, under the principle of patient choice and autonomy. I have some concerns about the selection and replacement of nominated persons, and the complicated provisions within the Bill. Now is perhaps not the time for that, and I will leave it to Committee, but it needs to be looked at again. In particular, there is a need to focus on the consultation, at the very least, and recognition of the legitimate interests of parents and others with parental responsibility.
On this topic, I question—although, again, I leave this to Committee—the continued use of the county court for applications to terminate appointments of nominated persons. The use of the county court is left over from the 1959 Act, at a time when there was neither a separate family court nor a Court of Protection. I suggest that these would now be better equipped to deal with these applications.
There are further points focusing on the needs of children, one of which has already been touched on. It was highlighted by Dr Camilla Parker in her evidence and will strike a chord with many practitioners. It concerns the overlapping factors governing capacity and competence, and the differing processes for assessment. Dr Parker observed that, even after 40 years, we do not have “clear and consistent criteria” for determining whether a child is competent to make a decision. It would be helpful to understand the Government’s current intention, particularly if formulating any statutory tests is not intended.
More fundamentally important is the location for the placement of children. This overlaps with the real problem, which has been highlighted repeatedly by the judiciary, the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory and the Children’s Commissioner, of the use of deprivation of liberty orders, or DoLS, and placing children in unregistered settings—not just adult wards but unsuitable, unregistered settings. Again, I will return to this in Committee.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society, with the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and as having some responsibility for family members on the autistic spectrum.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I am a veteran of the Mental Health Act 2007 and the Mental Capacity Act. When I came to this place, I was pleased to be involved in the review of the Mental Capacity Act. This and other Bills of this nature would merit looking at, to see what happens after we legislate. My concerns with the 2007 Act were, primarily, community treatment orders. Looking at the Bill, I see that these are to be altered, but I still share the view of the charity Mind, which would like to see them abolished altogether. I hope that, as we go through Committee, we can make substantial changes to what we have in front of us.
I was also concerned about the deprivation of liberty generally and the situation for autistic people in relation to mental health services. I am still concerned, but I welcome the proposed changes for people with autism and learning disabilities, making it illegal to detain an autistic person or a person with a learning disability unless they have a coexisting mental health condition. Presently, of the 1,385 autistic people detained in mental health facilities, 93% are detained under the Mental Health Act—they are not voluntary patients.
I make no apology for making the case for autism being a special condition that needs to be treated differently to other conditions. I say that because, apart from the Mental Health Act, autism is the only medical condition that has its own Act of Parliament. That tells you that something about it is different from other conditions. In 2009, both Houses of Parliament passed a short but important Act, which was introduced by my friend the late right honourable Cheryl Gillan MP.
So what is it about autism that makes it so different that we should have special regard to it as the Bill progresses? I will first look at how autistic people come into contact with psychiatric services generally. Autism is, of course, a spectrum, so we are talking about a wide range of conditions. There is the old adage that, if you have met one autistic person, well, you have met one autistic person. Although we may look at commonalities among this whole group of people, they are all individuals and should be treated as individuals.
Autistic people come into contact with psychiatrists, although a wider range of people diagnose autism now. I give apologies immediately to the eminent psychiatrists in this Chamber, but, over 32 years in this House—and having taken up many cases and I hope assisted several Members with their casework—I have seen what can often happen if a psychiatrist does not understand autism or, even worse, receives a patient with an autism diagnosis from another psychiatrist but will not accept that diagnosis. That is shocking. So often, misdiagnosis can occur when somebody is admitted to a mental health institution but the psychiatrist will not accept that diagnosis and starts to rediagnose somebody, giving them medicated treatment that clearly does not work. I have seen the results of that.
I particularly remember—it is fixed in my mind—a young man who was a very good artist and whose autism diagnosis was overridden when he was admitted. The diagnosis was, “No, no—this is schizophrenia”. Interestingly, that is a common mistake. As each medication was applied and did not work, that young man’s ability to hold a paintbrush and produce the sort of work he produced before was completely diminished. So autistic people come into contact with psychiatrists, and my point about psychiatrists is that they must have specific autism training. There is a huge lack of psychiatrists generally but particularly psychiatrists with that type of training.
As the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, rightly said, although autism itself is not a mental health condition, people with autism can of course have a mental health condition or a learning disability. But, out in the community, if an autistic person needs medication of one sort or another—I am talking not about drugs that are used for psychosis but drugs to help control anxiety, which is a natural side-effect of autism—accessing the correct drugs through a psychiatrist is impossible in some parts of the country. It is very much a postcode lottery, because psychologists—whom autistic people are very often referred to—cannot prescribe. So, if there is no local psychiatrist whom a GP can refer you to, your only option is very often to pay to see the right person privately. If any of us had a cardiological condition, we would not expect to have to pay for a cardiologist to treat us. I believe the Bill should address access to appropriate—that word is used so often—care from trained and qualified people, whether psychiatrists, CPNs or whoever.
The other thing about autistic people that must be taken into account is that so many of them have sensory side-effects to their autism. There is a vast variety of side-effects, which perhaps may not seem important to people who do not experience them. They can be anything from lighting to noise, sound and the proximity of other people to them. These things need to be taken into account, like the things that have been said already: what a horror it is for any of us to be admitted to A&E now, but, frankly, it can produce very serious results for an autistic person.
I would like this Bill to produce the right training and the right services in the community. For autistic people, the downward spiral into very severe anxiety is there when community services are not provided. When I talk about community services, I am not always talking about something that will cost a fortune; it is actually the low-hanging fruit of low-cost measures. Sometimes it can be as simple as something that provides somebody—a child or an adult—with a friend: somebody with whom they can form a relationship. That does not cost a fortune. However, when money is tight—and we know money is tight—those are the first sorts of services that get taken away, and the downward spiral of an autistic person when these services are no longer provided or are not provided in the first place is what results in them needing to come into contact with the more serious mental health services that this Bill will address.
The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, mentioned parental responsibility, and in this debate we have not yet mentioned lasting powers of attorney. These are powers for people who are able to sign them when they have capacity, which may well be a very useful thing when people are denied access to their relatives or carers. I hope we will include that in the Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is somewhat humbling and not a little intimidating to follow so many insightful speeches from those at the heart of the issue. For me, as a bit of an amateur outsider, I broadly welcome the Bill, with some reservations that I will pursue in Committee.
For Second Reading, I suggest that we should always remember the cultural and political context of our deliberations and indeed definitions—I will come back to that. We also need to remember the lessons of history: locking people up for mental illness has been mired in ethical and political scandal over many years. We all can cite the former Soviet Union, where political dissidents were labelled mentally ill, but even in democracies it was not until 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association voted to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder—and let us not forget those unmarried mothers who were sectioned in the 20th century.
However, even with this misuse of psychiatric power, it is still possible to be a defender of liberty—such as myself, I hope—and yet acknowledge the need for some people to have their liberty restricted because of their mental health. Many years ago, when I worked for Mind, this was a very polarising debate; but I argued then, and continue to believe, that when someone is severely psychotic, manic or out of their mind, psychiatric coercion is not a violation of individual autonomy. That is because the subject at that point in time—“at that point in time” is key—is not autonomous in any moral sense.
However, is release not different? And that brings me to the issue of community treatment orders. Along with others, I too would like them to be abolished. The general problem of CTOs was well explained by Dr Ken McLaughlin is his pamphlet Escaping the Straitjacket of Mental Health. In it, he makes the point that, while the case for compulsion can be justified at the point of hospital admission, when the patient is likely to be in an acutely psychotic state, can compulsion be justified at the time of hospital discharge when the patient should have mental capacity restored? Prior to 2007 and CTOs, on leaving hospital, an ex-patient regained their full rights of citizenship, including the right to refuse medical treatment. The problem of being released with a CTO is that you return to the community as neither a patient nor a citizen. This hybrid state is troubling in terms of compromising civil liberties.
I tend to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and others: at the very least I question why the Bill will allow indefinite CTOs to occur. I agree with the Centre for Mental Health’s call for the safeguard of time limits, and then CTOs could be extended only if there was proof of proportionality for the individuals concerned.
The question of indefinite “coercive orders” inevitably reminds us of the plight of the almost 3,000 prisoners held indefinitely behind prison bars under the abolished and discredited IPP sentence. Many of these people are incarcerated in prisons precisely because their mental health has deteriorated as they have been refused release, even on licence; a sort of unacknowledged section is happening here. What is more, shockingly, a wide range of experts now blame this very sentencing regime as the cause of IPP prisoners’ mental distress. The hopelessness—“psychological terror”, as it has been described—of never-ending sentences has literally driven prisoners to lose their minds, and even their lives through suicide.
So, while I am delighted the Bill will remove prisons from the list of places of safety, how does it help IPP prisoners? They are deemed too mentally unwell to be released safely. Their illness is derived at least partly from a shameful state mistake, yet IPP prisoners are coercively detained indefinitely in institutions that the Bill would have the state now deem as unsafe for those with serious mental illness.
One case that has recently attracted headlines illustrates an IPP prisoner’s plight as it relates to the Bill. Forty year-old Thomas White has served 12 years as part of his indefinite IPP for a non-violent theft of a mobile phone in 2012. According to his psychiatrist, Thomas developed his religious hallucinations and psychosis as a direct result of being on an IPP sentence. His sister Clara has been campaigning for over a year to have Thomas transferred to a hospital, but his recent assessment appointment was cancelled due to staff shortages. Clara notes despairingly:
“We waited a long time to have Thomas assessed again by the psychiatrist. We more than likely won’t get the assessment again. The system is nothing but criminal—people like my brother are being seriously failed”.
James Frith, the Labour MP for Bury North, agrees. He said:
“Thomas’s indefinite imprisonment has had a hugely detrimental impact on his mental and physical wellbeing. Thomas should be a patient, not a prisoner”.
Hear, hear.
Things are little better for the general prison population. The annual report from the Chief Inspector of Prisons complains of high healthcare staff vacancy rates and chronic recruitment and retention issues. In that context, Richard Garside, the director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, concludes that the provision in Clause 35 to introduce a statutory target of 28 days for transfer from prison to hospital, while welcome, feels aspirational rather than practically implementable in the current system.
The broader crisis of staffing and resources and whether it will hinder the Bill, as we have seen in jails, is also mirrored outside the prison gates. Many briefings that we have all received for this Second Reading query whether the Bill will deliver its promises as a consequence of such problems.
I will now raise a related concern. I think that overstretched mental health services are not just a question of resources but rather a consequence of a recent cultural trend: the problematic medicalisation of more and more aspects of the human condition. Ever greater numbers of people are being encouraged—often by Government-backed policies—to view normal, if adverse or perhaps painful, life events through the prism of mental illness. As a consequence, a greater number of people now demand expert pharmacological or therapeutic intervention.
Over recent decades, this huge increase in classification in the psychological realm has moved the job of diagnosis far beyond the field of psychiatry. A veritable industry of counsellors, therapists and psychotherapeutic practitioners now label an ever-expanding set of behaviours as mental ill-health. As the number of labelled conditions has grown, those reporting that they suffer from such problems has risen exponentially. The stats bandied around are eye-watering. According to the psychologist Oliver James, a third of the adult population shows sign of “psychiatric morbidity”. The problems of worklessness and sick leave, which the Government are rightly tackling, seem dominated by those who have removed themselves from productive work because of mental health-related problems.
Student Minds reports that one in three students experiences clinical levels of psychological distress, but as it is now claimed that students might suffer PTSD if exposed to certain literary texts, it is difficult to assess the clinical authenticity of the so-called mental ill-health epidemic among the young.
The main thing is that the pathologising of ever more aspects of life has unintended consequences, some pertinent to the Bill. For example, we risk reducing the time and resources available to those who desperately need professional help if the system is clogged up with inappropriate referrals and arguably overdiagnosed conditions.
Finally, there is a danger of confusing public opinion if the true horrors and tragedy of serious psychotic illness are relativised and given the same mental health moniker as unpleasant but mundane psychological challenges.
Lord Adebowale (CB)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate so far. It is an honour to contribute and to listen to so many learned Peers around the House. In fact, earlier on I detected an almost kumbaya moment around the agreement on some of the aspects of the Bill.
I declare my interest as chair of the NHS Confederation, which is a membership organisation representing health and care leaders in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have the privilege of having 100% of all mental health trust leaders in membership.
This debate is overdue, just as updating the Mental Health Act is long overdue. I could not help thinking, during the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Scriven, that if we were to go back to 1959, this House would be of archaeological interest before we got anywhere near where we have got to today—so we shall start where we are and continue to make the Bill the best it can be.
I should also point out that a member of my family is on the autistic spectrum, so I get it, just as people who have that experience also get it.
Organisations such as the NHS Confederation have warned that the success of reforms will be dependent on the wider infrastructure to support them. My first question to the Minister is: can she confirm that as well as the important measures in the Bill, we will see further details in next spring’s spending review and in the 10-year NHS plan about how patients and staff working in mental health will be supported in years to come?
The Bill is welcome, not least because it is intended to stop people with learning disabilities and autistic people from being detained long-term, unless they also have a serious mental health condition, but only when there is sufficient and appropriate community care in place to support them. It is clear, therefore, that a plan on how this capacity will be built up is vital; otherwise, people will continue to be detained inappropriately. Can the Minister provide more details on what the Government will do to ensure that we see that capacity is built up, so that people with learning disabilities and autistic people are able to benefit from the support that community care can provide?
Concerns have also been highlighted to me by many of our members and other organisations that the changes for people with learning disabilities and autistic people may unintentionally risk these groups falling into the criminal justice system due to a lack of community provision, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins. This is similar to the changes in New Zealand she referred to, which led to people with learning disabilities and autistic people sometimes being sent to prison and left neglected in the community or admitted to forensic facilities as secure patients, as they were unable to be detained under its equivalent of the Mental Health Act.
I welcome the safeguards that the changes relating to people with learning disabilities and autistic people will be enacted only once sufficient provision is in place. Can the Minister provide more details on what the Government will do to ensure that capacity is built up so that people with learning disabilities and autistic people are not inappropriately—and indeed unintentionally—detained for many years, often far away from home and for very long periods?
The Government are committed to enacting the changes to detention regarding people with learning disabilities and autistic people only once sufficient community provision is in place to reduce the risk of these people falling into the criminal justice system. Again, can the Minister outline how the decision to enact this part of the legislation will be made?
The reforms that we are debating introduce duties on commissioners to ensure an adequate supply of community services to prevent inappropriate detentions in hospital, but without a funded plan to build up this provision, there is a risk that the proposed changes to the legislation will never be enacted, and people will continue to be inappropriately detained. Can the Minister say what measures the Government will put in place to help commissioners get it right at local level?
In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, mentioned, referring to the 28 days, some people are very concerned that it is not long enough to complete a thorough assessment to identify whether patients with a learning disability or autistic people have a co-occurring mental health disorder, due to the complexity of what patients often present. Does the Minister acknowledge these concerns, and will she remain open to discussions with the sector throughout the passage of the Bill so that the views of those who work day to day with vulnerable people, as well as the views of people with learning disabilities and autistic people and their families, can be fed directly into the legislative process?
It is nice to note that many have referred to the stark racial inequalities in the use of CTOs, and wider concerns around their use. However, mental health providers and many professionals agree that they can be beneficial to patients as they can be the least restrictive option, and we welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing CTOs. Can the Minister share details about the scope and timescale of this review?
The NHS Confederation has raised concerns about high vacancy rates across the sector, which are bound to impact on staff capacity. Again, can the Minister give assurances that this will be addressed as soon as possible, if not as part of this legislation then through the upcoming 10-year plan or the review of the NHS workforce plan? This was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, whose points on data I also agree with.
The NHS Confederation has pointed out that more opportunities for patients to challenge their detention are likely to increase the number of tribunal hearings. This would require an additional 33% expansion of the in-patient responsible clinician workforce. Given that national consultant psychiatrist vacancy rates are currently around 10% to 15%, this will be very challenging. With the Government set to publish an updated long-term workforce plan for the NHS next year, as mentioned earlier, can the Minister give an assurance there will be measures in this plan to specifically tackle workforce shortages in mental health?
In referring back to the issue of racial inequality, the patient and carer race equality framework is the key vehicle in reducing the racial disparities that exist in the Mental Health Act and in wider services—which mean, for example, as we mentioned, that black people are far more likely to be detained under the Act or to be placed on a community treatment order than white people. The so-called PCREF is not part of legislation, but all mental health providers are expected to implement it. Concerns exist that the lack of understanding of the framework, as well as the lack of resources available, are hampering its implementation. Again, will the Minister consider using legislation to address these concerns?
Racial disparities are a significant issue, and the NHS Confederation has described the disparities in rates of detention of people from different racial backgrounds as unacceptable—I agree. For example, black people are more than three times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act. There is evidence that advance choice documents reduce racial disparities in the level of detentions. This led to many in the sector calling for them to be made statutory. Indeed, this was recommended by both the Mental Health Act review and the pre-legislative scrutiny committee which looked at the draft Bill. Can the Minister set out why advance choice documents will not be made statutory? Is she confident that measures in the Bill concerning such documents will help reduce those racial disparities in detention rates? There are very few evidential interventions that actually reduce racial disparities, so let us use the one that we know works.
The NHS Confederation has highlighted concerns that the new criteria for detention set out in the Bill—namely, that serious harm may be caused—need to be defined. If they are not, we risk inconsistency in how the definition is interpreted. Will the Minister come forward with a definition of what constitutes serious harm so that there can be no doubt about what this means in practice?
Funding for new mental health crisis centres announced in the Autumn Budget was welcome, but we need to see more funding provided for the NHS and mental health in the coming years. As the confederation has pointed out, successful implementation of the legislation we are debating will depend on ensuring that the workforce and resources are in place. That includes capital funding to improve the safety and therapeutic environments of in-patient wards. I have seen some shocking places, as no doubt many noble Lords have. Can the Minister say whether, alongside these much-needed reforms, we will see further funding for mental health in next spring’s spending review? I urge her to speed dial the Treasury.
The Government estimate the overall cost of the reforms to be around £5.3 billion for housing, health and social care costs and £313 million for costs to the justice system in England and Wales. The upcoming 10-year plan and next spring’s spending review are key opportunities for the Government to acknowledge what is needed to enact these reforms. The money for the NHS in the Budget was very welcome. I am a big fan of £22 billion for the NHS, but will the Minister give an assurance that further funding will be made available so that these reforms have the best chance of being effective?
The Government’s commitment to shift more care into the community is welcome because it supports better patient outcomes and is a more efficient use of funding. However, the NHS Confederation and I are among those who have pointed out that we need to make sure that the right provision is in place for that community care. Can the Minister provide assurance today that the Government acknowledge this, and can she set out the Government’s plans to ensure that we have this provision?
As the NHS Confederation pointed out recently, on behalf of our members, people with mental health needs and those with learning disabilities—
Lord Cryer (Lab)
Let me just point out that the limit of nine minutes is voluntary, but a lot of people want to speak.
Lord Adebowale (CB)
I know. I have two things to say and then I will finish, honestly. People with mental health needs, those with learning disabilities and autistic people are waiting too long for appropriate care and support. The mental health estate has also experienced years of underinvestment. Can the Minister give an assurance that alongside this Bill, the Government will use every opportunity they have with the 10-year plan and the upcoming spending review to ensure that we see further investment in care and support for those who need it and into the mental health estate?
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. I will not have quite as many questions for the Minister as he had, but I very much agree with what he says about community treatment orders, which I will return to at the end of my remarks. Like many other Peers, I welcome the Bill, which I hope will improve the treatment of people who are detained when they need to be, for their safety and other people’s, because they are in mental crisis. As others have said, it is a long time coming, and I very much congratulate the Government on bringing it forward so early in their term.
I am not an expert in the field, unlike just about everybody else in this debate, and nor do I have scars on my back from considerations of the legislation in the past. I come to it as someone with lived experience of the impacts of the deadliest of all the mental health conditions, eating disorders, and, in the context of the Bill, as the mother of a daughter who was sectioned aged 17. I know that sectioning is hard. It is hard for the individual: they are separated from their loved ones and the people who care, they cannot do what they want, and they are not where they want to be. It is hard for families and loved ones who are trying to navigate the system. But I know that sectioning works. It saves lives. It saved my daughter’s life when she was in the grips of an extremely vicious eating disorder. She was so malnourished that she could not even allow anyone to feed her by a nasogastric tube, and the state had to step in and save her life. She went to a hospital more than 100 miles away. She was initially restrained and then kept there for five months. We visited her and they kept her safe. At the end of those five months, we were able to bring her home. She was treated in the community by the NHS team, and we are grateful for that care.
I know that detention works, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, rightly said, we would need less of that detention if there were more provision of community services all around the country so that people could be treated quickly and appropriately. We know that will require more funding, and that was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, raised very well. It will require a bigger workforce, and it will require those community services to support people when they need it.
It will also need more specialist beds, and these are particularly needed in the field of eating disorders. At the moment, there are only 251 NHS beds in our country and 198 in the independent sector of specialist adult eating disorder services. The Bill covers England and Wales, but there are no beds at all in Wales. Yet we know that they are absolutely needed. Beat, the leading charity for eating disorders, estimates that about 1.25 million people in this country have an eating disorder. Mental health eating disorder services are absolutely up to the gunnels and beyond, and since 2010 the number of hospital admissions for eating disorders has quadrupled from 7,000 to 28,000—so there is a real pressure point.
When my daughter Rose needed an eating disorder bed, one was not available. She was kept for a month on an adult general ward in the local hospital, where her condition deteriorated to the extent that she had to be sectioned. We need more of these beds. It is no good if we just spend all our time in this Chamber focusing on the particulars of this very small but important part of the Mental Health Bill, on detentions, if the Government do not also grasp the nettle about the need for more beds for people when they really need them.
The other worrying aspect about not having beds is that it stops the mental health law being applied in the first place. The 1983 Act insists that local areas make arrangements for beds in urgent circumstances. I was talking to Dr Ashish Kumar, the chair of the eating disorder faculty at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who told me that
“even after two medical recommendations, clinicians are not allowed to apply the section because the tier 4 (inpatient unit) services do not offer them a bed. Hence this is a silent crisis—where these seriously unwell patients are not admitted to psychiatry wards or given the opportunity to have a legal provision of the MHAct applied … The whole legal provision is disregarded in a very high number of cases”.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to reassure us—in summing up today and, I am sure, in Committee—that the Government will put equal focus on ensuring that there is community provision for people with eating disorders to minimise the need for people to go into beds, and that there will always be sufficient beds for people with severe eating disorders who really need it.
I agree very much with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, about community treatment orders. It pains me to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for whom I have the highest regard, and with Mind. When we faced Rose being sectioned, the place we turned to for advice to understand the Mental Health Act, as parents literally pushed into it, was Mind and its fantastic website, and I pay tribute to it for that. But I believe that for eating disorders, community treatment orders can be very beneficial.
If you are sectioned for an eating disorder, it is because your condition is such that you are at risk. When you come to be released, you are at high risk, even if you have community support, of losing weight quickly and facing an urgent readmission. That is because the complexity and the tyranny of the eating disorder mean that the person cannot, of their own volition, maintain their weight. A community treatment order puts a boundary around the eating disorder in a way that a voluntary agreement could not, in that it makes it clear what will be the result and what will result in an in-patient setting.
Eating disorders are a really complex battle of control. The person with an eating disorder feels that they are completely out of control, but they are desperate for control. A community treatment order gives them control by not keeping them in a hospital, but it also gives them some sense of control through the terms of the order: they know what is going to happen. Let us not forget that it also gives some control to the community treatment team, who do not have to wait for a medical emergency in order to readmit if that is needed.
I contend that if it is done in the right way—in an open and consultative manner, with the intention of supporting that person to live in the community and access their community care—a community treatment order can be uniquely beneficial for people with eating disorders. It has the benefit of keeping that person out of hospital, and the restriction is on the eating disorder and not on the person. In Committee, I hope to carry on making the case for people with eating disorders and their carers, alongside the many other experts in this field, so that we can ensure that this welcome Bill is as good as it needs to be.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I declare an interest as a retired psychiatrist and a fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
So much of what I will say comes from my experience of working as a consultant psychiatrist in Northern Ireland. This is particularly important because the legislation in Northern Ireland has always been different from the legislation on this side of the water. The 1950s’ legislation was referred to earlier. In Northern Ireland, the 1961 Act did not, for example, permit admission or detention on the basis of personality disorder. I will come to that in a minute because that foundational difference is of enormous importance.
I welcome this Bill, not because it is a perfect Bill and not even because the foundations of the Bill are particularly good, but because it is at least an improvement on the way things have been for some time. I welcome the four principles it identifies. There are choice and autonomy, a least restrictive approach, and therapeutic benefit—although, of course, this is a difficult one to assess in a short period, as the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, has pointed out. It can be difficult to work out whether particular approaches to treatment are going to work in the short term. Often we need time. The fourth principle is treating the person as an individual, although again this is not as straightforward as it might appear.
As Dr Lade Smith, the president of the royal college, has pointed out, there are ways in which a piece of legislation such as this can be introduced. Although with plenty of resources there would be a good outcome, if there are inadequate resources the situation can be made much worse. It is not just that not enough resources do not make the situation sufficiently better; that can actually make it worse. For example, if a decision is made not to admit the most seriously ill patients to hospital, which is a very good principle, the consequence is that the people in the wards are even more disturbed and much more difficult to handle. Keeping the same level of staff makes it impossible to manage them because that number is not sufficient to deal with an increasingly toxic and non-therapeutic environment.
Changing from the most direct family member to a nominated person is very good. I entirely support it, but it is not without its consequences. If, before admission, the person is living with the family, but they decide to choose someone outside the family, the family may not be prepared to accept them back again. The nominated person may not be in a position to accept them either.
The truth is that none of us is simply an individual. We exist in the context of relationships. If we do not find ways of engaging with those relationships, simply operating on the basis of individual autonomy and human rights may actually create problems of its own. I absolutely agree that we should not admit disturbed people to police cells or to prisons, but if we do not provide sufficient alternative resources then either they are admitted to psychiatric units and other people who should be in those units are unable to be admitted because there is no room, or they are not admitted at all and things become worse.
This is a complex issue; it is not at all simple. There are unintended consequences. A whole list of colleagues have pointed this out: the noble Baronesses, Lady Murphy, Lady Hollins, Lady Buscombe and Lady May of Maidenhead, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. Almost anyone who has had direct engagement with the care of patients in these circumstances realises that there is a degree of complexity in dealing with them that a piece of legislation on its own will not resolve, especially if it is not legislation that requires the provision of resources—which, of course, this Bill does not. Doing something without resources can not only be unsuccessful; it can make the situation worse.
Are there better ways of dealing with this? Yes. The Northern Ireland legislation is much better. It is what was referred to earlier as fusion legislation. That is to say that it looks first at the question of whether a person has disturbance of mind and brain function and, secondly, at whether they understand the information relevant to decisions and appreciate the relevance of it. For example, a person who had delusional thinking would obviously not understand the relevance or appreciate it. It gets away from lots of the problems that this part of the country finds itself dealing with because of the separation of mental illness and mental capacity. Those two things were brought together in the Northern Ireland legislation. That was easier because, as I said earlier, personality disorder was never regarded as an appropriate basis for a formal admission in the first place.
As has been said by a number of colleagues, one of the difficulties that has to be dealt with when legislation is changed if that change is not fundamental—or, frankly, even if it is—is that the culture being operated in is one in which all the staff have been working for decades. Trying to change that is really difficult. One way of doing it is to take little steps. I regard separating out autism and learning disabilities as a positive step in the right direction. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is not in her place but I agree—perhaps unusually—with what she said about the overmedicalisation of problems of living. It is true in universities, where there are huge problems now in dealing with students. It is true in all sorts of areas. Every time someone has problems of living it is called mental illness: “I’ve got mental health, doctor”. We wish they did have mental health; that is what they do not have. That is why they have a problem.
All sorts of problems of living are now thought of as disturbance and disorder. That, in my view, is a serious mistake. I have to say that psychiatrists have made their own contribution to developing things in that way, but we have to pull back and look at it again. That is one of a number of very good reasons pointed out by noble Lords for why taking autism and learning disability out of that kind of package, and seeing them in a different way, is an important step in the right direction but—I come back to this again—as long as there is appropriate provision of resources. Without that, things will not go well and we will have unintended consequences.
Those who have produced this legislation and those who will scrutinise it have done and will do it with the best will in the world. They want to make things better and they are doing their best, but a funny thing happens in science: you produce a theory, do some work with it and then discover that it does not quite cover an issue, so you put in a little caveat. Then it does not cover that issue, so you put in another little caveat, and more and more. The whole thing becomes more complex until suddenly, one day, somebody says, “Do you know what? This is not the right theory”, and then there is a shift in understanding to a whole new way of thinking about it.
That is where we are with problems of this kind. We really need to make a paradigm shift. Your Lordships would expect me to say it but, on this issue, the approach that was taken where I was working in Northern Ireland is useful to explore, just as bringing together health and social care was useful. There are other useful things, such as advance choice, but there are so many that we could not possibly deal with them all in one debate. That is why we will be discussing them for quite some time.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to take part in this debate in your Lordships’ House, after four years as a shadow Minister for Mental Health and six years on the Health Select Committee in the Commons.
In welcoming this Second Reading, I will speak about dealing with the inappropriate detention of autistic people and people with learning disabilities in mental health hospitals. Noble Lords, including those who served on the Joint Committee on the draft Mental Health Bill, understand that too many autistic people and people with learning disabilities have been detained in inappropriate facilities and for far too long. But we, as politicians and legislators, have not made the changes needed to stop this.
The Winterbourne View scandal and a series of other scandals since 2010 have shown abusive treatment meted out to autistic people and people with learning disabilities detained in inappropriate units. In 2011, following the shocking revelations made by journalists of the abuse to residents detained in Winterbourne View, which was rightly described as “torture”, the then Prime Minister pledged to close all inappropriate in-patient units by 2014. That did not happen. Since then, successive Governments have also committed to targets to reduce the number of autistic people and people with learning disabilities in in-patient settings and to prioritise housing and support in the community for those individuals. These targets have all been missed.
In 2021, the Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee, of which I was a member, completed an inquiry into this treatment. Commenting on the missed and delayed policy targets, the inquiry report suggested that “a more radical approach” was needed to unlock community provision for this group of people. Now there is a chance for reform but there are widespread concerns to raise with my noble friend the Minister that the measures in the Mental Health Bill will not be enough in themselves. While it is welcome that the Bill makes it harder to detain a person under the Mental Health Act on the grounds of autism or learning disability, there are widespread concerns, as we heard in this debate, that this could lead to people being held under alternative routes, including the Mental Capacity Act 2005 deprivation of liberty safeguards. We must guard against that happening.
In many cases, autistic people and people with learning disabilities are not being detained just because of the legal framework they are under. They get stuck for years in mental health hospitals because of the lack of support for them in the community. In too many cases, discharge planning is repeatedly delayed because those responsible see the needs involved as too complex or feel that there are no suitable care providers. I will mention two cases to illustrate this: a young autistic woman called Bethany, and Tony Hickmott.
When I first raised Bethany’s case in the Commons, she was a 17 year-old autistic woman with extreme anxiety, kept in seclusion in St Andrew’s hospital, Northamptonshire. In a cell-like room, she was fed through a hatch in a metal door. When her father Jeremy visited, he had to kneel at the hatch in the door to speak to her. Bethany was detained and held in seclusion despite an assessment that the hospital setting that she was in could not meet her needs and a recommendation that she should be moved to a community residential setting with high support.
The lack of funding for support in the community was clearly a factor. The Walsall Council officer responsible for her placement told Bethany’s father that her care had already cost the council £1.2 million. “To be frank,” the officer said to him, “Walsall could do with a breather”. Moving Bethany to a community setting would involve her local council paying £100,000 to £200,000 a year from the adult social care budget, instead of leaving the NHS to pay the much higher bill, which was £676,000 a year. It seems that Bethany was being held in isolation so that the local council responsible did not have to pay her costs, but the very high costs of her detention were then borne by NHS England.
I raised Bethany’s case numerous times in the Commons and she was at last discharged to live in the community. Fast forward seven years and her father talks about what a happy life his daughter now has, in her own property, with good support from a wonderful care team.
The outcome has not been as positive for Tony Hickmott, an autistic man with learning disabilities. In 2022, Tony had spent 21 years in a secure assessment and treatment unit and it looked as if he could finally move back to his hometown of Brighton, close to his parents Pam and Roy.
Tony had stopped meeting the criteria for being detained in a psychiatric hospital in 2013, but it was ruled that he could not be discharged from there because a suitable community placement could not be found for him. His parents applied to the Court of Protection in 2019 and, after a number of hearings, the judge ruled that Tony should be discharged from hospital to live in a specially renovated house with care from a brought-in provider.
This should have been a happy ending too, but it was not. Reports describe that Tony is now effectively barricaded into the bedroom, with the care staff in his home operating the house like a seclusion room. Tony’s parents, now in their 80s, are prohibited from taking him out into the community. He is held under the deprivation of liberty safeguards. I hope that Tony Hickmott’s care provision can be improved.
Much could have been done by Governments over the last 12 years to tackle this issue of inappropriate detention. The new Government now have the chance to change this. First, we must act to prevent new inappropriate admissions of autistic people and people with learning disabilities. Secondly, we must act to enable the discharge of the 2,000 autistic people and people with learning disabilities detained inappropriately in mental health units.
As we have heard in this debate, the average length of detention for this group is 5.4 years, with 355 people detained for more than 10 years. Mencap has estimated the cost of this care in inappropriate units for this group as £534 million a year. Detentions are often, as we have heard, far away from family and friends, with alarming reports of people from this group being overmedicalised, subject to physical restraint and shut away in isolation. All this is as traumatic for those detained as it is devastating for their families. As Mencap has said, its findings on the staggering cost of institutional care show that this is
“an appalling waste of public money on the wrong type of care”.
I hope that there is now a will to change this.
As I mentioned, there is first the issue of ensuring no new placements of autistic people and people with learning disabilities in those inappropriate mental health units. The Commons Select Committee inquiry report made recommendations on how this could be achieved.
Secondly, the issue of who is paying for care and community support must be tackled. I support the plea made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for an action plan to succeed the Building the Right Support Action Plan. The Commons Select Committee inquiry recommended that the Department of Health and Social Care should
“redesign the financial incentives … so that local authorities”
and local NHS bodies
“do not seek to ‘offload’”
the care of
“autistic people and people with learning disabilities onto the NHS or place these individuals in inpatient facilities”.
Tackling these issues of funding flows now needs strong cross-governmental action.
There are some further actions that could be taken to improve the mechanisms around this area of work. I thank the human rights lawyer Dr Oliver Lewis for his input. Currently, mental health tribunals are not considered useful in dealing with people stuck in hospital in-patient units. Tribunals dealing with cases for this group should be required to have a medical member with expertise in autism and learning disabilities. Working through the practical issues of achieving a discharge destination for people currently detained could be improved if mental health tribunals are given the power to compel a local authority or NHS body to find a discharge destination in the community or if the Court of Protection was used more to rule on discharge arrangements.
The Bill presents an opportunity to correct an oversight under Section 73 of the Care Act 2014 affecting human rights, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised earlier. I too thank Dr Lucy Series and Professor Luke Clements for information about the issues raised in the Sammut judgment. As we have heard, that is a ruling that means the Human Rights Act does not apply where mental health patients get Section 117 aftercare in private settings. There is a real concern about the broader implications of this for patients receiving continuing healthcare through private services, children in private social care, and even patients detained in private hospitals under the deprivation of liberty safeguards. This latter group could expand to include the numbers of learning disabled and autistic people who are detained in hospital under the deprivation of liberty safeguards because they are no longer eligible for detention under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act. I am sure it was Parliament’s intention to protect the human rights of vulnerable adults and children for whom the state arranges health and care services. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree to the suggested meeting with Lucy Series and Luke Clements to discuss that.
I hope that we can bring forward amendments as necessary to correct this oversight as well as to address the other issues I have raised.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome the Bill. It is overdue and times have changed. People’s views and sentiments, and our knowledge, have changed over those years. I welcome the principles that seek to rebalance the way we handle these issues.
All this is in the context of a Bill that is about the safety of service users as well as public safety. I want to come back to the former but, very briefly, on public safety, I note that the bar for detention will be higher—there must be evidence that
“serious harm may be caused to the health or safety of the patient or of another person”.
The question is: what counts as evidence? Where is the place for the judgment of experienced clinicians? Is that evidence? Is the testimony of relatives? What is the definition of “serious harm?” I understand the need for transparency, but this is a very difficult area that will obviously need much more discussion at later stages of the Bill.
I also welcome the separation out of the care for people with learning disabilities and autistic people, the attention to the needs of people in the criminal justice system and, of course, the importance of tackling racial disparities.
We have had a lot of impressive briefings for this Bill. I will quote one of them, from Blooming Change. That was the one about children who had experience of the system. There were lots of issues about patient safety and quality of care. They talked about being injured during restraint, just being drugged and restrained and being scared all the time. There is a dreadful sentence there, which I will read out:
“Hospital makes you worse … going into hospital with one problem and then leaving with trauma, new behaviours, new diagnoses, assaults, PTSD – it’s awful”.
I noted the earlier comments by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the very large number—I think it was 52,000—of uses of restrictive interventions in the last year, and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, about this, and about the importance of children not being in adult wards. It seems to me that this is a great example of what we just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, about admission making the situation worse. The idea was to put people into a ward, but, actually, it led to a deterioration of their condition.
If I think about the Mental Health Act, I understand why the review that a lot of this was based on was focused, but actually we cannot think about the Mental Health Act in a vacuum. Let me pick up two or three examples of that. The first one is that the very same Sir Simon Wessely asked me 10 years ago to look at the capacity of acute adult wards across England. I did so, and with a group we were in contact with every service in England and with consultants who were leading the admission and discharge of patients. One of the interesting findings of that was that something over 20% on average of discharges were delayed because of housing. Indeed, of all those units in England, only two had any links with the housing authorities. This seems to me to be a very fundamental point: if you are stuck in hospital, you may well lose your accommodation, which will lead to other problems. That is just one example of many wider social issues that need to be taken into account, even though we are focusing on something as narrow as the terms of the Mental Health Act.
There is also the impact on A&E, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to very early on about just shifting the problem if we are not careful: shifting it from one place to actually landing up in A&E, where there may not be liaison, psychiatry or anything else that will help with the problem.
A number of noble Lords deplored the lack of a wider Bill in which this would nest, but it is very clear that this needs to be implemented in the context alongside other changes that are already under way. There are some profound questions here about care and treatment. We have been very privileged to have heard from a lot of people who know a great deal about this, including a number of very distinguished senior commissioners who could give us insight, as well as parents who can give us remarkable insight and profound comments.
If you look at some of the statistics, healthy life expectancy for all of us has improved massively over the last 40 years, but the gap between life expectancy for those with severe mental illnesses and life expectancy for the rest of us has doubled since the 1980s and is now 20 years behind. If we also look at some other evidence, the NHS independent Mental Health Taskforce argues that outcomes from severe mental health problems have worsened in recent years, and others have argued that they flatlined for about 40 years and, in some cases, have deteriorated.
Various noble Lords have talked about the importance of the change in the model that we are talking about here, with much more focus on the community, much more focus on prevention and much more focus on thinking of this end to end, rather than just as isolated incidents involving isolated patients who do not have relationships with the rest of the world in that sort of model. It really seems to be fundamental that we get hold of those issues; even if they are not in this Bill, they need to be linked to an understanding that those changes may well come with the forthcoming 10-year plan and the implementation of this.
I want to touch on a wider point about the overmedicalisation of common problems. Here is another statistic: in the year to April, 8.7 million people received antidepression tablets—and that is just England, without counting anywhere else. The major problem in that area, apart from the overprescribing itself, is helping people to get off those drugs in due course, which is another example of where some of our current practices have been doing harm. We need a new emphasis on some of the social interventions that many noble Lords have mentioned and a new emphasis on patient safety.
Lastly, this is only legislation. It needs to be accompanied by a real implementation plan for the management of change because it cannot be treated in isolation. These other moves and other leaders are making change happen elsewhere. I very much welcome the Bill and look forward to the discussions about some of these important issues in Committee and beyond.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it was a privilege to sit on the Joint Committee to scrutinise the Bill, but it was disturbing to see for how long the legislation has been failing patients, their families and clinicians. I thank my noble friend Lady May, who is not in her place, for instituting the process and for placing a clear focus on the disproportionality faced by racialised communities. There is much to commend the Bill, such as the change in detention criteria, and statutory care and treatment plans, but it could still be improved.
The introduction of community treatment orders made a bad disproportionality situation even worse. The mental health factsheet accompanying the Bill says that black communities are seven times more likely to have a CTO than their white counterparts, although that is an improvement on the evidence to the committee, where we were told that it was up to 11 times, while Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology research states that it is up to 10 times. Whatever it is, it is too high. If CTOs are to remain, I hope the Minister will outline that proper research will be undertaken to understand what is causing that disproportionality.
While I welcome the changes to CTOs, I stand by the Joint Committee recommendation that they should be abolished for Part II patients; I stand with Mind on that. There are differing opinions on this issue now, and it would be useful to return to it in Committee. Because of disproportionality, the CTO issue is of particular importance to certain communities. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale; we also heard about the informed research showing that advance choice documents are known to reduce detentions and reduce medicalisation when someone is detained. So, while I am pleased to see the advance choice document in the Bill, I ask His Majesty’s Government to consider that there should be a right to request that.
As the Bill goes through Parliament, I hope that the hard work of a smaller, often less-resourced group of activists for these communities will be appreciated. The work of the NAS and Mencap is exemplary, but sometimes those who are not able to shout the loudest are in the greatest need of our support. I am sad to notice that two of the provisions that are particularly important to racialised communities are being diluted.
One of the most important changes is that the outdated use of nearest relatives is being replaced by nominated persons who represent the patient and exercise relevant statutory functions. It is important to note the power that the nominated person has. It includes the power to order the discharge of the patient, unless of course a barring order is made. Ideally, the nominated person is chosen by the patient, but if they do not have capacity, that function is done by the approved mental health practitioner—AMHP. Those are welcome changes for most adults—I note the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice—but the Joint Committee’s report highlights that all is not clear with regard to the nominated person and children and young people.
The decision not to have a new piece of legislation is a particular problem. When the Mental Health Act 1983 was passed, it was envisaged that it would really apply only to children in the criminal justice system. To complicate matters, the Children Act 1989 was passed, with further amendments later on giving 16 and 17 year-olds the right to consent to medical treatment if they have capacity. Then came the Mental Capacity Act, which does not apply to under-16s but does if you are 17. Then Gillick competence was added to the mix. Yes, it is all rather fudgy, even before you add on the nominated person under the Act.
I will give a couple of examples. For the under-16s, under new Schedule A1, the nominated person must be the person with parental responsibility, but what of the situation of a special guardianship arrangement where the parents keep some residuary parental responsibility? Does the AMHP have to appoint the parents and the special guardian? That would set up quite a difficult arrangement for clinicians. Also, why does this schedule refer to a local authority being “willing” to act as the nominated person? Under the Children Act when there is a care order, local authorities have a duty to act when they have parental responsibility.
I turn to the 16 or 17 year-old who lacks capacity to appoint a nominated person. There is no mention at all of parents’ responsibility in paragraph 10 of that schedule, yet the young person might be living with them. So if the nominated person uses the powers of discharge, a process takes place for them to be discharged. You are relying on the mental health institution to remember that parental responsibility lasts until someone is 18 and to tell the parents that the patient is on their way home. That might not sound like a problem, but if you have got other, younger children in the household, it might be a risk to them to have that person back in the household. Also, a 16 or 17 year-old may be under a care order. Is the local authority going to be informed because it is going to be providing the accommodation? The schedule is silent on that. A common statutory mechanism is to mandate for particular circumstances like those of the under-16s but to have a presumption for other situations. So why not have some kind of presumption that a 17 year-old person with parental responsibility should be the nominated person if they are residing with them?
The previous Government accepted that after the independent review on children and young people more thought needed to be given. So will the Minister agree to have a meeting about children and young people with officials, interested Peers, and the experts in this field who are practising in this niche area of the Mental Health Act and the Children Act?
Children and young people are also in a vulnerable position if they have learning disabilities and autism and no co-occurring mental health illness. If they are in crisis and the parents need help, if there is no Mental Health Act provision, then what happens? We have heard about the use of DoLS under the Mental Capacity Act, but if you are 17 or 18 and lack capacity and are held under that, there is no Section 117 aftercare. However, if you are under 16, or 17 with capacity, you are not under the Act at all. Where does that leave you? That probably leaves you under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court or, rarely, a care order. Only last week the Children’s Commissioner reported on around 1,000 children a year who are now under the jurisdiction of what is called a High Court DoLS order. Let us just say her report is not good news about that third provision to restrict a person’s liberty.
While the situation for those with learning disabilities and autism is currently shocking—and I marvel at the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins—the Act could make a bad situation worse. This is also important to cover at the meeting that I have suggested and as High Court DoLS are a relatively new creation, it would be good to have there former members of the judiciary who have had experience of imposing those orders on children and young people.
I am disappointed not to see the recommendation from the Joint Committee of a mental health commissioner as part of the Bill. Since the Joint Committee reported, rare events have shown the danger to the public if mental health services fail. Often it is those who not medically trained but are friends and family who can see that someone is getting really unwell and needs help. Is it obvious to know where to go if you have tried the previous hospital and you have tried to use PALS? Do friends and relatives know that it is the CQC that they need to go to? The police have rightly stepped back in some respects in these situations. Not appointing a mental health commissioner is a missed opportunity as it is imperative that those people know somewhere to go to. While the Joint Committee’s report was not overt about this being a function of the mental health commissioner because it was before the events I have outlined, an emergency process such as this could well fit within their remit. It would be a one-stop shop. While there is a mental health homicide review under way, if there is the need to legislate, we could now be missing it. However, if His Majesty’s Government established a mental health commissioner whose functions could be by way of secondary legislation, the door to legislation remains open if that review suggests such measures.
Finally, I hope the Minister will inform your Lordships’ House that the Law Commission is being requested to look at whether, in England and Wales, we should be doing what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, recommended, and which is happening in Northern Ireland: the fusing of our mental capacity and mental health laws. This is a sticking plaster only on an area of law that badly needs a restart.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I declare interests as chair of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Whittington Health NHS Trust, and as a member of the North Central London Integrated Care Board. I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the Bill today, which has been a long time coming. As noble Lords know, I was one of the three vice-chairs of Simon Wessely’s review. It seems a long time from when we published that in 2018.
I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and her team for their pre-legislative scrutiny, which did so much to clarify and to push the draft legislation nearer to what our original review had said, but your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that there are still some areas of concern. I say that as I pay tribute to the Minister for all her engagement, both formal and informal, with members of the review team.
The Government have published the impact assessment for the Bill, showing what they believe will be the costs of the improvements that we all wish to see happen, but have said absolutely nothing about how they will pay for all of this. If we are going to make these reforms work, we are going to need money in the system. Other noble Lords have said precisely that, notably the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, on the subject of staff. You have only to speak to people working in this field to realise that they are desperate for resources, beds and staff—particularly nurses—alongside alternatives to detention that provide real care and do not leave people on the streets. That goes back to the issue of community treatment orders, which we will no doubt come back to in Committee, because this is a really serious concern.
We all know that public finances are under huge pressure but I urge noble Lords, and particularly the Minister, to push as hard as possible for funding for these reforms and the mental health system as a whole. It really is needed and if we do not do that, whatever we legislate will make precious little difference to what happens. That is what we ought to worry about. It is also vital that this House notes the commentary from the Royal College of Psychiatrists whose president, Dr Lade Smith, warns us that these reforms must not make worse the racial disparities already associated with the use of the Act. We need to take heed of that, as many other noble Lords have said.
I want to thank some people in particular, notably Sir Simon Wessely, the chair of the review and, one might argue, the architect of these reforms, and my co vice-chairs Mark Hedley and Steven Gilbert, for their essential contributions. I want also to pay tribute to the Civil Service teams in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice, particularly Matthew Lees, who put in huge amounts of hard work and showed astonishing devotion to the cause. Some of them have seen it all the way through.
We are delighted that the Bill includes the new guiding principles that we devised and recommended, as well as provisions to promote the use of advance choice documents; but as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, have said, there is something very peculiar about the way this is framed. Advance choice is not given as a right to patients; it is a duty upon the ICBs. When we get to Committee, we need to push that one quite hard.
We also remain disappointed that the Government have not been able to include measures relating to our recommendation that the tribunal consider appeals from patients whose expressed preference for a particular kind of treatment has been overturned by doctors. We believe that that would be an uncommon occurrence; nevertheless, it is an important safeguard for patients’ rights—a right to be involved in decisions to do with your own care. I really hope that the Government will reconsider this proposal, ideally before we end consideration of the Bill.
We are living in a time of increasing tolerance and understanding of mental ill health and decreasing stigma surrounding it, but that is not what many people in the system experience. Many people are most distressed not by the detention itself but the way in which they are treated and made to feel helpless, ignored and stripped of their dignity and self-worth. That is why the review identified—and this is key—a clear gap when it comes to supporting and valuing patient autonomy. It is why we argued that we must move away from what we heard all too often: the default position of clinical staff rejecting what the patient wants. Many of the independent review’s recommendations therefore aim to shift the dial in favour of greater respect for the wishes, choices and preferences of patients. It was also clear that when people were—rightly, in their own view—being deprived of their liberty, they were also all too often being deprived of any say in how they should be treated. As one service user who was part of our core team told us when we started on this process:
“I am sure being detained saved my life, but did it have to be such a terrible experience?”
In one significant respect, the Bill goes beyond any recommendations that we made, proposing, in effect, to exclude learning disability and autism from the scope of the Act, except for short-term admission. Other noble Lords around the House have spoken on that; however, we were and remain concerned that exclusion from the scope of the Act might not solve the problem—although it should—but instead simply shift it elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, I believe, was hinting at that too.
This Bill, unlike its predecessors—I am a veteran of 2008 as well—enters Parliament with a considerable level of agreement from all the political parties, professionals, media, the charitable sector, service user groups, and in particular stakeholders representing ethnic minority communities, although there are considerable worries.
So there are some concerns, and we know about that. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to meet once again with the team from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and with some user groups, particularly people with autism and other disorders who are expressing major concerns—all of us will have had some of those emails. I hope that that can happen as the legislation goes through, so that we can see if any further fine tuning can be done. But this is without doubt the right time—one might even say it is overdue—to modernise the Act, and I very much hope that the House will support it.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, today I will focus on those aspects of the Bill that concern children and young people with learning disabilities, autism or both. I also want to note that I found listening to the lived experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, very moving indeed.
My formal interest in this issue dates from my being the independent chair of NHS England’s children and young people transforming care steering group—for children and young people with autism and learning disabilities—from 2017-20, and before that as chair and non-executive board member of various NHS organisations. My close personal interest, however, is lifelong, as the younger sister of Patricia, who I mentioned in my maiden speech.
Patricia was born in a much less enlightened time than we enjoy now, with a learning disability that denied her expressive language and deemed her at the time of her early childhood in the 1950s as a mental defective under the then mental deficiency legislation. My brother Jim followed soon after. My younger sister and I came some years later, to our loving parents’ great joy, but neither she nor I ever lived with my sister Patricia, as she was taken away from our parents when she was seven—before we were born—to a huge and forbidding mental hospital near Birmingham, three long bus rides away from where our parents lived. They had to write each month to the hospital authorities for permission to visit, a maximum of once a month.
When our father died in 1990, my mother asked me to become Patricia’s co-guardian with her and gave me a box that he had kept containing all the paperwork concerning Patricia. The letters from my father asking for permission for Jim, my brother, to visit his sister once she was removed from the family home are heartbreaking to read, as he was always refused, even at Christmas time, because Jim was under 12. So Jim did not see his sister for years.
By the 1960s, these rules had relaxed, and my other sister and I were taken to visit one Sunday a month. I am ashamed to say that I dreaded those visits as a little girl—not because of Patricia, who I liked to see and spend time with, but because the heart of the hospital was a forbidding Victorian building where patients with mental health issues were kept. Sometimes I would hear screams and see figures trying to put their arms out of the tops of windows. At the side of the hospital for the learning disabled—by then called mentally handicapped—which was physically a much pleasanter part of the site, we would sit and eat with and cuddle our sister, who was always delighted to see us, especially our mother.
In time, my parents got a car, and my father would drive us to a café with Patricia. Sometimes we were made welcome, and sometimes not so much. My sister never went to school as she was 18 by the time the duty to educate children with learning disabilities came in following the 1970 Act. My mother found that heartbreaking.
As a child, I did not know that my parents were campaigning to get Patricia moved nearer home, hoping to take advantage of a more benign regime that was developing in the 1970s of long-stay campus-style hospitals where young adults with learning difficulties could live, still under NHS care but with fewer restrictions on the number of visits and more activities for patients—later residents. Eventually, my parents were successful, and those were happier years, with much more contact and my sister being able to visit the home that she had not grown up in.
After my father’s death I took up the campaigning mantle from him to make sure that Patricia genuinely benefited from the latest initiative: care in the community. My sister lived her last years, until she died in 2018, in a real house near our family home with three ladies she had been with previously, and we could visit whenever we wanted. My brother died 30 years ago, so he did not live to see this. My other sister and I had moved to London, but my mother was delighted, as were we, that Patricia lived in a proper house with its own kitchen with home-cooked meals and we could visit whenever we liked.
When the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, in his previous role as chief executive of NHS England, asked me to establish and chair the steering group in support of transforming the care of children and young people with autism and learning disabilities, your Lordships can see why I jumped at the opportunity. As the chair of the steering group, my task was to help bring together all those organisations which had important roles in reducing the number of children and young people with autism, learning disabilities, mental health conditions and behaviours that challenged, but with no criminal backgrounds, being detained.
The steering group included representatives from the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and local government, as well as charities advocating for these children and young people. What became crystal clear was that detention happens when local education, health and children’s social care services either do not or cannot meet their complex needs appropriately. Although the world has clearly moved on a long way from the days of my sister’s incarceration, I am afraid that I heard some very distressing accounts from families and hospital staff about the reality of detention, as eloquently described by my noble friend Lady Keeley, and not so short of enforced solitary confinement, as described so eloquently in the important work of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.
At the same time, I saw inspiring examples of what is possible when local community services come together around the needs of children and young people, including on a visit to a special school in north London where I saw pupils who in other circumstances would have been locked away in secure hospitals. The head teacher worked with a multidisciplinary team, including social workers, speech and language therapists, psychologists and others, who liaised closely with the pupils’ families.
One key issue was raised repeatedly by families and those youngsters who could speak for themselves in the stakeholder engagement meetings we held. Although NHS guidance states that each child or young person in such a situation should receive a care (education) and treatment review—CETR—and DfE guidance requires that they should also receive an education, health and care plan, or EHCP, this was all too often either not happening in a timely manner, or it was happening but not being acted upon. This was partly a matter of resources, partly a matter of priorities, and partly a lack of joined-up work between health, education and local government.
This important Bill includes proposals to strengthen current arrangements, and this is to be greatly welcomed. In particular, the assumption that children and young people with autism and learning disabilities should not be detained if at all possible—and, if this is not possible, for only the minimum of time and with a proper review and plan for treatment in place—is a huge step forward. I am delighted that it has received wide support across the political parties, beginning with the noble Baroness, Lady May, when she was Prime Minister and subsequently under more recent Governments. It shows families such as mine that society is beginning to make real progress towards greater understanding and humanity in its attitude towards people with learning disabilities and autism—albeit sometimes more slowly than we would wish for.
However, legislation on its own can take us only so far. Genuinely sustained improvement will require multiagency work—including at government level, as my noble friend Lady Keeley said—with high levels of co-operation in the community to provide effective support for children and young people at risk of being detained. Stronger multiagency community services, combined with the Bill’s provisions, would ensure a very different life for those children and young people and their families from the one my sister had.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I am very pleased to follow that very powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, which reminded us all of the personal stakes that we are debating, as did many other such speeches today. I started my NHS career 30-odd years ago running a large psychiatric hospital outside Newcastle, where in some respects the quality of care was high but in others, frankly, far too many people with long-term mental health problems had been warehoused, in effect, for decades. That was a point in time when there was a big shift to re-provide services in less restrictive community settings.
I mention that simply to remind us that it was not the Mental Health Act 1983 per se that triggered all that; it was a combination of better therapies, alternative services and, frankly, greater power and influence for the voice of users of mental health services that together constituted that initial shift in services. So, as we think about the Bill before us, of course we must attend principally to the content of the legislation but we must also think about how quickly it will be implemented and the context in which it will land.
As we have heard, this is a very well-vetted piece of legislation. We will want to pay attention to the unintended consequences that various noble Lords have raised and I agree with others that some components are seriously underpowered. The advance choice documents provision, I am afraid, will not cut it as currently described. We heard that from the noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Barker, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and many others. Unlike the clinician checklists set out as a requirement in Clause 11, the care and treatment plans that are a statutory requirement in Clause 20, or the new rights for voluntary in-patients to access independent advocacy set out in Clause 38, when it comes to the advance choice documents all we have is a fairly vague, subjective responsibility on the NHS and integrated care boards to give it their best shot. I am paraphrasing, but only slightly. In effect, they are asked to provide information and help to the extent that they consider appropriate. Frankly, a notice on a noticeboard with a phone number to call would constitute progress as far as the Bill is concerned. We need to address this fundamentally. Based on the comments this evening, it sounds as if there may be a latent majority for an amendment when we get to Report, depending on how our debate in Committee has gone.
That is just one example of the Bill’s content. The related question is the one the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, very powerfully raised: however good this is, when will it actually see the light of day? When will it be implemented? Actually, the most salient piece of this legislation is lurking right at the end, at Clause 53(3), which says that most of this stuff will spring into life only through the fiat of the Secretary of State at a date yet TBD. As the impact assessment—which, again, as the noble Lord said, is a very important and revealing document—says, a lot of these measures are seriously back-loaded. Even the ones that are supposedly front-loaded are highly dependent on a set of resourcing which may or may not occur.
For example, the new detention criteria for people with learning disabilities and autistic people may start in 2026-27, but next to a little asterisk is written:
“This timeline is highly indicative as an illustration for modelling purposes. This reform will commence once systems are able to demonstrate sufficient levels of community support for people with a learning disability and autistic people as an alternative to hospital-based care”.
As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and others, we have been waiting for that for some long years. My concern is that we run the same risk here as we saw with, say, the implementation of the Dilnot reforms: something sits on the statute book but never actually comes to life because it is always, “Mañana, mañana”, given the chicken and egg problem of resourcing and alternative services to allow the thing to come about. There is an implementation timescale question that I am sure we will want to pay attention to.
Related to that is the extent to which the Bill interacts with the real-world state of mental health services, social care, housing, the criminal justice system and so forth. Two of the four principles in Clause 1—“Choice and autonomy” and “Least restriction” of care—are intrinsically tied to the availability of alternative services. Therefore, you cannot divorce the Bill from decisions that this Government and future Governments will make on its resourcing.
If we want a moment of legislative humility, let us cast our minds back to the Health and Social Care Act 2012, where parity of esteem was legislated from the rooftops. Frankly, we did not see parity of esteem begin to kick in on the back of that declaration. In fact, between 2010 and 2016—a time of rising mental health need—the mental health workforce was cut by 9.4%. I took the decision—with the support of the now noble Baroness, Lady May, as Prime Minister—that, from 2016 onwards, we would introduce the mental health investment standard. This required that, each year, the share of NHS funding going on mental health could not fall—it had to be at least constant and should be rising—to stop the squeeze that was otherwise taking place. As a result, in contrast to that 9.4% reduction, we have seen a 26.5% increase since then. In his review for the new Government, the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, said:
“This important intervention has … enabled much of the mental health capacity that was cut in the first part of the 2010s to be rebuilt”.
That is why this House was good enough to support my amendment to the 2022 health Act, which was then adopted by the Government. This ensured that, prospectively, before the start of each financial year, the Government of the day have to set out their stall and declare whether they intend that mental health spending will grow as a share of the overall pie in the year ahead. The reason that is so important is not just history: at a time when, understandably, there will be great political focus on waiting times for physical health and routine operations, the most likely outcome, absent that mental health investment standard, would be that mental health services would get screwed at a time when other things are prioritised.
We will want a renewed commitment by the new Government to that mental health investment standard, perhaps as early as the planning guidance for the coming year, 2025-26. We will be able to take stock of that before Committee to make a judgment about whether we should recommend a strengthening of that mental health investment standard in the statute, because it is inconceivable that the good measures laid out in the Bill can actually be implemented while mental health services are squeezed as a share of the growing NHS budget.
In the western movie “The Magnificent Seven”, Steve McQueen said that, as gunslingers, “We deal in lead”. Clearly, here in Parliament, we deal in law, but my underlying point is that law gets you only so far. The question is not just the content of the law but how it is implemented, how fast and in what context. We need to keep our eyes on all those as the Bill proceeds.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as the last Back-Bench speaker in this rich and informed debate, I note that we in the Green group start our meeting each week by asking ourselves what original things we have to say, specifically as Greens, about a Bill or a debate—so it is useful to come at this particular point in the circle. As Greens, we very much agree with the need for the Bill, which virtually every noble Lord noted. We also very much agree with the need to strengthen it.
I respectfully disagree, however, with a number of noble Lords who have suggested that we are seeing an overmedicalisation of life events. Perhaps this is not quite what they meant to suggest, but it sounded like they were saying that we do not have a mental health crisis in our society. I would very much say that we do. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that there is a great need for more talking therapies and that, for want of those, medical professionals are very often forced to resort to pharma solutions.
We need the talking therapies, but we also need treatments because we have a mental health crisis. Behind that is not any characteristic of individuals but a deeply unhealthy society and, when we are thinking about this Bill, we have to think about it in that context. We have to think that when we compare ourselves to the societies we generally consider comparable, we have much greater health problems than them. We must ask ourselves why. This is true of mental and physical health, in so far as it makes any sense to make a division between those two. I do not think anyone this evening has yet used the phrase “the gut-brain axis”, but in the last decade there has been an explosion of understanding of the link between the microbiome and mental health. We have, particularly in the UK, a broken food system. This is of course a long way from legislation but, if we are to think systemically, it is the context in which we have to think about the Bill.
As some noble Lords have made reference to, there are also the social issues to consider, whether the levels of poverty, the insecurity of income and housing, or the pressurised jobs that treat workers like robots and make them ill. We have a loneliness epidemic, which I do not think anyone has mentioned yet, but that is very much related to our mental health epidemic. We have a huge problem with domestic violence, which is also related to mental ill-health, particularly among the victims. We need to take a public health approach to mental health. While that is not directly part of the Bill, we cannot talk about mental health without talking about all those issues.
On other areas on the Greens’ unique approach to mental health issues, we do not believe that the coercive power of the state—which is what the Bill is talking about—should ever be put into private hands; nor do we believe that healthcare should ever be run on a for-profit basis. Here, I remind us of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, about when the private provision of mental health care has gone horribly wrong.
A number of noble Lords have focused on the problem of stigma; perhaps we have made progress over recent decades, but we still have a long way to go. We have to think very carefully about using the rhetoric of “strivers versus skivers”, and the suggestion that all we have to do is get these people into a job and then they will be fine, because that is the underlying message we are hearing from certain very senior quarters in our society. I must mention that there has been talk of combining support for people seeking jobs and mental health care. I would not necessarily say not to do that, but it has to be done with extreme caution to ensure that it is not something that puts more pressure and stress on people, interfering with them becoming well.
More positively, I commend the Government on bringing the Bill forward so early in their term and on making it a Bill that starts in the House of Lords. I compare it to the Domestic Abuse Act, during the passage of which many noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate also took part. There was a genuine effort from all sides of the House to make that Act better, and it has been very clear this evening that there is the same desire in this Chamber today.
Many noble Lords have made the point about the need to resource what is in the Bill—we also said that about the Domestic Abuse Bill—including, to single out a few, the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Adebowale, and many others. There have also been some really good ideas in this debate, and here I particularly single out the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins. The idea of a safe staffing level for community services strikes me as a potentially transformative idea that is really essential. Far too often, care in the community has simply meant being abandoned in the community, being left in the hands of horribly overworked staff, who are then subject to abuse and questioning when things go wrong because they simply have not been able to handle the workload, through no fault of their own. It is really crucial that we tackle those issues.
I will quickly whizz through some specific points of the Bill, particularly focusing on things that other people have not said. I have not heard a great deal of discussion of the idea, as recommended by the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill, that we have a mental health commissioner. The briefing from the Centre for Mental Health draws a parallel with the powerful impact of the Children’s Commissioner; I would also add the impact of the Patient Safety Commissioner, on which I worked with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, over many years. Again, that was a case in which your Lordships’ House was very powerful in pushing to create that position. Having the Patient Safety Commissioner has made a real difference, and having a new statutory role to champion mental health across government and speak up for people with mental illness is something we really should be including in the Bill.
Very briefly, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on community treatment orders. The Bill still allows these to be continued indefinitely rather than placing a time limit on them with an option for a new one if needed. These should not be renewed without proof of necessity and proportionality.
I will use my remaining time to focus particularly on the importance of children and young people. Many other noble Lords have addressed and given us statistics on how our mental health services are failing young people. I want to draw another parallel with another element of what the Government are doing and which I have praised. A couple of nights ago, rather late in your Lordships’ House—about this sort of time, actually—we were discussing the Government’s plan for a new youth strategy and their plan to make sure that there is really strong consultation on it with young people. The one direct question I will put to the Minister is: I am sure the noble Baroness is aware of the phrase “Nothing about us without us”. What is being done to ensure that there is a real say for young people, particularly young people with experience of the mental health system, to ensure they actually have the chance to be involved in the Bill?
I will rush into one final, technical point. The Bill introduces the new statutory care and treatment plans for all patients. That is welcome, but many under-18s are admitted on an informal basis, so they will not be covered by this. How will that be dealt with?
One final rushed point is that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and others, have talked about how we can learn from other parts of the UK. The mental health Act in Wales includes a measure to give people the right to have a mental health assessment if they request help. That is surely something we could learn from and include in the Bill.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for my croaky voice. It has been an excellent and very well-informed debate. Like all other noble Lords today, I welcome the early introduction of this Bill, after so many years of delay, to modernise the woefully out-of-date 1983 legislative framework. Indeed, it has been one of the longest and most tortuous gestation periods of any piece of legislation I can remember.
I thank so many organisations for the excellent briefings I have received, as well as those who have worked so hard to get us to this stage, including the independent review chaired by Sir Simon Wessely and the cross-party Joint Committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
Those people directly affected by this piece of amending legislation deserve better. From these Benches, we welcome the introduction of the Mental Health Bill as an important step towards modernising the mental health care system and enhancing patient rights. We are encouraged by the Bill’s emphasis on empowering patients and giving them greater control over their treatment decisions, and we want firmly to establish the principle that detention is an opportunity for treatment and a path to recovery, rather than being seen solely in terms of containment.
Like so many others, I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill seeks to limit detention for people with learning disabilities and autistic people who do not have a co-occurring mental health condition and removes prisons and police cells as suitable places of safety. As my noble friends Lord Scriven and Lord Alderdice said, this reform package moves incrementally in the right direction, seeking to balance the rights of individuals with the imperative of public safety.
But there is much more to do to strengthen and improve the Bill and to look at the wider context, particularly at the adequacy of existing mental health services outside of the Act and broader social inequalities. Ensuring we have the necessary funding, the workforce with the right skills and training in the right place will all fundamentally affect the implementation of this Bill.
However, I am disappointed that quite a number of the recommendations by the Joint Committee have not been picked up, in particular those on a mental health commissioner, on the interface between the Mental Capacity Act and this Bill and on strengthening duties on integrated care boards and local authorities to ensure an adequate supply of community services for people with learning disabilities and autism—points to which I shall return. Will the Government provide a detailed response to the Joint Committee report setting out the rationale for the recommendations that have been accepted and those that have not?
There are a number of themes that we will want to explore in Committee, and the first is prevention. We all know that, in healthcare, prevention is better than cure, and the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, Wes Streeting and the Prime Minister have all said it is one of the big three transformational shifts that are needed. We need to apply that same principle to this Bill and live up to that mantra. Put simply, we need to focus on preventing people from reaching the point where they risk being sectioned in the first place. That means deeper and wider preventive mental health in our communities. Currently, as a country, we focus on treatment rather than prevention. We spend around £230 billion on healthcare but only £3.5 billion on public health and only about 3% of that on preventive public mental health work. There is so much more we could do in schools, with walk-in hubs in the community and regular mental health check-ups et cetera.
A key Liberal Democrat objective in this Bill will be promoting good mental health. I believe we need a power included in the Bill that enables the relevant health and local authorities to undertake the promotion of mental health with realistic resources attached. That is also why I want to see a new right to both assessment and treatment for mental health introduced, similar to the Care Act rights that we introduced back in 2014, for people to get the help they need at earlier stages, directly preventing unnecessary admissions.
On racial disparities, given that two of the key drivers of the 2018 review were to reduce detention rates and the stark disparities in the application of the Act on some racial groups—as the noble Baronesses, Lady May and Lady Berridge, said so powerfully—we must explore what other opportunities exist to strengthen legislation in this regard. Specific examples would be putting the Patient and Carer Race Equalities Framework on a statutory footing and including an equity principle—in addition to the four existing guiding principles—which, like the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and my noble friend Lord Scriven, I would like to see in the Bill to underline that these principles sit at the heart of all decision-making covered by it. I also support a new responsible person role at hospital level to oversee and monitor race equality in the day-to-day operation of the Act, with a corresponding duty on the Secretary of State to report annually on progress against reducing inequalities. Such a package could have real teeth.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and others, I also strongly support the establishment of a mental health commissioner, as recommended by the Joint Committee. Such a commissioner would both promote access to treatment across the spectrum of mental health services, including things like beds for eating disorders, and oversee implementation of the Act, including ensuring that racial disparities are fully addressed and monitoring the use of community treatment orders.
On seeing detention as an opportunity for treatment and recovery, I would like to see the definition of appropriate medical treatment strengthened to take account of the settings in which treatment is delivered, including community settings, and the importance of non-drug-based intervention—either in tandem with medication or on its own—where it is clinically effective.
As many noble Lords have said, the Bill makes some important changes to better regulate the use of CTOs. These were originally meant to be a route out of disproportionate sectioning but, in reality, they have exacerbated the number of black people who are subject to compulsion under the Act. However, the revisions in the Bill currently stop well short of adopting all the independent review’s recommendations. For example, they allow CTOs to continue indefinitely, rather than placing a time limit on each CTO, with the option to make a new one if it is still needed. As my noble friend Lady Parminter made clear, we should explore this in Committee.
As many others have said, we need to view equal treatment between Part II and Part III patients as paramount. Ensuring that all patients detained under the Mental Health Act, including those involved in the criminal justice system, have equal access to advocacy, mental health tribunals, appeals and other rights—no matter which part of the Act they are detained under—is a key principle. Given, as I have said, that one of the key drivers for reform was addressing racial inequalities, and that black people are significantly more likely than white people to be detained under Part III, we currently risk further entrenching these disparities.
Much has rightly been said about people with learning disabilities and autism. The changes to Section 3 are an important step in ending the human rights scandal of inappropriate detentions of autistic people and people with a learning disability. As the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said, legislative change must be accompanied by investment in the right community support. Without this, autistic people and people with learning disabilities will continue to reach crisis point with their mental health. There is a real risk of these groups falling into the criminal justice system, simply due to lack of community provision. This has been the New Zealand experience, as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, highlighted. They are then unable to access Section 117 aftercare support. We are told that this change will be enacted only once sufficient provision is in place. Can the Minister provide more details on how this decision will be taken and what the Government will do to ensure that capacity is being built up in the community?
My noble friend Lady Barker, the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and others expressed concerns about the interface between this legislation and the Mental Capacity Act. I share these concerns. I feel that it is currently fuzzy and unclear, leading to inconsistency in practice and confusion as to which legal framework applies. We must explore this further in Committee, including understanding what has happened to the liberty protection safeguards that were introduced under the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act but have not yet been implemented.
I am also aware of concern within the sector that there has not been adequate or meaningful engagement with people with learning disabilities or autism, or sufficient time for them to be properly involved in decisions that directly affect their lives. How do the Government intend to remedy this? Do they have a plan of stakeholder engagement, particularly with groups led by people with learning disabilities and autism?
One area which particularly concerns me and about which we have heard a lot today is the position of children and young people who are too often receiving poor-quality care in unsuitable conditions. There are many things we can do in Committee to strengthen the position for children. I was profoundly moved by the family experience that the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, recounted. I thank her for that.
There is much else that I would like to say about implementation, but I have probably run out of time. I welcome the collaborative style adopted by the Minister towards improving the Bill. I look forward to working with other noble Lords on this vital and long-overdue piece of legislation.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. Having read the various reports sent by many organisations, including the excellent briefing from the House of Lords Library, I felt pretty well briefed but, having listened to today’s contributions —including the moving contributions from my noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter, Lady Keeley and Lady Ramsey—I realised that there is so much more for us to learn.
These Benches welcome the Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady May, who, as Prime Minister, commissioned the Wessely review to consider a number of issues: why, as we heard from many noble Lords, were detention rates increasing and, in particular, what could be done to reduce inappropriate detention? I understand very well the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about when detention may be appropriate or inappropriate. The review also considered how to improve the way that different agencies respond to people in crisis to ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect. It looked at the disproportionate number of people from certain ethnic backgrounds, specifically Afro-Caribbean men, being detained under the Act and what should be done about it.
I am also grateful to noble Lords who served as members of the pre-legislative Joint Committee on the 2022 draft mental health Bill, which was based on the recommendations of Sir Simon Wessely’s review. Some of them have spoken in this debate: in particular, my noble friend Lady Buscombe, who chaired the Joint Committee; my noble friend Lady Berridge; the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who has a long history in this area from personal and professional experience; the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who has many times said, “I told you so”; and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, who was a champion for mental health during the passage of the Health and Care Bill. Quite often I was urged to resist some of his amendments but, with hindsight, I am glad that he prevailed to ensure that we continue to discuss the parity between mental and physical health. As many noble Lords have said, the challenge is how we turn those words into action throughout the system. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, who sat on the Wessely review and who, when we looked at and discussed this when I was the Minister, gave me quite a bit of time—partly, I think, because she chairs the trust of the hospital where I was born.
They all had very incisive insights so, in approaching this debate with my noble friend Lord Howe, we considered the report from the Joint Committee and this generated many of our questions. We wish to probe the Government on the recommendations from the report, especially those with which the Bill seems to disagree. We will not, at this stage, tell the Government where we agree or disagree; it is more to understand the Government’s reasoning for not including specific recommendations from the Joint Committee.
We also ask the question: if and when the Bill is passed, what next? How and when will the Government implement the main changes in the Bill, as was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven? Last week during Oral Questions, one of the ministerial colleagues of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, made what sounded like a government commitment. But when questioned by one of my noble friends, that Minister admitted that it was not a commitment but an aspiration.
Similarly, the briefing notes accompanying this year’s King’s Speech stated that the Bill would take
“a number of years to implement”
and that the Government would introduce these reforms
“in phases as resources allow”.
At this stage, therefore, we would like to understand which changes the Government plan to introduce immediately and which reforms they are aspiring to, rather than actively planning. This is to make sure that we avoid some of the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, alluded to in his contribution.
I move now to the main areas that have been raised in today’s debate on which we would like to learn more about the Government’s intentions. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, reminded the House that autism is not a mental health condition. My noble friend Lady Browning highlighted the lack of understanding of people with autism. The Joint Committee recognised the risk that people with autism or a learning disability could be given additional and unnecessary medical mental health diagnoses in an attempt to justify detention, when they can no longer be detained under Part II of the Mental Health Act. What firm plans do the Government have, in this Bill or otherwise, to try to manage and mitigate this risk?
The Joint Committee recommended a full statutory review of the use of community treatment orders within three years but, as my noble friend Lord Howe pointed out, there is no commitment to such a review in the Bill. Can the Minister explain the Government’s reasoning for not committing to a review within three years?
On children, both the independent review and the Joint Committee made recommendations—some of which are not in the Bill—about the treatment of children, such as the inappropriate placement of under-18s into adult wards or into facilities that may be miles away from their home. Can the Minister clarify the Government’s position on these two specific issues?
On advanced care documents, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has championed for many years, the Joint Committee recommended that these be made a statutory right for all patients detained under the Mental Health Act. As my noble friend Lady Buscombe has said, this could be done in the form of an app if we make sure to push through the digitalisation of the NHS and the whole care system. The Bill as it stands does not follow up on this recommendation, preferring to place a duty—one noble Lord alluded to it being “vague”—on NHS England and ICBs to inform patients about advance care documents. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, have raised this issue, so I think the House would find it helpful if the Minister could explain the Government’s reasoning behind not introducing these documents as a statutory right in the Bill.
We welcome the Bill removing police stations and prisons as places of safety for patients not in the criminal justice system. However, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, one unintended consequence raised by several bodies was that this could lead to a rise in the number of people admitted to A&E departments, sometimes escorted by police and having to wait in crowded spaces with a lack of specialised facilities until they can be assessed by clinicians. When do the Government envisage that NHS trusts will be able to deal with the potential increase in the number of mental health patients admitted to hospitals as places of safety?
The president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who contributed to the independent review, raised concerns about the proposed changes to the treatment of those with learning disabilities or autism, as there may be times when community services cannot manage the level of risk that such patients present, and when it might take some time to decide whether this is related to co-occurring mental illness. In such cases, patients may be brought into A&E, but what happens if their behaviour is perceived as affecting the safety of others in the A&E department? This could lead to the police being called, and suddenly they are in the criminal justice system. I wonder how the Minister sees the Bill dealing with such a situation.
I now turn to the issue of early intervention, which the British Association of Social Workers raised during pre-legislative scrutiny and which the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, raised today. The BASW stressed the importance of early intervention to prevent the admission of mental health patients into hospitals in the first place, which they described as being at
“the interface of mental health and mental capacity legislation”.
A number of noble Lords have talked about whether we could have gone back to first principles and started with fusion legislation. We note that Sir Simon Wessely suggested that this was not practical or would take too much time; I do not wish to misquote him. My noble friend Lady Berridge also mentioned the interface with the Children Act. This all asks how we can do this in a holistic way, but by taking a step back are we just waiting even longer for something to be done to fix the problems with the existing legislation? We have obviously decided on this route but I ask the Minister what thought is being given to future fusion legislation or rethinking the interface between the various Acts affected here?
The pre-legislative scrutiny committee also recommended
“the creation of a Mental Health Commissioner … to oversee the direction of travel … and implementation, monitoring outcomes and supporting cultural change … be an advocate for patients, their families and carers and speak up about the stigma still attached to severe mental illness”.
Yet the Government have decided not to accept this recommendation. I note that a number of noble Lords across the House have spoken on this missing part of the legislation. Can the Minister explain why the creation of a mental health commissioner has not found its way into the Bill?
One of the main reasons for commissioning the independent review was to examine why so many people of Afro-Caribbean heritage are detained under the Mental Health Act. Indeed, Sir Simon Wessely wrote in his report that one of his earliest academic papers, in 1989, was on the subject of the overrepresentation of those of black, African and Caribbean heritage among those diagnosed with schizophrenia. Are the Government, the NHS and the department any closer to understanding the key factors behind this overrepresentation? What do they believe can be done to reduce this disparity, or does it need further research?
The Minister might find this odd coming from me, given that when I was Minister I quite often tried to shield the Government from this—now that the roles are reversed, there might be a certain irony—but I will ask about a workforce plan. In all honesty, when we were in government we were pressured by the Treasury not to accept this, and it quite often pushed back when we tried to make the case for this, so I understand that it is a real challenge for the Government. We completely understand, and it would be unfair of me now to take advantage of the fact that I am in opposition. Our Government belatedly published a workforce plan. What is the thinking on publishing a workforce plan, given that many noble Lords across the House have asked about this, particularly once the Bill becomes an Act? How long would it take to actually implement this? We need to understand more about the resources—otherwise, it could make things worse.
I realise that I and other noble Lords have asked many questions, and I certainly do not envy the Minister. We look forward to her responses, either now or in writing, and we welcome her engagement with noble Lords across the House.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I put on record my gratitude to all Members of your Lordships’ House for contributing to what was widely agreed, I am sure, to have been an excellent debate—excellent not just because of the level of engagement but because of the detail. I really feel that spirit of wanting to improve the legislation and the support for the Bill thus far. I will endeavour to respond to as many themes as possible; I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for his sympathy, which I accept, but I regard that as a good thing. I regard it as admirable that I will not be able to answer all the questions, because that is the purpose of being here. It sets us up for Committee. It is obviously going to be a very rich Committee, and I very much look forward to it.
I hope noble Lords will understand that I look forward to following up on the many points that I will not get a chance to address in the time I have and doing a proper review of the debate today, picking up points as needed. I pay tribute to the dedication and the detailed attention to the Bill that noble Lords have already given. I am very glad to see my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gazing on. The reason I say that now is that the Secretary of State knows only too well—and not just from me—the contribution that your Lordships’ House makes and will continue to make. I for one certainly appreciate it, as I know he does.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her bravery in sharing her and her family’s experience and anguish of eating disorder. I say the same to my noble friend who shared her experience about her sibling. It is not always easy to do that, but it really brings a lived experience of those around the person we are often thinking about, and it is so important that we do that. This debate has confirmed to me what I knew already—but it is always worth doing it again. It is the product of persistence and of a number of investigations and recommendations. It is also inspired and underwritten by the tireless campaigning that many have undertaken to improve the rights and experiences of people with mental health conditions and learning disabilities and autistic people.
It also reflects the input of those with lived experience, which was first raised as necessary in the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady May. It is about striking the right balance between getting the details of a framework of legislation right, along with the urgent need for reform, and the point that noble Lords have raised about how that is going to be done.
Attitudes and knowledge, as many noble Lords have acknowledged, have changed radically. Mental health is increasingly out of the shadows, and through the Bill we can make sure that legislation does a much better job of keeping up with a shift in societal attitudes and expectations and the development of treatment.
Regarding the role of your Lordships’ House, like the noble Baronesses, Lady May and Lady Barker, I recognise the relevance of this House. I too welcome that the Bill has started its passage through Parliament here because I believe your Lordships’ House will do the job that it is here to do, which is to improve legislation, and this debate today has certainly confirmed that.
In looking at what we are trying to achieve, I am reminded of the words of Professor Sir Simon Wessely in his foreword to the independent review’s final report, where he said that
“we want the Mental Health Act to work better for patients, the public and professionals. We hope that the result will be to reduce the use of coercion across the system, whilst giving service users more choice, more control and better care, even in the event that detention is still required. And we particularly hope that the end result will be to reduce the inequalities and discrimination that still remain”.
Almost six years after the former Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady May, commissioned that independent review, the draft legislation before us speaks to those aspirations as well as delivering our manifesto commitment to modernise the 1983 Act.
On the reduction of detentions, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and other noble Lords that reducing detentions cannot be achieved by legislation alone. It will depend on having the right services in the community.
New models of care in the NHS are already giving over 400,000 adults greater choice and control over their care. We are also trialling new models of care through six early implementers, bringing together community crisis and in-patient functions into one neighbourhood team that will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to increase access and improve continuity of care in the community. I know from the debate today that many noble Lords are looking for that sort of development and good practice.
As we know, the Bill makes a number of improvements in respect of patient experiences and care, and of the increase of choice and autonomy. It seeks to tackle racial discrimination and provide safety for public, staff and patients, and to provide better support for those with autism and learning disabilities.
I turn to some of the main themes that have been raised. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, that we continue to be committed to engaging with those with lived experience. Part of the point of the Bill is that, where those with lived experience have not had their voices heard, I believe our continued engagement will allow that.
On racial inequalities, many have spoken passionately about this matter, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. The racial disparities associated with the operation of the current Act were one of the many drivers of reform, and rightly so. The changes in this Bill will give patients greater say in their treatment and encourage more collaboration and less coercion in care and treatment planning, which are all crucial to reducing inequalities. This will include increasing oversight and scrutiny of community treatment orders, where racial inequalities are at their most acute. It will also be about encouraging the uptake of advance choice documents, where those with lived experience, as I said in my opening remarks, have been very generous in their reference to their use in reducing inequalities. Legislating so that people can choose their own nominated person will also protect rights.
Inequalities in outcomes are not just a result of how the Act has been applied but also due to wider social and economic factors. We will therefore be working across government to ensure that the Bill’s provisions are effectively implemented, aiming to reduce those racial disparities in decision-making under the Act, starting with using the code of practice to make clear which actions can be taken in the application of the Act. We are also taking forward non-legislative reforms recommended by the independent review, including the Patient and Carer Race Equality Framework and also piloting culturally appropriate advocacy models to support those from minority ethnic backgrounds to understand their rights under the Mental Health Act and to give voice to their individual needs.
On the mental health commissioner, I have heard many comments, including those expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Murphy, Lady Barker, Lady Buscombe and Lady Berridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and others. That is quite a group to address, but I will have a go. It is true that we have not taken forward the pre-legislative scrutiny committee’s recommendation to establish a statutory mental health commissioner. We recognise that improvements need to be made to the quality of care and the patient safety landscape. However, the concerns are that the proposed mental health commissioner’s function would be potentially largely duplicative of existing bodies and functions, and nobody wants to risk diluting accountability or causing confusion. As noble Lords will know, Dr Penny Dash has been asked by the Secretary of State to assess if the current range and combination of organisations within the healthcare regulation landscape is effective and to make recommendations of what might be needed, and I think it is important that we await her recommendations.
Learning disability and autism were raised by a number of noble Lords, in particular by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins, Lady Buscombe and Lady Browning, my noble friends Lady Keeley, Lady Ramsey and Lord Touhig, and the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Adebowale. This is a very important point and I recognise that we want to improve care and support for the over 2,000 people who are currently detained, as well as anybody who may need support in the future. We know from the NHS’s safe and wellbeing reviews that four in 10 people who are detained in this group have needs which could have been met in the community with appropriate support. That is why we are going to be focusing on developing community services and improving the quality of care, which will happen alongside the Bill’s reforms.
Through the Bill, we will be taking forward a package of measures for those with a learning disability and autistic people, so there will be a significant programme of work, alongside investment. I will be pleased to engage with expert stakeholders and those with lived experience, including parliamentarians, and to update your Lordships’ House as we progress.
With regard to the recommendations of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, there is no doubt in my mind that the Bill has benefited greatly from undergoing scrutiny in 2022. It is a better Bill for that and we have tried to incorporate more of the Joint Committee’s recommendations within it. Many of those recommendations relate to the statutory code of practice and we will consider how we take these forward following Royal Assent.
On the important point of implementation, raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Adebowale and Lord Bradley, the truth is that we estimate that the full implementation of these reforms will take around 10 years. The speed at which we can implement will be limited by the time that we need to expand and train the workforce. This goes to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and I am grateful for his honesty in the way that he described previous work on the workforce. I thank him and his ministerial colleagues—predecessors of mine—who have worked on this.
The reality is that while some reforms can commence much sooner than others, we will need to commence powers under the new Bill in phases. Implementation will depend on what happens during the passage of the Bill and the reality of future funding settlements—to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens—as well as other developments, such as the 10-year plan, but I can briefly give an indicative timeline.
A small number of reforms relating to the criminal justice elements of the Bill will commence within two months of Royal Assent. In the first year after Royal Assent, there will be a focus on updating the code of practice and creating the necessary secondary legislation to enable implementation. We will need a further year to train existing staff on the reforms and ensure that processes are in place. We would therefore hope to commence the first phase of significant reform in 2027, and to commence further reforms as and when there is sufficient resource in place to do so. In the spirit of honesty, the truth is that for what I would call the most burdensome reforms—for example, the increased frequency of mental health tribunals—those would not be likely to commence before 2031-32.
Alongside the passage of the Bill itself, we are looking closely at implementation in relation to learning disability and autism. Again, the exact timing of implementation of the reforms will depend on future funding. I know that noble Lords will understand that I am limited in what I can say on that, but we have already demonstrated our direction of travel by: treating and resourcing mental health seriously, including having a mental health professional in every school; introducing open-access Youth Futures hubs; recruiting 8,500 mental health workers; and having £26 million in capital investment. Indeed, there is the priority that many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, have acknowledged of bringing this Bill forward as a matter of urgency.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised the disparity of treatment between children and adults. It is true that there are a small number of reforms which do not apply to children and young people, as was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins. It is the case that there is a difference; nevertheless, we are committed to improving children and young people’s autonomy over their care and treatment. We still believe that these reforms will go some way to achieving this. Like adults, under-18s should be supported to share their wishes and feelings by the clinician when it comes to care and treatment decisions.
On the issue of prison transfers, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, and the noble Lords, Lord Scriven, Lord Bradley and Lord Adebowale, we recognise that operational improvements are needed to ensure the safe and effective implementation of the statutory 28-day limit. NHS England is indeed taking steps to address some of the barriers to timely transfer of patients. The wording in the Bill, which refers to the need to “seek to ensure” a transfer within 28 days, should be sufficiently robust to provide accountability for a breach of that time limit, while recognising that there are multiple agencies involved.
As we know, while this legislation—
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I hate to interrupt, given the lateness of the day and the lateness of the hour, but the point that a number of noble Lords were making in relation to children is that this Bill potentially does not sit with the principles under the Children Act. If the Government intend impliedly to repeal parts of the Children Act, then it would be good to have that clarification from the Dispatch Box.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I look forward to coming to that point in Committee. The marrying up of legislation will be important, as is making progress on the Bill. That applies to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and others about fusion. We do not want to hold up this Bill while we make progress, but we will be mindful of the interface with other legislation.
In this Bill we are starting with the most overdue reforms to make the law fit for the 21st century. I very much look forward to working through the Bill in much greater detail in Committee. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have not just spoken this evening but worked to get us to this point.
Baroness Merron
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee that they consider the Bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 23, Schedule 2, Clauses 24 to 38, Schedule 3, Clause 39 to 54, Title.