House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
The delivery of mental health services for children in Scotland is the responsibility of the Scottish Government. I hope that they will make the best use of the boost from the recent Budget to invest in mental health services. In England, we will support children and young people earlier by providing access to a specialist mental health professional in every school and rolling out Young Futures hubs in every community. We will also cut waiting times by recruiting 8,500 more workers across children and adult mental health services.
Graeme Downie
The long-term impact of the covid-19 pandemic on young people is often forgotten, with isolation leading to missed opportunities, lost life experiences and still unknown impacts on mental health. Child and adolescent mental health services referrals in Fife and across Scotland have skyrocketed, and despite a record Budget settlement from the UK Government, the SNP Scottish Government have told NHS Fife not even to bother asking for more funding to tackle this massive problem. I and colleagues will write to the Scottish Government about that. Will the Minister join me in urging the Scottish Government to reverse course and ensure that young people have the support that they deserve and need?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on behalf of young people. It is disappointing that the Scottish Government do not seem to be allocating the funding as they could. He raises a powerful case, and I know that he will work hard with the Government in Edinburgh to make the situation better for his constituents.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Is the mental health support in schools that the Minister just mentioned the same as or different from the plan for mental health support teams in schools that was already being rolled out by the previous Government?
Karin Smyth
Our plan is to have universal coverage in every school. That was not achieved by the previous Government, and we hope to ensure that it happens.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
This Government will never shy away from taking the choices necessary to fix the public finances and rebuild our public services. It is thanks to those choices that we are able to invest an additional £3.7 billion in 2025-26 in local authorities that provide social care. We are also delivering the biggest uplift to the carer’s allowance since the 1970s, an £86 million uplift to the disabled facilities grant, and a fair pay agreement for care workers.
Charlie Dewhirst
The increase in employer national insurance contributions comes at a time when we simply cannot afford to lose any more provision from care providers. Age UK estimates that 2 million people aged 65 and over already have unmet care and support needs. What assessment has the Minister made of the potential increase in unmet care needs as a result of the increase to employer national insurance contributions?
Stephen Kinnock
There is a pattern here. The Conservatives welcome the additional investment in health and care but oppose the choices that we have made to raise the revenue. They need to tell us which services they would cut or which taxes they would raise instead.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Coverage Care, a not-for-profit adult social care provider in North Shropshire that operates 11 care homes and employs around 1,000 local staff, has been in touch to say that it expects the impact of the increase in national insurance contributions to be £840,000 in the first full year of implementation. Given that there are huge numbers of vacancies across adult social care in North Shropshire, will the Secretary of State consider exempting social care providers from the national insurance increase? Otherwise we are putting money into social care with one hand and taking it away with the other.
Stephen Kinnock
I refer the hon. Lady to my previous answer on the very substantial funding that we are providing to local authorities, which of course are key to the adult social care system. However, funding must always be married with reform. We have brought forward a packed programme of reform—from data sharing and empowering care workers to take on basic healthcare to promoting better use of care technologies—and in the spirit of cross-party collaboration that we believe is absolutely vital and urgent in this area, I gently encourage her to see those reforms as the first step towards rebuilding our care service and making it fit for the future.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Today there are 1,399 fewer full-time equivalent GPs than in 2015, and NHS dentistry is at death’s door. This Government will fix the front door to the NHS. We have announced an additional £889 million in funding for general practice in 2025-26—the biggest boost in years—and we have already started hiring an extra 1,000 GPs on the frontline. Our 10-year health plan will shift the focus of healthcare out of hospital and into the community.
Nesil Caliskan
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer on the critical issue of access to GPs in primary healthcare. My constituency of Barking is woefully under-served by primary healthcare, and especially by GPs. On average, each GP looks after 2,000 patients; the national average is 1,600. In particular, the area of Barking Riverside has no GP services. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss this matter, so that the thousands of homes that are being built will also have a primary healthcare facility on site?
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind Members to look towards the Chair, because I cannot hear what is being said. I call the Secretary of State—I hope he heard the question.
Wes Streeting
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would be delighted for my hon. Friend to meet me or the relevant Minister. The NHS has a statutory duty to ensure sufficient services in each local area, including general practice, and it is vital that we also take into account population growth and demographic changes. I strongly support the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to delivering 1.5 million new homes, and she and I know that that must be accompanied by local healthcare facilities. We are working together to achieve just that.
Alistair Strathern
I really welcome this Government’s focus on making sure everyone can see a GP when they need one. The crisis in GP provision nationally has been exacerbated by the failure under the last Government to ensure that primary care investment has kept pace with housing growth. With such a low share of integrated care board capital funding allocated to primary care by the last Government, how can we make sure we do much better in ensuring that GP capacity expands at the same time as local growth?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend has been raising these issues with me since before he was elected to this place on behalf of the communities he represents. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), we must make sure that additional housing—which is desperately needed—is accompanied by health and care services. The Deputy Prime Minister and I are working together to achieve just that, and thanks to the decisions taken by the Chancellor in the Budget, we are able to invest in the health and care services that this country needs and deserves.
Calum Miller
Woodstock surgery in my constituency is not fit for purpose. In September, heavy rain fell and caused the roof to collapse, causing the surgery to close. The nurse literally sees patients in a broom cupboard. The GPs want to increase their capacity to see more patients, but have been unable to access sufficient capital from the integrated care board. Will the Secretary of State meet me and the Woodstock GPs to discuss how the reforms announced yesterday will help them build a new surgery, so that they can see patients faster?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that question. I am incredibly sorry about the awful conditions in which staff in that practice are having to see patients and in which the patients it serves are having to be seen—that is the epitome of the broken general practice system that we inherited. Thanks to the decisions taken by the Chancellor in the Budget, we are able to invest in the capital estate need in the NHS. That will take time, and we would be delighted to hear more about that individual case to see how the ICB and the NHS can assist.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Following the theme raised by my hon. Friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), may I make a plea for Summertown health centre? They are my doctors, by the way, so I declare an interest. They operate in an old Victorian building and are desperate to move to new premises. That health centre was at the top of the priority list, but the ICB says that there is no money, and the doctors say that there is no pot that they can bid into in order to get this seen to. Will the Secretary of State meet me as well? Clearly, £102 million spread across 50 projects in the country is not going to be sufficient. Can we get creative about how we can get new premises built for Summertown health centre?
Wes Streeting
Of course I will meet the hon. Lady. It would be daft of me to say no to the Chair of the Select Committee; otherwise, she will see me in less pleasant circumstances. In all seriousness, we are looking creatively at this issue. There are enormous capital pressures right across the NHS estate. We are regularly lobbied on new hospitals, for example, but we are also lobbied on general practice, the mental health estate and the rest. We will do as much as we can as fast as we can, thinking creatively about how we can get more capital investment in, and I would be happy to discuss that further with the hon. Lady.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
When I am out regularly knocking on doors and listening to people across the constituency, one of the issues residents raise with me most frequently is the challenge in even being able to book a GP’s appointment. Could the Secretary of State please set out what his plans are for ending that 8 am phone scramble, including for those who do not use apps and websites as confidently?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As the Prime Minister set out in our elective reform plan yesterday, we are determined to make sure that accessing NHS services, including general practice, dentistry and other primary care services, is as easy and convenient as accessing any other services at the touch of a button via our smartphones. We have committed to that in the elective reform plan, which will bring benefits right across the NHS as we modernise. Of course, she is right to mention those who may not be digitally connected or may not want to access services in that way. That is why I believe very strongly in patient choice—different courses for different horses. People like me booking via the app will free up telephone lines for those who prefer to access services that way.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Is the Secretary of State aware that the increase to employer national insurance is actually reducing patient access to primary care? I met GP representatives in Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen recently, and they told me of two ways in which that is happening: first, they are having to let staff go; and secondly, some GPs are considering meeting these costs from their own pockets. Will he consider an exemption for GP practices from these charges?
Wes Streeting
That was a rare admission of failure in this House by the SNP. I am very sorry to hear that general practice in Scotland is in such a sorry state, because here in England we are investing £889 million in general practice, the biggest uplift in years. That is in addition to the funding I have found to employ 1,000 more GPs on the frontline before April, because we are prioritising general practice. As for the decisions the Chancellor took in the Budget, as I said before the election, all roads lead to Westminster. Thanks to the decision a Labour Chancellor has made here in Westminster, coming down that road from Westminster to Holyrood are the resources the SNP Government need to deliver the priorities of the Scottish people. If they cannot, Anas Sarwar and Jackie Baillie stand ready to deliver.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
To improve access, the Government have announced a planned expansion of advice and guidance, and GPs will be paid £20 per advice and guidance request they make for further expert advice from consultants. How do the Government expect this expansion to take place? Will they be mandating it given that the current position of the British Medical Association, under its collective action, is that GPs should
“Stop engaging with the e-Referral Advice & Guidance pathway”?
Wes Streeting
I think the shadow Minister will find that GPs welcome the £889 million uplift announced just before Christmas. That is the biggest boost to general practice in years. It is part of this Government’s agenda to fix the front door to the NHS and recognise the dire state that GPs were left under. Of course, with that investment comes reform. I think GPs would be delighted to manage more of their patients in the community if given the tools to do the job, and that is something this Government are committed to doing.
Dr Evans
Going back to advice and guidance, GPs use advice and guidance when they have come to the summit of their knowledge and need specialist input. For example, as a GP, I may see a rheumatology patient and ask for advice from a rheumatologist, who may advise specialist blood tests. The problem is that, as the inquiry clinician, I am legally responsible for those blood tests and have to pay for them out of the primary care budget. Do the Government propose that the £20 will cover subsequent follow-ups and the cost of suggested tests? Given the expansion of advice and guidance, will the Government be looking at a legal framework change in accountability for clinicians making requests?
Wes Streeting
First, as the shadow Minister has said, advice and guidance happens in general practice, and we want to see more of it. We have to give GPs the tools to do the job, and that is what we are doing. My hon. Friend the Minister for Care will be talking to the BMA shortly in the context of contract negotiations in the usual way. What the shadow Minister neglects to mention is that these reforms and improvements to general practice are made possible thanks to the £889 million we are putting in, which is investment that he and his party oppose.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Dentistry is a key part of primary care, yet an estimated 5 million people in England have been left without an NHS dentist. That is why today a petition is being handed in at Downing Street signed by more than a quarter of a million people. We have moved on from the election, but we do not yet have a timetable for when the negotiations for a new NHS dental contract will begin and when another 700,000 extra urgent appointments will be rolled out. Can the Secretary of State confirm the timetable for those improvements? What specifically are the Government’s plans for the new patient premium, and will he offer assurances to dentists that any changes to the current model will be outlined in detail to them as soon as possible?
Wes Streeting
We are looking at two things, the first of which is making sure we deliver what we said in our manifesto, including the 700,000 urgent appointments. We are determined to deliver those as fast as we can and my hon. Friend the Minister for Care is having discussions with the British Dental Association to that effect. He is also looking closely, as am I, at the money that is already going into NHS dentistry—how that money could be better spent and how it is that year after year, despite people’s teeth rotting to the extent that they are having to pull them out themselves or children having to attend A&E to have their teeth pulled out, we saw consistent underspends in the dentistry budget under our predecessors. We are determined to give dentists the tools to do the job so that patients can see a dentist when they need one.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his campaigning on this important issue—and indeed for speaking so honestly about his own experiences during his time in this House. An additional £267 million has been invested this year to improve the quality and capacity of drug and alcohol treatment and recovery. We are committed to correcting the years of disinvestment in treatment and recovery services and ensuring that people can access the support they need.
Dan Carden
The Minister has done it for me, but I alert colleagues to my interests in this area.
Last month, the Advertising Standards Authority ruled against seven companies posing as treatment providers or impartial advice services or for failing to make clear their role in earning commission when they were in fact brokers—and I can tell the Minister that many more such companies escaped that ruling. They are able to mislead families while taking cuts of up to 40% of fees being paid directly to treatment providers. Frankly, they have been able to run the sector like a racket. Can we make sure that this ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority is the start of something new, where we can seek to regulate practices properly, and will the Minister meet me and interested parties?
Andrew Gwynne
Attempting to exploit people with addictions is reprehensible. Free drug and alcohol treatment is available in every part of the country and I urge anyone who is struggling right now to visit the NHS addiction website. The Care Quality Commission has said that it could take legal action against companies misusing its logo, and Google has said it would remove search listings from these companies. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to see what more we can do to stop this outrageous activity.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Social prescribing is one of the primary care services provided for drug and alcohol addiction, and it also supports the Government’s aim of moving from cure to prevention, which is why I was shocked to hear that a primary care network in my constituency is reviewing its social prescribing offering across the Chichester district and proposing to remove it entirely. Does the Minister agree that social prescribing is a key pillar of our primary care services, and does the money used need to be ringfenced to protect that service across the country?
Andrew Gwynne
Social prescribing is one of the tools, and it is an important one in addressing public health concerns in each of our constituencies. This Government are committed to ensuring that we get those shifts from sickness to prevention. We will be ensuring that local areas have public health funding in reasonable time. We are about to announce, in due course, this year’s allocations. We need to make sure that local systems maximise the use of their money, and that certainly includes social prescribing.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2022, there were more than 10,000 deaths from alcohol use. We know that more than 600,000 people have an alcohol dependency. We need to focus not just on treatment services and their funding, but on prevention. The last Government failed to bring forward a timely alcohol strategy. Will the Minister update the House on what he is doing to ensure that we are tackling this massive situation in our communities?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend raises an important point. As part of the Government’s health mission, we are producing a five-point plan for prevention, and alcohol harms is one of those areas. I hope to be able to update her and the House in due course on the actions we will be taking to drive down the prevalence of alcohol harms and other addictions, because they are costing lives and causing misery in communities. That is why this Government are determined to tackle these public health problems.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. While there are community addiction services for those over the age of 18, worryingly, across this great United Kingdom, those under the age of 18 are succumbing to alcohol addiction, too. There does not seem to be any provision for them. May I ask the Minister genuinely and helpfully what provision there will be for those under the age of 18, because addiction problems are rising among the younger generation?
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This Government are committed to having the healthiest generation of children ever. That means we will have a concerted effort on a whole range of health issues that determine the health and wellbeing of young people, which will hopefully ensure that they become healthy adults as a consequence. Alcohol harms are certainly one of the considerations we will be looking at.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
This Government are delivering on our commitment to cut NHS waiting lists and end the Tory backlog. We have taken immediate action with an additional £1.8 billion to support elective activity this year. That funding will support the delivery of our first step of 40,000 extra elective appointments a week. With investment must come reform, and the elective reform plan, published yesterday and announced by the Prime Minister, sets out how we will cut NHS waits to the 18-week standard, increase productivity, reform the system and improve patients’ choice and control over their healthcare.
Elaine Stewart
Almost one in six Scots is stuck on an NHS waiting list. People are borrowing money and remortgaging their homes to go private, because they cannot bear the pain. With an SNP Government who have abandoned the principles of an NHS free at the point of entry, does my right hon. Friend agree that Scotland’s health service needs a new direction?
Wes Streeting
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. As I said during the general election campaign—it was quoted regularly by the SNP—all roads lead to Westminster. Down that road from Westminster is a record increase in funding for the Scottish Government through the Barnett formula. I know the Scottish Government published their own NHS recovery plan just before Christmas, and I look forward to reading it, although I know some have expressed concerns about the lack of detail in the plans to drive down waiting times. The Scottish people can therefore compare and contrast with the ambition of our elective reform plan, which was announced by the Prime Minister yesterday, and then decide at the next Scottish elections who they trust to govern: the SNP with its rotten record, or a Labour Government who will get on and deliver.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows that I wrote to him before Christmas about the planned ward closures and degradation of services at Goole and district general hospital. Doing so will take beds, facilities and employees away from the national health service, which will do nothing but undermine his real attempts to reduce waiting lists and all the plans he announced yesterday. Will he look at the trust-level decision systems that lead to such catastrophic decisions that will undermine every aspect of NHS strategy and all that he is trying to do?
Wes Streeting
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for writing to me before Christmas. I recognise the pressures that have been placed on NHS commissioners in recent years and the pressure that that has put on service configurations. I tend to support the devolution of decision making, with decisions about service reconfigurations taken closer to the communities they serve. I recognise also that commissioners do not always get it right, which is why engagement with Members of Parliament and other democratically elected representatives is important. Ministerial oversight is important, too. We will look seriously at the issues he raises and talk to NHS leaders, and I know he will be doing the same. This Government are determined to give NHS leaders the tools to do the job, so that we can get the right care in the right place at the right time, with a better experience for patients and better value for taxpayers.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am sure my right hon. Friend will share my delight at the fact that in our growing community of Thanet, the NHS is looking to open the Thanet integrated hub in one of the most deprived parts of Kent. However, Tory-run Kent county council has put in spurious objections to the development. Does he share my concern that such unnecessary objections block access to healthcare and make it harder for the Government and the NHS to cut waiting lists?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work she is doing to improve health and care services for her constituents. The Government are giving health and care providers the tools to do the job. Of course, change will take time, and it is therefore crucial that we all pull together locally and nationally. For the avoidance of doubt, the Government are on the side of the builders, not the blockers.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The NHS Confederation has said that for the Government to be able to drive down waiting lists,
“the pause to the delivery of the new hospitals programme must be as short as possible and NHS leaders need clarity about timelines.”
With that in mind, will the Secretary of State tell leaders at Eastbourne district general hospital, as well as our community in Eastbourne, precisely when the new hospital programme review will be completed so that we can get cracking with our upgrades?
Wes Streeting
I thank the hon. Member for that question. I agree with him about the need for clarity as well as consistency. We undertook the review into the new hospital programme because the previous Government’s timetable was a work of fiction and the money was not there. I hope to report to him and to the House shortly on that, with the undertaking that the timetable we publish and the funding provided by the Chancellor in the Budget and at the spending review will mean that we will provide not just clarity but consistency, which is important for NHS leaders, important for patients and important for the construction industry partners we need to work with.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I am sorry—that is the last time I will get called. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Yesterday, in relation to the elective backlog, the Secretary of State said:
“Where we can treat working people faster, we will, and we make no apology for doing so.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 597.]
Labour politicians have struggled to define what they mean by working people, but his words have caused anxiety. Will he reassure those with disabilities that prevent them from working and retired elderly people who have worked all their lives that they will not be pushed to the back of the queue and that treatment will continue to be provided in the NHS on the basis of clinical need?
Wes Streeting
Of course, clinical need is paramount and must always drive decision making about who to treat when and the order in which people are treated. That is why I find the question posed so deeply disingenuous. [Interruption.] We inherited NHS waiting lists at record levels and waiting times that are frankly shameful. The shadow Minister should be apologising for her party’s record, and she should also apologise for the two-tier healthcare system that sees those who can afford it paying to go private and those who cannot afford it—working-class people—being left behind. That is the two-tier system that the Government are determined to end.
Dr Johnson
The Secretary of State needs to be careful with the words he uses, as you said, Mr Speaker, because his words did cause anxiety among people. It was not a disingenuous question; it was a genuine question to make sure that people are reassured.
It will not have escaped the Secretary of State’s notice that it is cold outside. Removal of the winter fuel allowance has reduced elderly people’s ability to follow the advice that he gave last week, which was to turn the heating on. What assessment has he made of the number of additional admissions caused by his removal of the winter fuel allowance? What effect is that having on the Government’s ability to deliver their reduction in elective backlogs?
Wes Streeting
What the shadow Minister neglects to mention is that the Chancellor has protected the winter fuel allowance for the poorest pensioners, and she has also put in place the warm home discount to assist people with their energy bills throughout the winter. If the shadow Minister does not support the decisions that the Chancellor took at the Budget and ahead of the Budget to raise vital investment for our health and care services, that is fair enough, but then she needs to tell people which NHS services she would cut or which other taxes she would increase.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
In response to the report by Dr Penny Dash, we have made it clear that the CQC is not fit for purpose and requires significant reform. We have increased our oversight of the CQC to ensure implementation of the recommendations in Dr Dash’s review, and we will continue to monitor the CQC’s progress through this period of improvement. We are also supporting the swift and efficient recruitment of CQC leadership roles, including the new chief executive Julian Hartley, who started in December.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
It is inarguable that the CQC needs improvement. Many who run care services in local authorities have little confidence in its performance. Does my hon. Friend agree that we could go some way to improving how it is viewed by looking at the use of single-word assessments, which create undue stress for social services leads? They were raised by the Dash review as insufficient to support local authorities to improve, promoting box-ticking over real improvement and giving little information to members of the public on the quality of social services provision.
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is right that confidence is the key word in the huge agenda that the CQC has to deliver. Dr Dash and Professor Mike Richards highlighted serious failings that need to be re-addressed. As one of our predecessors said, priorities are our language. Currently, a review of one or two-word ratings is not a priority, but it will be kept under review.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Is the Minister indicating today that there will be a new start in the Care Quality Commission, and that things will change for both staff and the recipients of care?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, particularly with regard to staff, who need support to continue their important work. A new start with new leadership is what they need, as well as implementation of the recommendations.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
As Lord Darzi’s independent investigation found, around 1 million people are waiting to access mental health services in England. This Government will fix our broken mental health services by recruiting 8,500 more mental health workers, providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school and rolling out young futures hubs in every community.
Tom Gordon
In my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough we have heard harrowing stories from people who have tried to reach out and get access to mental health services before they reach crisis point. Often, people end up facing months-long if not years-long waiting lists. When all too often they reach a crisis point, they end up having to access services as far away as Newcastle or Manchester. What are the Government doing to make sure that we can root local community mental health facilities in communities such as Harrogate and Knaresborough?
Stephen Kinnock
In addition to the measures that I just set out, in the Budget the Chancellor made funding available to expand talking therapies to 380,000 extra patients. We have a £26 million capital investment scheme for mental health crisis centres and, as always with this Government, investment goes with reform. We are finally reforming the Mental Health Act—that was first talked about when Theresa May was in 10 Downing Street. This Government are rolling up their sleeves and getting on with the job.
Gideon Amos
Taunton and Wellington is a trailblazer in taking mental health from hospital to community and from sickness to prevention. The trust is the first in the country to merge mental health with the hospital trust. Will the Minister meet the trust and me to understand how successful that programme is, and to discuss the much needed maternity and paediatric unit at Musgrove Park hospital?
Stephen Kinnock
It sounds like there is some interesting, dynamic and innovative work going on in the areas that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I would be happy to meet him to discuss it further.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I have just been visited by my former medical student, a young doctor in Yorkshire working in an intensive therapy unit, who told me that 40 of the 50 patients who were admitted with covid died. Many healthcare workers are suffering from flashbacks and post-traumatic stress disorder. What measures will the Government take to look after the mental health of the healthcare workers who so bravely helped us during the covid pandemic?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which provides an opportunity for us all to reflect on the incredible work of those working in our health service; they are, in many ways, heroes, and we should absolutely acknowledge that fact. We need to explore the point he has raised—we could meet to discuss it further, or I would be happy to write to him.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
In England, more than 200,000 people were waiting for an autism assessment in September 2024. In my constituency, some adults have waited more than two years for an autism assessment, and one child has been waiting eight years—and is still waiting—to receive support from child and adolescent mental health services. These delays have a profound impact on people’s lives. Will the Minister commit to the mental health investment standard and ensure that as the Government reduce waiting times, they do so for both physical and mental health services for young people and adults?
Stephen Kinnock
We remain absolutely committed to the mental health investment standard. We have prioritised the expansion of NHS talking therapies and individual placement and support schemes, and provided £26 million of capital funding to open new mental health centres. However, we are not complacent on this issue. My hon. Friend spoke about autism assessments, which is a red light that is flashing on my dashboard. I would be happy to discuss that further with her.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Counsellors and psychotherapists form an integral part of the NHS mental health workforce, delivering support to people with mental ill health across a range of settings in services for both children and young people and adults. We will publish a refreshed NHS long-term workforce plan to ensure that the NHS has the right people in the right places with the right skills to deliver the care that patients need.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Is there a plan to maintain service provision where psychotherapists and counsellors operating in the charity sector have been hit by eye-watering cost increases as a consequence of the national insurance increase?
Stephen Kinnock
As I have said in answers to previous questions, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, there is something of a pattern emerging here: Opposition Members say that they welcome the investment the Government have made, but oppose the revenue-raising measures and refuse to set out whether they would increase taxes or cut services. I still have not heard an answer on that from those Members.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
This Government recognise the crisis in social care that we inherited, which is why over the past six months we have taken steps through the Budget to increase investment in social care, deliver the biggest expansion of the carer’s allowance since the 1970s and invest in the disabled facilities grant. Of course, as my hon. Friend alludes to, we cannot deliver great social care without the workers who deliver it. That is why I am proud that within our first 100 days, the care worker-turned-Deputy Prime Minister included fair pay agreements in her landmark Employment Rights Bill, so we can give our care staff not just the pay they deserve, but the professional status, recognising the hard work they do as care professionals. That is a crucial step on our path to building a national care service.
Martin Rhodes
Does the Secretary of State agree that the SNP’s National Care Service (Scotland) Bill was a missed opportunity to improve pay and conditions for social care workers, particularly when compared with Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, which creates the fair pay agreement for social care workers?
Wes Streeting
I agree with my hon. Friend. I am proud that this Government have taken quick action within our first 100 days. Thanks to the Employment Rights Bill, which is UK-wide legislation, this Labour Government in Westminster are giving the Scottish Government the tools they need to do the job of establishing fair pay for care staff. If they do not do it, Anas Sarwar and Jackie Baillie will.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
In north-east Lincolnshire, a social enterprise employs 800 staff providing health and social care. I have been approached by many staff who are unhappy that they have not benefited from the increases that NHS staff have gained. They have the support of the Royal College of Nursing and are looking for the Government to provide Care Plus Group, which employs them, with the resources to ensure that they are recompensed to the same level. What is the Secretary of State able to pass on to them?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that question. With our fair pay agreements, we will be bringing together government, public and private sector employers and staff trade unions to negotiate the future for fair pay agreements that will benefit care workers across the system and give them the professional status and career progression they deserve. The Chancellor, through the Budget, also took steps to ensure that we could invest in our social care services. I am deeply saddened that the Conservative party has not supported that investment.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I thank my new Dame Friend for her question. The Department does not collect data on the number of people who have specifically received enhanced maternity leave entitlements. Access to an enhanced maternity leave benefit forms part of the total reward package for Agenda for Change staff, which we believe is critical for retaining our much-valued and needed NHS workforce.
Emily Thornberry
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Doctors throughout the NHS, no matter who employs them, have blanket maternity agreements, but nurses do not. When I visited the River Place health centre, I found that nurses employed by Whittington Health were working alongside nurses employed by the GP practice who got completely different maternity leave and pay. As we turn out our hospitals into the community and do much more work in that way, such anomalies will get worse. It is not fair and I wonder what my hon. Friend is going to do about it.
Karin Smyth
My right hon. Friend highlights a problem throughout the system, not just in her area. Self-employed contractors to NHS GP surgeries are not bound by national terms and conditions; they can develop their terms and conditions as they see fit. They have the flexibility to set terms and conditions to aid recruitment and retention. We anticipate that good employers will set wage rates and terms and conditions that reflect the skills and experience of their staff. That is better for staff and for patients, and I know that she will continue to highlight that with her local employer. It is certainly something that we need to keep an eye on as we develop services further.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
We believe that every child deserves the best start in life. Due to the challenging fiscal context, we are initially prioritising family hubs and Start for Life funding to areas of high deprivation. We will consider the case for extension to South Cambridgeshire in future financial years.
Pippa Heylings
We know how important the best start in life is for opportunities for all. Only half upper-tier local authorities currently receive prioritised Start for Life and family hub funding—78 do not. In South Cambridgeshire, officers are doing huge work to provide support and signposting without dedicated funding, which means that babies, young parents and young families do not receive the full benefits. Will the Minister commit, in the next spending review, to extending these services across the whole of England?
Andrew Gwynne
Local authorities were pre-selected using the income deprivation affecting children index average rank scores, with a rural and urban weighting applied. Tackling child inequalities in health and outcomes is crucial. As resources allow, it is the ambition of the Government to ensure that Start for Life services reach every child.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
Let me start by commending the hon. Gentleman for his fundraising efforts to fight cancer in Surrey and his support for the Brain Tumour Charity. We are committed to ensuring that people with brain tumours have access to more effective treatments and excellent care through, for instance, our national cancer plan, and we will give more details shortly.
Gregory Stafford
I thank the Minister for his answer, and for his googling of my background! Early detection is essential in ensuring that brain tumours do not fall further behind other cancers in priority. Will the Minister update us on the Government’s progress to ensure that screening is prioritised?
Andrew Gwynne
We absolutely want to ensure early detection of these cancers, and I recently met representatives of the Brain Tumour Charity to discuss how we can roll that out. The Government are investing an awful lot of money in tackling cancers, but there is a great deal more that we can do on brain cancer.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
We have been busy announcing investment in hospices, an uplift in funding for general practice, action through disabled facilities grants and a new independent commission on adult social care, and yesterday the Prime Minister announced the elective care reform plan. As I have said, however, the NHS is experiencing a period of significant winter challenge. The number of beds occupied by people with flu has been much higher than the number last year, and is continuing to rise. An average of just over 4,200 beds were occupied by flu patients at the end of December, surpassing the peak of about 2,500 reported last year. We monitor the situation closely, working hand in hand with NHS England and care leaders, and I continue to chair weekly meetings with senior leaders in social care, NHS England and the UK Health Security Agency.
Calum Miller
I am sure the Secretary of State will share my shock and anger about the number of young people in my constituency who are waiting more than four years for a first assessment by child and adult mental health services. Can he confirm that yesterday’s commitment by the Prime Minister that patients would not wait more than 18 weeks for a first appointment will apply to CAMHS in Oxfordshire?
Wes Streeting
We are determined to improve children and young people’s experience of both mental and physical health services, and we are determined to do more to ensure that mental health and paediatric waits are put under the spotlight and given the same attention as the overall elective backlog. I am sure we will have more to say about that when we publish the 10-year plan.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
In September the Secretary of State and I met the families of people who had suffered harm following the covid-19 vaccination, including my hon. Friend’s constituent Sheila Ward, and they raised the need for reform of the vaccination damage scheme. We listened closely to their descriptions of what they had been through and agreed to look at a number of options, noting that cross-cutting Government decisions might be necessary. We are also working with the NHS Business Services Authority to improve claimants’ experiences of the scheme, and to ensure that claims are processed quickly.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I remind Members not to walk past when the Minister is replying to a question? Please have regard for each other; this sets a bad example.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday of his elective recovery plan mirrored that of Sir Saijd Javid in 2022, but one aspect was different. Our plan explicitly recognised the importance of the workforce being in place to deliver the 9 million extra tests and interpret the results, and it set out proposals to increase that workforce further. What plans has the Secretary of State to boost the workforce in community diagnostic centres specifically, over and above the plans that he inherited from us, to ensure that his elective recovery plan is deliverable?
Wes Streeting
The shadow Secretary of State is right to say that we need staff in place to do the job. The additional funding announced by the Chancellor in the Budget is central to the delivery of this plan—I note that he opposes that funding, which is deeply regrettable—but we need to improve productivity as well. That is why the plan sets out steps to free up patient appointments that are unnecessary or of low clinical value, but, crucially, staff time in productivity gains is also important, so as well as making the most of the additional investment, we are making the most of delivering value for taxpayers’ money—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please help me a little bit. You have had a good run today—don’t spoil it.
Edward Argar
On hospices, while the Secretary of State’s pre-Christmas hospice funding announcement was, of course, welcome, the vast bulk of it was in fact non-recurring capital funding, which cannot be used to help them cover the hiked employer national insurance tax on hospices’ most precious asset: their staff. What steps is he taking to ensure that they receive recurring revenue funding, to enable them to cover the additional costs?
Wes Streeting
The £100 million capital investment we set out before Christmas is the biggest boost to hospice funding in a generation, and it comes on top of the £26 million that we announced for the children and young people’s hospice grant. The right hon. Gentleman cannot welcome the investment and keep opposing the means of raising it. Would he cut services or raise other taxes? He has got to answer.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
We are making a priority of resuming consultations with the sector to stabilise community pharmacy. Pharmacy First has built on existing services to increase the clinical scope. The conditions treated under Pharmacy First vary across the UK, and the NHS will keep this under review.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Stephen Kinnock
I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that we have found an £86 million uplift for the disabled facilities grant, but on the specific question she raises, I would be happy to meet her and discuss that further.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. NHS England is due to complete a stocktake of long covid services throughout England at the end of this month. That will provide an accurate in-depth overview of not only long covid services but ME/CFS—myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome—services. The stocktake will provide a comprehensive and accurate national picture, identify key challenges and make strategic recommendations for future service improvement, development and assurance.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
Wes Streeting
Yes, I or the Minister of State for Health would be delighted to meet the hon. Member. She is right to describe the scale of challenge in urgent and emergency care. Of course, there are other challenges in east Kent, particularly in maternity services, which I am acutely aware of too, and I would be delighted to work with her to help solve some of those challenges in her community.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the NHS dental contract simply is not working. We are working with the sector to reform the contract, with a shift to focusing on prevention and the retention of NHS dentists. We will deliver on our pledge to provide 700,000 more urgent dental appointments at the earliest possible opportunity, targeting areas that need them most.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
One in five social care jobs in Cumbria are currently unfilled, and the consequences are unbearable for those who are vulnerable; indeed, they are causing pressure on the rest of the NHS. Will the Secretary of State look carefully at the specific needs of rural communities such as ours, where it is so much harder to recruit and retain social care workers?
Wes Streeting
I was in Cumbria recently, and I was struck by the fact that the care home I visited in Carlisle is delivering great intermediate care for the NHS at half the price of a hospital bed—a really good example of how social care often delivers better value and better care. However, the hon. Gentleman is right about the recruitment challenges. We are determined to work with local training providers and the local university to make sure that we recruit social care workers, grow our own in Cumbria and keep them in Cumbria.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the particular problems in his constituency. Decisions on the configuration of call centres are a matter for local trusts in consultation with staff and representatives, and I encourage him to continue to engage with the trust in the interests of his constituents.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Will the additional money announced for hospices before Christmas cover the full cost of the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions or not?
Wes Streeting
The Conservatives cannot, on the one hand, welcome the investment and, on the other hand, condemn the means of raising it. Would they cut NHS and care services, or would they raise other taxes? They have to answer.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. She was literally the first person to lobby me immediately after the general election, about her hospital, having already lobbied me before. I am delighted that, thanks to her efforts, we have been able to deliver for her community; indeed, thanks to your efforts, Mr Speaker, we have done so for yours too. I would be delighted to meet her.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Becky’s son Will was a normal, happy teenager until he suffered multiple covid infections. His mother tried to find out what was wrong with him, but she found that there were no paediatric long covid care services in Kent. Will the Minister update the House on whether Kent, with a population of 2 million, will ever get a paediatric long covid service?
Andrew Gwynne
I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. I know at first hand how complex and debilitating long covid can be. As I mentioned in an earlier answer, there is a stocktake taking place, which should show where there are deficiencies, but let me be clear: I want to ensure that there are good services for people suffering with long covid in every part of England.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to describe the Isle of Wight as a dental desert. That is perhaps one of the reasons why the good people of that island elected a Labour Member for the first time in history. Our ambition is to make sure that everyone who needs a dentist can get one. Sadly, 28% of adults in England—13 million people—have an unmet need for NHS dentistry. I would be glad to meet my hon. Friend to learn more about how the experience of the Isle of Wight can improve services nationally.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, yet it has no national screening programme. We worked on this issue in government, and I thank the Secretary of State for taking an interest in this area. Will he join me in commending Prostate Cancer Research’s excellent new report and urge his team to consider the findings, not least on increasing screening of at-risk groups so that we can not just save the NHS money but, more importantly, save thousands of lives?
Wes Streeting
I welcome the former Prime Minister’s question, and he is right to commend the research. We are actively looking at it. Given that he is here and that we are currently taking through the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, I thank him for his leadership on that issue.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The last Government treated mental health as a Cinderella service, with my constituents waiting days in A&E to be admitted to hospital mental health wards. The Solace Centre in Ealing Southall provides help and support in the community for those with mental health problems, at a fraction of the cost of a hospital stay. How does the Minister intend to move more mental health services from hospital to the community, and to create more great services like the Solace Centre?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent question. She is right that it is vital to move services from hospital to community. The Chancellor made funding available for 380,000 more talking therapies for patients and put in place a £26 million capital investment scheme for mental health crisis centres. A lot of work has been done, but there is a lot more still to do.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State confirm what is being done to ensure that patients with rare and complex conditions, such as functional neurologic disorder and achalasia, can access consistent and co-ordinated care, including referrals to the multidisciplinary teams they need for the different symptoms they experience?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Member is right to raise cases where there are multiple comorbidities or complex conditions requiring a range of care services. That is why we need to design services around the patient, not expect patients to contort themselves around the services. Our approach to neighbourhood health services should make a real difference in that regard, but we have to go further and faster on health and care integration, and we absolutely will.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I strongly welcome yesterday’s announcement about using initiatives such as community diagnostic centres to move services closer to the public. In the Isle of Sheppey, we are particularly exposed as a coastal community, but thankfully a new CDC will really help. Unfortunately, my experience in the NHS over the past few years shows that while the previous Government talked the talk about shifting care to the community, they failed to deliver. Will the Secretary of State set out what steps will be taken, so I can show my constituents that this shift will actually happen?
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to have my hon. Friend and his experience in the House, standing up for his community and giving us his advice and wisdom as we develop our 10-year plan. We are already walking the talk on the shift to community, not least through the big uplift in funding for general practice announced before Christmas. Many people assume our elective reform plan is just about hospital waiting lists, but a big part of it is about delivering the left shift by asking and funding general practice to do more to manage patients in the community.
Northern Gaza
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in northern Gaza.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The situation in northern Gaza is dire. The UK condemns Israel’s restrictions on aid in the strongest terms. The scale of human suffering is unimaginable. We have been clear that this is a man-made crisis and Israel must act immediately to address it.
The need for humanitarian assistance to reach Gaza is greater than ever before. Close to 46,000 people have now been killed. All of Gaza’s population is reported to face the risk of famine. Air strikes within the designated humanitarian zone show there are no safe spaces left for civilians. Reports of up to eight children having died from the cold weather conditions are unconscionable.
It is unacceptable that many medical facilities are no longer in use or are inaccessible to humanitarian actors, and we remain deeply concerned by reports of medics being killed or injured. I have raised this, and will continue to raise this, with both the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom. I have also specifically raised the detention of Kamal Adwan Hospital director Dr Hussam Abu Safiya with both the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and Israel’s ambassador to the UK. We urge Israel to urgently clarify the reasons for his detention, as well as for the detention of paediatrician Mohammed Hamouda and all the other health workers detained in Gaza.
The UK is doing all we can to alleviate this suffering. We have provided £112 million for the Occupied Palestinian Territories this financial year, including £41 million for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, providing vital services to civilians in Gaza and the west bank, and to Palestinians across the region, delivered through partner agencies.
The UK is also supporting the provision of essential healthcare to civilians in Gaza, including support to UK-Med for operating its field hospitals, and we have provided £1 million to the Egyptian Ministry of Health to support medically evacuated Palestinians from Gaza.
The Foreign Secretary, working with his French and German counterparts, wrote to the Government of Israel in November to press them to ensure adequate preparations for winter. Make no mistake: in lockstep with our partners, we are continuing to exert pressure to make sure that northern Gaza is not cut off from the south, that Gazans are not forcibly transferred from or within Gaza, and that there is no reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip.
We need a ceasefire, we need hostages to be released, we need much more aid into Gaza, and we need civilians to be protected.
Layla Moran
Over 450 days on, we all know the statistics—45,000 Palestinians killed, 100 hostages missing, 2.3 million people desperate—but I want to tell a single human story. I have previously spoken about my friend, consultant surgeon Mohamed, who operated on me when I had sepsis. His family are trapped in the Jabalia refugee camp. They are elderly and sick. One is a three-year-old girl. He has described how there are bodies strewn in the street.
I am sorry to report that death did not come knocking this weekend. Rather, it was dropped by a precision drone as Mohamed’s brother and his son walked 10 metres to get aid. The son died of a brain injury, two 13-year-old girls and their mother have shrapnel wounds, and Mohamed’s elderly father, who was already ill, is in hospital. A three-year-old, her mother and Mohamed’s mother are alone in a house with no one to help them get food.
These were obviously not militants—they were sick. They are not legitimate targets of war. There is no excuse for this. Mohamed told me it feels like they are living in “The Hunger Games,” dodging drones and scavenging for the basics. Even if they wanted to leave, how can they?
What part of international law makes any of this okay? Where is the accountability? Where is the justice? What does the Minister have to say to Mohamed, who spends his days saving lives here in the UK while his family are slaughtered overnight?
And it is not just Mohamed. People in Gaza are trapped in a doom loop of hell—hospitals decimated, and ceasefires promised and never delivered. So I press the Government again: is this really everything the UK has got? Have we deployed everything to make this stop? When will we recognise Palestine? Why have we not stopped the arms trade to Israel? And when will the Government ban trading with illegal settlements?
The frustration is palpable. Our grief is fathomless. People across the UK are looking on in horror, and the horror in Gaza must stop now.
Mr Falconer
The hon. Member speaks passionately about a situation that so few in this House could even imagine. My thoughts are with Mohamed’s family and the many, many other women, children and civilians who are caught up in this war.
I have seen for myself the injured children across the border in Sinai. They are the lucky ones who have been able to leave the strip to access medical assistance. The whole Foreign Office ministerial team has these people in our minds each and every day. I have been engaged through the break, as many others have, recognising that for most people in Palestine there is no break from a truly dreadful situation.
The hon. Member asks what I have to say to Mohamed, and I am incredibly sorry for the loss that people are suffering in Palestine. I am incredibly sorry that we continue to assess that there is a serious risk of breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza. We are doing everything we can to try to prevent and reduce them in relation to the arms that she mentioned. We have taken decisive action to reduce the sale of weapons being used in the conduct of the hostilities in Gaza, the west bank and Lebanon, and will continue to keep the matters under review. I can only join with the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon in reaching out to those in Palestine in this situation. We have done much; we recognise there is much more to do. My heart goes out to those people.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I begin by paying tribute to the bravery of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) in continuing to fight for the population in Gaza, even as her own family and friends are suffering?
My Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into the Israel-Palestine conflict, and we have heard again and again from witnesses, including both Israeli and Palestinian voices, that the UK could, in fact, be doing more to bring the conflict to an end. We have also heard from witnesses, including the former Member for North East Bedfordshire, who is also the very respected former Minister for the middle east, that where UK action has come, it has been too little and too late. While I know that the Minister is unable to comment on any ongoing negotiations, I would like to know this: what role is the UK playing in convening post-conflict discussions and what does he see as a viable, long-term resolution for Gaza?
Mr Falconer
This Government have taken a very different approach from the one that came before us. We have taken immediate, rapid action, calling for a ceasefire, making decisions on arms, which have already been mentioned, increasing the amount of aid available to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, being absolutely steadfast in our support to UNWRA and restoring funding that had been cut. Let us not think that there is no difference between the policy position taken by the Ministers here on the Front Bench and those that came before us. My predecessor, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), is a good and wise man who has done much in the service of his country. Yet let us not have any illusion; there is a difference between what a Labour Government have done in relation to the middle east and what our predecessors did.
I reassure my right hon. Friend that we are very engaged in the questions about what must happen next in Gaza. Clearly, Gaza needs a solution that works for its people, where Gaza is governed by the Palestinians under their own legitimate authority, in safety and security. There are a wide range of international views about how we might get to that objective, and we are playing our full part diplomatically to try and ensure that there is consensus.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this urgent question. Innocent civilians in Gaza are suffering and the situation is desperate; everyone in the House recognises that and we all want aid and support to reach them. Does the Minister also recognise that innocent civilians are being used continuously as human shields by Hamas, which has no regard for their safety or welfare? There are no excuses for the current situation. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) can listen to my comments and then he can comment afterwards.
Getting aid over the border is absolutely critical. In the light of the Minister’s words, he will also recognise, notwithstanding his comments about the previous Conservative Government, that that Government actively identified different ways to get aid into Gaza and secure food aid in particular. A special representative for humanitarian affairs was appointed, who was on the ground with a clear remit to address bottlenecks and those issues. There were clear proposals put to the Government of Israel to increase the delivery of aid and support. There was active dialogue and Israel made a number of significant and welcome commitments. Will the Minister give details of the recent engagement on fulfilling those vital commitments, how those responsible are being held to account and whether the Foreign Office, under his Government, has identified and proposed new and alternative routes for aid delivery in recent weeks?
Importantly, the only other way to bring this appalling humanitarian conflict and suffering to a sustainable end in Gaza is for Hamas to release all the hostages. I appreciate that we have debated this difficult matter previously, but may I ask the Minister what discussions are currently taking place? The onus, as we know, is on Hamas, but what steps are the Government taking right now? There are many hostages that we know of, including Emily Damari whom we have spoken about before. All our thoughts are with those hostages and their families. We must know what the UK’s position is, especially in relation to calling out Hamas. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was right to say at the weekend that we have not seen a great deal of condemnation. May I conclude by asking the Minister what points of influence we have with Israel in particular and what his Government are doing to address this conflict?
Mr Falconer
The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly raises the important role of the special representative for humanitarian affairs. He remains in post and continues to have dialogue with the Israelis and others about what can be done to ensure that adequate aid gets into Gaza. There has been a great deal of discussion about different routes. I have been to North Sinai to see the routes in through al-Arish, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Development has been in Jordan to see the routes there. The most fundamental of all of these questions is who controls the crossings. In most cases, that is the Israeli Government and the steps that need to be taken sit most acutely with them.
There are, of course, other questions that are important and relevant, not least those to do with law and order in the Gaza strip, where there are serious and concerning reports of looting. None the less, getting the aid in is vital, and that is through the crossings. We have been raising these points forcefully with the Israeli Government, and it has been disappointing to see with my own eyes British aid piling up in al-Arish, despite the good efforts of the special envoy and others to encourage the Israelis to make progress in delivering the flood of aid into Gaza that they promised.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Falconer
Sorry, I was just taking a breath. On the vital question about hostages, we are continuing to use all of our influence to try to ensure an early resolution to the crisis, which has been going on for far, far too long. We must work each and every day to try to advance that situation. Clearly, given the degree of tactical leaking to the press about the latest talks, I do not want to comment on press reports.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this question. I also thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for all the work that she has done trying to highlight the horrors that are going on in the region.
What assessment have the Government made of Israel’s action in the Netzarim corridor, which Israel has cleared of Palestinian civilians in order to construct military roads and positions. One senior Israeli official told Haaretz that the area had been designated as a “kill zone”, with anyone who enters being shot. The same officer told Haaretz that civilians were knowingly killed and later designated as terrorists. With competitions between military units regarding who can cause the most casualties, what assessment has the Minister made of these alleged war crimes, and can he tell me what we are doing to document and to stop them?
Mr Falconer
Mr Speaker, as you would expect, my Department takes careful stock of all reports, including those that my hon. Friend mentions, and we include them as part of our regular assessments. We have concluded one of those assessments recently, and I have already updated the House on that.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for her powerful and sustained advocacy for Palestinians. Clearly, the situation in northern Gaza is utterly dire. We need to see action from the Government in the face of a dreadful and worsening situation. At the end of December, Israeli forces closed Kamal Adwan, the last functional hospital in northern Gaza, forcibly removed patients and detained its director Dr Abu Safiya. The Minister said that he has raised this matter with the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and the ambassador, but what consequences did he spell out to them if Israel fails to meet its obligations to protect civilians and sustain access to healthcare in northern Gaza?
The Minister also referred to Israeli airstrikes in the allegedly safe zone. I have on previous occasions asked the Foreign Secretary to look again at a full ban on arms sales. Will the Minister now do so? We will only see an end to violence with a ceasefire, so can the Minister update the House on progress towards the release of the Israeli hostages held by Hamas and a lasting ceasefire?
Finally, in the light of deep concerns about the direction that this conflict might take under the second Trump presidency and following remarks made by Israeli Government Ministers about annexation and actions on the ground in the west bank to extend illegal settlements, does the Minister agree that now is the moment to recognise Palestine on the 1967 borders?
Mr Falconer
Let me take the hon. Member’s questions in turn. On arms sales, we have been clear, and I am pleased to reiterate that clarity today, that we have taken steps in relation to the weapons at issue in Gaza. We keep that under regular review, but we have taken clear, principled steps. If the question relates to the F-35 programme, I am happy to reiterate that we carved out that provision because there was no other way to meet our obligations in relation to international peace and security, and that remains the position.
On the matter of a ceasefire, efforts are ongoing. We hope to see an early resolution, but I am afraid that we have been here many times before. These are incredibly fraught talks. Flexibility needs to be shown on all sides. The violence has gone on for far too long. We want an immediate ceasefire, which we have called for since we came into Government.
I have raised the situation in Kamal Adwan and the wider matter about the provision of healthcare in northern Gaza. I have been clear with the Israeli Government about their obligations under international humanitarian law to ensure that proper medical assistance is available to Gazan people. They are entitled to that and those obligations are clear in international law. I have made that clear to the Israelis, as well as what the consequences will be internationally if those obligations are not met.
The hon. Member also raised a question about illegal settlements. I am pleased to repeat our position: we do not support the annexation of Gaza; we support the 1967 boundaries; and we deplore illegal settlements, which is why we took sanctions against them late last year.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this urgent question; it is indeed urgent. At the UN, the UK called for Israel to abide by UNSC resolution 2286 on the protection of civilians and healthcare. It is clear that Israel is not abiding by that resolution, so with the words having been uttered and ignored, what will the Government now do to ensure that Israel is held to account for its actions?
Mr Falconer
We could not be clearer, either publicly or privately, about what expectations fall on Israel in relation to health provision. I have raised these issues, the Foreign Secretary has raised these issues, and my ministerial colleagues have raised these issues. It is a source of enormous frustration to the ministerial team that, this far into the conflict, we are still having to raise these issues, and we will continue to do so until there is some resolution. And that resolution must enable greater healthcare for the Palestinians of Gaza and the wider region.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you and I have been through this rigmarole many times over the past 14 months. I was going to ask today about the fate of Dr Abu Safiya, but I think we all know what will happen to him. I was going to ask about the babies who are freezing to death while blankets are being denied entry into Gaza, but I do not think we will be able to do much about that. The same applies to the denial of access for cancer medication, anaesthetic, or crutches or, indeed, the bombing of every single hospital.
The Minister said that he and his team are frustrated, but given the partial application of international law and the Government’s unwillingness to take any significant steps to either compel the imposition of a ceasefire or compliance with international law, rather than being frustrated, is he not ashamed that millions of people in this country and around the world believe that there is an inherent racism at the heart of British foreign policy in this regard that says that Palestinian lives matter much less than any other lives, or indeed than Israeli lives? And if he and the Minister for Development, who has answered these statements before, are ashamed, why are they hanging on to their red folders? Why are they not standing down and compelling the Government actually to do something active and physical to save these lives?
Mr Falconer
There are places where I will take lessons about shame, but it is not from the Conservative Benches, and particularly not on this issue. If they want to give me a hard time about what is being done in relation to the people in Gaza, they should turn to their own record, whether that is on aid into Gaza, the ICC or the ICJ. These are sober issues and we deal with them with the sobriety they require, and I would appreciate, particularly from the Conservative Benches, questions of that tone.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
In November, the Israel Defence Forces made an official statement that they are getting closer to the complete evacuation of northern Gaza and that Palestinians will not be permitted to return home. In December, Doctors Without Borders reported on the clear signs of ethnic cleansing in the north of Gaza. Only last week, the residents of Beit Hanan were ordered to leave the area. Ethnic cleansing is taking place before our very eyes, and the world remains silent. Will the Minister confirm that Israel must allow Palestinians to return to northern Gaza and that any settlements there would be illegal?
Mr Falconer
I can confirm that it is the view of the Government that Palestinians must be able to travel freely between north and south Gaza, that there can be no further illegal settlements, and that we will continue to condemn that in the way we do in the west bank. There must be no annexation of Gaza.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Do the Government acknowledge that what is happening in northern Gaza is a campaign of ethnic cleansing? If the Minister does not, what would he call it?
Mr Falconer
We have been incredibly clear about the position in northern Gaza and about our deep concerns in relation to healthcare provision, aid going into the area, the targeting of healthcare professionals, the detentions, the importance of transparency where people have been taken, ensuring that they have adequate rights to see their lawyers, and that the ICRC can see people. The situation in northern Gaza is close to our minds. We have commented extensively throughout the winter period, and we will continue to do so.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Having listened to evidence on Gaza as a member of the International Development Committee, it is clear to me that there have been egregious breaches of international law. While I do not doubt the integrity and sincerity of my hon. Friend, it is clear that the actions taken so far by the Government have either not shifted the dial an inch or make me question how much worse it would be. Besides rhetorically supporting an international court, what will the Government do to help gather evidence to protect witnesses and ensure that there is justice and accountability?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, although I take issue with it. This Government have done more than rhetoric, whether it is the £13 million of funding we announced in December; the £112 million of funding for the Occupied Palestinian Territories; the quite different position we have taken on questions of international justice, compared with our predecessors; or the extensive funding we provide to the ICC each year to ensure that it can do its work. I want to be clear that we do not specify that the funding is in relation to Gaza; we give it so that the ICC can pursue its work without fear or favour globally, and we will continue to do so.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The aggressors in this situation are the terrorists in Hamas. The ones who took and continue to hold hostages are the terrorists in Hamas. Does the Minister therefore agree that the only concrete way to end this horror is for those terrorists in Hamas to release the remaining hostages, and that talk of an unconditional ceasefire gives those terrorists no incentive to free those innocent people?
Mr Falconer
Hamas are terrorists and they should release the hostages immediately.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
There are an estimated 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza, with more than 180 births taking place every day. None of us can imagine the hell of Gaza, let alone being pregnant in it. Ultimately, we need a ceasefire, but the health system is on its knees. Will the Minister expand on whether he has specifically raised the issue of women and girls and how our aid is being targeted to support access to sexual and reproductive health services?
Mr Falconer
We have raised those issues specifically, but I want to be straightforward with the House: we are clear that insufficient aid of all kinds is getting into Gaza. On almost any question that the House might put to me, there is insufficient aid, insufficient equipment and insufficient provisions for people to be existing in Gaza under those conditions, and we will continue to raise that with force with the Israelis for as long as that situation remains.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Exactly a year ago, Lord Cameron, when talking about the situation in northern Gaza, told the Foreign Affairs Committee that
“the conflict is now effectively over there”.
Unfortunately, no one seems to have told Tel Aviv, because babies are still freezing to death and the last hospital has been destroyed. In that year, while the faces on the Government Benches might have changed, the UK’s complicity in the mass killing of Palestinians remains as it has been. Given that nothing has changed, does the Minister genuinely believe that in another year from now he will be able to say that continuing to arm the IDF was moral and legal?
Mr Falconer
If words are to have meaning, clearly our policy is different from that of those on the Opposition Benches, as I think they would accept. I do not want to see this conflict continuing for another year. The Palestinians cannot wait. We are doing everything we can. We have been calling for an immediate ceasefire since we came into government. We will continue to take steps to try to advance that call.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I was left numb by the words a doctor wrote on a whiteboard in the Al-Awda hospital in Gaza before he was killed by an Israeli air strike, which said:
“Whoever stays until the end will tell the story. We did what we could. Please remember us.”
We need to know that we did all we could. I know the Minister and his Department are pulling every lever available, but please can we have an extra push to get the ceasefire deal over the line? We need to put an end to this horror.
Mr Falconer
I remember those words from the whiteboard, and we must and will spare no effort and will strain every sinew to try to do what we can to advance the ceasefire as quickly as possible. It is already far too late.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I am pleased that the Prime Minister recently met UNRWA’s Commissioner-General Lazzarini and pledged further funding, but in three weeks legislation to ban UNRWA will come into force. Lazzarini has said that
“dismantling UNRWA will collapse the United Nations’ humanitarian response”
in Gaza and that the
“entire population…fears that their only remaining lifeline will be cut.”
He also commented that:
“Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, Israeli officials have described dismantling UNRWA as a war goal.”
Will the Minister set out what consequential steps the UK will take if that comes into effect?
Mr Falconer
The Prime Minister was the first Prime Minister to meet the Commissioner-General of UNRWA. He did so in a week when we had announced further funding for UNRWA. We have raised those vital questions with the Israeli Government. We did so over the course of the break. I myself have met Commissioner-General Lazzarini, and I will be saying more about UNRWA in the coming weeks if we are not in a position to see that the Israelis have taken the action necessary to ensure the sustained and continued support that Palestinians require and which only UNRWA can provide.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Not one single hospital now operates in northern Gaza. Healthcare staff continue to be targeted, resulting in the death of even more innocent civilians. We have heard the Minister, but surely what we are doing is not enough. What can we do to stop the systemic dismantling of the hospitals in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right that what we have done is not enough, and we know it is not enough because the provision is so poor in northern Gaza. We are distressed by the scenes in northern Gaza and by the circumstances that hon. Members have described. We will continue to work as hard as we can, both in relation to UNRWA and directly with the Israeli Government, to try to ensure that the aid provision, including medical provision, is provided with urgency. The current situation is not good enough.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Of course Israel has the right to defend itself, but surely the life of a Palestinian child is as precious as the life of an Israeli child, and it is a breach of international humanitarian law for fuel, food and energy to be cut off from ordinary Palestinians. Will the Minister confirm to the House that the UK Government have an independent foreign policy on Israel and Gaza, and that it is set in Whitehall, not in Washington?
Mr Falconer
Britain has an independent foreign policy set by the Foreign Office Ministers and the Prime Minister—I am happy to confirm that to the House. Of course, for this Government the value of a Palestinian life is exactly the same as that of an Israeli life, and we deplore all the civilian suffering that we have seen in this conflict, which, as I say, has gone on for far too long.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. One of the most appalling aspects of this conflict has been Israel’s reckless disregard not just for civilian life but for that of medical practitioners and patients. Kamal Adwan hospital, the last major facility in northern Gaza, is now out of service, as Members have said. Patients have been moved to the nearby but non-functional and partially destroyed Indonesian hospital, and are unable to receive care because of a lack of necessary equipment and supplies. Will the Minister confirm that Israel’s actions have clearly breached international law, and that a consequence of that will be the continued suspension of weapons sales to Israel when it comes to Gaza?
Mr Falconer
We are following the situation closely. I raised the circumstances of those hospitals with the Deputy Foreign Minister on 23 December. I confirm that all the developments in the conflict are considered as part of the regular assessment process and contribute to the assessments that we make.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Report after report from reputable organisations—the most recent being Amnesty International—have concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza are genocidal in nature. The scale of destruction in northern Gaza has now been described as much worse than that in the aftermath of Hiroshima. Will the Government change their position and identify that Israel’s actions in Gaza are indeed genocidal in nature, and what action will be taken given the grave nature of those facts?
Mr Falconer
Determinations of genocide and war crimes are properly matters for international courts and, as the House knows, there is an international court process on that question, so I will not comment further on determination questions. The Member asks about what we are doing, so let me recap again. We have taken action in relation to arms, aid and diplomatic pressure on the Israelis, and we will continue to do so. The situation in Gaza is intolerable, and we will continue to take steps to try to reduce the suffering.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I appreciate the difficult position that the Minister is in. He has spoken a number of times in the House about this issue. However, I have significant sympathy for the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and others who have expressed frustration. Now is the time for action. I appreciate that we as a Government have done a lot and are significantly different from the previous Government, but that is a very, very low bar. It is important that this House has its view expressed through Ministers. Have the Government finally accepted the ICJ’s advisory opinion, which is absolutely crucial to the delivery of a two-state solution and a peace process?
Mr Falconer
I am always happy to hear the House’s view on these issues, which I have heard and will continue to hear extensively, and I know the strength of feeling across the House. On the ICJ advisory opinion, we are still considering what was a complex and far-reaching judgment with significant horizontal legal implications as well as in relation specifically to the conflict. At the heart of that advisory opinion is a concern about the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I am pleased to confirm that we continue to consider Palestinian territory to be occupied, we continue to take a position consistent with international law, and we continue to condemn illegal settlements. That is why we took tangible—not just rhetorical—steps against violent and illegal settlements in the west bank.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister must be aware that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who were equally as frustrated with the form of the previous Administration as they are with this one. He says that he has brought pressure to bear on the Israeli authorities. When that pressure manifestly fails to deliver, is there a plan?
Mr Falconer
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who was also a Foreign Office Minister. I once hosted him in Afghanistan, which I am sure he will not remember. [Interruption.] I am sure that he remembers Afghanistan and has vivid memories of Kabul at that time—I meant that he might not remember me. We raise those issues with force. There are consequences for sustained breaches of international humanitarian law, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment in too much detail on how we conduct diplomatic relations on those questions.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank my hon. Friend for all his hard work in these difficult situations. Eight members of the Knesset have penned a letter to the Israeli Defence Minister demanding that Israel destroy all sources of water, food and energy for Palestinians in Gaza. They argue that Israel should do to the rest of Gaza what it has been doing to the north. Will the Government ban entry of those eight Knesset members, who are openly calling for the extermination of Palestinians in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her kind words. The House will be bored of hearing me say it, but we do not comment on sanctions measures in advance of taking them, as doing so would reduce their impact, but I welcome the opportunity to make a brief comment on the proceedings of the Knesset. There is much said in other Parliaments with which we do not agree. We are clear that obligations under international humanitarian law, and diplomatic obligations, fall on the Israeli Government. We are clear with the Israeli Government on their obligations under international humanitarian law, and we are clear about our policy position. I will refrain from providing detailed commentary on the proceedings of another Parliament.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is quite clear that Israel’s ability to destroy life in Gaza—killing 45,000 people—and to destroy medical facilities is possible only because of the supply of weapons, principally from the United States. I ask the Minister to be very clear. Will Britain continue supplying weapons, including parts for jet planes, and allowing the use of RAF Akrotiri as a route for weapons to go to Israel to be used to destroy life in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman asks about fighter jets. In relation to the F-35 supply chain, where it is not possible to disentangle components that might eventually end up in Israel, we have made a carve-out for the arms suspension. Where we have been directly selling fighter jet parts to Israel—whether for F-35s or other fighter jets—those licences have been suspended. We will continue to have the same position on the F-35 supply chain—we have discussed that at length in this House since it was announced in September—but in relation to other fighter jets we will take steps in accordance with wider policy.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
Aid access is non-existent for Palestinians in north Gaza. Over the past two months, the UN has made over 160 attempts to reach the civilians in north Gaza, with almost zero access, and we have heard that babies have frozen to death. In October, the Prime Minister said that
“the world will not tolerate any more excuses on humanitarian assistance”,
so what further action have we taken to ensure that the assistance gets to the people who need it?
Mr Falconer
As I have set out this afternoon, we have taken further action, including further funding in December for UNRWA. However, to be straightforward with my hon. Friend and with the House, the further action we have taken has not had the effect we would wish, which is clearly that greater aid reaches the Palestinians. Until we see greater aid going into the Gaza strip, we will continue to make those efforts, however frustrating it may be.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Many of my constituents are deeply worried about the intolerable suffering of the people in Gaza, but at this moment they are particularly worried about the ban on UNRWA, which will come into force at the end of the month. The Minister’s previous answer on UNRWA was simply not good enough. Where is the urgency to do something about this, making an assessment of what it means if no more humanitarian aid is being delivered through UNRWA?
Mr Falconer
I am sorry that my answers were not to the hon. Member’s taste. To repeat, this Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister ever to meet the commissioner-general of UNRWA, and in December we announced further aid. We have repeatedly been clear with the Israelis, UNRWA and the wider UN system, privately and publicly, about the vital role of UNRWA. We are doing everything that could be hoped for to try and ensure that aid continues. Clearly, there is no alternative to UNRWA at the scale at which it operates—it is not possible to substitute for its function quickly or easily, and indeed, it is mandated by the UN to perform that function. This is not a welcome situation, and if we find ourselves this month in a situation where UNRWA cannot function, I will say more to this House at that point. However, I can reassure you, Mr Speaker, and the rest of the House that we are treating this issue with the full seriousness it deserves.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
The Minister has expressed his frustration and distress. I think he shares the depth of anger that most of us in this House feel. Over the Christmas period, while we have been celebrating with our families, we have witnessed scenes of children starving and freezing to death as a result of Israeli actions. The actions that have been taken up until now clearly have not had the effect we have wanted. The only solution we have seen in the past is a total isolation of a country, economically and militarily, to prevent it from performing war crimes in the way that Israel has. This Government could take a leading role in that isolation of Israel to bring it to some form of negotiated settlement, but one thing that grates with me in particular is that we have an Israeli ambassador who is an advocate of a greater Israel, refuses to recognise the Palestinian state and defies all the UN resolutions that have been passed about how we can secure peace, and who still remains in this country. Why are we not expelling the Israeli ambassador?
Mr Falconer
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and recognise the anguish in his voice about the scenes coming out of Gaza over the winter period. He is right that I feel that anguish as well—I think this whole House feels it when we see pictures of civilians in terrible distress.
My right hon. Friend asks me about the Israeli ambassador. It is tempting to think that, if only we had representatives who were more to our taste politically, things would be easier. There is a clear disagreement between the British and Israeli Governments about the conduct of the war in Gaza and the humanitarian implications that flow from it. We will continue to make that disagreement clear through all channels, both through the Israeli ambassador and directly to the Israeli Government through the Foreign Minister, the Minister of Strategic Affairs and the deputy Foreign Minister. We will continue to talk to the Israeli Government about these issues—indeed, that is the only direct route to secure the changes in the situation that we want to see.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The UN says that the healthcare system in Gaza is on the brink of collapse, and the International Committee of the Red Cross says that it is being obliterated in besieged northern Gaza. The World Health Organisation says that hospitals have become battlegrounds, and we have all seen the terrible scenes of patients and medics being forcibly removed from Kamal Adwan, the only remaining functioning health facility at that time. What further evidence does the Minister need to conclude that war crimes are being committed in Gaza and that a genocide is taking place, and how can he continue to justify the export of any arms to Israel, given that it risks making us complicit in the systematic destruction of healthcare in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer on the question of legal determinations about genocide. That is a question for international courts, and international courts are considering it.
In relation to arms, I want once again to reassure the House that the measures we have taken regarding arms licences are far-reaching. I have already discussed this afternoon the carve-out for F-35 parts, which will remain the position. As for the remaining arms licences, it is important to say that many of them are not in fact for arms, but for dual-use equipment that requires licensing even if it is not for military use. Even where they are military components, very few of the remaining licences are going to the IDF; for example, they are for body armour and helmets that non-governmental organisations use when they visit Gaza. We have taken far-reaching action in relation to the concerns we have about the breaching of international humanitarian law in Gaza, and we keep that under regular review.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
UNICEF reports that at least 17,000 children in Gaza are unaccompanied, some so young that they do not even know their names. Continual bombardment from Israeli forces makes family reunification impossible. The brutal reality of injured children in Gaza is that thousands of child amputees have been operated on without any pain relief or any chance of recovery, including a 10-year-old left for four hours with rocket shrapnel in his leg in an overcrowded hospital that is now running out of fuel. Will the Minister commit to insisting that the Israeli Government honour a ceasefire and allow full access to aid and supplies? If not, why are we not considering an arms ban and further sanctions to end this violence before there are no more vulnerable people left to protect?
Mr Falconer
We are pressing the Israeli Government on a ceasefire, to show the flexibility and take the urgent action required in order to ensure that hostages are released, violence stops and Palestinians can return to some form of dignity and security.
My hon. Friend raises the vital question of injured children in Gaza. There is not enough medical provision—it is of neither the sophistication nor the scale required to deal with the very many children who have been affected by this war, some of whom I met in north Sinai. As I said earlier, those children are the lucky ones: they were able to get to what is admittedly an overstretched medical system, but it is a functional one. As we have heard movingly from the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and from many other colleagues this afternoon, that is not the case elsewhere. The Government are keeping these issues under review, and when I visited Egypt and north Sinai, I was pleased to announce £1 million of UK aid to try to ensure that the Egyptian healthcare system can help Palestinian children under those circumstances.
Regrettably, since that period, too few people with medical emergencies—both children and adults—have been able to leave Gaza. We continue to raise these issues, and my Department was working on them through the Christmas break. I do not want to talk about specific cases; we have had some success, but limited success, in ensuring that children and adults who either require urgent medical assistance or family reunification are able to leave the Gaza strip. I hope to say a little more about that in the coming weeks.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Last Saturday morning, a constituent came to my surgery to discuss the situation in Gaza. She reminded me that she had previously visited my surgery exactly a year ago to discuss the situation. I recognise that the Minister was critical of the previous Administration; to some extent, that is justified, but the reality is that the situation remains the same. We can all agree that Hamas should release the hostages immediately, but does the Minister agree that the continued bombardment of Gaza by the Israelis is not of itself going to deliver that? If he agrees, has he made that very clear to the Israelis?
Mr Falconer
I regret that the situation does not remain the same a year on. As we have heard, the situation in Gaza, northern Gaza, Lebanon and the west bank is far, far worse. There have been material changes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the wider region, and with the suffering of the Palestinians, the Israeli hostage families and Lebanese civilians, there has been considerable further suffering over the course of the past year. It is clear that the only way to get a lasting, safer, more secure region for Palestinians, Israelis, Lebanese, Yemenis and many others is a proper diplomatic solution, with a resolution in the immediate term through a ceasefire and the release of hostages, but also moving back towards a two-state solution that provides dignity and sovereignty for the Palestinian people. We make that point with force to the Israelis regularly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will try to get everybody in, but I am aiming to finish this urgent question at about 2 o’clock and a lot of Members are on their feet. You would really help each other if you made your questions and answers succinct.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Reportedly, six babies have so far frozen to death in Gaza, largely as a result of a denial of fuel, heating, shelter and medical care. People’s tents are being flooded in the winter rains, diseases are spreading, aid access is virtually non-existent and there is not one single operational hospital in northern Gaza, with healthcare staff continually being targeted. What are the UK Government doing to ensure that Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately stops such atrocities and allows proper aid access into Gaza, and that we finally get an end to the bloodshed in Palestine?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have spoken a little bit about some of the direct advocacy with the Israeli Government conducted by Ministers. That advocacy is also conducted by the special envoy, to whom the shadow Foreign Secretary referred. We are clear at every level of the urgency of the situation in northern Gaza, and we will continue to have it in our minds each and every day until the situation stabilises. It must stabilise both with adequate aid and medical assistance, and with dignity and sovereignty for the Palestinians.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The case for further British action to protect Gazan civilians is unanswerable. Is the Government’s moral integrity being damaged by their inaction?
Mr Falconer
Perhaps the hon. Member could be a bit clearer about what further action this Government could be taking to try to protect Palestinian civilians. We are raising these issues—
Mr Falconer
The hon. Member mentioned sanctions, and we put in place extensive sanctions at the end of last year. I will not comment on further sanctions—to do so might undermine their impact—but we keep these issues under close review. I have discussed the recognition of a Palestinian state and arms. I recognise the strength of feeling in the House, I recognise how desperately people in this Chamber and across the world want to see an urgent ceasefire in Gaza, and that is the zeal with which the Foreign Office ministerial team approach this.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
Recently, a surgeon broke down as he told the International Development Committee of drones descending after a bomb strike to shoot children, with wounds that he believed reflected some form of artificial intelligence. I understand that the Government are saying that, since September 2024, UK-made arms are currently suspended where they may be used against civilians. Notwithstanding what exactly that entails—the various details, caveats and definitions—can the Minister confirm and clarify today whether UK-made drones that were exported to Israel before September 2024 are being used to shoot civilians, including children, in the manner described by the surgeon?
Mr Falconer
I am familiar with the testimony of Professor Nizam Mamode, and I saw his videos from when he was in Gaza. He is an impressive surgeon and a friend to many in this Chamber, and his testimony is harrowing. On the drones, I want to be clear that the suspension of arms licences would cover exactly that activity.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
It has been estimated that over 650 attacks have been launched on healthcare facilities in Gaza and more than 1,000 healthcare workers have been killed, injured or detained since October 2023. I recognise that the Minister has raised his concerns with his Israeli counterpart, but could he perhaps explain what the consequences will be if the Israeli Government fail to listen?
Mr Falconer
Ensuring adequate provision of medical assistance is an obligation that falls on the Israeli Government. We are clear about the status of these facilities under international humanitarian law, and we continue to raise these issues with force.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) is no longer here because he is right that Hamas are terrorists, but we need to be clear in this House that this is not being done in the name of the hostage families. The hostages’ families do not want to see babies freezing to death in Gaza, and they know this will not bring their loved ones home.
The Minister was clear with us earlier that he had seen aid piling up at the borders and that Israel controls the borders. Impeding access to humanitarian aid is a direct breach of international humanitarian law, so for the avoidance of doubt, is it his testimony that Israel is impeding access at the borders by the way in which it is controlling them? I think he needs to be clear on this point, because it does have ramifications for us.
Mr Falconer
I know many others in this House have done so as well, but I saw the hostage families in December, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. They are desperate for the safe return of their loved ones, and we hold them in our hearts as their agony continues yet further.
On aid access, my hon. Friend is of course right that these questions are relevant to determinations of international humanitarian law. When we set out the assessment that underlined our action on the arms suspensions, we made particular reference to the provision of aid into the occupied territories in Gaza, and I refer her to that statement. We tried to provide as much detail in it as possible, and it remains the clearest articulation of our view about international humanitarian law and aid provision into Gaza.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is quite clear that the Minister is frustrated, but thoughts and prayers are just not enough. What is the Minister doing to progress the Palestinian statehood that Norway, Spain, Ireland and more than 100 other countries have all confirmed? The Foreign Secretary confirmed it would happen. What is stopping that happening now?
Mr Falconer
I am a Foreign Office Minister and I do not treat in thoughts and prayers—this House of course feels united in our anguish about what we are seeing in Gaza—but what we do in the Foreign Office is seek diplomatically to advance a political solution, with an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages and, of course, a two-state solution. That two-state solution must include a sovereign, viable Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel, and the routes to get there will be diplomatic. It is on those questions that we base our assessment of when would be the moment to recognise a Palestinian state. I recognise that close allies have made different judgments than the UK about when to recognise a Palestinian state. This is not just a question of recognition; it is about a viable state that exists and functions next to a safe and secure Israel, and that is the objective of this Government.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
In recent weeks we have seen the distressing footage of Israeli hostage Liri Albag, who has been held captive by Hamas for over 14 months. The hostage families, including Mandy Damari, the mother of British national Emily Damari, are campaigning day and night for the ICRC and other humanitarian organisations to have access to the remaining hostages, but Hamas are refusing. Will the Minister condemn Hamas’s refusal to secure humanitarian access to the remaining hostages and set out what steps he is taking to return those hostages to their families?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I know how much time he has spent with hostage families over recent months. I do condemn both Hamas’s refusal to release the hostages, with British nationals and UK-linked persons among them, and the lack of access for the ICRC and other medical agencies. I am consistent on this point: whether it is Israeli hostages or Palestinians in Israeli detention, the ICRC provides vital work and a lifesaving function, and access should be provided to it in times of conflict on both sides. That is an essential humanitarian step. It has long been a principle of international law, and I am deeply distressed to see that norm being undermined by Hamas and others.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Minister’s statement about this man-made humanitarian disaster is one of the bleakest I have heard. It is a man-made humanitarian disaster and the Minister was good enough to set that out. In the short term, it is a humanitarian catastrophe. In the medium to long term, a brutalised population makes us all less secure and disrespect for international law makes us all less secure.
The Minister asked what else can be done and talked about disagreements. It is not a disagreement if someone advocates for the breaking of international law. Will he look at other measures such as targeted sanctions in order to bring this forward? When I was first elected, I got in touch with the Government straightaway about a Fire Brigades Union donation, and I got many of the same words then as I do now. It is months on. Targeted sanctions, stopping arms sales—the Minster wants to know what else can be done; plenty more can be done.
Mr Falconer
The hon. Member mentions a fire engine that the FBU has generously donated to try to contribute to relief efforts in Palestine. That issue had been raised by my own colleagues in advance of his doing so. I am frustrated that I have not been able to secure that fire engine for use in Gaza, alongside the many other pieces of aid and vital equipment that so many in this House know is not going to the Palestinian people. I would not want the hon. Member to think that I ignored his entreaties in relation to the FBU donation, just as I would not want any Member who has asked me to try and secure aid access into Gaza, and where I have been unable to do so, to think that these issues are not raised regularly. I am a Labour politician and am particularly responsive to the requests of our trade union partners. I wish that I had been able to secure that fire engine into Palestine, just as I wish I had been able to secure the neonatal support we have discussed, the medical support that has been raised or the many other items of international aid which I have seen with my own eyes in al-Arish that have not crossed through the Rafah crossing or anywhere else into Gaza. These are frustrating issues. I will continue, as will the rest of the ministerial team, to press for more aid to go into Gaza. Insufficient aid is going in and we will continue to raise these issues.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I want to return to the issue of the recognition of an independent Palestinian state. As I understand it, the Government’s position is that Israel has no veto on the creation of a Palestinian state. The Minister just said in response to a previous question that recognition has to come through diplomatic efforts. Do those diplomatic efforts have to involve Israel? If so, and Israel refuses to co-operate in them, does that not effectively give Israel a veto over the creation of a Palestinian state?
Mr Falconer
We have to be straightforward about the situation in Israel and Palestine at the moment. There are Occupied Palestinian Territories that have illegal settlements and an IDF presence. To get to a viable two-state solution, we are going to need agreement on both sides. The two states would need to live side by side with arrangements in place to ensure that both were safe, secure and sovereign, so I cannot see a route to a two-state solution that does not involve serious negotiations with the Israeli Government in order to reach a lasting settlement. That is a statement of the diplomatically essential. That is not to say that the Israelis can veto whether or not the Palestinians are entitled to a state, but it is a fact of reality that both states would need to work side by side to ensure each other’s safety and security.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Netanyahu regime continues to seek to justify its cold-blooded slaughter of Palestinian people behind the dishonest façade of self-defence. While the Minister asserts that the Government are taking an even-handed approach in this regard, he will remember that only two months ago the UK military intervened to protect innocent life in Israel by intercepting bombs. Taking on board the passions in the Chamber, the question is about equivalence. What actions have the Government taken to do the same for Palestinian people in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Member refers to missiles sent by the Iranians to strike Israel, and we will act in Israel’s legitimate self-defence in accordance with international humanitarian law. We do not want to see Iranian missiles rain down on Israeli civilians. The military scenario here is totally different: Israeli troops are inside Gaza. This is not a question of missiles crossing international borders, or going overseas. On a number of occasions, there have been risks of direct exchange between Iran and Israel. As many in the House will know, the military questions about whether the UK could act to take down missiles would be dependent on the circumstances. At the heart of the question the hon. Member poses is whether we are even-handed on issues of international humanitarian law, and we are. It is a great regret that our close partner Israel is acting in a way that causes us concern about serious risks to international humanitarian law, and we have said so as clearly and explicitly as we can.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
May I return to the issue of UNRWA? Philippe Lazzarini, its head, visited Parliament just before Christmas and was very clear about the consequences if its operations are banned. There will be an impact on the provision of schools and primary healthcare, as well as on a number of municipal services that it delivers in Gaza. May I urge the Minister to continue to take action on this matter, and to be clear that there will be consequences for the Israeli Government if they carry out this ban?
Mr Falconer
I, too, have met with commissioner-general Lazzarini and discussed the implications of the Knesset votes. We are clear with the Israelis about the role that UNRWA plays, both practically at the volume that it operates and also its role as mandated by the UN, and we will continue to be so.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Women who can get access to hospital provision in northern Gaza are undergoing C-sections without any anaesthetic, and new mothers—180 every day—are struggling to find clean water to provide formula for their new babies or continue to breastfeed, but Israel continues to restrict aid. The United Nations has made three attempts in the last three days to reach Gaza, and has been refused every time. The Minister has mentioned political solutions but seems to be avoiding consequences so I will ask the question again: what consequences can Israel expect from this Government if it continues to ignore international law and the urgent requirement to get the care that is needed for women and children in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
As I said earlier, the situation for new mothers, for expectant mothers and, indeed, for the majority of vulnerable Palestinians is appalling and needs to change urgently. The obligations on the Israeli state under international humanitarian law are clear. We raise these points with Israel publicly and privately, and we will continue to do so directly and in multilateral forums until the situation is resolved to the satisfaction of international bodies.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Israel’s conduct in this war is not just an attack on the people of Palestine; it is an attack on the international rules-based approach, the international community and the United Nations. Although I accept that the Minister is right to say that this Government are doing more than their predecessor, can he specify why the UK Government’s current policy is not to have sanctions, even against occupied territory products? Even if that is under review, why is that the Government’s policy at this moment? Does he agree that it is an attack on all those institutions, and not just the people of Palestine?
Mr Falconer
First, on the question of international law, this Government have been clear that we stand for a rules-based international order. Where anyone, whatever our relationship with them, takes steps that undermine that order, they undermine the safety and security of British nationals and many others. We are clear, with the Israelis and others, where we are concerned that there are breaches of international humanitarian law. I reiterate our position on the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which is consistent with UN Security Council resolutions. We have put sanctions on those operating in those territories, both where they are conducting illegal settlements and where they are perpetuating horrific violence against Palestinians in the OPTs. We will continue to keep these measures under review.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Minister said at the outset,
“The UK is doing all we can to alleviate this suffering”
in Gaza. Does the Minister really think that? The Government are not even tracking British components for F-35 fighter jets, which are being used in northern Gaza.
Mr Falconer
On F-35s, where we are in a position to track components directly, we have suspended those arms licences. Where our components are part of a global supply chain and where measures to restrict their onward sale would bring down the overall F-35 function, we have done a carve-out. That carve-out is done clearly on the basis of concerns about international peace and security. The F-35 programme is an important contributor to British national security and the national security of many of our allies. If we were to bring down the F-35 programme, that would have relevance to allies not just here in Europe, but elsewhere. We have taken proportionate measures to ensure that we are clear in our position on international humanitarian law and that we abide by our obligations to international peace and security and our allies.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The new year has seen an intensification of attacks on civilians, including medical staff, in northern Gaza. The UK Government’s response does not appear to have changed. The Minister is frustrated, because he is saying the same things to the same people and getting stonewalled every time. Do we not need to raise our game, and should recognition not be the first step in that? Will he clarify what he said a few moments ago about Israelis not having a veto over whether we recognise Palestine or when we recognise Palestine, which should be now?
Mr Falconer
In relation to recognition, I am happy to clarify the position. The Israeli Government have no veto over whether we recognise a Palestinian state, or when we recognise a Palestinian state. The point I was making in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) is that talks with Israel about a two-state solution will be a necessary part of a sustainable solution in the region. We therefore need to be clear that it is not possible to reach the outcomes we want in the middle east without diplomatic talks, including with the Israeli Government. That does not mean they have a veto on British Government decisions—
Mr Falconer
Perhaps the right hon. Member has a solution for ensuring a Palestinian state without talking to the Israeli Government, but I think he would be outwith the view of most international scholars on that question.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his patient answers to everyone in the Chamber. Does he agree that the only way to preserve peace and stability in north Gaza is to ensure the complete dismantling and destruction of the Hamas terrorist network, which is a threat to Israeli and Palestinian civilians. The principal way to achieve that is through robust international co-operation and targeted action. Furthermore, what measures will the UK Government put in place to support a sustainable peace framework that prioritises security for Israel while addressing the urgent humanitarian needs of the Gaza civilian population?
Mr Falconer
Hamas are a terrorist group, and I hope they will have no future role in Gaza or any of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They are a threat not just to Israel, and they hold British nationals and UK-linked people in horrific conditions. We have heard little from them in months and months. We have no access. I know the hon. Member will share the Government’s outrage about that situation. We are in talks with our counterparts about how we might reach a future Gaza that provides for the safety and security of Israel, but also, vitally, the questions of humanitarian access, dignity and sovereignty that have been discussed this afternoon.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
Israel is ignoring international law, ignoring the world’s top court’s rulings and ignoring the United Nations. Let us be totally frank: Israel is ignoring everything that the Government say. If the Minister is serious about getting Israel to stop its genocidal war, the Government must act and that must mean widespread sanctions. That means ending all arms exports, including the parts for the jets bombing Gaza, and it means sanctions on trade with Israel. The Minister says that we are even-handed when it comes to international humanitarian law and international law. I ask the Minister a specific question: the Government have imposed widespread sanctions on Russia for its war crimes, so why will they not do the same for Israel’s war crimes?
Mr Falconer
I will not comment on forthcoming sanctions, but I confirm that this Government remain opposed to war crimes anywhere that they occur. Where we feel in a position to put in sanctions to prevent war crimes, we will do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am aware of the time, and I am aware of the number of Members who want to ask a question, so I will run things slightly longer, but I ask Members to keep their questions and answers as short as possible.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I listened to what the Minister said about the recognition of a viable Palestine, as opposed to the recognition of Palestine. As that could happen in a number of steps, will he take the first step in recognising the state of Palestine, before moving to a full viable Palestine, as he describes?
Mr Falconer
Any state needs to be viable. We would want to create the conditions for a sovereign Palestinian state that could perform the basic functions of a state, so it would need to be viable. As I am sure the House can tell, I am keen to remain focused on the necessary diplomatic steps to make that happen.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Minister is a good and knowledgeable man, and his frustration with the process is palpable. For many of us, although we see the steps taken by the UK Government—which should be acknowledged, as they have been different from those under their predecessor—they have been completely and utterly ineffective. The continued repetition of the call for a review and keeping matters under review does not move the dial one jot. Israel is just laughing at the UK. It has no regard for the position here. While we have been home at Christmas celebrating with our children and grandchildren, in Gaza children are being burnt to death as bombs rain down upon them, buildings crush their little bones and six babies die of hypothermia. I am afraid that the Government’s position just does not cut it. I say to my hon. Friend with all sincerity that this continued dancing around and avoiding of clear legal definitions of genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes of extermination is just prevarication. We need to make the position clear. More important than anything, what is now required, and what the British people are asking the Government to do, is to visit sanctions and consequences on the Israeli Government for their flagrant disregard of basic humanitarian law. If we do not, the entire world system will collapse.
Mr Falconer
I know how diligent, attentive and moved by these issues my hon. Friend has been over a long period. The force of his question is obviously right. We have taken far-reaching steps, yet we are all still seeing images on our televisions and hearing about them on our radio; they remain deeply distressing. We will continue to do everything that we can about a situation that is distressing for the civilians affected and for the region, and in which there are questions about adherence to international humanitarian law.
I say to my hon. Friend that there are a number of other places in my ministerial portfolio where the situation has also remained stuck for a long time, with terrible consequences for civilians, and they need to continue to have our focus as well. The situation in Palestine is appalling, as it has been for a long time in Yemen, Syria and a range of other places. We will continue to make serious efforts. That our efforts do not secure the progress that we want does not mean that we are not making them. We will remain committed to a more safe, more secure middle east and wider region in which the horrific imagery that he described is not burnishing our minds as it is at the moment. We will continue to act.
The fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said, I am answering so many hon. Members’ questions with similar answers over a course of weeks and months is of huge frustration to me. I would want to be making more progress on some of these questions, whether they are on aid access—[Interruption.]. The fact that I have not been able to make progress does not mean that the UK Government are not taking every action we can to try to bring about the ceasefire that we have been calling for since July.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The situation in northern Gaza is grave, with no functioning hospitals, medical centres destroyed and more than 1,000 medical personnel killed, injured or detained. The UK representative to the UN made it clear that that is unacceptable. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that Israel abides by its responsibility under international law to protect medical staff and access to healthcare?
Mr Falconer
I reiterate, to reassure the House about some of the steps that we are taking, that I have raised with the Israeli Government the hospitals and the people mentioned in many of the questions this afternoon, and I will continue to do so.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Only 16 of the region’s 36 hospitals remain partially operational, with a collective capacity of barely 1,800 beds to serve a population of millions in dire need. Kamal Adwan hospital in northern Gaza should be a crucial lifeline for countless civilians, but the IDF have forcibly evacuated the hospital, detained its medical staff and disrupted its vital services. What consequences on Israel will there be for that action to safeguard those medical institutions and ensure the uninterrupted flow of medical aid?
Mr Falconer
As I have said over the course of the afternoon, we are raising those hospitals and the overall question of medical provision with the Israelis, and we will continue to do so.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
May I put on record my thanks to the Minister for the care and concern about the situation that he shows Members? Yet every time we meet, the situation seems to have become more desperate, even in recent weeks, with babies freezing, the continued bombing of hospitals and real concerns about the annexation of Gaza. Over Christmas, I met constituents with friends and family in Gaza. Those people are increasingly despondent about whether the killing will ever stop, whether hostages will ever get to see their loved ones again and whether international law matters at all. With the change in world leadership in the coming weeks, what reassurances can the Minister give the House that the UK will continue to lead the world community for peace, an immediate ceasefire and, most importantly, getting aid in where it is needed now?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to these issues. I confirm that the UK will continue to press with our allies for proper aid access and for an immediate ceasefire, and we will take that position regardless of the views of others. This is an important question for my constituents in Lincoln, for constituents in Peterborough and for constituents of hon. Members right across the House. I know the force of feeling from Lincoln and from the whole United Kingdom on these questions. They will remain important to the UK, and we will continue to show the leadership that we have sought to since July.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I recently met medics from the Royal Berkshire hospital as well as other constituents from Earley and Woodley who described the atrocious conditions in which their Palestinian colleagues and relatives continue to operate in the medical facilities that remain in Gaza. I am thankful that the Minister has raised detained medical professionals with the Israeli authorities, and I thank him for all the work that he has done to ensure that our Government are leading on international humanitarian law. However, as I am sure he has heard from many Labour Members, we would like more action; we do not think that the current action is enough. I remind him of the comments made by the Prime Minister on looking into sanctions against Minister Ben-Gvir and Minister Smotrich for their comments supporting the illegal resettlement of northern Gaza. When may he be able to give us an update on that?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for the question but will not provide a further update on the individuals that she raised. As I have said, we try not to trail sanctions decisions before they are taken. I recognise the strength of feeling and reassure her and the whole House that we want to see no further illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; that includes both the west bank and, of course, the Gaza strip, north and south.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I recognise the work that the Minister is doing on this intractable issue and the frustration that we all share at the lack of progress, but the fact remains that not one hospital operates in northern Gaza, healthcare workers have been detained and targeted, and medical aid is blocked. So many of my constituents have written to me expressing their outrage about that. The systematic destruction of a healthcare system is a crime against international humanitarian law. What steps can the Government take to try to protect what remains of Gaza’s healthcare system?
Mr Falconer
I know the concern that is felt in Edinburgh, as it is elsewhere. We have to be honest about the medical system in Gaza, which is insufficient on almost any of the points raised this afternoon. Of course, there is still provision—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) mentioned the Indonesian hospital, where we believe patients are sheltering in facilities that are not properly functional and unable to provide the quality of care that anyone should reasonably expect at a hospital. I fear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) already knows, there is not a sufficient medical system in Gaza to protect, but we will continue to raise these issues and do all that we can to ensure that that situation changes rapidly.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Today we have rightly heard a lot from Members in all parts of the House about the desperate need to get more aid into Gaza—an issue that many of our constituents are concerned about and that the Government are rightly working very hard to address.
One of the most disturbing trends in this conflict is the huge number of aid workers who have lost their lives—over 300 humanitarian workers to date. As the Minister knows, one of the most basic fundamentals of international humanitarian law is that aid workers must be protected. In the recess, we saw an air strike on Sana’a airport, when a plane operated by UNHAS—the UN Humanitarian Air service, which our Government proudly contribute to—was on the runway. The head of the UN World Food Programme was also in the airport at that time. I have travelled to that airport as an aid worker, and I took that UN house flight. I can only imagine the impact on aid operations in the region when such incidents occur and UN colleagues are on the runway.
Will the Minister join me in reiterating our call as a country that aid workers must never be targets? Will he outline what is being done to ensure accountability in instances where aid workers are killed? What steps is the UK is taking to ensure the protection of aid workers and humanitarians?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right to flag the more than 300 aid workers killed since 7 October. We have many former aid workers on the Government Benches; they perform a vital function for the provision of international humanitarian assistance. British nationals are among those killed since 7 October. Particularly close to my heart are the families of the British aid workers who were part of the World Central Kitchen convoy killed on 1 April. Most particularly in relation to the death of British nationals, but also in relation to all such incidents, we continue to press for a proper legal process in Israel to ensure that where aid workers are killed, there are proper investigations and full legal consequences where that is appropriate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Dr Scott Arthur—sorry, Brian Leishman.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Thank you very much for that upgrade, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In my opinion, there is no grey area to be had here: to sell arms is to be complicit. How can the Government realistically and honestly say that Britain is doing everything it can for a ceasefire and for peace when we continue to sell any arms to Israel?
Mr Falconer
I have been clear about the position in relation to F-35s. I have a responsibility, as do the rest of the Government, to try to ensure Britain’s national security. That includes, where we have entered into multi-nation, complex programmes such as the F-35, not bringing those programmes down where that would undermine international peace and security. That is our judgment in relation to the F-35 components, which I have discussed already.
On other arms that are not suspended, I think that this House would be much reassured to see the detail of those licences. I am sure that everybody wants body armour and helmets on aid workers going into dangerous areas. I am sure that everybody would want us to focus on the arms that could be used in breaches of international humanitarian law, not other arms.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
This year has started with a horrific intensification of Israeli air strikes raining down on civilians and children. Israel has intensified its assault on the already decimated healthcare services in Gaza, to the extent that there are no fully functioning hospitals remaining in Gaza. It is a humanitarian crisis, so I am afraid I have to ask the Minister the question that he has been asked repeatedly this afternoon: have we not reached the stage where the UK should immediately end all arms trade and exports with Israel?
Mr Falconer
As I set out in my previous answer, we have sought to focus on those weapons that could be used for a serious breach of international humanitarian law. We have taken far-reaching action. We have sought to safeguard Britain’s national security in relation to the F-35 programme and exclude licenses that we judge do not contribute to a risk of breach of international humanitarian law. This is far-reaching action focused on weapons that could be used in breaches. I remain of the view that it is the correct judgment.
Pro-democracy Campaigners: Arrests
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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 Hong Kong police offering rewards for the arrest of pro-democracy campaigners, including British nationals overseas resident in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question on this most important matter. I am glad to reassure her that the Foreign Secretary issued a statement on Christmas eve, immediately following the Hong Kong police’s issuing of arrest warrants for the six pro-democracy campaigners. As the Foreign Secretary said, those targeted on Christmas eve were merely exercising their right to freedom of expression. We will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics overseas, especially here in the UK.
We call on Beijing to repeal the national security law, including its extraterritorial reach, and on the Hong Kong authorities to end their targeting of individuals in the UK and elsewhere for seeking to exercise their basic rights. Let me reassure the right hon. Member that senior British diplomats immediately went out to reiterate the Foreign Secretary’s deep concerns directly in Hong Kong and Beijing over the Christmas period. Officials here in London immediately raised concerns with the Chinese embassy and the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office here in London.
China’s imposition of the national security law has clearly eroded the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers. I raised these concerns with the authorities during my visit to Hong Kong, as did the Foreign Secretary during his visit to Beijing. Following the latest arrest warrants issued by Hong Kong police, ensuring the continued safety of the pro-democracy campaigners remains a top priority for the Government. Let me assure hon. Members that the UK will always stand up for the people of Hong Kong. The Government are deeply committed to supporting all members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK, making such valuable contributions to life here.
Priti Patel
I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. This is an incredibly serious matter. As the Minister and the House know, on Christmas eve we saw the Hong Kong police once again trying to give the national security law extraterritorial reach and threatening people on British soil. We unequivocally reject any attempt to apply the national security law in the UK. In government, the Conservative party were consistent and clear that it should be repealed.
Today, I want to press the Government on how they will respond to this latest attempt to clamp down on freedoms and dismantle the essence of what made Hong Kong such a special and successful place. Will the Minister explain what practical steps are being taken across the Government to protect those in the UK with bounties placed on their heads, and assess the security of the Hong Kong community in the UK? They have come to the UK under the BNO route established by the last Government when I was Home Secretary, to live in the UK free from fear of intimidation. We must have a zero-tolerance approach to such behaviours.
Has the Foreign Secretary raised this outrageous attempt to suffocate fundamental freedoms with his counterpart, Wang Yi? Once again, does this not show that this Government’s supposed reset with China is just one way? Before meeting President Xi, the Prime Minister said that he wanted a relationship that is consistent, durable and respectful, and stated that the pair agreed that there would be no more surprises. Does the Minister believe that trying to arrest BNOs in the UK is compatible with any of those comments? Did the Hong Kong or Chinese authorities notify Ministers in advance, or was this a surprise?
Will the Minister confirm, with a simple yes or no, whether the Chancellor will raise these bounties at the highest level when she jets off to China next week to beg for a quick investment to bail out her failing economic strategy? She cannot ignore human rights issues, whether in Hong Kong or Xinjiang, on her visit. Will the Government take this incident into account when considering the planning application for the new Chinese super-embassy in London?
Catherine West
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising a number of concerns. We are as one on the outrageous attempts to reach across the water to try to impose any intimidation on people based here in the UK. She mentions other human rights concerns, such as those in Xinjiang, and says that long-standing policies, such as the national health service not purchasing cotton equipment from the Xinjiang region, are the right policies. Of course, those policies were brought in following pressure from Members from her own party over previous Parliaments. She is also right to emphasise the importance of the welcome programme for BNO passport holders, which she brought in as Home Secretary, which provides an enormous contrast between a repressive regime and one that welcomes people newly arrived in the UK. Indeed, it is across our regions that the 12 hubs, which were created under her leadership of the Home Office, are going from strength to strength. They are giving people based in the UK the confidence to raise their voice, become active in their local communities, take English classes and all the rest.
The right hon. Lady mentions the Chancellor’s trip; I knew this would be one of her themes, so I have come prepared. As she is well aware, we are in a position where our economy is quite fragile. While we have clear national security concerns—today is a good example of those—we have to balance those concerns with being an outwardly facing and globally trading nation, where we need to sometimes be involved with countries whose values may not align completely with ours. I make no apologies for trying to support British business abroad—including in Hong Kong, where British businesses have said how lovely it is to see MPs visit them. I was able not only to be robust in my condemnation of these sorts of actions, but to support British business, our friends who are based in difficult places and undertaking hardship postings, and our diplomatic staff, who live our values day by day to uphold the strong framework of human rights abroad.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I will use this opportunity to ask the Minister whether she and the Chancellor on next week’s visit will raise the case of my Unite colleague Carol Ng, who became the general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, and who became involved in the democracy movement and has been imprisoned for four years now. During the last statement, I appealed to ensure she had family access. Could her case be raised again, both to secure her release and to at least secure her the opportunity of meeting her family?
Catherine West
I will, of course. Would my right hon. Friend write to me with the exact details and his most recent update? I have had the privilege of meeting trade union colleagues from Hong Kong, Taiwan and a number of other areas that are very exposed to the People’s Republic of China and some of the tactics we have seen there. I have been pleased that there has been great collaboration across not only the trade union movement here in the UK, but defenders of human rights—be they environmental, relating to freedom of religion or belief or across the great range of freedoms that we enjoy here, and which we want other countries to share, too.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The extraterritorial arrest warrants issued against Hong Kong pro-democracy activists are disgraceful. We must be clear: Hong Kong democracy campaigners such as Carmen Lau, a former district councillor in Hong Kong, are welcome and free to express their views here in the UK. This attempt by Beijing to interfere in our democracy is unacceptable. The previous Government did not do enough to counter this interference, and we urge this Government to go further than words with actions. Will the Minister meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) and his constituent Carmen Lau to assure her of the Government’s support? Will the Government clarify that it is illegal to bounty hunt in the UK, and that anyone who does so can expect to be prosecuted? Will she use our Magnitsky sanctions regime against those in Hong Kong and Beijing responsible for the unacceptable targeting of Hong Kong pro-democracy activists? Finally, in the light of the continued detention of Jimmy Lai and these warrants, will the Government reconsider the Chancellor’s planned trip to Beijing?
Catherine West
I would be delighted to meet Ms Lau again; I believe I met her at an event with Dame Helena Kennedy in the previous Parliament, but it would be lovely to refresh that acquaintance and to hear from her following the traumatic experience she has had. I would be very happy to provide an update in writing, but I will also provide one here—as much as you will let me get away with, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have personally promised Mr Lai’s son, Sebastien, that whenever I have the opportunity, I will raise the case of his father, who remains on trial; in fact, the trial was due to restart on 6 January. I have as many briefings as possible from the consul general to Hong Kong and his team, who are very conscientious and diligent in attending all the trials they can get tickets for and who give me regular updates. I have promised the Lai family that I will continue to do that; I believe I have a meeting with them in the diary in the coming weeks.
On the Chancellor’s visit, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answer about balance. Unfortunately, because of our rather exposed position post Brexit, our economy has to be outward looking. If we want our constituents to get away from food banks, we need to have more import-export and to be pragmatic on the matter of having an economic relationship with our fourth biggest trading partner. It is hard to tell the House that, because I want to just talk about the other elements of the relationship. However, when I go to my constituency, and people tell me how hard their lives are and how, over the past 14 years, our economy has gone into decline, I know I have to stand up for our economic relationships as well.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about the contribution that Hongkongers have made to the UK, which is particularly true in East Renfrewshire. The Hongkongers in my constituency will welcome the strong comments from the Minister and the Foreign Secretary. However, we have heard those comments many times from the Front Bench, and the response from Beijing has been to imprison dozens more people, put more bounties on the heads of British people, escalate transnational repression and keep people like Jimmy Lai in prison. At what point do the consequences come for these actions? As other Members have asked, I ask not just when our senior Ministers will stop going there, but when we will stop welcoming Hong Kong officials here. I also ask whether the Government can and will meet the British nationals who have had bounties put on their heads, and whether they are being given specific security advice.
Catherine West
Perhaps I could encourage my hon. Friend to join the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, which I know is very active in the House—I was a member before I became a Minister. It provides really regular updates, as does the Hong Kong committee on human rights, which writes a regular email newsletter to update us on the situation of the likes of Ms Lau, who was mentioned earlier in this debate, as well as what is happening across the globe, in the US, Canada, Australia and other places.
My hon. Friend asks how we can manage this most difficult of relationships, and I say that the opportunity we have with an exchange does not in any way take away from our position—in fact, I think it strengthens my arm. If I am in Hong Kong, I can eyeball the Beijing representative and tell him exactly what my views are, with the support of the consul general, who is an excellent representative of the UK, reinforcing that regularly. That is the element of engagement that we have, which we are looking through the audit to increase in order to give us the opportunity to lay our concerns at the door of those with whom we seek to have a dialogue.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing this urgent question. The Minister should not take what I am about to say personally: no matter who is in government, I have been in opposition on this issue, and I continue to be so. I remind her that these seven pro-democracy campaigners, who now have a bounty on their heads, are just the latest act of a Chinese Communist party that does not care what countries like the UK say. Let us run through the examples: the freezing of all pension savings of those in the UK who fled Hong Kong, which was, outrageously, done by HSBC; Confucius Institutes continuing to spy on Chinese students in universities; illegal Chinese police stations; the bullying back in China of families of those who have fled for human rights reasons; and the brutal assault in Manchester by the consul general himself and others.
I say to the hon. Lady who speaks for the Government that I was at odds with the Foreign Secretary in the previous Government when he said he would do exactly what she says she will do: engage with the Chinese. It was after that that they continued the case against Jimmy Lai. America has sanctioned a large number of Chinese officials at the highest level in Hong Kong. No British Government have so far sanctioned a single person for any of the abuses that have taken place. Will she now say to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that we must sanction people for what they do to abuse British citizens and those we welcome here? Until we do that, we will not be taken seriously.
Catherine West
I fully accept that, as a sanctioned MP, the right hon. Gentleman is very concerned. I respect and admire his doggedness in raising these issues in the House. I hope he will reply to my invitation, from me and the Foreign Secretary, to visit me in the Foreign Office to discuss his ongoing concerns, including those he has raised today.
Specifically on the Mandatory Provident Fund, this is an ongoing dialogue. Both my predecessor, the former Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and I raised the documentary requirements for withdrawing funds early. Basically, the Hong Kong authorities have a particular approach, but we are quite right to keep campaigning on that. Why should BNO passport holders not receive the funds to which they are entitled? He mentions HSBC. We will continue with any financial institution that is not being fair to its own investors. We will continue, with his support, to campaign for that. On sanctions, he is well aware that there are many sanctions against Chinese entities. I will write to him with the detail of where we are at with sanctions, but he is also aware of the Government’s long-standing position on sanctions, which is that we do not talk about them in the House because that could take away from their efficacy in future.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
What representations have been made to the Chinese Communist party’s ambassador here in London on the consequences of a third round of bounties targeting democracy activists, including British nationals and BNOs, here on British shores?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that issue. He will be aware, from the Foreign Secretary’s statement, that it is being taken extremely seriously. We have raised through officials—this happened only on Christmas eve—the concerning example of transnational repression. That is an ongoing discussion. We have a high-profile visit next week. Our officials are in regular contact with Chinese officials who have their embassy here in the UK. In Hong Kong, our excellent consul general meets regularly not just with Hong Kong Ministers but with the Beijing official office in Hong Kong, to put on the record our concern, anger and ongoing human rights concerns wherever they may come from.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
No one should be surprised, as I have said before, when a communist totalitarian state behaves like a communist totalitarian state. Does the Minister agree that there is a little pattern emerging here? Every time a senior British politician—be it the Prime Minister or the Chancellor—is going on a visit to the Chinese, something particularly egregious is done. That suggests to me that they are trying to rub our noses in it, and that they are not interested or concerned about anything we say on human rights abuses.
Catherine West
The right hon. Gentleman can obviously read his coffee cup granules or tea leaves better than I can. I do not know, but I am concerned about the increasing regularity of these sorts of issues. I share his view that we need to understand more. We need to be as robust as possible with representatives here in London and through our excellent diplomatic representation abroad, and join together with the like-minded—an area he has worked on through Congress and other Members. In the case of the US, which is always very robust in its response, I note that its export-import trade flows have increased rather than decreased.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and her robust words, and her outstanding disagreement when it comes to China’s approach to protecting UK people on our soil, in particular those with a bounty on their head or those subject to China’s national security laws. I also welcome her words on HSBC’s disgraceful behaviour in withholding pensions from people who have worked and saved all their lives. What can we do to protect people here on UK soil further? What discussions has she had with her Home Office counterparts to ensure that UK police forces fully understand the seriousness of the threats to Hongkongers’ safety on UK soil? How can we be assured that UK police forces are being adequately trained to understand the pressure from China?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for her thoughtful comments and her support for the cross-party campaign for financial freedom for BNO passport holders here in the UK. If I may, I will pick up on her point about training. On transnational repression, whether from the People’s Republic of China, Iran or other countries with whom we have such a significant disparity in values, it is very important that we continue to deepen our understanding of, and improve our training on, how cyber-crime works and the influence of social media. I am sure she agrees that another area is our learning institutes, including universities, where students report feelings of being watched and being under surveillance. We are wise to all those things. My hon. Friend the Minister for Security and I are working together closely on the challenge of transnational repression. It is much more difficult in this day of social media, but we will redouble our efforts to train law enforcement officers, local government and teachers, so that we can pick up on any fears that victims of transnational repression might be experiencing.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I agree with the Minister that the UK-China relationship is necessary, but she will know that it is complicated and often conflicted. Russia has attacked political dissidents and refugees in this country, even to the point of murder. Iran is seeking to track down political dissidents in this country. Now the Chinese state—let us be honest about it—is making direct threats against people living in this country who have sought political asylum. I have two simple questions for the Minister. First, are the security services resourced enough to counter the increased threat? Secondly, are Hongkonger political dissidents safe on the streets of Britain?
Catherine West
The right hon. Member asks two excellent questions. The first concerns training and capabilities, which feature in our audit of Government Departments and the extent of their preparedness for these increasingly different challenges and threats—they are part of what we are looking at. In response to the second question, I can tell the right hon. Member that BNO passport holders are safe because we keep them safe, and we ensure that there is adequate training and up-to-date knowledge on an ongoing basis. I think that we have the best intelligence services going, particularly when it comes to questions of this sort, but we can never be complacent. Instances such as those raised by the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and others give us an opportunity to underline from Parliament the important and cross-party nature of cracking down on transnational repression.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Chloe Cheung, a resident of Leeds, has been subject to a £100,000 bounty simply for telling the truth about Jimmy Lai. At 19 years old, she is the youngest person to be subject to Hong Kong’s national security law. What reassurances can the Minister give Chloe and other Hongkongers that they will be protected from transnational repression while they reside within our borders?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent constituency work, and for knowing his constituents so well such a short time after being elected. I can reassure him that if he feels that the advice that his constituent has been given is in any way lacking, he can write to me so that I can secure a specially designed package of safety for that vulnerable 19-year-old.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
How far are the Government prepared to go before the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland decides to push back in relation to this issue? I have heard many reports, in my constituency and across Northern Ireland, of the targeting of families and friends of mine by Chinese authorities. They feel vulnerable in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, all of which is now on the frontline. The Government must step up and protect our citizens.
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Member for relentlessly raising in the House the issue of human rights and the concerns of his constituents. May I refer them to the excellent welcome programme, which is run through local authorities? It was introduced by the last Government and is being continued by this Government. Its purpose is to provide a warm welcome and help people with employability and some of the softer skills—English language courses, for instance—but it has a hard edge to it as well: it is linked with community policing, so that we can be absolutely sure that no one here in the UK is afraid for their safety owing to intimidation from a Government many miles away.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for coming here to give reassurance. Many thousands of people from Hong Kong have decided to settle in Milton Keynes, and we are very pleased that they are adding to our wonderful diversity. Some of those who contacted me over Christmas are quite concerned, and not just for themselves but for their families who remain in Hong Kong and are fervent believers in democracy and in their nation of Hong Kong, and who want to ensure that that is protected through their ability to campaign for it. The rise of transnational aggression continues. Also over Christmas, one of my constituents, Hazar Denli, who is a whistleblower, was issued with an arrest warrant from Vietnam. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can deal with something that is happening increasingly across the world?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for being such an involved constituency Member and for being so responsive over the Christmas period. A number of every active MPs are sitting behind me. Let me make a more serious point. These are the sort of constituency concerns that we want to jump to immediately. In the first place, could my hon. Friend approach her constituent and check that he has the required safety package and that the police in that wonderful city of Milton Keynes are aware of the case? Could she also send me some details about the other case that she mentioned, which I am happy to look at, so that I can write back to her with an informed answer?
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I am fortunate enough to have a large community of Hongkongers in my constituency, who are extremely welcome, but they often speak to me about the limitations imposed on them by the conditions of the BNO visa under which they have arrived in this country. They cannot gain full access to healthcare, education or employment opportunities. Does the Minister agree that addressing some of the concerns felt by Hongkongers in Britain will send the Chinese Government a strong message about how much we value our Hong Kong citizens, and how hard this Government work to support their freedoms and their right to live in this country?
Catherine West
I have the pleasure of walking in Richmond Park, which is a lovely thing to do, and I thank the hon. Member for her concern for her constituents.
The scheme was designed by the last Government. There are now 293,000 BNO passport holders in the UK, and on the whole I think it is a success story, given the 12 hubs, the welcome programme, the English courses and so on, but there are always improvements to be made. Perhaps the hon. Member would direct her question to my colleagues in the Home Office in the first instance, but also copy me in. I am keen to know how we can be even more welcoming, so that we can provide the contrast of a society that values difference and values newcomers and what they bring, but that also makes everyone feel safe.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The British Hong Kong community, including those who have made their homes in my constituency, will welcome the Minister’s robust answers today. Will she confirm that Beijing’s actions against BNOs will be scrutinised as part of the Government’s China audit?
Catherine West
Yes, of course, but it is a fairly broad audit, so if there is anything specific that my hon. Friend would like our officials to look at, will he send me just a couple of paragraphs so that I can wind that into our response? We want an up-to-date audit and we are hoping to publish it in the coming months, so perhaps he could do that soonish.
We want to be robust on human rights and security, and we are concerned about cyber-security and other aspects of the transnational repression that appears to be growing, but this also has an edge to it, in that we are looking at our own national interest and at where we are exposed economically. This is a difficult thing that we have to do in foreign policy: to look to our own interests, as well as defending our broader human values and human rights.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Minister was right to point out that Brexit has made us more vulnerable. I wonder whether the UK is fit for the increased challenges to democracy, be they from the Russian Federation, Iran or China; the Intelligence and Security Committee highlighted that some years ago. I also note that a foreign oligarch called for the unelected Head of State to get rid of the democratically elected Government, using his own social media channel.
On a serious note, will Ministers introduce updated measures showing how they see themselves defending democracy in the UK, including the rights of those who are already here, while also protecting us all from outside interference?
Catherine West
I will not be tempted down the particular track that the hon. Member has invited me to go down, involving oligarchs and so forth, but what I will say is that we live in a very uncertain time. There is a sense of “safety first” in foreign policy: we would like to close everything down and just operate within the UK, but that option is not available to us. What we therefore seek to do is bring ourselves into line with other interlocutors. Janet Yellen, a very robust interlocutor, has visited Beijing a number of times. The Australians, the Singaporeans and a number of others do not have to leave their values at the door if they want to have a discussion about a particular economic opportunity, or if they are worried about something; they say what they want to say in an engagement. I can promise the hon. Member that there will be no return to the golden era and a pint with Xi Jinping, but there will be a heightened awareness of our national security, and human rights will be paramount.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Chinese Government respect one thing: strength. So long as they continue to perceive that we are cringing, they will treat us with the contempt they believe we deserve, so how many Hong Kong officials have we sanctioned?
Catherine West
As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office is still functioning here in the UK. We are keeping a close watch on the situation, and we keep all these things under review. My visit to Hong Kong in November was instructive, and I can assure him that nobody was cringing when I met the representative from Beijing. If you think this Minister cringes, then you don’t know her.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
If human rights are paramount, why should we allow our trade balance to determine how we respond to abuses of human rights?
Catherine West
The hon. Member asks a very important question. There is a three-legged approach in good foreign policy, with national security first, human rights as our duty, and an eye to our economy, because I do not think any of us wants the continuation of a situation where our economy is at the bottom of the league table, which is how it feels now.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The malign extraterritorial reach of the Chinese Communist party is being played out in very human terms, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on bringing an example of that to the Floor of the House today. Why, then, are this Government potentially facilitating that reach by handing over the Chagos islands?
Catherine West
This urgent question is about Hong Kong, but I think it is very important that when international courts make decisions—be that on the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, or other international court judgments—we comply with them.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the national security law for Hong Kong is in direct conflict with article 23 of the Basic Law for Hong Kong and a clear breach of the Sino-British joint declaration?
Catherine West
We have been relentless in pushing back on the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong. When meeting civil society organisations in Hong Kong in November, I reassured people there of the values of this House. For those of us who were founding members of Hong Kong Watch, when the Prime Minister of the time was having a pint with Xi Jinping, we will never turn away from underlining the importance of those fundamental rights and what Hongkongers enjoyed in the past. It is terribly sad to see the erosion of those rights, but we cannot just give up and walk away. We have to have a dialogue, we have to keep pointing out our point of view, and we have to keep pushing back.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Hongkonger residents I represent in Sutton and Cheam are regularly in touch with me to outline their fears and uncertainty, living under the threat of the transnational repression operated by China. The news that China is now issuing arrest warrants and bounties for the identification of pro-democracy campaigners in the UK is another step in that fear and repression. They often wonder, will they be next? May I ask the Minister again to make it clear to China that these bounties are illegal and that any individuals who engage in the practice will be prosecuted? More broadly, will she start to stand up to China and its unacceptable persecution of British residents by applying Magnitsky sanctions to the Hong Kong officials responsible?
Catherine West
We will always maintain our flexibility on Magnitsky sanctions; that is the benefit of them, post Brexit, as we have our own sanctions programme now. The hon. Member will be aware of the important work we are doing to sanction certain Chinese companies that are facilitating Russia in the Ukrainian conflict. We will continue to look at what we can do within that regime, to ensure that we use any tools we have to strengthen international processes and procedures and to stand up again and again for what is right in the international arena of human rights.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
What oversight is there by the Foreign Office of our devolved institutions’ connections with China? I ask because Simon Cheng, a pro-democracy Hong Kong activist who is in exile because he was tortured in China, has properly criticised the fact that when the First Ministers of Northern Ireland recently had contact with Chinese authorities, they refused to publish a record of those meetings. What oversight is there to ensure that we are presenting a united front across the United Kingdom to China?
Catherine West
I do not think the hon. and learned Member intended a pun with “united front”. Taking his point very seriously, I think we could be doing more, and if he could write to me with the example he mentioned—the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) has also mentioned a particular incident to me in Edinburgh that I was unaware of—I would like that, so that I can challenge our officials to come up with a more robust, joined-up approach. As he is aware, following the general election in July, the Prime Minister set out first to Edinburgh, then to Cardiff and then to Belfast to emphasise the importance of the devolved regions to a holistic way of looking at governance. This is a really good example of where we could be doing more.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers on the Chancellor’s visit to Beijing, and I believe she has said that concerns will be raised. Concerns have been raised time and again, and it has got us nowhere, so is it not time to draw a line in the sand? Is it not the minimum we could do to raise our voices a little more loudly, demonstrate our anger a little more publicly and cancel the Chancellor’s visit to Beijing?
Catherine West
The hon. Member is quite right to say that it has been raised, not least by the Prime Minister when he met Xi Jinping; he is on film raising the Jimmy Lai case, which is in the courts right now. That is the nature of a dialogue—to raise it—but we will be robust in the way that we raise those cases, and we will continue to make a point. There will not be cancelling of trips, on the basis that there has to be an element of outward focus by the UK, particularly given the economic legacy and the position we find ourselves in. I will pass on the hon. Member’s concerns, and I will certainly listen to any further suggestions he has, but I believe that engagement is necessary.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Harrogate and Knaresborough is blessed to have a small but thriving group of Hongkongers who have made it their home and opened up a number of local businesses, adding to the fabric of our towns. My worry is that, with the latest arrest warrants and transnational repression, Hongkongers will not want to be visible in public, playing that part in our communities. What tangible steps will this Government take to get the message down to people on the ground that this is not something we will stand for and that we will stand by and support them?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Member for his question and, with his permission, I will take it away to see which hub he is closest to. Twelve hubs were set up specifically for the welcome programme for BNO passport holders, so keen were we in 2021 to extend the hand of friendship to those who were so cruelly treated in Hong Kong and continue to be. I will write back to him; if he could email me with any specific constituency issues, it would mean a more informed reply.
Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave)
Tuesday 7th January 2025
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill 2024-26 View all Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for an entitlement to paid safe leave for victims of domestic abuse; and for connected purposes.
Domestic abuse is a national emergency. All Members of this House will have been contacted by women and men in their constituencies who have suffered from domestic abuse at some point in their lives. According to SafeLives, approximately 2.1 million people in the UK have experienced some form of domestic abuse. Sadly, the majority are women, and I will refer today to the Government’s mission to tackle violence against women and girls. But we should not forget that 750,000 of those survivors are men, and Office for National Statistics data shows that one in seven men has experienced domestic abuse. Although those figures may shock some Members of this House, they do not paint a full picture of the emergency that we are in.
One in four women has experienced domestic abuse. At least one woman is killed by a current or former partner every week in this country. Each year, more than 75,000 people are at high or imminent risk of being murdered or seriously injured as a result of domestic abuse. Some 1.5 million domestic abuse-related incidents were recorded by police in England and Wales in the year ending March 2023, and nearly 250 people were arrested in Gloucester alone this December for domestic abuse-related offences. Behind all the statistics, however, is a human being—a person in our society, our communities and cities like mine who has faced unimaginable pain and suffering.
Domestic abuse is not just about physical violence. It is also about psychological manipulation, economic control, coercion and the isolation of victims from their friends, families and support networks. It affects people of all ages, backgrounds and walks of life. It takes a profound toll on a survivor’s physical and mental health. The trauma of abuse lingers and leaves long-lasting scars on victims that can take years, if not decades, to heal.
The impact of domestic abuse has been brought home to me, as a new MP, by the constituents who have attended my surgeries across the city and shared their personal stories. They include survivors and victims who have had to flee across the country, only to be followed by their abuser, individuals who have been prevented from having friends or even getting a job for more than a decade, and constituents who have been forced to pay their abuser’s rent long after they left the relationship.
Of course, we in Gloucester all remember the horrific murder of Hollie Gazzard, which I raised at Prime Minister’s questions just before Christmas. In 2014, Hollie was murdered at work by her boyfriend after months of obsessive behaviour, jealousy and harassment. Tackling domestic abuse matters to me, and it matters to my city. I have already held a roundtable with local charities and organisations, including the Hollie Gazzard Trust, FearFree and the Gloucestershire Domestic Abuse Support Service, and putting forward this Bill would not have been possible without the tireless campaigning and research of national organisations such as Women’s Aid, SafeLives and Rights of Women.
I am pleased that this Government are already getting on with the job of supporting victims and survivors of domestic abuse as part of their unprecedented mission to halve violence against women and girls. We have already introduced domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms up and down the country and rolled out domestic abuse protection orders, which enable victims to be protected from all forms of domestic abuse, including non-physical abuse and controlling or coercive behaviour. However, I genuinely believe that this Bill could play an important part in that mission, and change the lives of victims and survivors across the country.
Why this Bill? Well, perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of leaving an abusive relationship is the financial reality. Survivors often find themselves trapped in cycles of abuse, because they simply cannot afford to leave. Figures from Women’s Aid’s recent report, “The Price of Safety”, suggest that it could cost a survivor almost £50,000 to leave an abuser, based on the direct costs of fleeing and rebuilding a new life. Despite the financial burden, taking time off work is an unavoidable necessity for many victims—whether it is for medical treatment, finding a new place to live, attending court hearings, seeking legal advice or taking their children to safety.
The demands on a survivor’s time are overwhelming, and many are forced to take holiday to give evidence against their abusers in court. Many take time off sick, only to fall foul of their employer for having too much sickness absence. Some take the impossible decision that they simply cannot afford to leave, so they remain in unsafe situations, continuing the cycle of violence. Two weeks’ paid safe leave would give victims and survivors the time they need to seek help, to find the resources they need to escape their abuser, and to start the long process of healing.
Let me be clear: victims of abuse should never have to choose between their safety or their wages. Survivors should not have to take annual leave to attend court in order to see their abusers prosecuted. Women fleeing an abusive husband should not have to call in sick and face the sack for getting their children to safety. Victims should not fear repercussions at work just for seeking help.
The last Conservative Government undertook a review of domestic abuse leave and concluded that it would be too difficult to implement. I do not accept that. What I do accept is that there will be complexities in ensuring that an entitlement to paid leave works as intended, that it supports survivors and victims of domestic abuse, and that it provides a framework by which survivors and victims can feel confident in having confidential conversations at work about what they are going through at home, free from fear of repercussions or a detrimental impact on their career. Unlike the Conservative party, however, I do not believe that something should be stuck in a drawer and forgotten about just because it is difficult. That is why I propose that the Bill require the Secretary of State to come back with regulations to implement safe leave. Such a process would allow the Government to consult victims and survivors, charities such as Women’s Aid, Refuge and SafeLives, businesses and employers, and trade unions in order to tackle the difficult issues head-on and deliver for victims and survivors.
Some may argue that providing paid leave for domestic abuse victims will put a burden on employers. Although such leave would be paid for by businesses, that argument misses the bigger picture. Domestic abuse already costs business and the economy. A 2019 study by KPMG shows that businesses in the UK lost £316 million a year as a result of work-related absences due to domestic abuse. Women’s Aid and ResPublica have calculated that domestic abuse cost our society £78 billion in 2022 alone. The reality is that employers who already voluntarily offer supportive work environments, including domestic abuse leave, tend to foster loyalty, improve employee retention and create safer, happier and healthier workplaces. It is no longer enough to say that domestic abuse is a personal issue; it is an issue that should concern every workplace, every employer, and every member of this House.
We do not have to look far for examples of how safe leave can be introduced in this country. In fact, parts of the United Kingdom have already begun the process of introducing safe leave. The Northern Ireland Assembly have passed the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, and are currently consulting on proposals. Residents in the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the Philippines all have the right to time off work because of the domestic abuse they have suffered. As this Government are taking a global lead on tackling violence against women and girls, I truly believe that my proposal would be a fantastic part of that agenda.
Today, I hope to start a conversation in workplaces up and down the country so that employers ask themselves a very simple question: “If one of my employees was suffering from domestic abuse, would they come to us for help?” If the answer is no, surely more needs to be done. Safe leave would save lives. Safe leave would start conversations in workplaces in my city of Gloucester that will help survivors and victims of domestic abuse get to safety, get the support they need and get back on their feet.
Imagine living in a society in which victims and survivors of domestic abuse feel safe and empowered to seek support at work. Imagine if, having fled your home, got your children to safety and then taken legal action against your abuser, you did not have to worry about your job. You could take the time to attend court, get medical help and see your solicitor, safe in the knowledge that you had a protected and paid right to time off. That is the kind of society that I want to live in.
In closing, I ask the House to consider the many victims and survivors who are suffering in silence today; I ask Members to think about the children and families whose lives have been torn apart by violence; and I ask all of us to think about what we as Members of this House can do to ensure that these survivors are not abandoned or left behind. Introducing two weeks of paid leave for victims of domestic abuse is a step towards a more just, compassionate and equal society. It is a commitment that we will stand by survivors, support them and never stop fighting until violence against women and girls is a thing of the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alex McIntyre, Jess Asato, Emily Darlington, Catherine Fookes, Dr Allison Gardner, Tom Hayes, Uma Kumaran, Alice Macdonald, Ben Maguire, Anneliese Midgley, Katrina Murray and Mrs Sarah Russell present the Bill.
Alex McIntyre accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 June 2025, and to be printed (Bill 157).
Crown Estate Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 7th January 2025
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Crown Estate Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Crown Estate Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (1 Nov 2024)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. May I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) on his moving ten-minute rule Bill, which he just presented?
The purpose of the Crown Estate Bill is to bring legislation governing the Crown Estate into the 21st century. The Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent from government, that operates for profit and competes in the marketplace for investment, yet it is restricted in its ability to do so by legislation that has not been amended since 1961. With less ability to compete and to invest, it is less able to deliver returns for the public purse than it might otherwise be able to do.
Existing limitations on the Crown Estate’s powers have meant it has had to generate capital for investment by selling its assets, which is neither desirable nor sustainable. Under current legislation, the Crown Estate is constrained in its ability to support sustainable projects and to preserve our heritage for generations to come. These are the reasons why the Bill is necessary and why the Crown Estate has asked successive Governments for reforms.
The Bill has been expanded and improved during its passage in the other place, with requirements relating to sustainable development, GB Energy and the composition of the board. Fundamentally, the changes that the Bill proposes will give the Crown Estate new freedoms, including the power to borrow as their competitors can, enabling them to adopt a sustainable and competitive business model.
The Bill has two key objectives. First, it broadens the scope of activities that the Crown Estate can invest in, in order to support the delivery of its core purpose across net zero, nature recovery, economic growth and generating returns to the public purse. In its current form, it is predominantly a property estate and is significantly limited in its investment options. The Bill would provide it with the ability to invest more widely in new growth opportunities—for example, investing in the further mapping of our seabed. This will enable it to undertake significant de-risking activity, such as pre-consent surveys and supporting grid connections, thus increasing the frequency of leasing for offshore wind and supporting the clean energy transition.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I hope the Minister will not hear much disagreement about the points he is making so eloquently. However, may I query why these provisions and powers, which he believes are relevant for the Crown Estate in England and Wales, are not also being provided to the Crown Estate in Scotland?
Darren Jones
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Crown Estate Scotland is a separate organisation to the Crown Estate that is the subject of the Bill. Of course, we continue to have conversations and we will be pleased to talk to him and others about that issue for the future.
Darren Jones
I will make some progress.
The second objective of the Bill is to enable the Crown Estate to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively. It does so by empowering the Crown Estate to reduce the size of the cash reserves it needs to hold, thereby expanding its ability to use its land and property assets far more efficiently.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Let us be clear that this is a huge departure for the Crown Estate. The Bill basically allows it to go to the City and to raise capital based on its assets, most of which, as the Minister highlights, are property. As he knows, the sponsor Government Department for the Crown Estate is the Treasury, but investments go up and down. What if those investments go down? Who will be the guarantor for those liabilities? Will it be the taxpayer or the Crown Estate?
Darren Jones
I will come to a number of those points later in my speech. If I have not answered the right hon. Gentleman’s points as I get towards the end, I will take another intervention from him.
As a result of the changes in the Bill, the Crown Estate will be able to accelerate investment in redeveloping and decarbonising its Regent Street and historic London portfolio, as well as investing in projects to support science and innovation. The Bill will unlock potential investment of up to £1.5 billion in the science, technology and innovation economy over the next 15 years, building on the Crown Estate’s recent investment in the city of Oxford.
To reduce the size of its cash holdings and engage in more capital-intensive activity in the long term, the Crown Estate needs the ability to borrow, as its competitors currently can. Such borrowing will be from the Government or from other sources, but only with Treasury consent. Borrowing from the Government will be at commercial rates, meaning the interest the Crown Estate pays, funded from its own income, will outweigh the Government’s cost of borrowing the money they loan to the Crown Estate. This will enable the Crown Estate to build on its long track record of delivering significant revenues to the public purse year after year—it has delivered over £4 billion in the last decade.
Mark Pritchard
Is there not a potential conflict of interest? The Minister mentions GB Energy, a new national organisation introduced by Labour Government policy. Because of the Crown Estate’s partnership with the Treasury, the Government are encouraging the Crown Estate to invest in GB Energy, but what if people out there do not like that policy? What if GB Energy is a failure? It is there not a clear potential conflict of interest between the Crown Estate and the incumbent Government?
Darren Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is doing a brilliant job of anticipating sections in my speech. Once again, I will point at him when I come to the relevant section; in fact, it is the next section, so he is in luck.
There will be a memorandum of understanding in place between the Treasury and the Crown Estate that will govern how the borrowing powers will be exercised. Above all, the Crown Estate will be borrowing for investment, maximising the profits returned to the public purse. Any such borrowing will require Treasury consent and will be within our fiscal rules.
Given that the new powers will enable the Crown Estate to first draw on its cash holdings, it is not envisaged that these borrowing powers will be used until the end of the decade. As with any public sector borrowing, the Treasury will ensure that this is consistent with “Managing Public Money” principles to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. The fiscal impact of any Crown Estate borrowing will be fully considered, starting with this year’s spending review, to ensure it is consistent with our fiscal rules.
The Bill contains a set of necessary reforms, ensuring that the two key objectives can be met and that the Crown Estate can continue to operate effectively, both now and in the years ahead. It is composed of five key elements. First, it widens investment powers by removing existing restrictions on investing in the current Crown Estate Act 1961, and clarifies the Crown Estate’s ability to invest in complementary activities, such as research, digital technology and energy supply chains. Secondly, it grants the Crown Estate the power to borrow with Treasury consent. As well as generating returns for the public purse, the new ability to borrow will free it up to make better use of its existing assets, leveraging these to give it more room to invest.
Thirdly, the Bill makes amendments relating to the governance of the Crown Estate to provide legislative simplification and to bring it in line with best practice for modern corporate governance. By expanding the number of commissioners, the board will be able to better reflect the growing breadth of the Crown Estate business and ensure a greater range of expertise and diversity at board level. The Bill also requires the appointment of commissioners to advise on Wales, England and Northern Ireland, which will ensure that the board continues to act in the best interests of the areas in which it operates.
Fourthly, the Bill requires the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development goals in the UK. It is important that progress towards national goals on the environment and climate, as well as wider considerations on society and the economy, continue to be at the core of the Crown Estate’s strategy.
Fifthly, the Bill requires the annual report to include a section on the activities of the commissioners under their recently announced partnership with Great British Energy. That will ensure that details of the partnership and the benefits it creates are publicly available, clear to all and subject to debate in this House when those reports are published.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I understand that the Minister is proposing that, in relation to the seabed, the Crown Estate will be a licensing authority for renewable energy projects and will now be able to invest in them too. The commissioners have a primary duty to maximise the return to the Crown Estate of any activity they undertake. To comply with the law, will the Crown Estate be compelled to side with renewable energy development at the expense of the fishing industry if, for example, there is a conflict between the siting of an offshore wind farm and the use of that sea by the fishing industry, and is that fair?
Darren Jones
That is a great question. I have no idea, so I will commit to writing to the right hon. Gentleman with an answer, if he will forgive me for not knowing.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Melanie Onn
I might be able to help a little with the question asked by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). The Crown Estate has engaged in supporting the evidence and change programme that has brought the fishing industry and the renewables sector around the table to enable earlier planning to prevent some of the conflicts we have seen. My speech will highlight some good examples of where those plans and the evidence and change programme have started to be implemented. The industries are working together, hand in hand, to prevent the kind of conflict about which the right hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned.
Darren Jones
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her help, which I hope gives the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) some reassurance, as it sounds eminently sensible.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Clause 3 covers this:
“The Commissioners must keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.”
This has been written into the Bill.
Darren Jones
I am continually grateful for the team effort, and I am grateful to my hon. Friends for having paid such close attention to the Bill.
Mr Carmichael
I am aware of the duty to keep this under review, but that will surely be overridden, because the primary duty remains to maximise the return for the Crown Estate. I am quite happy for the Crown Estate to be both a licensor and an investor, although there is something of a conflict of interest, but surely there needs to be more concern about the Bill’s impact on other seagoing industries. In a way, I fear that the Minister’s response to my initial question suggests this has not been given sufficient attention thus far.
Darren Jones
The right hon. Gentleman should not take my not knowing the answer as meaning that other people are not paying sufficient attention to the issue. He has asked a very technical question, and I commit to making sure an answer is made available to him and the House before the Bill goes to Committee.
The Bill currently places an obligation on the commissioners in relation to salmon farming, due to an amendment made in the other place. The Government do not believe this obligation would be effective or, indeed, appropriate, given that it relates to a devolved policy area. We therefore intend to seek to remove this measure in Committee.
The Bill has seven clauses. Clause 1 inserts two new measures into the Crown Estate Act 1961 to clarify and broaden the commissioners’ powers. It also removes section 3(4) of the 1961 Act, thereby removing limitations on the commissioners’ investment powers.
The two new measures grant a power to borrow, subject to Treasury consent, and clarify that the commissioners have the powers to do that which is connected, conducive or incidental to meeting their general functions, including enhancing and maintaining the Crown Estate and the returns obtained from it. This allows the Crown Estate to borrow from the National Loans Fund, the Treasury or otherwise, subject to Treasury consent, and authorises the Treasury to provide financial assistance to the commissioners or to provide loans from the National Loans Fund.
Clause 2 makes two amendments to modernise the Crown Estate’s governance, by increasing the maximum number of board members from eight to 12 and removing the requirement for the salaries and expenses of its commissioners to be paid out of voted funds.
Clause 3 requires the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. Clause 4 requires the commissioners’ annual report to include a specific report relating to the Crown Estate’s partnership with Great British Energy.
Clause 5 requires the commissioners to make assessments relating to salmon farms on Crown Estate land, and to refuse or revoke a licence for a salmon farm if the assessment determines that it may cause, or is causing, environmental damage, or if it raises significant animal welfare concerns.
Stephen Flynn
The Minister has mentioned GB Energy and the desire to get on with allowing the Crown Estate in England and Wales to borrow. He will not have forgotten that GB Energy is likely to be located in my Aberdeen South constituency, and many of its projects to drive the net zero agenda across the UK will come to fruition in Scotland. Will he provide a little clarity on why he believes these powers should apply to the Crown Estate in England and Wales, yet his Government are not legislating for the powers to be provided to Crown Estate Scotland? I am at a loss to understand the reasoning.
Darren Jones
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the ambitions for GB Energy are broader than those relating to the provisions of this Bill. On the connection between the Crown Estate and GB Energy in relation to this Bill, it is merely about the partnership that has already been announced to facilitate the investment opportunities that are available in relation to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my previous answer on Crown Estate Scotland.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
We have talked a little about Scotland and Wales, but does the Minister believe this Bill will stimulate greater economic growth in other areas and regions of the country? The south-west peninsula has a huge amount of wind energy potential, for example, so has he assessed what sort of investment opportunities might come from this Bill?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question. He will know from the work of ministerial colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero that the enormous potential for offshore wind in the Celtic sea and off the south-west coast is currently largely untapped. A lot of the work that needs to be done to make those seabeds available, and to bring the interconnections onshore and on to the grid to make it viable for private sector investment, requires quite a lot of up-front work. The Bill will enable the Crown Estate, working in partnership with GB Energy, to identify opportunities to invest in things like supply chain and in preparation and planning for the seabed work, and to identify the cost profiles that might relate to the projects that are being developed. That will facilitate the deals that we wish to make with private sector suppliers to unlock those opportunities. We see this as an important enabling mechanism to take advantage of the opportunities we have in the south-west and other parts of the country.
Clause 6 requires the appointment of separate commissioners with responsibility for giving advice about England, Wales and Northern Ireland, noting, as I have on a number of occasions, that Crown Estate Scotland is a separate entity. It also grants Welsh Ministers and the Executive Office in Northern Ireland the right to be consulted on each of the appointments relating to those parts of the UK. Clause 7 sets out procedural matters relating to the Bill’s extent and commencement.
The Bill gives the Crown Estate the flexibility it needs to meet its core duty of enhancing and maintaining the value of the estate and the returns obtained from it. The Bill broadens the scope of the activities in which the Crown Estate can engage, enabling it to further invest in the energy transition, and it empowers the Crown Estate to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively. Critically, these measures will unlock more long-term investment, increasing the Crown Estate’s contribution to creating high-quality jobs and driving growth across the United Kingdom.
This Bill delivers a targeted and measured enhancement to the Crown Estate’s powers and governance, modernising it for the 21st century, and I commend it to the House.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The work on reforming the Crown Estate was developed by the previous Government. I am pleased to be debating the Bill today, and I thank my noble Friends for the scrutiny they have already provided.
We support the objective to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete and invest, so that it maintains and enhances the value of the estate and the income derived from it. Assets managed by the Crown Estate are not the property of the Government, nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate. Since George III, the assets have been held in right of the Crown, which encompasses the interests of the sovereign and the Government. That is why appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate and its £15.5 billion in total assets is important. It has a rural portfolio of 185,000 acres, manages roughly 7,400 miles of coastline, has one of the largest property portfolios in the west end and returns all its profits to the Treasury. Last year, there was a record profit of £1.1 billion, up more than £600 million largely due to fees from round 4, and it has generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances over the past decade. There is, however, the potential to do more. In the business case prepared under the last Government, the Crown Estate estimated that changes in the Bill would enable it to generate £100 million a year in additional revenues by 2030. It is right, therefore, that we help to modernise the Crown Estate as it aims to create lasting prosperity for the nation.
Although we support the Bill’s aims, further scrutiny is obviously needed in some areas, including a limit on the level of borrowing, governance, the relationship with Great British Energy and safeguards in relation to the disposal of assets. I will come to each in turn.
As we have heard, the kernel of the Bill is clause 1, which confers on the Crown Estate a broader power to borrow, subject to Treasury consent. While I note the need for Treasury approval, a lack of parliamentary oversight on borrowing levels is a concern. When pushed by Baroness Vere of Norbiton and other noble Lords, the Government stated that a limit on borrowing
“is better placed outside of legislation”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1400.]
and instead should be placed in the memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and the Treasury.
The MOU sets out that the Crown Estate can borrow up to 25% of the worth of its total assets, but an MOU is easily altered. Public borrowing levels should be transparent. If Parliament is being asked to remove restrictions on borrowing, why should there not be a cap in legislation with the ability to swiftly amend it through a statutory instrument, if necessary, to protect against unconstrained borrowing and the concerns that my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin raised?
Mark Pritchard
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Crown Estate and Treasury’s framework agreement was ineffective, or that at least it could have been strengthened. The memorandum of understanding is in a similar vein. I therefore support him.
Will he comment on this? I have concerns about the Bill. I agree with the general principle but there are potential fiscal and reputational hazards ahead for the Crown—not just the Crown Estate—if some of the investments go south. Also, at the moment there is a link between the Crown Estate and the sovereign grant. I think it is around 12%, as not all the income to the sovereign grant is derived from the Crown Estate. However, if the investments were to go wrong, who would be liable? If we have a weak MOU with no statutory oversight, it is more likely to go wrong.
James Wild
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the potential risk. There is no one-way bet in life, and there is no guarantee that the Crown Estate will successfully invest in projects that go well. I will come on to the point about the energy side of things later in my speech.
It is perfectly reasonable, as we proposed in the other place, to have that 25% cap in legislation, which could be amended. I am sure we will consider the issue further in Committee.
The Bill alters the governance of the Crown Estate and provides for the number of commissioners to be increased to 12. Given the extension of the powers and the decrease in parliamentary oversight, pre-appointment scrutiny is of great importance. Again, I thank Baroness Vere for seeking and securing assurances from the Government that the chairman of the Crown Estate commissioners could be added to the Cabinet Office pre-appointment scrutiny list. Just before Christmas, Ric Lewis was announced as the preferred candidate for the role and I am pleased that the appointment will now be considered by the Treasury Committee. Will the Minister confirm in his winding-up speech whether other commissioners will be subject to any pre-appointment scrutiny?
Turning to salaries, which I do not believe the Chief Secretary referred to, under clause 2, Parliament will no longer be responsible for approving them through the estimates. Instead, they will be paid out of the income of the Crown Estate. Currently, the framework document sets out that remuneration of the chief executive should be in line with or below that of an appropriate benchmark group approved by the Treasury and that a clear majority of the chief executive’s total reward should be conditional upon performance. We support rewarding success, but with the loss of parliamentary oversight, will the Minister confirm whether any changes are proposed to the remuneration framework and, specifically, for the chief executive? Will he undertake to report to the House on any such change in future?
Turning to Great British Energy, on the day the Bill was introduced, the Government announced a partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy, which they claimed will
“unleash billions of investment in clean power.”
Indeed, the press release went on to say it
“will lead to up to 20-30GW of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030”.
However, there is a lack of transparency over how the partnership will work, the difference it will make, and its impact on the Estate’s primary duties. Given the supposed significance, I would have expected to have seen a partnership agreement by now, as without one, we do not know what has been agreed. Will the Minister confirm if there is a partnership agreement yet? Will he commit to publishing it before the Committee stage? Has the Crown Estate agreed to invest a certain amount with GB Energy? What process is there to ensure the Crown Estate continues to deliver on its duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate? How will the Crown Estate decide between projects GB Energy backs and other projects that may have a higher rate of return?
The GB Energy founding statement adds to the confusion, adding that the Crown Estate
“will establish a new division ‘Great British Energy: The Crown Estate’.”
That raises several questions. Will new staff be required, or will it simply be a restructuring of the existing group? The statement also says it will sit
“under both Great British Energy and The Crown Estate, with strategy and investment agreed by Great British Energy.”
Will decisions be made jointly on investments, or will the Crown Estate retain its independence? Given the Government voted down our amendments to the Great British Energy Bill to introduce more accountability, it simply fuels some suspicion that the partnership has been created for political rather than economic reasons. The reporting requirements that were secured and added to the Bill in clause 4, which the Chief Secretary referred to, will at least help to bring some transparency to this, but there is a need for a lot more.
Under the previous Government, the UK became the first to more than halve emissions while growing the economy and became a leader in offshore wind. However, we must acknowledge that renewables are not cheap in all scenarios. There is clearly a risk that the Government will push up the cost of wind by rushing ahead to meet their political target and increase prices for consumers as a result. That is a far cry from the £300 cut in energy bills that Labour promised during the general election. As we scrutinise the Bill, Parliament has an important role to play to ensure the Government do not seek to use the Crown Estate to try and deliver the Energy Secretary’s damaging policies and undermine returns to the taxpayer.
As I set out earlier, the Crown Estate owns some vital assets, so it is surprising that there are so few safeguards to prevent commissioners from selling off such important assets. In the business case for the changes, the Crown Estate was planning £1.4 billion of disposals to fund investments, representing nearly 10% of its portfolio. When I asked Crown Estate representatives what that covered, they said they were unable to disclose plans for disposals because it is commercially sensitive information. Again, that raises concerns about transparency. In response to questions in the other place, the Government said they were working with legal experts
“to establish the extent to which the Crown Estate can currently sell the seabed”
for example. On Report, Lord Livermore confirmed that if the Government establish that
“further legislation is required to restrict the ability of the Crown Estate to sell the seabed,”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1412.]
they would bring forward an amendment.
I would be grateful if, in his winding up, the Minister could update the House on the process of those discussions and the need for such an amendment. The disposal of assets should be properly scrutinised. The Government rejected attempts in the other place to bring more scrutiny here and said that a statutory limit on disposals would undermine the flexibility of the Crown Estate to operate commercially. Given that the assets are held for the benefit of the nation, we should ensure some form of transparency if they are to be disposed of, whether that is reporting to Parliament, or seeking HMT approval for disposal of specific assets, or those over a set value.
Finally, let me turn to salmon. Clause 5 would require the commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards on salmon farms on the Crown Estate. If a salmon farm is causing damage or animal welfare issues, its licence would have to be refused. I commend my noble Friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for his tireless work on this matter and for highlighting that salmon farming can cause detrimental impacts in the event of escapes in terms of disease, breeding and other issues. Given that wild Atlantic salmon are now on the international union for conservation of nature’s red list, these are perfectly reasonable obligations which he said might influence how the Crown Estate of Scotland is to operate. The amendment was sponsored by Lord Forsyth, but also by Green and Labour party Members, so it is disappointing to hear the Chief Secretary to the Treasury talking about reversing that measure, and we look forward to that debate in the Committee stage.
Mr Carmichael
Salmon farming is enormously important in my community and in many other communities around the highlands and islands. Those communities will not be affected by this apparently, although we might hear conformation on that at a later stage, but is it the hon. Gentleman’s position that this is the only way of regulating salmon farmers? Is he not aware that there is a massive amount of regulation affecting salmon farming already? Does he really think that the Crown Estate commissioners are the people to be doing this job?
James Wild
Like me, the right hon. Gentleman will have read the Hansard reports of the debates in the other place where this issue was covered at some great length, so I defer to the points made by Lord Forsyth there. Regulation is obviously in place, but this addition would simply raise awareness of the issues in the Bill. The Government said that they supported the objective of the amendment when it was discussed in the other House, but did not think it was necessary. They did not think that it would do any damage, so I suggest that it remains part of the Bill.
To conclude, the Crown Estate Bill will help deliver the modernisation that is needed, but the purpose must be supporting the estate’s duty to maintain and enhance its value for maximised return to taxpayers, rather than becoming an extension of GB Energy’s cheque book. We will be pursuing the concerns that I have raised about checks on borrowing governance, the relationship with GB Energy and the safeguards in response to the disposal of assets to ensure that that remains the case.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. I wish to speak in favour of the Bill and to make a few brief points, both general ones about wider policy and some in relation to my constituency. I wish to cover the issue of the Crown Estate in central London. I shall then move on to the estate’s property around the coastline, and, finally, I shall come on to some of what I hope will be significant wider benefits of the just transition to a green economy.
First, on modernising buildings in central London, it is often forgotten that our built environment is one of the poorest in terms of energy efficiency across the developed world, including in Europe, and that we do need significant investment. We can obviously see that in the building in which we work. Many buildings in central London date from Victorian and Edwardian times, or the 1960s, when building standards were much lower than they are now. Indeed, there is enormous potential precisely because those building standards were lower—I am talking about issues such as solid walls, cavity walls that are not insulated, and existing single glazing or poor quality older double glazing that could be replaced with newer materials. That shows very precisely the potential benefits in carrying out this work.
It is important to remember, however, that this is in the nature of a one-off capital investment in the short term, which will lead to enormous benefits in the medium to longer term. Therefore, this type of measure, which was outlined so ably by my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, is exactly what is needed by many large landowners to allow them to have access to the capital that they need to carry out works that will improve building efficiency and therefore lead to energy saving. I welcome that, and it is important to remember the context of the built environment in London and across the country.
Secondly, let me move to the issues of the coastline. It is worth noting that the UK is a leader in offshore wind. We need to recognise the benefits of the past few years, particularly the move to the majority of British energy being generated by low carbon sources, particularly offshore wind. However, there is a need for a new, significant additional step up, which requires the mapping of new areas of seabed, new interconnectors, and new grid connectivity at the coast, because the whole of the grid at the moment is designed around a post-war model of large, coal-fired generation inland, so there is significant need for further investment in coastal locations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) mentioned earlier, some of that is not particularly well mapped, and part of the work that we are seeing allowed today is the ability of the Crown Estates to map much of its property on the coast or on the seabed more accurately, therefore allowing investment as well as supporting and regulating investment as well. I ask the Chief Secretary whether he could outline further detail of aspects of that, in particular the scope for the Bill to allow for and support more investment in interconnectors to other neighbouring countries, as well as more grid connectivity at the coast itself, which can be a bottleneck for renewable energy coming onshore.
Thirdly, I would like to discuss some of the wider benefits of the Bill and ask some further questions. One of the big challenges with the move towards renewable energy is delays in grid connectivity. I have seen that in my own area when I visited a large solar farm next to the M4 motorway, just outside Reading in the seat occupied by my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang). The connection of this large solar array to the grid was delayed by a year because of a lack of capacity among energy companies and wider infrastructure challenges. I hope the Chief Secretary can provide some further detail on how the Bill will allow further acceleration of grid connectivity. I also hope it will add to the wider green energy economy and that the benefits accruing from it could be felt by some smaller onshore schemes.
I certainly ask the Chief Secretary if he could investigate the possibility for it supporting some smaller schemes. For example, in my area there is an innovative scheme to put a low-head hydro generation scheme on the Thames at Caversham. That generates power for several hundred homes. However, there were significant challenges in installing the scheme. Again, grid connectivity, access to capital and other practical issues delayed the project. Up and down the Thames, and other major rivers, there are many examples of sites that could be used for this straightforward, rapidly deployable form of renewable energy. I would appreciate the Minister writing to me if he is unable to comment directly today.
On a related matter, I hope that the Bill will in some way support the wider roll-out of solar on roofs and potentially on canopies over car parks. Both have enormous potential as deployable forms of solar that would have a limited impact on land use, and they may have real benefits through the ease with which they can be accessed. I look forward to getting further detail on those points. I warmly welcome the Bill and thank the Chief Secretary for his words.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I begin by extending my gratitude to all those who have worked tirelessly in the Lords on the Bill over the past seven months. I note in particular the way in which full transparency was offered and delivered by Lord Livermore, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in response to requests for clarification and evidence. I hope that we can replicate such co-operation as the Bill passes through this House.
The objectives of the Bill are to broaden the investment and borrowing powers of the Crown Estate and to strengthen its corporate governance, in order to help accelerate, among other things, the delivery of new renewable energy, particularly offshore wind. We are generally supportive of the Bill and would welcome further scrutiny on issues such as the cap on borrowing; accountability in the relationship with Great British Energy; managing the conflicts between competing interests and values of our seabed and coastline, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael); community benefit; devolution in Wales; and our climate and nature duty. I will proceed to elucidate those issues.
In the UK, we are off track in meeting our climate targets, following previous years when the Conservatives have dithered and rowed back on pledges. We need to increase investment in renewable energy in order to strengthen our energy security and to help families keep warm and lower their energy bills, particularly during this cost of living crisis. As a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, families and businesses have been left exposed to skyrocketing bills. For far too long we have been reliant on autocrats such as Putin to meet our energy needs.
The Crown Estate oversees 200,000 acres of land, 12,000 km of coastline and a seabed area larger than the combined land mass of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the owner and steward of the seabed, the Crown Estate leases plots to offshore wind developers and other infrastructure projects, playing a fundamental role in the sustainable development of this national asset and in the potential for securing our world-leading position on floating offshore wind development.
For many years, however, the Crown Estate has been constrained in its ability to borrow through the Treasury, forcing it—as we understand it—to resort to selling off assets in order to fund its investments for the future. The changes proposed in the Bill, in partnership with Great British Energy, hold the potential to unlock investment in vital infrastructure across supply chains, ports and green energy sectors, and to accelerate progress by unblocking the huge delays in the delivery of new green energy, which is desperately needed following the slow progress made under the previous Government.
It is reassuring to hear that during the Bill’s passage through the Lords, assurances were given that there would be a borrowing cap of 20% of the loan-to-value ratio. We look forward to seeing that reflected in the updated framework agreement as we go into Committee. On the day the Bill was introduced to the House of Lords, the Government announced the Crown Estate’s partnership with Great British Energy to bring forward new offshore wind developments. Despite the significance of that relationship between the two, the original Bill did not provide clarification on or accountability in how it would work.
Clause 4, which was introduced by my Liberal Democrat colleagues, ensures important transparency through annual reports on activities within that relationship. However, we also share Energy UK’s concerns about how that relationship will work, particularly in relation to other private sector investment. We support its calls for annual schedules for offshore wind leasing that identify locations and target capacities. Such a road map would help developers and suppliers to plan investments, including necessary port upgrades, and would align with the offshore wind industrial growth plan.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this legislation should have set out a framework for devolving the Crown Estate in Wales, as is the case in Scotland?
Pippa Heylings
Indeed, I read the report of the debate in the Lords, and there was a passionate request for the Crown Estate in Wales to be devolved to the Welsh Administration and for the benefits to be felt by Welsh communities. We look forward to discussing that in Committee.
Another crucial area that has been mentioned is the mapping of the seabed around our coastline. The Crown Estate has already begun that work with award-winning geospatial techniques. That key contribution to spatial planning for our coastal and marine areas needs to balance economic development with environmental responsibility. For years, the Liberal Democrats have called for comprehensive land and sea use frameworks. Although the Government have committed to a land use framework, we remain far behind on marine spatial planning. We have heard today, in response to the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, about the conflict of interest in the Crown Estate leading on determining priorities in our coastal and marine areas. It is on that point that we seek assurances.
Statutory bodies such as the Maritime Management Organisation are responsible for prioritising and managing competing interests and values between users of our coastline, including in fishing, as has been mentioned, and in tourism, amenity use and shipping. All those things need to be managed, and that can be done through marine spatial management. We caution against the Crown Estate becoming the leader by default because it is the owner and steward of the seabed and has the capacity for mapping. We know that it is undertaking liaison work with fisheries, and that is good, but the MMO is the statutory body for managing those competing interests, and we seek assurances that that will be clarified in Committee.
Raising the issue of devolution to Wales brings me to the key point of community benefits. We need to know how communities will benefit from the investment in infrastructure and renewable projects facilitated by this Bill. Local communities must not feel that this energy transformation is being done to them, but that it is empowering them to participate and benefit from it. While the new borrowing powers will enable investment in offshore wind, they will also facilitate property development across the 185,000 acres of the Crown Estate, so the Bill must do more to ensure that those developments do not ride roughshod over community concerns regarding planning, infrastructure and environmental standards, both on land and at sea. People must have a say in the decisions that affect them and, where infrastructure is concerned, they should also receive the benefits where appropriate.
I was really pleased to see the inclusion of amendment 10, championed by Baroness Hayman. That amendment requires the commissioners to
“review the impact of their activities”
on sustainable development. As Liberal Democrats, we have long called for climate and nature duties to be a requirement of all public bodies. As Baroness Hayman wisely said,
“What matters is the endgame and the results… What matters is the impact we have and how much we have shifted the dial in terms of what the Crown Estate achieves in support of the Government’s climate and nature objectives.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1425.]
During the debate in the Lords, an undertaking was given that the framework agreement would be updated to include a definition of the meaning of sustainable development as regards the Crown Estate, with explicit reference to part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008—the targets for 2050—as well as section 56 of that Act, and to sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021 regarding nature recovery. I look forward to seeing an updated version of the framework agreement to reassure us that this definition of sustainable development has been included.
This Bill presents a trident of opportunity. It can enhance energy security, reduce household bills and bring us closer to achieving our net zero targets, but we cannot afford to lose sight of the need for financial accountability, the duty to protect nature, the need to devolve to Wales, and the need to ensure that all communities are included in the crucial journey to net zero.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. The Crown Estate sits as one of the more peculiar features of our society—King George III’s surrender to Parliament in 1760 has now morphed into a corporate body that submits 88% of its profits to the Treasury, with 12% remaining with His Majesty. It does not stop there: up to £60 billion of borrowing powers will be granted by this legislation. Given that Great British Energy’s investment stands at £8 billion, that demonstrates the scale of this organisation, as well as its power, reach and influence. The key question is whether it serves the people of this great country or whether, like any other commercial outfit, it is seeking to feather its own nest in the name of corporate greed.
In our United Kingdom, one of our biggest and most powerful natural resources is wind. To cut bills, deliver energy security and achieve net zero, we have to become to wind what Saudi Arabia is to crude oil. Off the coast of my wonderful, coastal, diverse and rural constituency of Pembrokeshire, we have an abundance of wind, but thankfully not much hot air. However, 12 miles offshore—where that glorious wind blows with such regularity, majesty and force that it would make Aeolus proud—the seabed is owned by none other than the Crown Estate.
In the past few years, creativity in international industrial policy has moved on, leaving the UK in danger of trailing behind. The United States and the European Union are actively incentivising investment in domestic supply chains, justified by their need for national energy security and urgent acceleration to net zero. To keep pace internationally, we must grasp the nettle and do it fast. The Crown Estate must utilise its own financial resources to make enabling investments that crowd in private investment into UK supply chains, such as ports and other coastal facilities for floating wind.
Over the last year I have been doing everything I can to engage constructively with the Crown Estate, but, unfortunately, I have yet to secure any assurances that it will utilise its financial resources for the benefit of our energy security, our jobs of the future and our acceleration to net zero. We cannot sit by and let the conflict between raising national income via annual option fees and incentivising early investment to develop regional supply chains ruin the chances of bringing children out of poverty and giving young people in areas such as mine back home in Pembrokeshire good, secure, long-term and well-paid jobs.
The Bill should give full rein to the Crown Estate to explore all such options to maximise domestic supply chains, particularly for floating offshore wind. The population of south Wales and the south-west will never forgive us if we do not seize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to redevelop their regional economies. The Crown Estate has an absolutely pivotal role to play here, and one that speaks to all the King has done across much of his career to address climate change and align business interests with the rejuvenation of economically deprived regions.
Yes, the Crown Estate has set out its strategy in respect of integration, ports, and apprenticeships and skills, but this has to be optimal vis-à-vis the clean energy strategy and the focus of this new Labour Government. When carrying out its leasing rounds, it should set out the options considered, with an assessment of and the reasons for the rejection of recent international precedents. These include, but are not limited to, the ScotWind lease auction of 25 GW of mixed fixed and floating offshore wind, which included commitments to project expenditure in Scotland via supply chain development statements, and did so without triggering a legal challenge by the European Union; and the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management lease auctions for offshore wind, which included a 20% bid credit for investments in domestic US supply chains—for example, the recent lease sale auction for offshore wind in California.
There should also be consideration of non-price factors in lease auctions, especially weightings allocated to the sustainability of supply chains, which would give a lifeline to communities in Port Talbot, and the resilience of supply chains, also known as energy security, which are likely to favour geographical port-to-offshore project sites such as my own in Milford Haven in Pembrokeshire. There have been examples of and precedents for this, as in the recent EU Net-Zero Industry Act.
We need this Bill to equip the Crown Estate with powers to introduce non-price factors more directly into the seabed rights auction process—for example, by offering a fee discount, as is done in the United States, for supply chain investments that reduce the risk of offshore wind projects being delayed due to international supply bottlenecks, which in turn would accelerate our progress to a net zero power sector and protect UK energy security.
Finally, geographical ringfencing is a critical element in ensuring that we as a Government tackle regional inequality head-on and with real urgency. We must end the historical injustice of the politics of extraction, where the resources of a community such as mine are used to build ever more lavish buildings while young children struggle to get three square meals a day. This Bill can make a real difference. I urge the Minister to be bold and ambitious, and I assure him of my full support as he does just that.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The Crown Estate owns 65% of Wales’s foreshore and riverbeds, and more than 50,000 acres of land. Recent rising demand for renewable energy projects has resulted in the value of the land sky-rocketing. In 2007, the asset value of the Crown Estate in Wales was £21.1 million, and in 2023 this reached £853 million. Correspondingly, profits generated from these assets have also increased. Net revenue profit across the Crown Estate rose from £345 million in 2020 to £1.1 billion in 2024. Profits generated from Wales’s natural resources are, however, not retained for the Welsh public purse; instead they leave Wales and are sent to the Treasury and the sovereign grant. In contrast, in Scotland the Crown Estate is devolved and profits from Scottish natural resources are transferred to the Scottish Government. In 2024 the sum was estimated to be a record £108.3 million. How can the Government justify Welsh profits being sent to the Treasury and the monarch when in Scotland they are held back and put back into the Scottish purse? The situation is worse than that, with Welsh councils having to pay lease fees simply to use the land which is owned by the Crown Estate. In 2023 the sum was nearly £300,000. With huge pressures on council budgets, how can that be justified?
In the age of coal, Wales saw a huge extraction of wealth from our communities. In 2025, Wales is now experiencing a similar process of extraction of our green wealth.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The reality is that Plaid Cymru Members are divided on this issue and are confused as well. Their colleagues in the other place supported provisions in this Bill to create a new commissioner with special responsibility for Wales, yet now the hon. Member is saying only devolution will do. Why does she think Plaid Cymru colleagues in the other place are wrong?
Llinos Medi
I will come on to answer that question and perhaps show a pragmatic way of working forward.
As I said, in 2025 Wales is now experiencing a similar process of extraction of our green wealth and we cannot let this happen. As in Scotland, it is for the people of Wales to have control and derive the benefit from all profits generated from our own resources. However, the Bill makes no mention of devolving the Crown Estate to Wales despite the fact that the new investment and borrowing powers under the Bill may allow the Crown Estate to generate £100 million more a year in profits for the Treasury. None of this will be retained by the Welsh Government.
In the other place, Lord Hain’s amendment, supported by Plaid Cymru, has ensured that there will be Welsh representation on the Crown Estate board. While we welcome that as a step forward it still does not address the fact that membership of the Crown Estate board is largely outside of democratic control as it is the monarch who appoints the commissioners who make investment and borrowing decisions, not Parliament or the Senedd.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
Devolving the Crown Estate would needlessly jeopardise the role it is playing now to deliver good clean energy and jobs, which are needed across Wales, including in the hon. Member’s constituency, which neighbours mine. These jobs are much needed across north Wales, as she well knows. The hon. Member is a great champion for her constituency, but does she really want a delay in delivering the jobs in clean energy projects that are needed so much across Wales?
Llinos Medi
I will come on to that, too, because as an energy champion for my constituents for many years I am fully aware that we do not want any delay but there is a way of working that through slowly while also benefiting from Scotland’s experience.
Plaid Cymru has been leading the calls for devolution of the Crown Estate for many years, and in July 2023 the Senedd passed a Plaid Cymru motion calling for the devolution of the management of the Crown Estate to the Welsh Government. Only through the devolution of the Crown Estate can the people of Wales have democratic control over their natural resources.
Plaid Cymru will be bringing forward an amendment to devolve the Crown Estate to Wales. Although we will be looking to engage constructively with the Government, including on how to support the Welsh Government, the Crown Estate and energy developers to prepare for devolution, they cannot simply ignore the direction of travel. There is an overwhelming consensus in Wales for devolution. It is supported by the Welsh Labour Government and the independent commission on the constitutional future of Wales as well as 58% of the people of Wales. It is time for the Government to listen and devolve the Crown Estate to Wales.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I represent Truro and Falmouth, which has huge potential to benefit from floating offshore wind. With Falmouth docks and our position in the Celtic sea, if the build-out of the sea is done quickly and well, our young people could benefit from good, well-paid jobs in a strong local supply chain, but intervention will be needed to get to that place. No projects in the Celtic sea have been successful in leasing rounds or contracts for difference, except for one test and demo model that is struggling to build viably due to price changes. It cannot just be left to the market to build local supply chains. That will not occur without intervention and investment in our ports, businesses and further education.
I welcome the Bill. The changes to the powers of the Crown Estate will enable it, in partnership with GB Energy, to invest in ports such as Falmouth, the mapping of the seabed to front-load the leasing rounds, research and development and local supply chains. When Falmouth marine school, in my constituency, was struggling to get funding for a level 2 course on floating offshore wind engineering for local 14 to 16-year-olds, the Crown Estate stepped in with one year’s funding to allow it to go ahead on a pilot scale. With the Bill’s changes, more such positive interventions could be made. With powers to borrow from the Treasury national loans fund and invest come greater responsibility. The framework for this borrowing is to be drawn up at a later date, but the Crown Estate is classified as a public corporation with a portfolio of nearly £16 billion, so it is important that it is held accountable and scrutinised in the normal way.
I welcome the governance changes to the number of commissioners and the fact that they will now be paid out of Crown Estate proceeds, rather than from Parliament, but the fact remains that if they are to be given more power and control and are to enter into partnership with GB Energy, their aims and objectives need to strongly align with the growth agenda, the industrial strategy and our environmental targets, and there needs to be a mechanism of accountability.
Where clause 3 compels the commissioners to
“keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom”,
the words “strongly aligned with” would seem more appropriate. Most of the proceeds of the Crown Estate—it will be lucrative, now that wind energy is a priority, as the Crown Estate owns much of the seabed and there will be many more leasing rounds—go to the Treasury, but how the leasing rounds are conducted is important. If the Crown Estate’s priorities are truly to achieve sustainable development in the UK, price cannot be the sole criterion for awarding each lease. The highest bidder may not be the one who would work with the local population, consider the environmental impact, invest in further education, headquarter their development office in somewhere like Cornwall, which needs it, or grow the supply chain.
The way that leases are awarded needs to be considered in the round, and we have the power to do that. Exemptions to World Trade Organisation rules allow contracts or leases for energy security to factor in socioeconomic and environmental factors in their decision-making criteria, and we should make use of them. Currently, the Crown Estate asks for annual option fees from developers. If the aim of clause 3 is truly to be the priority, surely those option fees should be deployed into building local supply chains and mitigating those environmental and other impacts.
The partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy has the potential to be a huge force for good, spearheading the development of offshore renewable energy in a speedy but sustainable way and laying the groundwork for our future energy security, building local communities, infrastructure and supply chains in some of the most left-behind and deprived areas of the UK. With a unified strategy between all levels of the public sector, including this public corporation, and faithful allegiance to the aim of clause 3, the achievement of sustainable development in the UK could be the key that unlocks the future potential of the Celtic sea and hopefully kick-starts Cornwall’s clean energy revolution.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I will speak about the Crown Estate’s borrowing powers and the broadening of its investment scope. These changes are intended to enhance the Crown Estate’s capacity to support our ambitious goals for renewable energy, nature recovery and economic growth. The Bill is undoubtedly a significant step forward in enabling the Crown Estate to play a greater role in the transition towards net zero. I fully support its efforts and ambitions.
The partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy to develop offshore wind projects is exciting. Many of us have been trying to get Great British Energy to include community benefits and community ownership within its reach, but we have failed to do so. [Interruption.] It does? Okay—we have tried hard. A measure is to be considered in the other House on 13 January to try to get it to do that, so perhaps Labour Members know something that I do not. Anyway, that is good news.
I want to focus on a critical element that is close to my heart, and perhaps even more familiar to my colleagues, as I bang on about it. That subject is, of course, community benefits. Those of us in remote and rural Britain pay far more for energy than those who can access mains gas, and we also have a much higher level of poverty; especially fuel poverty. Communities hosting renewable energy projects, and particularly those overlooking offshore wind farms, deserve to see tangible benefits from those developments. The Bill presents an opportunity to ensure that offshore wind farm projects—indeed, all renewable energy projects—not only meet our national and global ambitions but provide meaningful real-world advantages to the people most impacted by them.
There are numerous examples from overseas of where community benefits have become significant. One such example is from Germany, where in the North sea archipelago of Heligoland three offshore wind farms generated €22 million in 2016. These are massive amounts of money. While the Bill’s focus is on increasing borrowing powers and investment flexibility, there is no mention of how communities will benefit from these developments, although perhaps Labour Members know something that I do not.
Melanie Onn
Is the hon. Member aware of the example of Ørsted, which has just given £1 million to the Horizon Youth Zone to support all young people across the Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituency and further afield with new activities and free mentoring and support outside school hours? Not only that; it sponsors local fun runs. RWE, another company operating in my constituency, is supporting education activities. Both those companies are not only employing masses of people but engaging with schools to support young people to have the skills and talents to come and work for them. That is the reality of community benefit.
Mr MacDonald
Funnily enough, as a Highland councillor, it is a subject that I have spent many years working on. Highland council—I know this does not relate to the Crown Estate in England and Wales—had £9.1 million of community benefits and Scotland as a whole had £23 million. This is an industry worth hundreds of billions of pounds across the whole of Britain, so we should have, say, 5% of that as community benefits, which would be transformational for Cornwall, Devon, Pembrokeshire and indeed Scotland. I encourage the House to consider how the Bill could establish a robust framework for community benefits that could serve as a model for renewable energy projects across the whole of the UK, working closely with the Scottish Crown Estate.
The Bill represents a vital step forward in enabling the UK to meet its net zero targets and enhance energy security. However, it is equally vital that we legislate to include statutory powers for the Crown Estate in England and Wales, and indeed in Scotland, to ensure that these transformative projects see their fair share of community benefits for communities.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the provisions made in the Bill to improve the governance of the Crown Estate and broaden its investment powers and capacity to borrow. As stated in the Bill, the changes will mean that commissioners can undertake activities such as investing in port infrastructure and in digital technologies to map the seabed. As a Cornish MP, it is the seabed that I will focus on for the next few minutes.
Commissioners will be enabled to assist with investment in public infrastructure for the benefit of the nation. I support those provisions on the basis that the Crown Estate will use its increased power to invest in areas of higher deprivation where there is a clear commercial potential, such as, as has been mentioned, floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea. In that respect, Cornwall is perhaps the best example of where post-industrial deprivation is high, yet—I am sorry to mention this with Welsh Members in the Chamber—it is the closest land mass to much of the Celtic sea floating offshore wind opportunity.
As has been mentioned, Cornwall is also home to the third deepest natural harbour in the world, in Falmouth. The development of the port of Falmouth would support the export potential of critical minerals such as tin from my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, and of lithium that will be mined in Cornwall. As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), Cornwall’s economic development is also held back by a lack of grid connectivity. I hope that support for the Bill will result in significant improvements in that area.
The Crown Estate plays a fundamental role as an enabler of infrastructure projects. The Bill inserts a new subsection into the Crown Estate Act 1961 requiring the commissioners to keep under review the impact of their activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. I sincerely hope that Ministers agree that deprived communities such mine in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle should be the direct beneficiaries of this development through the work of the Crown Estate. I also hope that the Crown Estate fully understands the expectations of deprived coastal communities in every corner of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I can well understand the need to update the Crown Estate Act, particularly in regard to the financial reach of the Crown Estate and the assistance that it may require. It is perfectly clear in this debate that Members have rightly discerned that the real driving force behind this legislation is to twin the promotion of offshore wind energy with Great British Energy. That seems to be the primary motivation behind much of the Bill. If the Government create circumstances where the Crown Estate is required and facilitated to increase its own financial success and they twin it with the promotion of GB Energy, they inevitably incentivise the development of offshore wind, which has its part to play, but it is not the answer to all our needs.
In Northern Ireland I have seen proposals for offshore energy, particularly in the South Down area, that have provoked great and rightful opposition from the fishing industry, leading to substantial difficulties. Yet it is quite clear that where the Bill talks about sustainable development, it is not in respect of the historic use of our seas as fishing grounds but in respect of our seas as sites for offshore wind energy. As another hon. Member said, there is a tension between offshore wind farms and fishing. It seems from the Bill that the Government have made up their mind about which is the priority. We have heard in this debate that the definition of sustainable development specific to the Bill will be very much orientated to the climate change theology. It will therefore place the need for wind farms above the needs of the fishing industry, which will not serve the interests of our coastal communities well. There is a need to reinstate some balance in that regard.
There is an interesting contrast between clause 3, which focuses on sustainable development, with the obvious meaning I have referenced, and clause 5, which I know the Government have said they will be removing. In clause 5, which relates to salmon farming, one of the matters to be looked at is the environmental impact; however, when it comes to wind farms, there is no requirement to look at the environmental impact—only at sustainable development, which is couched in terms that favour offshore wind development.
I think of my own constituency of North Antrim, where there are already proposals to put huge offshore wind farms not far offshore, just beyond the territory that contains the wonderful Giant’s Causeway and Rathlin island—cheek by jowl, coastwise, with areas of outstanding natural beauty. I do not think that would enhance the coastline or the waters in and around North Antrim. There have been similar proposals off Portstewart in County Londonderry.
When I read the Bill, it seems to me that the incentivising—it is much more than a nudge—is towards pushing along offshore wind farms with little regard, and certainly no corresponding regard, to the environmental impacts that they could have on whole communities.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am struck by the fact that many of the people living in the hon. and learned Gentleman’s constituency will be dealing with extremely high energy bills in poorly insulated houses, and will be desperate to see those energy bills go down and to see decent jobs come back to Northern Ireland, and for them and their communities to thrive. I also recognise the value and importance of heritage sites. My constituency in Thanet is surrounded on three sides by sea and has enormous opportunity for offshore wind, but we also want to retain the value and beauty of our surrounding environment. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman not see that these things are reconcilable? This is not a theology, but a science and an economic requirement of this country so that it can serve his constituents, as well as mine.
Jim Allister
The point I am making is that the tension in the Bill between the environmental impacts and sustainable development—the codeword for offshore wind—is out of kilter. It is very much weighted in favour of offshore wind, with little or no regard, it would seem, given to the environmental impacts. I am simply saying to the House that we need to have regard to both. I do not think we serve future generations well if we surrender the beauty and serenity of the coastline that we enjoy, to be blotted for years to come by huge offshore wind farms.
Offshore wind farms have their place, but that is not in every place—that, I think, is the key point. Take the Giant’s Causeway, which is a UNESCO world heritage site. Are we saying there should be giant wind farms shortly beyond it? What would that do for the UNESCO setting of the Giant’s Causeway, or for other sites around the United Kingdom? I am therefore advocating caution. I am advocating that we remember that it is about not just offshore wind farms, but preserving and protecting our environment and getting the balance right, and I am not sure that the Bill does that.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate alongside so many of my coastal colleagues. It puts me in slightly odd company, because Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are quite a long way from the edge. We are quite a long way from the coast, but it is important to have some representation from the middle of England. When we look at the desired outcomes of the Bill and what it will mean for constituents across England, Wales and Scotland in coastal and non-coastal communities, it is about growth and jobs. Very few of those jobs in floating offshore wind are likely to be along the River Trent, but this is about building a country that works for everybody across the country for the future.
In my constituency, I am fortunate to have an agricultural Crown Estate holding. A wonderful strength of the Crown Estate is that it supports so much agriculture across the country—that most traditional and important of industries which provides us with the food we eat. It is a real strength of our country that so much of the land in the Crown Estate is leased out to farmers who can go off and do their thing and run their business.
The Bill seeks to update the Crown Estate. No legislation relating to the Crown Estate has been passed since 1961—24 years before there was a Dave Robertson. By updating the Crown Estate, we make it ready for the 21st century. As of about a week ago, we are now in the second quarter of the 21st century, a fact I am struggling to compute. Making changes to allow the Crown Estate to invest in the industries of the future will bring jobs and investment into the UK. That will grow our economy, which will be felt across the entire country, tackling real pockets of deprivation, particularly around the coast. That will in itself be beneficial, unlocking economic growth and driving wealth creation right across the UK. It will also drive investment everywhere. The simple fact is that we now have another large investor operating in the UK, meaning that other investors will be able to seek other opportunities. If any are listening, please have a chat with me; there are some sites I would like to talk to them about, particularly Burntwood town centre.
Alongside that point, there is another really important issue. There has perhaps not been enough focus on the real value of the Bill in helping us to reach our net zero goals. This week, in large parts of my constituency a large number of farmers have again found their fields replaced by some type of aquatic environment because of flooding. Yet again, King’s Bromley has almost been cut off. Climate change is real. Climate change is here. It is having an economic impact and a social impact—a real-world impact. We need to take steps to achieve our goals. Allowing the Crown Estate to partner with Great British Energy in the way the Bill proposes, allowing it to drive down the carbon cost of our energy and help us to move to that just transition, will not only cut energy bills everywhere in the country—Lichfield, Burntwood, the villages and everywhere—but drive up investment and bring economic growth everywhere across the UK. It will also help us to meet our obligations on the climate crisis, which will have a material impact on the lives of our children, our children’s children and all generations to come.
On that basis, it is an absolute pleasure to say that I fully support the Bill. I look forward to helping it through its further stages through Parliament.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s proposed powers to enable the Crown Estate to drive greater investment in the country’s future to boost energy security, nature recovery and economic growth. It should be allowed to access private sector funding to expand and get the greatest benefit possible from its access to financing, and not retreat to markets having to survive on their own and not delivering, or recourse to the public sector for critical funding to grow industries.
I want to focus on clause 3, which deals with sustainable development, and to pick up some of the comments that were made in Committee in the House of Lords. My constituency is at the forefront of the delivery of practical skills in the day-to-day operations and continued maintenance of the offshore wind sector, and my constituents benefit from apprenticeships, introductory training, continuous professional development and, critically, long-term, well-paid employment in the sector. The Bill has the potential to open up possibilities for broader community engagement through the promotion of various educational opportunities in numerous workstreams.
Having worked with the Crown Estate in a previous role before returning to this place, I must say that I have had a slightly different experience from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell). I know that in recent years the Crown Estate has sought to expand the areas of work in which it actively engages, and has provided immense support for the renewables sector. We should bear in mind that there has been a collective understanding—not just within our Government—that for energy security purposes we must, as a minimum, look at renewable energy sources to supplement our other energy sources as we progress, and as we view the global economics and the changing impact of the energy industry and the way in which others are maximising this change to encourage wealth into their countries.
We know that not just the present Government but Governments around the world, and previous Governments in this place, have recognised that we should accept and embrace this move, seeing it not as something divisive or prohibitive to other sectors but as something that will be the mainstay of this country. Simply objecting to it and saying no will not help to move things forward. We should be working together, as I think the renewables sector has been endeavouring to do and has been enabled to do in a much stronger way through the partnership that the Crown Estate has facilitated, to unite the many different relevant parties in seeking appropriate solutions to some of the most testing and challenging issues that the industry faces, including people and skills, environmental impacts and derogations, the unlocking of the UK supply chain, spatial squeeze, offshore asset security—which has not been discussed today—and aviation impact, which has not been referred to either. The Crown Estate has played a critical role in ensuring that the voices are heard in each of the areas where this new industry is having an impact—and it is having an impact, as I think the industry itself recognises—in the knowledge that this must be done in collaboration and co-operation with the other existing organisations, industries and operators in those sectors.
Through the evidence and change programmes, it became clear to everyone involved, including those who might have been less than happy that a new industry was making things different and challenging in certain circumstances, that the earlier these issues were considered as part of the Crown Estate’s planning and scoping, the easier it was to fulfil the existing and basic expectations of both the Crown Estate and the renewables sector from a Government perspective. Earlier consultation and partnership working on common difficulties and challenges meant that agreeable solutions were found earlier, and it was then possible to build acceptable frameworks for future use. Some of that is in evidence now, in the context of the Celtic sea developments and the fishing communities in those areas.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is my co-chair on the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, rightly raised the issues and concerns that the fishing communities will have. However, in Committee in the Lords, there was a conversation about the regional wealth funds that the Bill will create. It seems to me that there is a prize opportunity for support and training for the fishing industry, to make it work alongside the renewables sector and to look at the opportunities that will come from the decarbonisation happening in that sector when it comes to offshore vessels and flexibility of service, so that a fishing vessel is not just a fishing vessel. Can it be used for multiple purposes? Can it be used for surveys? It can, because fishing vessels are already being used for surveys. There is an opportunity for the Bill to support those other industries, and we should not lose sight of that.
With these new ways of working, there is a great opportunity to expand the level of knowledge and understanding of the sector, to be able to teach the next generation of young people about how things really work in practice. To date, that has been a bit more experimental, I think it is fair to say, but because the sector is maturing and all the organisations involved have become more experienced, there is much more collective learning, and there are clearer lines of guidance that the Crown Estate has a definitive interest in ensuring a wide and common understanding.
I would like to focus on the people and skills area of work, which the Crown Estate has had some engagement in. There is an acceptance that the workforce will grow and needs to grow substantially. For areas such as mine and other coastal communities, ensuring that we have a skilled workforce ready to go is imperative. It is much more effective to ensure that people have the skills to get the jobs to earn their own way and have some pride in their life, working in an industry they are proud to be working in, than to simply rely on other community benefits that may well be short-lived and do not have the long-term impact that growing a brand-new industry around the country delivers. We know that the workforce will need more than three times its current numbers—I had written in my speech “over the next decade”, but I do not think that is true; actually, it is over the next half a decade, which is hardly anything at all—to meet the needs of the industry, and that is across all the different areas I mentioned such as environmental impact and aviation.
Mr Angus MacDonald
May I come back to the community benefits, which the hon. Member brought up in her intervention on me? The community benefits will be hundreds of millions for 25 years or the life of the project. It will be absolutely transformational to the most rural parts of Britain; it is not just something that will come and go.
Melanie Onn
I thank the hon. Member for that comment. It is about how we view community benefits and how embedded in communities they are. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) talked about things being done with communities, not to them. This is about what will best benefit a community and having that discussion at an early stage, which is what I have been advocating.
The traditional understanding of community benefit is payment for a local football team’s shirts or things like that, but that is not what I see this industry or this Bill unlocking. It needs to be about transforming local communities, which, critically, comes through skills, through the supply chain and through delivering industrial benefits that local people have access to. That is the thrust of what I am trying to say—clearly I have not been successful, if the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) did not see that, but I will persevere, which I am sure he will be delighted to know.
Interestingly, the Crown Estate has recently supported a community project in my constituency called Projekt Renewables—it has a “k”, giving it a slightly Nordic slant on things. It is a box park construction next to the Grimsby Fishing Heritage Centre, bringing together the old and the new, and the past, present and future. It provides community education, and it is a space to bring together schools, businesses and visitors to learn about the renewables sector in Grimsby, including its history, its importance and the possibilities for the future. The community education piece is incredibly important, and we do not talk about it enough.
The Crown Estate recognised that there is a need for wider understanding of activities, some of which are significant or significantly disruptive in local areas, so that residents can better understand what is happening in their place. I keep talking about opportunity, because some Members have not seen this Bill as an opportunity for expansion, investment, growth and long-term change. The Bill actually unlocks quite a lot of that. There is an opportunity not only for greater expansion of public information and education, but to have a single standard of available materials and off-the-shelf information to support local areas. That would help provide a general understanding that would stop individual companies producing their own bespoke education programmes. We should have something that is uniform and that provides the facts, and then companies can build on that if they want. It would be a much stronger offer, and more beneficial to collective understanding because of the uniformity.
However, there are further steps that the Crown Estate could take to provide local people with skills, to guarantee sustainable development. In my area, the freeport is already undertaking some work on skills. Under the new devolution plans, there is provision for skills to be a key strand of mayoral responsibility, but how can the Crown Estate fit into that model? I believe that it really must do so to maximise the benefit of all the organisations, and to have a common theme and common objectives. Arguably, the Crown Estate has a lot more to lose if the skills are not there for offshore deployment and long-term maintenance support.
New projects such as the Able quay, which is just outside my constituency, will make offshore wind ambitions deliverable. It will open up the supply chain investment opportunities that we have been waiting for—frankly, for far too long—and enable the Crown Estate to generate significant revenue and value for the UK. The Crown Estate could do so currently but, under the new proposals in the Bill, has an even greater opportunity to invest in infrastructure such as the Able quay. Port facilities are holding back the sector and the core skills that are currently in shortage in the industry, as well as those that we know will become a critical blockage in the future once the newly consented projects get under way.
If we really want to maximise the value of projects and see the UK get the biggest bang for its buck, it is essential to use every arm of every organisation to actively support them in overcoming the challenges. I know that the Crown Estate is willing—and I have seen it in action, so I know that it is also able—but I wonder whether this Bill needs to say explicitly that it has a duty to focus on infrastructure and skills, which are so critical. Not having those prerequisites in place could make projects undeliverable, and no developer or supply chain company can oversupply or invest ahead of decisions, because the Crown Estate makes so many of the final decisions, alongside the Government. No one can invest until those decisions are made.
Devolution and the creation of GB Energy—two great leaps in structural change in this country—give a great opportunity for new public institutions to be created in order to intervene in skills. In the Humber region, I would like to see an arrangement or organisation that brings together the Crown Estate, the new devolved authorities, the freeport and the Humber Energy Board. With support from the likes of GB Energy and central Government, it could back a coherent approach to supporting skills and avoiding their becoming a barrier to project delivery, as well as reduce costs by supplying enough talent for the whole sector, rather than each project chasing the same small pool of people.
We should use the Bill to catalyse substantial and lasting change, providing employment opportunities for generations to come. I understand that Crown Estate Scotland is already carrying out similar efforts, actively promoting skills and job opportunities through initiatives such as community capacity grants, which support social enterprise projects and training courses, and land-based skills education, so I do not think that is beyond the scope of the Bill.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in today’s debate, because although the Bill is short, it is an incredibly important piece of legislation, not least because it ties together two things that we on the Government Benches care about: unlocking growth and driving clean energy. Perhaps Conservative Members do not care about those things, judging by the Conservative Benches today. The Bill gives us the chance to start delivering the growth that this country desperately needs, without requiring a new fiscal statement or drastic economic reforms. Most importantly, the Bill will benefit my constituents in York Outer and the country as a whole.
For too long, the Crown Estate’s ability to act as an engine for growth has been held back by outdated rules. Imagine a business sitting on vast potential—real estate, seabed rights and assets worth billions—but unable to reinvest or leverage those resources to their full extent: the Bill changes that. By freeing up the Crown Estate’s balance sheet and allowing it to operate more like a modern, agile business, it creates the conditions for growth, without requiring sweeping fiscal reforms or additional taxpayer contributions.
However, the Bill is not just about numbers on a balance sheet; it is also about impact. Through the Crown Estate’s role in renewable energy, the legislation will support the creation of new projects, secure our domestic energy production and unlock up to £60 billion in private sector investment. That is the kind of forward-thinking approach we need to create a secure and prosperous future.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is another example of how this Labour Government are rolling up their sleeves, getting the job done, and creating growth and jobs for communities in York Outer and in Harlow?
Mr Charters
I always agree with my hon. Friend. He will recognise the impact the Bill brings not only to the Crown Estate but to GB Energy, which was one of the first initiatives implemented by the new Government. Taken together with the Great British Energy Bill, these are two pieces of thoughtful, complementary legislation that will support our green energy transition and economic growth—what a stark contrast to the previous Government, who not only ran out of ideas but failed to make the few ideas they had work in the first place.
The interaction between the Crown Estate Bill and the Great British Energy Bill is vital. In York Outer, we have a number of exciting projects that are ready to go and exemplify how these changes can drive forward our ambitions for a clean, secure energy future. For example, proposed battery storage facilities in York Outer could become critical national infrastructure for our local energy network, and Hessay solar farm was awarded funding from the contracts for difference scheme a few months ago. I welcome the exploration of wind projects, such as the Harewood Whin green energy park and the North Wigginton onshore wind project. Just today, we discovered that wind power was Britain’s largest source of electricity in 2024, topping gas-fired power plants for the first time in history. With the Crown Estate Bill, we can make even more projects like those in York Outer possible, unlocking clean energy for my region and beyond.
That takes me to the issue of energy security. Conservative Members, wherever they are, continue to oppose our publicly owned clean power company. Perhaps they have forgotten why it is so crucial to transfer power back into the hands of the British people. The myopic and naive approach of the last Government left our energy portfolio far too exposed. The Bill supports Britain’s flexibility and freedom to secure our own energy supply. It enables British households to be supported by British power—produced, owned and delivered by the British people. That is what Great British Energy is all about. We have all seen the cost of relying on foreign oil and gas. Families and businesses paid the price of our energy supply being dictated by foreign powers. Under this Government, that needs to stop—and it will stop. This Bill is a huge win for our energy independence.
But the benefits of this Bill go beyond energy. The Crown Estate is already a significant contributor to the public purse—last year it generated over £1 billion in net revenue profit, much of which was returned to the Treasury. By giving the Crown Estate the freedom to reinvest and modernise, we can grow that figure even further. That is not just a win for Government revenues; it is a win for taxpayers, as the money can be reinvested in public services and infrastructure in York Outer and across the UK.
I know that some Conservative Members, wherever they are, may worry about fiscal rules. I reassure them that although the Bill is radical in what it achieves, it does so in a sensible manner. By allowing the Crown Estate initially to use its cash reserves for investment, there is no immediate need to trigger new borrowing powers. This is therefore a measured approach that creates confidence for investors, while keeping fiscal discipline intact. It is not about ripping up the rulebook; it is about using the rulebook more effectively.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, which I am sure those on the Front Bench are enjoying. He mentioned sensibleness and moderation—both words I would use to describe my constituents. Will he join me in urging the Crown Estate, as it enjoys its new freedoms and powers in looking to invest for the future, to give a thought to the people, the place and the economy of Newcastle-under-Lyme?
Mr Charters
I was half-expecting my hon. Friend to mention Walleys quarry, although I cannot conceive of how he would link it to the Crown Estate Bill. He will agree that the additional revenue raised by the Bill will benefit his constituents as much as mine.
Over the past decade, the Crown Estate has returned £4.1 billion in net revenue profit to the Treasury. Just imagine how much more it could achieve with the freedom that this Bill provides—not just for the country, but for constituencies such as York Outer. This is what smart, forward-thinking legislation looks like: supporting businesses, securing energy and driving growth. I urge Members on both sides of the House, and particularly Conservative Members, wherever they are, to back this Bill and help us deliver a brighter, greener and more prosperous future.
James Wild
With the leave of the House, it is a pleasure to respond briefly on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. [Interruption.] I do not know whether there is a party going on to which I have not been invited, but I am personally very happy to be here to take part in the debate.
This has been a good debate, with more than 10 Members contributing, and not only from coastal areas such as my Norfolk constituency; we have also heard from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), which underlines the importance of the Crown Estate to all our constituencies.
The hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) spoke about the potential benefits of investment in their constituencies and their part of the world, including the funding of college courses, which are important, as well as investment in energy production.
The hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) may want to get some tips from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about how to get on with the Crown Estate, how to get it to do what he actually wants it to do, and how to secure the benefits for his constituency. Perhaps he can have a reset with the Crown Estate.
A number of Members spoke about community benefits, which are very important to securing public support for new infrastructure, be that energy or other issues. Labour Members spoke quite a bit about cutting energy bills. I distinctly remember the pledge they all made during the election campaign to cut energy bills by £300, but energy bills are going up and there is no date for when they will come down. Voters and constituents will remember the pledge and, at the moment, all they can see is their costs going up. The concern is that the pace at which the Energy Secretary wants to drive forward will actually drive up costs for all of our constituents.
I began my remarks by emphasising that the Crown Estate is neither the property of the Government nor part of the sovereign’s private estate. That is key. Its core purpose is to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the income derived from it. That is why greater transparency is needed about the partnership with GB Energy. The Minister will have heard and, I am sure, noted down all the questions from my opening speech, so I will not repeat them all, but I will repeat this: will he commit to publishing the partnership agreement before we head into the Committee stage?
I am afraid that some of the contributions we have heard have only fuelled my suspicions of the Government’s intention to use the Crown Estate as a vehicle for its energy policy and as a provisional part of the GB Energy body, whatever that may turn out to be. That raises issues about how investments will be determined and the returns that are generated for the taxpayer, as well as the risk surrounding investments, whether crowding in, as hon. Members have referred to, actually happens, whether investment in ports will drive a return, and why commercial providers are not seeking to make similar investments. That conflict and risk was one of the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is sadly not in his place. I hope that the Treasury Committee will engage with that point when it examines the nominated new chairman of the Crown Estate commissioners.
That is also why it is important that Parliament has oversight of borrowing limits, rather than that just being in an MOU that can be changed at the Treasury’s whim. That is an important protection that we have in place, and I know that the Minister will also respond to that point in his remarks. Will he also get back to the specific point I raised about disposals and the seabed, and the commitment that Lord Livermore made on Report in the other place about protections and whether an amendment is needed and will be forthcoming?
To conclude, there is wide support for the Bill from across the House, but the short-term interests of the Government should not come at the long-term expense of the Crown Estate and the nation. I look forward to continuing the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
It is a pleasure to close this debate on the Crown Estate. May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a happy new year?
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his comments today, as well as for the contributions of all my hon. Friends. I am particularly grateful for the Opposition’s support for the Bill in general, which they display by their absence this afternoon. I welcome the questions set out by the shadow Minister and I will go through some of those in my remarks.
As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury noted in his opening speech, the purpose of the Bill is to bring the legislation governing the Crown Estate into the 21st century by making a targeted and measured enhancement to its powers and governance. Without the Bill, the Crown Estate would continue to be restricted in its ability to compete and invest and would therefore be limited in its ability to deliver returns to the public purse. The Bill therefore broadens the scope of the activities that the Crown Estate can engage in, enabling it to further invest in the energy transition that we know is so crucial. It empowers the Crown Estate to invest in capital-intensive projects more effectively and, critically, the measures will unlock more long-term investment, increasing the contribution that the Crown Estate can make to creating high-quality jobs and driving growth across the UK.
I turn to some of the points raised in the debate. I appreciate the shadow Minister’s broad support for the Bill’s aim. On his specific question about the Crown Estate’s borrowing powers, the Bill is clear that any borrowing undertaken by the Crown Estate can only be from the Treasury or otherwise with Treasury consent. The Treasury will, of course, ensure that any borrowing is consistent with our fiscal rules. There will, as has been noted, be a memorandum of understanding in place between the Treasury and the Crown Estate, and that will govern how borrowing powers will be exercised. As with any public sector borrowing, the Treasury will ensure that that is consistent with managing public money principles to ensure value for money for the taxpayer.
The shadow Minister also asked specific questions about commissioners’ pre-appointment scrutiny. I want to set out for him how the appointment of other commissioners is likely to work. The Crown Estate commissioners who manage the Crown Estate are appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of Ministers. The appointment process is governed by the code for public appointments. The reforms in the Bill will not alter the fundamental statutory basis of the Crown Estate, which is as a commercial business that is independent of government, operates for profit, competes in the marketplace and needs to recruit the highest quality talent to its board of commissioners. Within that context, it would not be appropriate for either the Government or Parliament to place further requirements on the recruitment process.
The shadow Minister also asked about chief executive pay. The details of a chief executive’s remuneration are a matter for the Crown Estate board, which is operationally independent of government, as I set out. As the Crown Estate is statutorily an independent, commercial organisation, which returns hundreds of millions of pounds in profit to the Exchequer every year, continuing the success is crucial and it requires the organisation to have the freedom to compete for the top talent in the commercial world.
We know that cheap executive remuneration in this context is set at the lower end of the private sector peer group, which is agreed with the Treasury. The majority of the package is in fact conditional on performance, which ensures that the chief executive rewards are heavily dependent on delivering long-term value to the Exchequer. The shadow Minister also asked about governance when it comes to the Crown Estate and Great British Energy. I can set out to him the operational matters in regard to the partnership, but they will be determined in their final detail by the passing of the great British Energy Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. Once it completes all its legislative stages, the partnership will be subject to an agreement between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy. Although the partnership agreement itself will not be published, given that it will be commercially sensitive, the Crown Estate has committed to publish information relating to the partnership as part of its existing annual report. This will include a report on the activities of the commissioners under that partnership and any effects or benefits resulting from the activities of the commissioners that entails.
The shadow Minister asked a specific question about the amendment on the seabed, which was debated in the other place by Lord Livermore. As hon. Members may know, on Report of the Crown Estate Bill in the Lords, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury committed to bring forward an amendment, if it were needed, to restrict the ability of the Crown Estate to sell the seabed. That was in response to concerns from peers that the seabed, which is owned by the Crown Estate, is a unique asset and therefore special protections may be warranted. As the Financial Secretary noted at the time, the law on the ownership of the seabed is complex, so officials are working with the Crown Estate to establish the extent to which the Crown Estate can currently sell the seabed. If it is established that further legislation is required to restrict the ability of the Crown Estate to sell the seabed, we will look to bring forward an amendment at Committee stage.
Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned the measures on salmon that were inserted in the Bill in the other place. There is a fundamental question about whether the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for a debate about the rights of salmon and protecting animal rights in that context. In England, Wales and Northern England, to which the Bill applies, there is on Crown Estate-owned land only one relevant area—one relevant salmon farm. The issue really relates more widely to Scotland, which is governed by Crown Estate Scotland and not by the provisions in this Bill. We know that fisheries policy is the responsibility of devolved Government in Scotland. All fish farming in England is regulated with the intention to ensure that it is carried out in a responsible manner. Given that virtually all salmon aquaculture in the UK takes place in Scotland, the matter is really one for a different debate.
As well as the comments from the shadow Minister, we also heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings). Many points that she raised have been covered in what I have said so far, although she raised an additional point that aligned with comments by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about how the Crown Estate will balance the expansion of offshore renewables with the needs of the fishing industry, marine wildlife and so on. I wish to set out briefly the Government’s position on that matter. We know that the Crown Estate is committed to sustainable management of the seabed and, where appropriate, it collaborates with industry stakeholders, marine licence bodies and environmental non-governmental organisations to ensure that activities on the seabed are conducted responsibly.
As with any developer, the proposals of the Crown Estate go through a standard planning application process, which includes the relevant environmental assessments. Under the Crown Estate strategy, it has an objective to take a leading role in stewarding the natural environment and biodiversity. Key to delivering that aim is managing the seabed in a way that reduces pressure on, and accelerates the recovery of, our marine environment. The Bill will not directly impact on how much commercial fishing takes place in areas managed by the Crown Estate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) raised an important point around grid connections and grid connectivity, which are vital to ensuring that our plans to move towards clean energy are effective. His points were important as part of the connection between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy, which we have been talking about during the debate. One benefit of the Crown Estate working with Great British Energy is that they can work together to speed up the process of developing clean energy projects, including co-ordinating planning requirements and grid connections, as well as leasing land to de-risk and speed up projects so that private developers can get on and build them. That will be crucial to unlocking the private investment and speeding up the deployment of clean energy infrastructure. As well as de-risking private sector investments, GB Energy and the Crown Estate will directly co-invest in clean energy infrastructure. That will include floating offshore wind and carbon capture projects.
Several of my hon. Friends made important points around local community benefits and supply chains. I thank in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald). They all focused on the importance of community benefits, local supply chains and investment in jobs and skills. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) made a helpful set of points around the importance of long-term community benefit—that is, people who are not just building infrastructure, making a one-off payment and then leaving, but actually making a long-term investment in the area and the people who live there. She referred to Projekt Renewable in her constituency, and it would be interesting to discuss that with her after the debate.
Looking more broadly at what the Crown Estate has been doing and intends to do on investing in local community benefit, it is committed to working with local communities and partners to enable employment and skills opportunities. For example, it has allocated £50 million through the supply chain accelerator to stimulate green jobs. It is also developing a green skills pipeline from a GCSE in engineering skills for offshore wind, seed-funded by the Crown Estate and developed with Cornwall college, to a post-16 destination renewables course with Pembrokeshire college. The Crown Estate is partnering with the employment charity Workwhile to create green construction apprenticeships.
On offshore wind specifically, the Crown Estate has worked on upskilling frontline Department for Work and Pensions work coaches to be well equipped to support job seekers in the offshore wind industry through the offshore wind learning programme and specifically in relation to offshore leasing round 5, which hon. Members have mentioned. The Crown Estate has designed the leasing process in such a way that developers have to make commitments to deliver social and environmental value as part of the development of new wind farms, including a requirement to provide an apprenticeships plan and a skills development plan.
The Crown Estate is also committed to working with communities to ensure that future generations can make the most of the opportunities that marine energy will bring. It is working closely with local educational institutions, such as Falmouth marine school, where it helped develop a pre-16 engineering programme to build skilled local workforces, alongside other initiatives, including the marine internship programme and a recent partnership with the Sea Ranger Service, which is based in Port Talbot.
We heard from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), who asked questions about the devolution of the Crown Estate and its functions to Wales. Some of the points she raised were addressed by my hon. Friends, but it is important to recognise that the proposed powers in the Bill will be of huge benefit to Wales. Combined with its existing scale, expertise and track record, the Crown Estate is uniquely placed to help drive the activities required, such as de-risking and developing offshore renewable energy and other emerging offshore technologies to realise the potential of the Celtic sea. I would be concerned that further devolution of the Crown Estate in the manner suggested could fragment the renewable energy market and undermine the strong international investor confidence in the UK to the detriment of both Wales and the wider UK. It would risk creating further complexity and delay our drive for energy security and net zero at a time when simplicity and accelerated deployment are essential. That is why the Government believe that the existing provisions are the best way to ensure that the assets of the Crown Estate are managed most effectively to benefit people across Wales, England and Northern Ireland.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) spoke of his concern about environmental impacts. Offshore wind is essential to meeting our net zero and energy security objectives, which I hope he supports, but to get the wider balance right, the habitat regulations assessment process ensures that we can deliver our offshore wind requirements while maintaining environmental protections. The Government are also consulting on revisions to the national planning policy framework to increase support for renewable energy schemes in order to tackle climate change while safeguarding environmental resources.
I thank my hon. Friends the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for York Outer (Mr Charters) for their particularly impassioned support for the principles behind the Bill and what it sets out to achieve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said, it is crucial for investment, growth and modernising the Crown Estate for the 21st century. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer focused on the power of the Bill’s measured reforms to modernise the Crown Estate and support growth in a fiscally responsible way while generating revenue that will benefit our constituents across the country.
I hope that I have managed to address hon. Members’ points. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I have set out, the Bill delivers a targeted and measured enhancement to the Crown Estate’s powers and governance, thereby modernising it for the 21st century. It broadens the scope of activities that the Crown Estate can engage in, enables it to further invest in the energy transition, and empowers it to invest more effectively in capital-intensive projects. Critically, the measures in it will unlock more long-term investment and increase the contribution of the Crown Estate to generating high-quality jobs and driving growth across the UK. Growth is at the heart of our Government’s mission. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
CROWN ESTATE BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Crown Estate Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 11 February.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Question agreed to.
CROWN ESTATE BILL [LORDS] (MONEY)
King’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crown Estate Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Treasury under any other Act that is attributable to the Act;
(2) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums payable out of the fund under any other Act that is attributable to the Act.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Road Safety
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the chance to have this debate, and I thank the Minister for her attendance and for her work on tackling this issue, including through the upcoming road safety strategy.
I requested the debate because our current approach to road safety is in desperate need of overhaul. Although a few local authorities have robust and innovative approaches to road safety, too many lack the resources or political will to implement proactive safety measures, which is increasingly making road safety a postcode lottery. Too often, safety interventions come as a response to collisions, rather than as proactive measures to prevent them. We do not listen to our communities and have failed to invest and to learn from international best practice. As a result, progress in reducing road deaths has largely plateaued in recent years. The UK has passed a grim and shaming milestone: 500,000 people have died on the roads in Great Britain since records began in 1926. That is more than the number of UK citizens killed as a result of warfare in the same period, including in the second world war.
I am well aware that this is a complex and multi-dimensional issue to which we cannot do justice in such a short debate, so rather than trying to address every aspect of road safety, I will instead focus on a couple of linked aspects that are of particular concern to my Rossendale and Darwen constituents—specifically, speeding and issues related to large commercial vehicles. Rossendale and Darwen is a constituency of A roads running down valleys, with relatively few alternative routes, and most residential and commercial development extends along those lines. I live off Burnley Road in Bacup, and the lived experience of residents along that road serves to highlight most of the issues I want to raise today. Ask anyone who lives on Burnley Road and they will tell you that speeding is endemic. There have been serious injuries and fatalities, but more fundamentally, residents will cite numerous close calls and the fear they generate.
For example, one house on a bend in the road has now been hit by speeding vehicles three times. In one case, a vehicle impacted on a spot where a pedestrian had been standing just seconds before, and when we lived on the main road, a car judged to be speeding at over 100 mph hit my wife’s car with such force that it was lifted up and landed on mine—that was in a 30 mph zone. There are many more stories like those; indeed, just this morning, constituents contacted me about a particularly serious close call, which I cannot detail now because it may go to court. To compound this, the road is very heavily used by large commercial vehicles.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. I spoke to him beforehand—through two or three different people, but I got to him eventually. I was intrigued by the title of the debate, “Prevention-based road safety and community involvement”, simply because in my constituency, back in October of last year, we had a double-decker bus taking children from school. It was travelling along the Ballyblack Road outside Carrowdore, going towards Bangor and Newtownards, and it fell over. Thank goodness, nobody was killed, but some children were injured.
The point I wanted to make, which I think is important and fits with the theme of the hon. Gentleman’s debate, is that while we must have ongoing road safety and infrastructure projects in place, we also need community involvement in safety. It was the community who responded to the incident—the nurses and doctors on the road and the farmers who came across the fields. Community involvement is really important; if we want to improve safety, we must have the community tied in.
Andy MacNae
I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman—indeed, that is the main subject that I will try to focus on today. It is hugely important that we listen to our communities, because in the end, not only do our communities know best, but they are the ones who experience the consequences of these decisions.
Burnley Road is very heavily used by large commercial vehicles, and there have been numerous close calls with those vehicles as well. Residents see them speeding or travelling in convoy, too often with their driver on a mobile phone. This is a massive concern around the local primary school, which—like many in Rossendale and Darwen—is sited directly on the main road. Last year, two big wagons managed to crash into each other just outside the school. Narrow pavements and a lack of safe crossing areas further increase the risk, and it is hardly a surprise that many parents are reluctant to let their kids walk even a short distance to school. I cannot think of anyone who rides a bike there.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
In my constituency, we have the busy A444, which runs from Stanton right through to Acresford on the border with North West Leicestershire. That road has varying speed limits along its length. It is a huge concern to the community; we have large articulated lorries travelling very fast on that road, sometimes on very skinny roads. We also have a primary school close to Stanton where there is no close pelican crossing, so there is no safe way for families with young children to cross the road and get them to school. My community feels very much that highways authorities do not listen to sense when it comes to speed limits. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for us to work with local communities and reconsider their involvement in how rules are made for the application of speed limits and where we put crossings?
Andy MacNae
I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. She has framed her example tremendously well—the greatest fear that most of us have is that combination of primary schools, unsafe roads and large vehicles. Sadly, that can only end one way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andy MacNae
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley).
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
A constituent of mine lost her son, Alan, in a dreadful accident on the A14 in September 2023. He died in a collision with a lorry that was stationary on a live lane. The lorry driver was disqualified from driving, and had no MOT on his trailer and no insurance. Despite the driver committing road safety offences, the Crown Prosecution Service determined that the driver did not cause the death under current legislation, and he was only charged with disqualified driving. Will the Minister commit to examining the Road Traffic Act 1988 with a view to introducing an offence focused on presence, rather than causing? I would suggest this wording: “A person being disqualified from driving—”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am just going to make the point to Members that interventions are getting very long. We have some hours to conclude this debate, so if Members wish to make a full contribution, they will be able to do so, rather than simply making an intervention.
Andy MacNae
My hon. Friend raises a hugely important issue about the regulation of commercial vehicles, and the level of responsibility that companies and employers take for their drivers is a crucial part of this debate.
To return to the story of Burnley Road in Rossendale, I have described the various instances of close calls, and when we bring all this together, the obvious conclusion that residents reach, including myself, is that without further action further deaths and serious injuries are inevitable. The great fear we have is that everyone can see this coming, and when it comes and there has been no action, I think we will all feel that we have failed.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate, which is hugely important. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) here, as we share on the edge of our constituencies one of the most dangerous road junctions in the country, between the end of Woodford Lane and the A5 in Mancetter. Our communities know that dangerous accidents happen there on a far too regular basis, with fatalities and serious injuries requiring attendance from air ambulances as well as other crews. Does my hon. Friend agree that our communities know best about needing to implement preventive strategies for road safety rather than waiting for yet more lives to be lost before we actually do something about it?
Andy MacNae
Again, I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. The role of communities is absolutely vital.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
In my own area, there is a serious problem with a lack of co-operation between Oxfordshire county council, as the neighbouring local authority, and Reading borough council. Sadly, Oxfordshire, despite requests from Reading, has allowed heavy goods vehicles to go through a Reading suburb called Caversham and into Reading town centre when they could be diverted on to much safer routes. There have been repeated requests for Oxfordshire to work more constructively with Reading. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that there should be greater emphasis on co-operation between neighbouring local authorities as part of this preventive approach, which he is so ably describing, to try to avoid unnecessary injuries and deaths?
Andy MacNae
Absolutely. I will touch on this later, but I feel that devolution and local government reorganisation create a huge opportunity to ensure new levels of co-operation between authorities, and we should have no hard borders when it comes to road safety.
Again, the conclusion we reach is that we need action to prevent deaths and injuries, yet when communities raise their concerns and real-world experience with the county council and the police, they are told that the KSI—killed or seriously injured—data does not meet the threshold for speed cameras and other meaningful interventions.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, too often, an accident waiting to happen has been forced to become an accident that has happened before action is taken, and that when communities know that a road they live on and live with every day is unsafe, we should listen to those communities much more and act before the accident happens?
Andy MacNae
I agree entirely. Again, it is devastating for communities to raise those issues repeatedly, stridently and sometimes desperately, yet feel that they are not being heard. The message they get back is, in effect, “We have to wait for someone to get killed before we do anything”, which is surely is not the message our communities should be hearing.
As well as Burnley Road in Rossendale, I could tell stories about Todmorden Road, Burnley Road East through Whitewell Bottom, Market Street in Whitworth, Bury Road in Edenfield, Newchurch Road in Waterfoot, Bolton Road, Sunnyhurst Lane, Hollins Grove and Pole Lane in Darwen. In each case, residents see close calls day by day, but are told that the statistics do not merit action, and even when they do, they are simply told there is no money. This approach is nonsensical and out of line with even the county council’s own adopted vision zero strategy and is decades behind those employed internationally. Ultimately it costs lives and money. Beyond this, unsafe roads have far-reaching impacts affecting an area’s sense of place and identity. They take lives, devastate families and shake up communities. Roads felt to be unsafe have a significant impact on the day-to-day lives of people living near them. Residents feel less able to get around, uncomfortable on their own doorstep and cut off from each other.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
This is an important subject. There seems to be a common denominator in many of the comments: the significance of rural areas. I note that my hon. Friend’s constituency has large rural areas, as does mine. Does he agree that there is a particular challenge—whether with rural B roads or even major national roads or national infrastructure, such as the A1 that runs through my constituency—with the type of vehicles on the roads and the proximity to small local communities, making them particularly unsafe, and that that should therefore be a priority for our national road safety strategy?
Andy MacNae
Absolutely, and those committees feel particularly vulnerable and under threat. The issue is that mixture of rural roads coupled with the speed limits and then compact villages sitting along those roads, with those changes in road conditions.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Rural roads are often winding, unlit and poorly maintained, all of which require additional driving skills. Many young people in my constituency find themselves needing to drive at 17 to access education or other opportunities, and we have a higher prevalence of young drivers being killed. I am thinking particularly of Harvey Owen, one of four boys killed on their way to Wales after only a week after passing their driving test. More than 1,500 young people are killed every year—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady might not have been here to hear my earlier comment. There is plenty of time for Members to make speeches if they so choose—this debate does not need to conclude until 7.30 pm—but we really must not have prepared speeches read out disguised as interventions.
Andy MacNae
My hon. Friend makes that vital point extremely well. I will touch on it again later, but young drivers are an important topic that merits a debate in its own right.
On feeling safe or unsafe on roads and the impact of that, we can take the example of active travel. The biggest reason why people do not walk or cycle to work or school is concern over road safety. This forces people to travel by car, with all the impacts that brings and accentuating all the issues we are talking about.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I rise at the point when the Deputy Speaker is changing; it feels like something from “Dr Who”—[Laughter.] Apologies, I was thinking out loud there.
This debate is on an extremely important subject for my hon. Friend’s constituents. On active travel, good habits start early in life, and that is particularly true of walking and cycling. In Edinburgh South West, parents and residents are keen to work with the council to make it easier and safer for children to walk to Nether Currie primary school, and they are really open to collaboration. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are serious about tackling road safety issues in rural areas and our towns and cities, we have to work with our school communities to make sure it is absolutely embedded in them?
Andy MacNae
Absolutely. This is a hugely important issue and, as in many other areas, we know the solutions. Fantastic work is done by organisations such as Active Travel England that detail the solutions, yet our current or past funding structures make it incredibly difficult. I am campaigning in our constituency for a safe path to a school, yet I find there are essentially no dedicated funding opportunities to meet that very obvious and stark need. This is an absolutely crucial area.
I mentioned active travel, but there is also the question of older people. Residents in social housing along Newchurch Road in Rossendale feel trapped in their estate because there is literally nowhere safe to cross the road near them to reach the amenities they need.
In 2023, there were 1,624 road deaths in Great Britain and 132,977 casualties in total. Pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists still make up a disproportionate share of those killed or seriously injured on UK roads. Department for Transport estimates suggest that the annual cost of reported road collisions is around £43 billion. We cannot afford any of these costs, so what do we do about it? We know the basic principles, and we have touched on them in the debate, with many Members raising them brilliantly.
Many local authorities have adopted strategies based around vision zero, which is an approach originally adopted in countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands. It emphasises that no level of death or serious injury is acceptable on the roads, and it is focused on prevention, protection and post-collision response, coupled with evidence-based targets and robust safety performance indicators. We know that such approaches can be effective and save a great deal of money over the long term, but as we have seen and heard, there seems to be a huge gap between strategy and practical implementation.
If we want to be serious about tackling this issue, we must move towards a truly proactive, community-led approach to road safety that is informed by statistics and not led by them. In such a model, rather than claiming that a centrally held database knows better, we trust the instincts, experiences and wishes of those who use the roads every day. Instead of waiting around until enough people have been hurt to merit an intervention, we proactively identify high-risk areas, and we act.
An excellent example of that approach in action can be seen in the Netherlands. Over the past decade, both Rotterdam and the Hague have been using an algorithm to determine the likelihood of crashes on their roads. The model considers a range of factors, including past crashes, traffic flow, the features of the road, and the presence of on-road parking. From that, it creates a risk rating for each road. Crucially, this rating informs, rather than leads, the local authorities’ decisions. Community experience and input are a key factor in the decision-making process. The ratings are combined with an analysis of the volumes and severity of complaints the authorities receive regarding specific roads. Out of this community-led, data-informed model, the local authorities choose to proactively intervene to protect their citizens.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. It is personal to me, as I lost my grandfather in a road traffic accident before I was even born, and my grandmother was left with disability. Shipley experienced 183 road casualties in 2023, one of which was fatal. My hon. Friend mentions vision zero. West Yorkshire has a vision zero partnership that seeks to eliminate all traffic fatalities and injuries by 2040. It brings together the combined authority with local authorities, emergency services and National Highways, as well as victim support and road safety campaigners—speaking to his point about community. Is there still a place—I suggest that there is—for these vision zero partnerships, alongside the community approaches that he is advocating?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the hon. Member responds, I remind Members that interventions should be short and to the point.
Andy MacNae
I agree fully with my hon. Friend, and there is no conflict between a vision zero approach and the community-led approach I am talking about. The issue is that while vision zero has been adopted by many local authorities, the implementation falls far short of the intent. It is therefore a question of finding the appropriate implementation and delivery mechanisms, rather than just rehashing the strategy.
As well as the Netherlands model I mentioned, similar preventive work has been pioneered by researchers using automatically collected data from car sensors to identify dangerous sections of roads. That is interesting, because it collects data that key success indicator stats do not highlight. They collate real-world data where cars harshly and suddenly brake. These models have proven effective in predicting areas of danger, and such systems could be used to proactively examine hotspots before collisions occur, taking account of near misses and validation experiences with communities such as ours.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. In my constituency, the A96, which goes from Aberdeen to Huntly and up to Inverness, and the A90 north of Ellon are known as accident blackspots. On these roads, we know that local residents are not going out, because of the fear of an accident, which has an impact on our local economy, and emergency vehicle response times. Does he agree that emergency response times and local economic impacts should be part of the basis of assessments of where safety improvements should be put in on roads across the country?
Andy MacNae
I thank the hon. Member for making that point. How we value road safety interventions must recognise the full gamut of those impacts. Far too often, we use narrow measures of cost-benefit. Emergency response, impacts on wider infrastructure and the general feeling of being unsafe are hugely important considerations.
I have tried to highlight a few approaches to identifying areas of risk proactively before collisions occur. Again, we know how to do this. With those risks identified, we also have a range of effective, advanced interventions that we can utilise to reduce the risk of incidents. Average speed cameras have been proven to be particularly effective, yet due to fears about cost and a lack of awareness of advanced technology, many authorities have been reluctant to implement them.
Looking at the evidence, a review by the RAC Foundation found a 36.4% reduction in serious or fatal injuries at sites with average speed cameras installed, with a further 16% reduction in incidents of all severities. In some cases, the installation of speed cameras has reduced incidents by up to 86%. With Lancashire county council valuing the cost of a road-related fatality at £2 million—I do not know how it gets to that figure, but none the less that is the figure being used—it is no surprise that effective safety measures like these save the Government money in the long term.
The College of Policing has found that through a reduction in medical treatment and repair fees, the financial benefits of these schemes exceed their costs by 3:1. On the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), that is on a narrow basis, perhaps not recognising some of the wider impacts. The figure only increases when we look at the benefits beyond five years. I urge the Minister to use the upcoming strategy to stress the significant long-term benefits of proactively implementing speed reduction schemes with average speed cameras.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talked about a number of schemes, but has he looked at the 20 mph speed limit in Wales, which came into force in September 2023? Insurance companies such as Esure have said that it has reduced risk and that it is also beginning to reduce the premium that people pay in residential areas. We do not just have long and fast roads in our constituencies, but also residential areas, where that 20 mph speed limit has an impact.
Andy MacNae
There is no doubt that speed limits are a crucial part of this work, as long as they are targeted and appropriate. However, I cite the need for effective enforcement, because if people feel that there are no consequences from breaking those speed limits, they will be broken. Enforcement is a crucial part of the consideration.
Returning to average speed cameras, I urge the Minister to consider how sharing best practice between authorities could be improved. As the College of Policing noted, and as I and colleagues have seen all the time, there is a significant variation in the methods used to implement average speed cameras and assess their validity. Many authorities are unaware of the significant cost saving measures that have been pioneered over the last decade and the new technologies that exist.
To take one example, we were told by Lancashire county council that a relatively small average speed system on one key road in Rossendale was unviable as it would cost many millions to implement and maintain, yet when we approached a Home Office-approved supplier recommended by another local authority seen to be a pioneer in the area, we were given a quote of £800,000 for not just that scheme, but three others that together covered all the key risk areas in Rossendale. That huge disparity demonstrates not only how funding might be used inefficiently, but how local authorities are unnecessarily being held back from implementing schemes by an out-of-date view of their costs.
We need to recognise that cost is a genuine factor and that funding models under the previous Government were wholly inadequate, with road safety budgets squeezed alongside other local authority budgets. Under the last Labour Government, we had a system of netting off road fines, which helped to fund road safety enforcement activities. That should be reviewed as a possible funding stream to pay for road safety improvements, increasing policing numbers and making the best use of new and existing technology to reduce road risk. With increased information sharing, clarity over the costs of such schemes and hypothecated funds, there is significant potential to reduce the obstacles to enforcement that local authorities believe they face.
In addition to speed reduction methods, major gains can be made through improving pavements and creating cycle lanes through a genuine safe-system approach. Shockingly, of all road deaths in 2023, 25% were pedestrians, with cyclists accounting for 5%. Despite many local vision zero strategies, our road safety design evidently fails to protect those vulnerable users. I urge the Minister to use the upcoming strategy to encourage councils to meet their ambitions with action, utilising support from Active Travel England and genuinely adopting safe system approaches. That requires proactive interventions, whether through establishing clearer and protected cycle lanes, constructing safe footways or building new traffic lights and crossings where needed.
Another key area that we can tackle is the safety of commercial vehicles, as we have touched on. As I mentioned, there are schools in my constituency that border dangerous roads that are frequently used by large commercial vehicles. Due to the force of impact, HGVs are the second most dangerous vehicles on the road, killing 6.9 people per billion passenger miles—significantly higher than the comparative figure of 1.6 for cars. Considering that, it is completely unacceptable that in 2023, 36% of lorries were seen to exceed the speed limit. Drivers often have minimal oversight and training from companies, which have weak corporate safety standards.
We must proactively recognise and respond to the heightened risk that such vehicles pose. One crucial step could be to incentivise companies to maintain high safety standards in their fleet, be that through offering lower insurance to companies that demonstrate best practice, naming and shaming companies that do not, or even making companies fully liable for work-related collisions.
Alongside that, a variety of other proactive, low-cost methods could be used to improve the safety of our roads—for instance, tightening the regulations on tyre safety. Poor tyres accentuate the impact of speeding or poor driving. Over the past decade, an average of 182 people have been killed or seriously injured per year because of poor tyre conditions. MOTs flag over two million cars with sub-standard tyres each year, 1 million of which are so poor that they are considered actively dangerous. Given the improvements in tyre technology, coupled with the fact that the highest proportion of serious incidents occur in the winter months, there is room for the Minister to consider mandating that all new vehicles be equipped with all-season tyres.
More generally, there are significant opportunities offered by safe vehicle technologies, which can be embedded through advanced vehicle safety regulations. Let me touch on a point raised earlier about driver education, particularly protecting young drivers. This is a complex area, which needs a debate in its own right, but given that 16% of car driver fatalities are younger drivers, there is no doubt that this area really needs attention.
Finally, as we have touched on, increasing devolution is also central to ensuring that communities’ voices are heard. In places such as Lancashire, road safety interventions are still determined on a county level. Officials and county councillors are often very far removed from the roads and communities impacted by their decisions. When this responsibility is held on a unitary level, the voices of communities are louder, and decision makers are much closer to the area in question. Given the widespread local government reorganisation coming in this Parliament, the Minister has a significant opportunity to establish best practice in new unitary and combined authorities. I urge her to seize this unique opportunity, and to provide meaningful support and guidance to these emerging authorities.
To wrap up, considering the reactive and inefficient approach to road safety that the Minister inherited from the previous Government, I urge her to utilise her upcoming road safety strategy to move the country towards a preventive, community-led and statistics-informed model of road safety, alongside a sustainable funding approach. Central to that approach, I call for the following measures to be given detailed consideration within the road safety strategy: first, ending the safety postcode lottery via a robust, mandated national road safety strategy, based on a community-led, data-informed, safe system approach and, within that, prioritising lived experience and perceptions of safety over arms-length data.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
On data, as a councillor in Farnley and Wortley and now as the MP for Leeds South West and Morley, I found that when I tried to help residents with accident spots on problem roads, I was often told that the average speed on that road was not high enough for action to be warranted. I have been met with that excuse so many times—too many to count—as both a councillor and as an MP. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to move away from that? Of course we should rely on data, but we should also speak to the people who live next to those accident spots, so that we can deal with them properly.
Andy MacNae
Absolutely. That is the essence of what we are talking about. Given that average speed data is a blunt tool anyway, we should ask ourselves who knows best: the people who live on that road and experience it every single day, or someone sitting looking at an algorithm in county hall far away? As politicians and representatives of our constituents, the answer that we should give is that the community knows best. We should put in systems to support their everyday lived experience, not the other way around.
Secondly—and this point is linked to the first—we have to use the opportunities presented by devolution and local government reorganisation to embed best practice, including improving information sharing between authorities regarding the availability of new and emerging road safety technologies.
Thirdly, we must address the barriers to proactive implementation and enforcement measures, particularly average speed cameras. Fourthly, we have to develop a sustainable funding model based on bringing back netting off. Fifthly, we must make companies fully responsible for the actions of their drivers on public roads. Sixthly, we need a genuine safe system approach to road and pavement design to protect pedestrians and cyclists. Finally, we need to address accentuating factors via advanced safety and vehicle safety regulations and develop approaches to protect young drivers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response, as road safety is a big issue in the Sussex Weald. Before I call her, though, I am told there are three very short contributions from Back Benchers. My worry is that there are more people standing than I have been alerted to—they will need to make their way to the Chair quickly, in the appropriate way, and make it clear what they are trying to do. Contributions will be short. First, I call my fellow Brummie, Paulette Hamilton.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this important debate. The issue of road safety is vital and we need a sustainable funding model. Local councils are a key player in improving prevention-based road safety.
I have heard a lot about rural settings from hon. Members this afternoon, but my constituency is in the middle of a city, and the problems occurring within cities are just as bad. People veer from main roads and go on to side streets. I would like to share an incident that took place this morning in my constituency, where yet another vehicle struck the bridge on Summer Road. This follows a recent incident where a truck collided with the same bridge and overturned. It is the third such occurrence since last November—it is simply unacceptable.
Does the Minister agree that the local council needs to step up and implement measures to address this issue, not only to prevent the severe disruption that is caused by these accidents, but to ensure the safety of other road users and pedestrians? My time as a nurse taught me that prevention is better than cure; it is much better to take measures now than to risk the safety of local residents in areas across this country.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I will also try to be short and sweet, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on bringing forth such an important subject. He alluded in his excellent speech to the sheer number of fatalities, and it is perhaps worth reflecting on the fact that there are three times the number of road fatalities than homicides in an average year, which is something we could all bear in mind as we go about driving on the roads.
I want to draw Members’ attention to the importance of listening to our constituents who have sadly suffered the trauma of losing someone in a road traffic collision. In my constituency I have Giulietta and George Galli-Atkinson, who for 26 years have run the Livia awards, which recognise the professionalism and service to justice of police officers. I had the honour of speaking at the 26th award ceremony at the Metropolitan police headquarters this year. The awards are in memory of their daughter, who sadly was killed by a dangerous driver. I mention that because I believe it is incumbent on us to listen to the voices of those who have suffered the trauma and devastation of such unnecessary, preventable deaths. We need to hear their words and act on them. Community involvement is critical.
In conclusion, we must get the message across to our constituents that road collisions are, in all but the smallest number of cases, not accidents—they are preventable; they are avoidable. We must all take responsibility, including national Government. My hon. Friend the Minister takes these issues very seriously. We must tighten the law wherever we can and I know she is looking at various ways to do that. We must fund local authorities for their excellent work to help increase road safety and empower police forces to enforce our road traffic laws. We must do everything we can to empower ordinary citizens to engage with this really important issue. We must ensure that ordinary citizens are in control of our roads, not those who would endanger us all through their selfishness and criminality through dangerous and reckless driving.
Finally, we must take responsibility as individuals. Our constituents must take responsibility for driving more safely whenever they can so that we reduce the tragic number of avoidable and terrible deaths on our roads and the tens of thousands of serious injuries. We must reduce that number as much as possible.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen for giving us the opportunity to reflect on these important matters and to encourage the Government to do everything in their power to ensure that the number of road deaths and injuries is reduced significantly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
To help the Minister prepare, we have three more very short Back-Bench contributions.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing this excellent and pertinent debate. All Members come with horror stories from our own constituencies, after families have been in touch with us. I mentioned that in Shrewsbury it was the family of Harvey Owen, who died with three other young children aged between 17 and 18 on a trip to Wales. The driver had been passed for one week.
That story is not unfamiliar in rural towns and areas like mine, where public services have been decimated. We have lost 5,000 bus routes since 2010, which means that 17-year-olds find themselves with no alternative but to learn to drive in order to access education, sport and social activities. That experience is reflected across the country, but particularly so in rural areas. Young drivers, aged between 17 and 24, are consistently over-represented in the statistics. Very distressingly, globally road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death for young people between the ages of 15 and 29, and one in five drivers will crash within their first year on the road.
A national campaign group called Forget-me-not Families Uniting brings together families who have lost young people. One of those campaigners, Crystal Owen, the mother of Harvey Owen, who is from my constituency, put together a petition with 22,000 signatures, asking Ministers to look at measures to protect young drivers in particular. The Minister very graciously gave her time to meet Harvey’s mum and listened carefully to some of those suggestions, such as additional training for young drivers and progressive licensing, and safety measures such as “Harvey’s hammer”, a device that could smash open a window if a car is trapped. That could save many lives. I know the Minister is working really hard to develop a road safety strategy. I hope she will hear the message that young drivers are three times more likely to die. We must consider them in those safety measures and, in so doing, understand that this has a stronger prevalence in rural areas.
Members may be pleased to hear that today I have been granted a Westminster Hall debate on road safety measures, in particular to protect young drivers. I hope they will join me on Tuesday 29 January at 9.30 am.
In conclusion, I again appeal to the Minister that policies must go hand in hand with the other work we are doing to increase public transport, particularly in rural areas. It must be a viable alternative. I know the Minister will join me in my dream for Shrewsbury to have evening buses and a Sunday service. That would encourage young people to embrace public transport, rather than risking their lives on the roads.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As a rural Member of Parliament, I tend to share the hon. Lady’s dreams.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for initiating this important debate.
I have heard many passionate arguments tonight about why our roads should be safer, and about deaths that were waiting to happen and were preventable, but I have been involved in a situation in which a death actually happened. Even after an 11-year-old was killed on one of our roads, we had to fight and campaign with his grieving mother for the road to be improved.
Harley James Jackson was killed during his first half-term at secondary school. His mum had to campaign to persuade the county council to make the improvements to that road, and it took two and a half years. We were told that the mean average speed on the road of 38 mph was within the expected range, although speeds of 5 mph and 80 mph at 8 pm were recorded in the speed data. The data is not consistent. We were also told by the safety officer during our campaign that there were 50 roads with similar speed characteristics but there was funding for only two.
This death could have been prevented. We knew that the road was dangerous; the community had said so, and the community campaigned. I can guarantee that no one knows more about that road than the mother of that child, who has campaigned ever since. We need to listen to these people in order to prevent such things from happening again.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That was a very powerful speech. I call Amanda Martin to make the final Back-Bench contribution.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I welcome this important debate. A number of causes for concern are being raised with me by my constituents, and all of them are preventable. First, abandoned cars are routinely being left at the side of a road in my constituency, usually near car dealerships, with no MOTs or insurance. They can sit there for weeks, and they cause a hazard, because local schoolchildren are having to walk around them. One constituent contacted the council, only to be told that it was not the council’s responsibility and the constituent should go to the police. The police said, “Go to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency”, and the DVLA said, “Go back to the council.” Someone needs to take responsibility; that is vital.
The second problem is congestion. Cars pull up in bus lanes where there are no double yellow lines, near hospitals, when roads are jam-packed with buses. No one can get in or out, and that causes not only delays but accidents and damage to vehicles. Congestion, and accidents, are also caused by narrow streets and roads that are used as rat runs, with cars running all the way down them. Residents of Oakwood Road have been pushing for a one-way street, although there are speed bumps, because it would help with the flow of traffic and also with safety; the street in question is very near a school.
Finally, there is the serious issue of zebra crossing safety. A lack of signage means that crossings are ignored. One, in Baffins, is next to a sixth-form college and also near schools, and hundreds of pupils cross the road every day, but that zebra crossing and others are often ignored.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing the debate, and thank him for continuing to raise the issue of road safety in his constituency. I am pleased, and somewhat surprised, to see that so many of my hon. Friends have come to the Chamber to contribute to this vital discussion about reducing deaths and injuries on our roads. It is welcome to have had more time than we might have expected for an Adjournment debate.
The Government are committed to road safety, because it contributes to every single one of our national missions. Safer roads enable economic growth and opportunities, support greener journeys through active travel, reduce pressures on our NHS, and help people to travel without fear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen clearly described the impact that road danger has on his local residents, and other Members have made equally valuable points, particularly highlighting the impact on children and their ability to travel safely and make those vital journeys to school and in their local communities.
More than four people lose their lives every single day on our roads, and as a number of Members have said, we know that most of these deaths are avoidable, the result of excess speed, driving under the influence of drink or drugs and frequently both, using a mobile phone behind the wheel or not wearing seatbelts. My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about those who do not use our roads appropriately and place themselves and others in harm’s way.
In my short time as future of roads Minister, I have read too many heartbreaking accounts of loss and serious injury, and we have heard more examples this evening, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), who is not in his place; I cannot comment on the specifics of that case, but I would be happy to meet him to discuss his concerns.
I have spoken to grieving family members rightfully demanding change. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for speaking on behalf of his constituents this evening and for the work that he and they are doing to campaign on this issue. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) for the work she has done in her constituency and with her constituents.
The Transport Secretary and I are determined to make our roads safer for everyone who uses them. The lack of progress on road safety over the past decade has been inexcusable. There has been no direction and no long-term vision, and that is reflected in the statistics, with drink-driving deaths at their highest levels in 15 years. In 2022, around 300 people were tragically killed where at least one driver was over the drink-drive limit. That represents 18% of all fatalities. In the same year, 203 people were killed in a road collision where at least one deceased driver had an impairment drug detected. That was 13% of all fatalities. We need to tackle these illegal behaviours. As the Secretary of State has stated, tackling reckless behaviour on the roads is a priority for her and for us, because these statistics—more than 1,600 deaths a year and almost 30,000 serious injuries—are not inevitable.
Our THINK! campaign continues to address key priorities around drink-driving, speeding and seatbelts. Our innovative campaigns around positive choices and the power of peer influence are targeted at young men aged 17 to 24—a group that is four times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on our roads. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) spoke about her constituent Crystal Owen, who lost her son Harvey in heartbreaking circumstances, and I look forward to the debate that she has secured. These life-saving behaviour change campaigns matter, and we will continue to work on them.
I turn to the important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen made on community road safety interventions. Traffic authorities have the responsibility for making decisions about the roads they manage. That includes measures to protect the safety of road users based on their knowledge of the area, taking into account local needs and considerations. That must include listening to local communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) made an important contribution about a dangerous road in her constituency, and I am sure that her concerns and those of her local constituents will have been heard by the relevant local authority and the Mayor of the West Midlands. Traffic authorities are best placed to make these decisions, but my Department also has a really important role: we need to set the enabling legislation and national policy objectives and provide good practice, guidance and, of course, vital funding.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the risk rating of a road should be a consideration when designing road safety interventions. Since 2017, the safer roads fund has provided £185.8 million to address the dangers on 99 high-risk roads, working with the relevant local authorities to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. The programme has provided vital infrastructure interventions where they are needed the most, taking into account those who are killed or seriously injured but also traffic flow and the potential hazards on a road. It is really important work. A number of hon. Members have rightly highlighted the dangers on rural roads, including you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We need to look to the future and understand how new technologies can help prevent future collisions. My hon. Friend talked about some of the international comparisons and how we might draw on those in the future.
When it comes to speed, local authorities have the power to set speed limits on their roads. It is for local authorities to determine what measures are appropriate in individual cases, because they have local knowledge. They also have a range of traffic management measures available to help them improve safety outside schools, including 20 mph speed limits, traffic calming and the introduction of school streets where appropriate. Local authorities are able to place advisory part-time 20 mph speed limit signs in the vicinity of schools without the need for Government approval.
I listened with interest to my hon. Friend’s suggestion to implement “netting off”. The previous trial allowed fixed penalty revenue to be used to reinvest in more camera enforcement, and the national scheme that followed ended on 1 April 2007. The funding of cameras was integrated into the local transport plan process at the same time that the scheme ended. Paying fines and penalty receipts such as speeding fines into the consolidated fund is generally considered preferable to ringfencing or hypothecating specific funding. The risk of appearing to create incentives to collect fines and penalty receipts for the sake of generating revenues, rather than for the purpose of enforcement and road safety, needs very careful consideration if we are to retain public trust in tackling speeding.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that most central Government funding for local government is not ringfenced so that local authorities can make the best decisions relating to their local priorities. Money from the Consolidated Fund supports general expenditure on public services, including those that motorists will benefit from, such as healthcare, policing, local government grants and transport. Nevertheless, he makes an important point, and I will certainly look into it further.
The enforcement of road traffic law is vital, and how available resources are deployed is the responsibility of individual chief officers and police and crime commissioners, taking into account the specific local problems and demands that they face. My hon. Friend made important points that I will consider further, including about people who drive for a living and the important role that we can play in ensuring that employers take their responsibilities seriously.
I turn to my hon. Friend’s point about tyres. Tyre labelling regulations require a new tyre’s wet grip performance to be displayed at the point of sale, along with other attributes. The ratings are established following standardised tests, and presented in a consistent manner that helps the consumer to see the relative performance and make an informed choice. The market surveillance unit in the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency checks new car tyres supplied into the market are accurate with respect to their assigned wet grip, fuel efficiency and external noise ratings. The unit has also worked closely with trading standards relative to part-worn and re-treaded tyre sellers, supporting any sanctions that trading standards may take in respect of non-compliance. The DVSA welcomes intelligence about part-worn and re-treaded tyre compliance.
The last Labour Government halved the number of people killed on our roads each year, but under the Conservatives that progress stalled, with only a 12% reduction between 2010 and 2023. That is a legacy that my Government are determined to put right. That is why we have announced that we are developing a new road safety strategy, the first in over a decade. I can assure my hon. Friends that we will continue to use the “safe system” approach to support our thinking, be evidence based and ensure responsibility for tackling the problem is shared among policy makers, those who enforce our laws, those who design our roads and those who use them. We will be setting out next steps in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen made a number of really important points in his contribution, and I will be working with officials to consider them further, as we continue our work in this area. I will be pleased to keep in touch with him, and other hon. Friends here today, as we progress our work on road safety. I once again congratulate him on securing this important debate, and everyone who made a contribution this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ring-fenced Bodies, Core Activities, Excluded Activities and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Order 2024
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Designated Activities) (Supervision and Enforcement) Regulations 2024
Draft Short Selling Regulations 2024
(2 days, 9 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 (Ring-fenced Bodies, Core Activities, Excluded Activities and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Order 2024.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to take the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Designated Activities) (Supervision and Enforcement) Regulations 2024 and the draft Short Selling Regulations 2024.
Tulip Siddiq
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Vickers, during this quiet week in politics. The regulations that we are introducing today will ensure effective, proportionate regulation for the financial services sector, first, by reforming the ringfencing regime to be more flexible while upholding financial stability safeguards; secondly, by creating a new framework for the regulation of short selling; and thirdly, by enabling better supervision and enforcement of designated activities under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023.
I will turn first to the reforms to the ringfencing regime for banks. As the Committee will know, ringfencing was introduced following the global financial crisis on the recommendation of the Independent Commission on Banking, and it came into full force in 2019. It requires large, complex banks to separate the services that they provide to households and small and medium enterprises from investment banking activity.
In 2022, an independent statutory review of the regime recommended updates to ensure that it operates as intended and is proportionate. This statutory instrument improves the regime and implements changes from the review. The reforms that it contains will improve competition in the banking sector, reduce costs and support economic growth. They have been developed with the Prudential Regulation Authority, which is content that they also maintain appropriate financial stability protections.
I will outline the most material updates to the regime. The reforms will ensure that in future only the largest, most complex banks are subject to the regime, with two key changes. The first is an increase in the primary deposit threshold—the amount of core deposits a bank can hold before it is required to ringfence—from £25 billion to £35 billion. This accounts for growth in the deposit base and other relevant economic indicators since ringfencing was introduced and it supports competition. The second change is the introduction of a new secondary threshold, which exempts retail-focused banking groups from the regime, where investment banking activity accounts for less than 10% of common equity tier 1 capital.
This SI also makes changes to the way that banks within the regime can operate. It introduces measures to encourage more investment by ringfenced banks in UK small and medium enterprises and to reduce the compliance burden associated with the regime. It also creates significant new flexibilities to allow ringfenced banks to operate globally, subject to PRA rules, as well as to provide a wider range of goods and services to their customers.
I turn to the draft Short Selling Regulations. Short selling is the practice of selling a security that is borrowed or not owned by the seller with the intention of buying it back later at a lower price to make a profit. Short selling plays a healthy role in the proper functioning of financial markets. It provides essential liquidity to markets, which drives investment in British companies; it helps to drive economic growth; and it helps to ensure that investors pay the right price when investing in shares.
The draft regulations introduce a more streamlined UK short selling regime, which focuses on equities, rather than both equities and sovereign debt. The new regime also introduces a reformed public disclosure regime for short selling, ensuring that there is transparency over short selling activity, without the issues identified with the current regime through the 2022 call for evidence.
However, as I am sure the Opposition spokesperson will identify, there can be risks associated with short selling. As such, it is important for the Financial Conduct Authority to have the tools to effectively monitor short selling activity and intervene if necessary. This statutory instrument provides the FCA with broad rule-making powers in relation to short selling. This will allow the FCA to effectively oversee short selling in UK markets. It will also mean that the UK’s short selling rules can be adapted and updated by the FCA in a more agile way in future—for example, to better adapt to new global standards or to take account of market innovation and new business models. The instrument retains the FCA’s powers to intervene in relation to short selling activity in UK markets in exceptional circumstances, which is an important feature of the current regime.
Turning to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Designated Activities) (Supervision and Enforcement) Regulations 2024, to give the FCA the broad rule-making powers for short selling that I just mentioned, the new short selling regime operates under the designated activities regime—known as DAR. The DAR was introduced into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which the Opposition spokesperson will know very well, since we sat across from each other, debating it for days. It allows the Treasury to designate certain activities to be regulated by the FCA. However, persons carrying on those activities under the DAR do not need to become full authorised persons like banks or insurers. This enables proportionate regulation for activities where it would be disproportionate to have met all requirements for authorisation.
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Designated Activities) (Supervision and Enforcement) Regulations 2024 enable the FCA to supervise and enforce the rules it makes under the DAR. They do this by enabling the FCA to exercise existing supervision and enforcement powers under FSMA 2000 on persons carrying out designated activities, whether or not they are authorised. In the first instance, these powers will be extended to the activities covered by the Consumer Composite Investments (Designated Activities) Regulations 2024 and the Short Selling Regulations 2024. Tha will enable effective supervision of these regimes.
I thank the Committee for putting up with these quite technical amendments. The statutory instruments ensure that our financial services industry is subject to a rulebook that is fit for purpose, more proportionate and tailored to UK markets. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting these regulations.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to see you presiding over us, Mr Vickers. The Minister has covered the instruments pretty well, so I will make a few remarks, and then I have a couple of pretty straightforward questions. Let me first speak to the statutory instrument on ringfencing. As the Minister set out, the regime came into force in January 2019, requiring the largest UK banks to separate core banking services from their investment and international banking activities. The intention with the ringfencing regime was to protect British banks from shocks, whether originating from elsewhere in the group or in global financial markets.
The regime currently applies to banks with more than £25 billion in retail and small and medium-sized enterprise deposits. The original legislation contained a statutory review clause requiring His Majesty’s Treasury to commission an independent review within two years of the regime coming into effect. The review was commissioned in 2021, chaired by the excellent Sir Keith Skeoch, and the review panel reported in March 2022. The SI that we are debating seeks to implement recommendations from the Skeoch review that were aimed at improving the operation of the regime. It amends previous FSMA-related SIs from 2014 to adjust the regulatory regime applying to ringfenced bodies.
As the Minister set out, the changes will raise the threshold for inclusion in the ringfenced regime from £25 billion to £35 billion, and add a new exemption for retail-focused products that undertake minimal investment banking activity. Regulatory reporting requirements by ringfenced banks are also being reduced, while restrictions on the geographical operations are being relaxed. The products and services that ringfenced banks can offer are also being relaxed, as in the case of trade finance agreements. Finally, when banks become the subject of the regime because of an acquisition by a ringfenced bank, a four-year transition period is being introduced.
This is a long way of saying that I very much welcome the action that is being taken by this Government as relates to this statutory instrument. However, there are two points that I would like some clarification on, given that the financial landscape is continually changing and has changed a lot in the past two years alone. Regulation must adapt to changing conditions, so let me ask two questions. First, will the £35 billion threshold be reviewed again in the future? Secondly, what will be the process for adjusting the threshold in response to future market developments and inflationary pressures?
Turning to designated activities, under the 2023 Act His Majesty’s Treasury makes regulations to designate activities related to financial markets, including financial market exchanges, instruments, products or investments. The Act also gave the FCA powers to make rules and give directions relating to those designated activities. The designated activity rules framework includes provisions that allow the Treasury to designate certain activities to be regulated by the FCA, without the requirement for those carrying on the activities to become authorised persons. The SI in front of us today rightly aims to provide the FCA with the supervisory and enforcement powers to enforce the rules it makes within that framework.
We support the measures set out in this SI. However, I again have a couple of points to raise, particularly points that were raised in the other place and points that I understand were raised by the Minister, as reported in the Financial Times on 4 December 2024, regarding the naming and shaming of firms by the FCA. I completely appreciate that the FCA has reopened its consultation, but I should be grateful if she would provide clarity on two points. First, at what point exactly in the enforcement process would the naming and shaming take place? Secondly, how will the Government hold the FCA accountable for its new approach, as the Minister herself said was needed in the interview?
Finally and briefly, we turn to the Short Selling Regulations 2024. The SI establishes a new legislative framework for the regulation of short selling by creating a designated activity of short selling, thus giving the FCA powers to make and enforce rules for this practice. Short selling does play a vital role in financial markets, such as providing liquidity. However, it is important that the FCA has the tools it requires to monitor short selling activity and intervene when necessary to mitigate risks. This SI introduces a requirement for the FCA to publish anonymised aggregate net short positions based on all individual position notifications that it receives. It also removes restrictions on uncovered short selling of sovereign debt and sovereign credit default swaps, as the Minister said, as well as sovereign debt notification requirements.
The Opposition support the measures set out in this SI. I have no further questions.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his questions. I am grateful that he is supporting us. He agrees that the SIs represent an important step in ensuring that our approach for the regulation of financial services is effective and proportionate. We feel that these are sensible, technical reforms. The Treasury undertook detailed work with the PRA after the independent review, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, released its final report in 2022, consulting on a draft package of measures in 2023 and refined those proposals in line with feedback.
It is recognised that the ringfencing regime was originally designed so that the threshold would need to be adjusted over time to reflect the evolution of banking practices and growth in the deposit base. The Treasury considered several metrics as well as financial stability and competition considerations in proposing the £10 billion increase. Increasing the deposit threshold will provide smaller banks with more headroom to grow before being subject to the requirements and costs of ringfencing. We feel that will support domestic competition in retail banking markets. A competitive and dynamic market will improve outcomes for depositors. The reform may encourage inward investment in the UK as new entrants to the UK banking market will have more room to develop economies of scale before being subject to the regime.
While the independent review, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, did not suggest that uprating was necessary to maintain the policy aims of the current ringfence, the Government have recognised that the threshold acts as a barrier to the growth of smaller players in the market, dampening competition for retail customers. His points are valid, and we will be looking at them, but there are no plans at this point to change the threshold in the way he mentioned.
On the hon. Gentleman’s points about name-and-shame proposals, I am very pleased to hear that he has been reading my interviews in detail. I have raised those proposals several times with the FCA and welcome the fact that it has listened to industry feedback on them. It has taken some steps to address some of the concerns raised by industry, which he will know about. I have been clear with the FCA that effective, proportionate regulation is key to our aims, and that it needs to deliver the Government’s mission to drive inclusive growth.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the FCA is operationally independent but accountable to Government and Parliament. I am engaging closely with the FCA on name-and-shame proposals and will make sure that any potential impacts on international competitiveness and growth are properly considered. That is not to dismiss the concerns about those proposals from industry, which I have heard first hand. The subject comes up repeatedly in my meetings with the FCA. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman a little bit.
I think I have covered most of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, but am happy to write to him on any others. Generally, we feel that this SI is important overall to our mission of growing the economy. I know that when the hon. Gentleman was in government, he had sight of a similar SI and was in agreement with it. I thank the Committee for agreeing to pass this legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS ACT 2000 (DESIGNATED ACTIVITIES) (SUPERVISION AND ENFORCEMENT) REGULATIONS 2024
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Designated Activities) (Supervision and Enforcement) Regulations 2024.—(Tulip Siddiq.)
DRAFT SHORT SELLING REGULATIONS 2024
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Short Selling Regulations 2024.—(Tulip Siddiq.)
Draft Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Good morning and happy new year to all members of the Committee. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford.
The instrument revokes and alters several provisions of the assimilated regulation 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the European Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity relating to the capacity market, which from now on I shall refer to as the assimilated electricity regulation. Before I outline the provisions of the draft regulations, I shall briefly give some context.
Great Britain’s capacity market was introduced in 2014. It is designed to ensure that sufficient electricity capacity is available to meet future predicted demand, to maintain security of electricity supply. It is our main tool for that purpose, providing all forms of existing and new-build capacity with the right incentives to be on the system when we need them. It covers generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility and interconnection capacity. Capacity markets auctions are held annually one year and four years ahead of delivery to ensure that we have supply when we need it and to meet future peak demand in a range of scenarios, based on advice from the capacity market delivery body, the National Energy System Operator.
Since its introduction, the capacity market has contributed to investment in just under 19 GW of new, flexible capacity needed to replace older, less efficient plant as we transition to the net zero economy. The capacity market was originally approved under European Union state aid rules for a period of 10 years. Following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, a requirement in EU law for approval of up to 10 years was brought into our domestic law as part of the assimilated electricity regulation. To date, the capacity market has been successful in ensuring that Great Britain has adequate electricity capacity to meet demand, and it continues to be required to maintain security of supply and investor confidence. This will be increasingly important as further sectors of the economy are decarbonised through the transition to net zero, increasing demand for electricity.
The draft regulations revoke and alters certain provisions relating to capacity mechanisms in the assimilated electricity regulation, including article 21(8), which requires that
“Capacity mechanisms shall be temporary and shall be approved for no longer than 10 years”,
and other references to such mechanisms being temporary. The draft instrument also revokes several provisions that require minor correction following changes made for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, or that impose requirements that are no longer considered to be necessary. We are making these changes now because of the ongoing need for the capacity market to ensure sufficient investment in reliable electricity capacity.
The domestic subsidy control regime was introduced after our withdrawal from the EU. It does not require subsidy schemes to be granted an approval or to be limited for a specified period. The approval requirement in the assimilated electricity regulation does not, therefore, reflect our post-EU exit arrangements. It is of course important to keep the capacity market under review, and there are several controls in domestic legislation, such as the Secretary of State’s discretion not to hold auctions, as well as a statutory requirement to review the capacity market every five years, which provides an opportunity to review the need for the scheme. They will all be retained in the domestic capacity market legislative framework.
The draft instrument revokes and alters certain provisions related to capacity mechanisms in the assimilated electricity regulation, including the requirement for an approval lasting no longer than 10 years and references to capacity mechanisms being temporary. The aim is to ensure that our domestic legislative arrangements reflect the continued operation of the capacity market, which is Great Britain’s main mechanism for ensuring security of electricity supply. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Good morning and happy new year. It is good to be back in this Committee dealing with yet another piece of delegated legislation.
The draft regulations make changes necessary for the operation of the capacity market outwith the EU and sensibly revokes the 10-year approval requirement. On that basis, I do not oppose it and we will not stand in the way of business today.
The capacity market scheme was introduced in 2014, as part of the electricity market reform, to ensure security of electricity supply by providing payments for reliable sources of electricity generation capacity, or in some cases for reduced demand. In 2013, the Government identified that while introducing renewable energy sources into the energy mix,
“The amount of gas capacity we will need to call on at times of peak demand will remain high, with potentially significant amounts of new gas generating capacity required by 2030.”
That prediction rings true, and truer still when we acknowledge the intermittent nature of weather-dependent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. That is why in a speech made at Chatham House in March, the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), called for new unabated gas power plants, to make sure that we can keep the lights on when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.
As the NESO report states:
“Around 35 GW of unabated gas (broadly consistent with the size of the existing fleet) will need to remain on standby for security of supply. This requirement for gas capacity will remain throughout the early 2030s until larger levels of low carbon dispatchable power and other flexible sources are able to replace it.”
Indeed, its “Clean Power 2030” plan sets out the intention to reform current market mechanisms such as the capacity market to
“help enable the continued operation of unabated gas for security of supply.”
This will, however, be more expensive due to the sporadic use of gas as a result of the dominance of renewables. The capacity market will provide income to combined cycle gas turbine plants, which will produce only 5% of overall generation, requiring much higher capacity prices.
As the Secretary of State charges toward grid decarbonisation, it is imperative that we retain our capacity for gas generation and maintain the capacity market scheme to facilitate that, but due to the decisions made by the current Government it will be more expensive —one of the many pitfalls of their “renewables at any cost” approach. I am sure we will soon debate this at greater length and in greater detail; it is not for today’s Committee. We have no problem with the specific provisions of the draft regulations before us.
Michael Shanks
I thank the shadow Minister for his support. I have no doubt that in 2025 we will have many debates on the “Clean Power 2030” action plan, and I look forward to hearing his support for our work. As I said in opening the debate, the draft regulations are technical in nature. They are about ensuring security of supply long into the future, and I hope the Committee will support them today.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. As we set out in our manifesto, this Government are committed to strengthening and encouraging participation in our democracy. The draft regulations will help to achieve that by ensuring that those who remain eligible to be registered, but who did not respond to the last electoral canvass, can remain registered while attempts are made to contact them. I thank the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland for their support in the design of the retention framework that is set out in the draft regulations.
Unlike the process in Great Britain, there is no annual canvass in Northern Ireland. Instead, the CEO is required to conduct a canvass at least every 10 years; the last was held in 2021. During the canvass, all eligible individuals must respond by completing a full new application form; otherwise, they risk removal from the register. The current law provides that individuals who do not respond to a canvass can be retained for up to three years if the CEO continues to be satisfied of their eligibility; such individuals are called retained electors. The CEO is able to assess eligibility by cross-checking the register with local and Government data.
Following the 2021 canvass, there are 87,000 retained electors on the register, or approximately 6% of the electorate in Northern Ireland. As that canvass took place three years ago, under the existing provisions they would all be removed from the register next month. That is why it is really important that we are all here today. The CEO’s assessment is that almost all of these retained electors remain eligible.
The draft regulations would correct the position by extending the retention period from three to six years. Given that three years have already elapsed since the 2021 canvass, the current retained cohort will start the new framework in year four of the 10-year cycle and will be subject to the provisions relating to years four to six of the scheme. Electors retained on the register following any subsequent canvass, including the one scheduled for 2030, will be subject to the steps for years one to six.
Crucially, the new provisions stipulate the required minimum engagements by the CEO in each retention year to encourage re-registration, including an annual audit of retained electors and a framework of correspondence. The provisions are designed to prevent the loss of retained electors, which would have a negative impact on the quality of the electoral register in Northern Ireland and would potentially disenfranchise electors.
The CEO is clear that he has full confidence in the quality of the data available, allowing him confidence in retention and removals where they are warranted. Owing to additional data and improvements in data science, the data available is of a much higher quality than when the current law was conceived.
I will explain a little more about the details of the framework. The draft regulations will introduce a new residence audit that the CEO will be required to conduct annually to check residence details of retained electors against the external data available. Where the audit raises a question as to the elector’s residence, a removal warning notice must be sent. If the elector does not re-register within 28 days of the notice, they will be removed from the register.
In years one to three following the canvass, if the CEO remains satisfied as a result of the audit that the elector remains eligible to be on the register, no further action will be taken. However, in years four to five of the electoral cycle, which is where we are now, if the CEO is satisfied that retained electors remain resident, they will be sent a household notice showing which electors must re-register or risk removal. They will not, at that stage, be removed, but the primary legislation is clear that non-respondents may not be retained indefinitely. Consequently, in the sixth and final year, all remaining retained electors will be sent up to three notices informing them that they will be removed if they do not re-register. If they fail to respond, they will then be removed.
The purpose of the framework is to ensure that reasonable efforts are made to prevent the loss of eligible electors from the register. As the last canvass was held in 2021, only those provisions in the regulations concerning years four to six will apply to the current retained electors. I hope that the Committee agrees that these changes will encourage and secure participation in the democratic process in Northern Ireland.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
May I welcome you to your place, Mr Mundell, and wish you and all hon. Members a happy new year? The Opposition do not intend to oppose the draft regulations, but we have some reasonably significant questions and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Some 87,000 voters are about to fall off the register. I believe that to be an unusually high number. What do we think is the cause? Perhaps we are dealing with the symptoms rather than the cause of the problem, so it would be useful to know what the Government think has led such circumstances to arise.
The Committee could do with some reassurance about the reliability of the local and Government data used in this process. I have read and understood the explanatory memorandum, but we could do with a little more detail so that we know that the data is accurate.
It would be helpful to know whether the Government have considered harmonising the good system that we have in Great Britain with the one in Northern Ireland. We have a very reliable system of annual canvasses here. I understand why there was thought to be a need to differentiate Northern Ireland when the Representation of the People Act was passed in 1983, but a lot has moved on since then. Would it not be better for the whole country if one system were used in all four of the home nations?
My last question is slightly outside the Minister’s brief, so I will understand if she or one of her colleagues answers in writing. There is a long tradition in Northern Ireland of voter ID to accompany registration. There have been some rumours in the press recently that the Government are considering doing away with voter ID in the UK. Would that cover just GB, or would it also cover Northern Ireland? When can we hope for some clarity on the Government’s position?
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I have a couple of queries for the Minister. The chief electoral officer says that 87,700 retained electors are due to be removed on 1 February. The explanatory memorandum suggests that almost all of them live at the address on the register and
“are therefore eligible to be registered to vote at this address.”
That would suggest that those 87,700 electors are real, live people who are able and eligible to vote in Northern Ireland, so I assume that they had the opportunity to do so in the general election only six months ago. In my opinion, that is an exceptionally high number. I wonder whether the Government, although perhaps not at this stage, could ask the chief electoral officer to provide a breakdown of those 87,700 retained electors by constituency so that we can see whether there is any trend or specific registration issue in Northern Ireland of which we need to be aware.
I turn to a more specific question. Proposed new regulation 46C of the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008, which is entitled “Retained register entries: residence audit”, provides an opportunity to
“conduct a residence audit in respect of any retained elector”.
That indicates that there will be opportunities to do an individual residence audit. Is that the intention of the draft regulations? If so, who would instigate such an audit of an individual’s residence to see whether a retained elector is eligible to vote before a removal warning is issued? Could a residence audit be instigated only by the chief electoral officer and his staff, or could a member of the general public query the eligibility of an elector or their residence at an address?
Further to the point that the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, made about voter ID, may I encourage the Government to look at how voter ID is used in Northern Ireland? Perhaps I might encourage them to extend that approach to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the hon. Members for Brentwood and Ongar and for South Antrim for raising those questions. The draft regulations are an important piece of legislation and it is important to get them right.
The number of retained electors sounds very high, but given the total electorate of 1.36 million, some 87,000 is not an unusually high number in the history of elections in Northern Ireland. It is increasingly difficult to get people to fill out forms, but we hope that by enabling electors to be retained for another three years, the draft regulations—along with a concerted effort of correspondence and checking—will increase the number. The draft regulations set out how the CEO will try to contact non-respondents. The CEO does not consider that the number is unusually high or that it represents a particular spike. The numbers who are not on the electoral roll, but could potentially be on it, are in line with the standard across the United Kingdom.
The CEO has made assurances about the reliability of the data, which is achieved through cross-checking it with other systems. If, as a result of cross-checking with other Government data, someone is found to have moved, they will be asked to be removed from the system. Those who are retained are on the system in another area of Government data, so the reliability of data can be assured.
The harmonising of the system in Great Britain is a whole other issue, but making the draft regulations will give the Government an extra three years to consider what changes could be made and to look again at the issue. We will be looking at other ways in which to increase democratic participation; it will be a subject of discussion for the next three years, but the draft regulations will enable exactly that. There is a different history in Northern Ireland, which is why there are different systems, so a direct harmonisation is not as easy as it sounds, but it needs to be discussed.
The shadow Secretary of State asked about using voter ID. I do not know about speculation in the press, but I can ask the relevant Minister to get back to him on the question of when it will be discussed. I know that the Government are committed to extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds; that will be on the table for the next few years and it will be discussed.
In answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for South Antrim, the CEO has confidence, but I will ask for a breakdown of the numbers by constituency. It will be interesting for hon. Members and others to see whether there are differences, discrepancies or reasons why there are fewer retained electors in certain constituencies.
Cross-checking is done with other data. Can an individual query the register? That is a system for the CEO to look at. The draft regulations will put the method of using cross-checking every year into legislation, but an individual querying whether another person should be on the electoral register is a different matter entirely.
I thank both hon. Members for their questions and thank all hon. Members present, as well as my Northern Ireland Office officials and the Clerks, for being here so that we could consider the draft regulations, enabling us to ensure that we strengthen the electoral system by doing all we can to encourage engagement in democracy. Confidence that the system works for us all is essential. I am pleased to commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
School transport in North Yorkshire
Employment Rights Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Tuesday 7th January 2025
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 January 2025 - (7 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
May I begin by wishing everyone a happy new year? Will everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.
Clause 45
Right to statement of trade union rights
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Good morning, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. Happy new year to you and to all members of the Committee. I start by making my customary reference to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This, I hope, is a fairly straightforward and uncontroversial clause; it does exactly what it says on the tin. Currently, there is no general requirement for employers to let their staff know of their right to join a trade union. The clause introduces a legal duty for employers to inform all new employees of their right to join a union and to remind all staff of that right at prescribed intervals. Employers must provide this information alongside the written statement of particulars that they are already required to produce under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Specific details, including the frequency and manner of notification, will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation.
A lack of awareness of the right to join a trade union may be contributing to declining union membership and reduced worker engagement in collective bargaining. The clause will help empower workers to become active in protecting their rights. This is a step forward in strengthening worker representation and the collective voice in the workplace, ultimately supporting more effective collective bargaining. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and I too wish you and all members of the Committee a very happy, prosperous and healthy new year. If only the optimism of that statement were matched by business confidence around the country as we start this new year.
I understand why the Government want to take this measure, and it is pretty clear that it will happen as part of the Bill. As the Minister prepares for the consultation that he spoke about, I ask him to reflect on how quickly we can give businesses certainty on the frequency with which they will have to remind their employees of their right to join a trade union. Of course everyone has a right to join a trade union—there is no issue with that—but this is yet another thing that HR departments of bigger businesses, and individual owners of smaller businesses, who have to do everything from the HR function down to replacing the loo roll in the toilets, will have to remember to do on a regular basis, and presumably they will face consequences if they do not. It might not seem onerous as we talk about it at half-past 9 on a Tuesday morning in Westminster, but once we start ratcheting up all these different things for businesses—particularly those very small businesses—to do, it will become a burden.
The other thing that I gently ask the Minister to consider as part of his consultation is this. Would it not be a fairer, more balanced and better way of doing things to have in the proposed statement, as well as a reminder to employees of their right to join a trade union, a reminder that they do not have to do so—that there is equally a right not to join a trade union if they do not wish to? It would be much more fair and balanced if the consultation focused on ensuring that both sides are equally reflected—yes, a reminder that there is a right to join a trade union, but equally, a reminder that there is no compulsion and no absolute, set-in-stone requirement to do so. If we could have that, the clause would be much more balanced.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I wish all colleagues a happy and prosperous new year.
I welcome these proposals. Only this weekend, I was speaking with a constituent in Torbay who told me that the unit he worked in had transferred out of the NHS and been taken over by the private sector. He was gravely concerned about sharp practices that he saw being undertaken by the new employer. My best advice to him was, “Have you engaged with the trade union on site? How can the trade union help you? If I can do anything to assist the trade union, I stand ready to help.”
Trade unions are a force for good in the workplace, and many of the proposals that we will discuss today will put us mid-range in the OECD on trade union rights. Far from the extremism that the Conservatives are painting us into a corner with, these measures will actually put us back on an even keel as a nation in our relations with trade unions, rather than something like third or fourth bottom among OECD countries in the rights that we give unions.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and I wish you and other colleagues a happy new year.
I want to follow on from the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, and emphasise that the clause is completely pointless. Of course all workers have the right to join a trade union and the right not to join a trade union. Will the Minister outline the consequences for a small employer of not complying with the clause? Will there be a penalty? Will the employer be taken to a tribunal that can make a protective award? If there will not be a penalty, surely the clause is only performative, and just more evidence that the Government are doing what their trade union masters are telling them to.
Time and again in the Bill, we see measures that are small and inconsequential individually, but in total mount up to £5 billion of additional costs, most of them on small and medium-sized businesses. We see from surveys of business confidence that businesses are reeling under the imposition of additional taxes and of these rights, and the Government’s business-unfriendly stance. While the Minister talks about growth, the actions of his Government point to the very opposite. They believe that somehow they can regulate their way to growth. We start this new year with more regulation from the Government, none of which will contribute to the wealth and prosperity of our citizens.
Justin Madders
There was a mix of responses there. We heard from the hon. Member for Torbay that the Liberal Democrats welcome the clause, I think the shadow Minister was generally supportive, albeit not explicitly, and then the hon. Member for Bridgwater was fairly critical. I will address the points made by all three individuals.
The shadow Minister made a fair point that the frequency with which employees will have to be notified is important. That will be determined by the responses that we get to the consultation. Clearly, we do not want to make this measure too onerous, but we believe that it is important as a matter of principle that employees are aware of their right to join a trade union, for all the reasons that have been amply set out over many months and years.
On making it clear within a notification that the employee is not obliged to join a trade union, I am sure the shadow Minister is aware that the closed shop principle was abolished quite some time ago—possibly not even in his lifetime. [Interruption.] Well, possibly not; perhaps his rest over the Christmas period has made him look more youthful than he is. The precise wording of the notification will be set out in secondary legislation. I am sure it will not be worded in a way that indicates that there is a compulsion on individuals to join a trade union, but it is important that people know of the right.
In reference to the comments from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, I too have had many conversations with constituents who have notified me of issues with their workplace. I hope most Members respond with the question, “What has your trade union said about this?” When I ask that, quite often I get the response, “My employer doesn’t allow us to join a trade union.” That response is far too common for my liking. Evidence has been submitted to the Committee, particularly by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, about the lack of awareness of employees’ right to join a trade union. In a free society, we should be ensuring that people are aware of their rights.
On the points made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater, the consequences for not notifying an individual of this right will be the same as they currently are for failure to provide a statement of terms and conditions under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002. It is not a free- standing claim on its own; it can be put on top of another employment tribunal claim, and the penalty can be between two and four weeks’ pay.
On the administrative burden, there is already prescribed in legislation a long list of matters about which the employer must notify the employee when they join in a statement of terms and conditions. Really, we are just adding this to that list. We think this is an important measure.
Sir Ashley Fox
I think this comes together with day one employment rights. Take the example of a very small businessman or woman who takes someone on with no written contract, and within a week or two the employment does not work out and the employee is fired. They might be within a—what is the word for the period of time in the first few weeks of employment?
Sir Ashley Fox
Probation period—thank you. It is early in the new year, Mr Mundell. That member of staff might be within their probation period, but if that is not specified in a written contract, that dismissal would be procedurally unfair, according to the Bill. If that same small businessman or woman has not notified the employee of their right to join a trade union, the Minister seems to be saying that the employee will get a protective award of another two to four weeks’ salary on top of that. Can he not see that for microbusinesses, the array of sanctions becomes threatening—many weeks’ wages, for a very short contract that did not work out—and that he threatens to make it very difficult and onerous for them to take on new employees?
Justin Madders
I understand the point the hon. Member makes. I do not think it is helpful to get into hypotheticals about what might or might not happen under the statutory probation system, given that we have not really fleshed out the details. That will happen in due course, but it is already the law that statements of terms and conditions are required to be presented to employees, I think within the first month. There is not an additional burden of extra paperwork that has to be delivered; this is already built into the system, in terms of ensuring that employees receive their statement of terms and conditions when they start employment.
On that note, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Right of trade unions to access workplaces
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 46, page 50, line 30, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
This amendment and other amendments to this clause would require a trade union to have a certificate of independence in order to have the rights provided for in the clause.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments 73 and 75 to 79.
Justin Madders
The clause makes provision for trade unions and employers to negotiate access agreements, under which employers will be required to permit trade union officials to enter workplaces for various purposes, such as recruitment, organising, and meeting and providing support to existing members. This is particularly significant for unrecognised unions. Access to a workplace can provide an opportunity to recruit and organise with the aim of gaining formal recognition.
The Bill currently provides that any listed trade unions can apply for access to a workplace. Under the current definition, it is possible that employers could use staff associations and non-independent bodies to frustrate independent trade unions’ access to the workplace. Therefore, proposed amendments 72, 73 and 75 to 79 require trade unions to have a certificate of independence issued by the Certification Officer to qualify for access.
The amendments will ensure that clause 46 is used as intended. The clause will ensure that independent unions can initiate and agree access agreements with an employer, while not affecting the existing ability of non-independent bodies to negotiate voluntary access agreements. Amendment 73 inserts the defined term “qualifying trade union” and defines it as a union that has a certificate of independence issued by the Certification Officer. That will apply to proposed new chapter 5ZA of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 only, and amendments 72 and 75 to 79 update other provisions that refer to “listed” trade unions accordingly.
Greg Smith
As the Minister clearly outlined, the requirement for a trade union to have a certificate of independence to have the rights provided for in clause 46 is a tidying up of the Bill. The Opposition are not entirely on board with the spirit of the Bill in this regard, but we welcome its being tidied up and the clarity that the amendments bring to what the Government are trying to do to prevent even more of a free-for-all in terms of access to workplaces.
I have said many times that it is a shame and regrettable that so many of these tidying-up amendments have had to be tabled. Welcome though they are in bringing certainty to businesses about the Bill’s core provisions, if we had not had that arbitrary 100-day deadline, we probably would not be spending our time going through these sorts of amendments, and could instead be debating much more of the substance of the Bill. As I say, the Opposition are not convinced about some of the core provisions of the Bill, but these particular amendments do at least tidy it up to some extent.
Steve Darling
I welcome the amendments. Driving our economy to achieve the productivity that we need must be a mission for all of us in this House. The culture in our businesses is really important, and I think the amendments will drive a positive working relationship between workers and bosses, so that we can see productivity enhanced across the United Kingdom.
Justin Madders
Just that I welcome the support from the shadow Minister, albeit for the wording rather than the spirit of the amendment.
Amendment 72 agreed to.
Amendment made: 73, in clause 46, page 51, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
“(3) A ‘qualifying trade union’ is a trade union that has a certificate of independence.”—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 46, page 51, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) ‘Workplace’ does not include any part of a workplace used as a dwelling.”.
This amendment would ensure that the right of access does not include access to dwellings.
This important amendment adds some clarity about the right of access to a workplace, providing an exemption so that the right of physical access does not apply to private dwellings such as the private homes of workers who are working either fully from their home or in a hybrid manner between their workplace and their home. Most exemptions will be provided for and set out in detail in secondary legislation, but we think it is important to set out this principle in the Bill.
We will provide in secondary legislation and guidance more detail on how complex physical access cases, such as care homes, where premises are a mix of residential and a workplace, will be negotiated. To protect the privacy of people living in the premises, that could, for example, set out the terms that it is reasonable for the trade union to comply with when exercising access, for example limiting access to parts of the premises that are used by workers only, and specifying that unions should take a specific route to the particular room where access activities are due to take place. That sort of detail will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation.
Greg Smith
As the Minister says, the amendment ensures that the right of unions to access workplaces does not extend to dwellings. Of course the Opposition welcome that the Government have acknowledged that trade unions should not be able to access private dwellings. The fact that the Bill was introduced in such a manner that would have permitted trade unions to do so begs a number of worrying questions about the speed with which the Bill was drafted. The fact that we are debating whether a trade union should have access to someone’s private dwelling is deeply regrettable. I would have hoped that the Government, from first principles, would acknowledge that it was never an acceptable outcome for anyone to have their own home invaded by a trade union or otherwise.
The way people set up their homeworking arrangements within their own dwelling is very much a matter for them. Balancing what they do in their own home with their family life and perhaps their children’s needs or the needs of someone they are caring for, and the way they structure that should, of course, remain entirely private. This is just another example of the damage that can inadvertently be done when legislation that is not ready is introduced to this House. It makes us question what other mistakes, if I may call them that, are lurking in the Bill that are still yet to be spotted by the Bill Committee.
Greg Smith
Ah, the first intervention of the new year! How could I say no to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield?
Laurence Turner
What a dubious honour, but happy new year to everyone in the Committee. Will the shadow Minister acknowledge that there is a body of legislation on trade union right of access in comparable jurisdictions, particularly Australia, which goes back many decades and does not contain such provision? There have been mischief-making campaigns and wild warnings of trade unionists suddenly appearing at the foot of somebody’s bed to carry out a health and safety inspection. All that is being done here is that a step is being taken that has not been taken anywhere else in the world, to my knowledge, to make it clear that this set of circumstances, which exists only in theory, not in practice, will never actually arise.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I understand his fundamental point, but before the Government tabled the amendment a feasible interpretation of the rules would have allowed access to a private dwelling. We can all stand or sit here in Committee Room 10 of the House of Commons and think how preposterous that would be and how that it never actually happen, but there are plenty of examples in history where the preposterous has come to be—where someone’s interpretation of legislation or rules or regulations or whatever it may be has brought about perverse outcomes.
We would have been in a much more satisfactory position had the Government, from first principles and at the very start, laid out in the Bill that someone’s private dwelling is just that: private. Although there has been an explosion in working from home and a fundamental shift, particularly in the post-pandemic world, of people actively choosing to work from home, either all the time where they can, or in a hybrid arrangement where they work from home for a couple of days a week and in the office, factory, warehouse or wherever it might be for the other days, it should be an enshrined principle in this country—the free society the Minister spoke of—that a private dwelling should from absolute, unquestionable first principle remain private, and not be an area to which a trade union or otherwise can freely demand access. It is important that private dwellings remain accessible only by warrant, which has to be granted by a magistrate, for clear purposes, such as where criminality or some such activity is suspected.
The Opposition welcome the core text of the amendment, but we want it firmly on the record that such an amendment should never have been required in the first place.
Justin Madders
I feel that we are going to have a few of these conversations again this year. Heaven forbid the previous Government ever amended anything in Committee! We knew the Bill was issued at a challenging pace and that it was large, so there were always going to be elements that needed clarification at this stage. It is right to do that now before it becomes law and well in advance of any practical application. Like amendment 72, this amendment is an example of us responding to concerns raised when the Bill was published. It is probably fair to say that no one actually envisaged trade unions marching into people’s homes, so it was not something we thought it necessary to spell out in the Bill, but that concern has been raised in feedback, and we are able to provide clarification and reassurance. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 74 agreed to.
Amendments made: 75, in clause 46, page 51, line 18, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 76, in clause 46, page 52, line 13, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 77, in clause 46, page 52, line 26, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 78, in clause 46, page 53, line 36, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Amendment 79, in clause 46, page 53, line 40, leave out “listed” and insert “qualifying”.—(Justin Madders.)
See the explanatory statement to amendment 72.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 46, page 54, line 11, leave out from “circumstances” to “a determination” in line 13 and insert—
“in which it is to be regarded as reasonable for the Central Arbitration Committee to make”.
This amendment would clarify that, if circumstances are specified under subsection (4)(a), the effect of specifying those circumstances is that it is to be regarded as reasonable for the CAC to make a determination that officials of a union are not to have access (but without requiring the CAC to make such a determination).
Justin Madders
Proposed new section 70ZF(4)(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 allows the Secretary of State to prescribe circumstances in which it would be reasonable for the Central Arbitration Committee to determine that a trade union is not to have access to a workplace. Amendment 80 is a minor technical amendment to clarify that, if circumstances are specified under proposed new section 70ZF(4)(a) of the Act, the effect of specifying those circumstances is that it is reasonable to make a determination that officials of a union are not to have access, but it does not require the CAC to make such a determination.
Amendment 81 allows the Secretary of State to prescribe in secondary legislation the matters to which the CAC must have regard when determining whether access is to be granted to a trade union. As an example, that would usefully allow the Secretary of State to prescribe that the CAC must, when making determinations about access, have regard to the presence of a trade union with existing access to the workplace to which another union is seeking access. In that scenario, the amendment provides reassurances that an access request will not be rejected by default if there is an existing arrangement with another trade union. The Government have consulted on the exact details of what the CAC is required to consider when making determinations about access, and secondary legislation will follow Royal Assent to the Bill. With that in mind, I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Greg Smith
As the Minister said, Government amendment 80 clarifies that if circumstances are specified under new section 70ZF(4)(a), the effect of specifying those circumstances is that it is to be regarded as reasonable of the CAC to make a determination that officials of a union are not to have access, but does not require the CAC to make such a determination. Government amendment 81 would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe matters to which the CAC must have regard when considering an application for a determination about access. Therefore, these amendments set out that if the Secretary of State has specified circumstances in which it would be reasonable to decline union access to a workplace, the CAC must accept those circumstances.
That is all well and good, but the access principles, as they are set out, are incredibly broad and make it very difficult for an employer to refuse access. For example, subsection (2)(a) of new section 70ZF specifies that
“officials of a listed trade union should be able to access a workplace for any of the access purposes in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the employer’s business”.
That accepts that access can and should be allowed to cause interference, but what would count as unreasonable interference? Can the Minister give any concrete examples? How will businesses know what they are or are not expected to put up with in terms of inconvenience and disruption to their operations? This all seems to be still particularly woolly and ill-defined. It will cause a lot of headaches and a lot of businesses to scratch their heads to work out what they have to put up with, bear the burden of, or lose profit to in order to enable some of the access that the Bill determines will take place.
The circumstances in which it would be reasonable for officials of a union not to have access will be specified in future regulations, but this is an area where it is incumbent on the Government to be very clear—indeed, crystal clear—about where the Minister or the Department feels these regulations should sit, or the operating window in which they should sit, moving away from woolly language and into real practical detail to allow businesses to begin to prepare. Can the Minister give any examples of matters that might be specified by the Secretary of State to set some constraints on the access principles envisaged by the amendments? I know he will say that he wishes to consult, which is all very well and good, but as I said a moment ago, this is an area where I do not think businesses will simply accept the offer of future consultation; they will instead want an operating window with practical examples and very clear language about what the amendments envisage will happen in the future. It is just not good enough for us to be left in this position of trying to second-guess and wonder what things will be like when the consultation finally happens.
Steve Darling
I will be concise and echo the shadow Minister’s call for clarity.
Justin Madders
I acknowledge the points made by the shadow Minister, but of course, as he has already anticipated, my response is that all of that will be determined in secondary legislation following a consultation. That is the right approach. The sort of detailed questions he is rightly posing are best dealt with in secondary legislation and probably in codes of practice as well. That is the kind of detail that would not normally find its way into a Bill. Of course, for me to prejudge any consultation on the circumstances in which it may or may not be appropriate for unions to gain access would of course, be to predetermine the outcome of the consultation.
Greg Smith
I understand the importance of not predetermining a consultation, but will the Minister not accept that, by definition, the Government have to consult on something? There must be a broad range of circumstances around access being permitted or not that the Government intend to consult on. I believe it is reasonable to ask the Minister to provide some practical examples of the range of options on which the Government intend to consult, so that businesses out there, as they watch this blank cheque of a Bill being signed prior to the secondary legislation coming about at an indeterminable future date, will know what that range is.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister tempts me to set out the kind of detail that I really cannot supply at this stage. Clearly, a consultation document will ask a series of fairly broad questions. Given that we will deal with pretty much every workplace in the country, the consultation will cover a range of different set-ups, businesses, places of work and working arrangements. The question at the start will necessarily be fairly broad, so we can understand the kinds of effects on their ability to carry on their business that firms are concerned about.
Equally, we want to hear from trade unions about their experiences of where they feel that they have unreasonably been refused access or perceived that that might be a risk. The shadow Minister is trying to get me to draw up a consultation document in the Bill Committee, but I am afraid I will have to decline to do so. Clearly, we will come back to this and talk about it in further detail at a later date.
Amendment 80 agreed to.
Amendment made: 81, in clause 46, page 54, line 27, at end insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State may prescribe matters to which the Central Arbitration Committee must have regard in considering an application for a determination under section 70ZE.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe matters to which the CAC must have regard in considering an application for a determination about access.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 46, page 57, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) dismiss the appeal.”
This amendment would clarify that the Employment Appeal Tribunal may dismiss an appeal under new section 70ZK(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The amendment is straightforward, providing clarity that an Employment Appeal Tribunal can dismiss an appeal under the new section 70ZK(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It is a fairly straightforward and self-explanatory amendment.
Greg Smith
As the Minister said, the amendment clarifies that the Employment Appeal Tribunal may dismiss an appeal under new section 70ZK(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Of course the Opposition agree that this amendment should be accepted and put into the Bill, but it beggars belief that the amendment was necessary in the first place. Of course the Employment Appeal Tribunal should be allowed to dismiss an appeal if it finds that to be necessary, but how on earth was a Bill put before this House of Commons—this Parliament—that only envisaged that the tribunal might quash the order or make an order requiring the person to pay a reduced amount to the CAC? How was this Bill introduced in a form in which the dismissal of an appeal was not even an option?
It is extraordinary that a Bill could have been allowed through the write-around process—the various processes that Government have—without this anomaly being spotted and rectified before the Bill was presented and had its Second Reading debate. I gently ask the Minister to reflect on that and go back through the Bill’s provisions to double-check for any other glaring omissions, which I am sure he never wished to see in the first place and is now correcting by the amendment in his name. Could he ensure that the Bill contains no more of these, frankly, howling errors that could cause so much damage?
Steve Darling
Bill Committees are here to check for snags in the final construction of legislation. I am pleased that this snag has been picked up and will be sorted out by this amendment.
Justin Madders
I am not sure that the shadow Minister wants me to check everything again, because it might lead to further amendments and we may have this debate repeatedly. I would gently push back on the suggestion that this is a “howling error”, as he described it. Of course, the Employment Appeal Tribunal already has the jurisdiction of the CAC to hear appeals. It is probably more a case of making sure it is clear that that applies to this particular provision rather than its being an oversight in the first place.
Amendment 82 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 46 formally provides trade unions with the right of access to workplaces where an access agreement is reached between a trade union and an employer following negotiation. This will make it easier for union representatives to recruit and organise and potentially secure a collective bargaining agreement with an employer. It will not impact existing voluntary access agreements between a union and an employer. For unrecognised unions, access to a workplace is an opportunity to recruit and organise with the aim of gaining formal recognition.
In this framework a union can provide an employer with a request for access, to which the employer can either agree or object within a set timeframe. If both parties agree on the access terms, the Central Arbitration Committee is notified to record the agreement and proceed. In the instance that a union and employer cannot agree on access terms, the CAC can impose an agreement. The decision will be guided by prescribed terms which will be set out in secondary legislation. The CAC will have some discretion when making a determination on whether access should occur, and the decision will be subject to principles set out in the Bill that consider both union and employer interests.
The clause also establishes an enforcement mechanism whereby complaints of breaches of an access agreement can be raised with the CAC. The CAC can then vary the agreement, make a declaration that the complaint is well-founded or not, and issue an order requiring specified steps to be taken to ensure that the agreement is complied with. We recently consulted on some specifics of the enforcement mechanism, which various unions and employers contributed to and which we are now carefully considering. Regulations relating to a union’s right of access, such as notice periods for employers and the terms of reasonable access, will be prescribed in secondary legislation after consultation.
Amendments 72, 73 and 75 to 79 require trade unions applying for access to be certified as independent instead of being only listed as a trade union. This will help independent unions initiate and agree access agreements with an employer. Non-independent bodies’ existing ability to negotiate voluntary access agreements will remain unaffected. Amendment 81 will amend this clause to allow for the Secretary of State to set specific matters that the CAC must consider and have regard to. Amendment 74 will ensure that private dwellings are exempt, as we have discussed. Through the provision of a formal right of access, the Government are delivering on our commitment to modernise outdated and ad hoc access arrangements and align them with the 21st century. I commend clause 46 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
We have covered the bulk of the commentary that the Opposition want to make in the debate that we have had on the amendments. All I will say on clause 46 is that there is still so much left for secondary legislation, and I do not think businesses can have any certainty as to what is truly coming down the line until there have been the consultations we have spoken about and the secondary legislation has been laid, debated and, let’s face it, probably passed given the parliamentary arithmetic we have at the moment. While clause 46 as amended is better than what was first presented to the House, there are still many open-ended questions that businesses and trade unions alike will want to know the answers to. I urge the Minister to ensure that his Department moves at pace to get those consultations out there, so that he and the Department can hear from real businesses, trade unions and workers when it comes to the provisions that they are proposing. Then the questions of uncertainty can be ironed out as quickly as possible and nobody is left in the position of not knowing where this is going.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister is of course right—we do need to get this right and engage with businesses and trade unions about the detail. That is what we intend to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Conditions for trade union recognition
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause makes amendments to the statutory trade unions recognition process, which is administered by the Central Arbitration Committee. Hon. Members will possibly not all be aware of the current statutory recognition process, so I will just take a moment to detail that. Where an employer refuses to recognise a trade union voluntarily, that union can apply to the CAC to obtain statutory union recognition. On application, unions have to show the CAC that, first, they have 10% membership of the proposed bargaining unit and secondly, that they are likely to have a majority in the subsequent trade union ballot. Where the majority of workers in the bargaining unit are members of the unions, the CAC can decide to automatically recognise the union without holding a recognition ballot. However, the CAC must still hold a ballot if it receives credible evidence from a significant number of union members that they do not want the union to conduct collective bargaining on their behalf, or membership evidence is produced that leads the CAC to doubt whether a significant number of union members want recognition, or if the CAC believes that holding a ballot would help further industrial relations. For the union to win, it must then obtain a majority in a recognition ballot and also in that ballot, at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit must support union recognition.
We are committed to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. Our view is that the existing legal framework needs to be simplified so that workers have a more meaningful right to organise through their trade unions. To achieve that, the clause therefore removes the current requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit supporting union recognition. In future, unions will only need a simple majority in a recognition ballot to win.
The current requirement for a union to demonstrate, at the application stage, that it is likely that there will be a majority for the recognition process is a significant hurdle in modern workplaces, which are increasingly fragmented. That is why the clause deletes the requirement for a union to demonstrate on application to the CAC that they are likely to win a future recognition ballot. Now unions will only need to show that they have 10% membership of the proposed bargaining unit for their application form recognition to be accepted by the CAC. We are also considering whether the current 10% membership requirement upon application should be lowered in future. The clause therefore provides a power to enable the Secretary of State to make affirmative regulations, which we will of course consult on, to amend the 10% membership requirement in future within parameters of 2% to 10% as set out in subsection (10) of the clause.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed explanation. I will focus my remarks predominantly around the proposed new range of 2% to 10%. I would think, to most reasonable people, 10% is already a relatively low number: 10% is, generally speaking and in most walks of life, not a difficult proportion for anybody to reach if they truly believe that right is on their side, and they have wider support, with wider mandates to get on and negotiate within those bargaining units, to deliver a better outcome. I would argue that any union that cannot be kept to 10% really is not clearing the first hurdle and is certainly not passing “Go” or collecting the metaphorical £200. I question why it is in any way, shape or form necessary to lower that.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Greg Smith
One moment and I will, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman.
If unions cannot reach 10%, what is the rationale for saying, “Oh well, we’ll just lower it to 2%”? Surely, if the union cannot get to 10%, they are on a pretty sticky wicket and in a situation that one might describe as a wing and a prayer in the first place, so lowering it to 2% is exposing them further.
Michael Wheeler
I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of the GMB and USDAW.
The shadow Minister is painting a very rosy picture of reasonableness and neutrality, of businesses that sit by and allow these things to happen, and of unions that can wander around and have a nice chat and recruit people. Does he accept that the reality in the world of work is actually one of hostility, of difficulty, and the types of measures that this Bill is trying to address so as to restore the situation to an even keel?
The reality out there is hostility to recognition and trade union membership. Therefore, 10% has proven to be a high and often insurmountable barrier, and not actually reflective of the will of workers, rather than when a proper choice, in reasonable and neutral conditions, is put to them. The threshold should actually be lower, to allow the process to take place and for it not to become a tool for erecting barriers to trade union recognition.
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and I appreciate his contribution, through that intervention, to this debate. Where I would gently push back is that there are many provisions in the Bill around allowing union access for recruitment, for example, or other things we have spoken about this morning, such as the regular reminders of the right to join—or not—a trade union. Therefore, my central argument is that to most reasonable people, 10% is still a very low bar—it is not a high proportion of anything. So, if the other provisions in the Bill still cannot allow the trade unions to have reached that very modest 10% threshold, something really isn’t working.
Whether you are a passionate trade unionist or not, it must be accepted, from the perspective of how the clause sits as part of the package of provisions in the Bill, that something much more fundamental and problematic is happening for unions to be unable to reach that 10% threshold. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that there is universal hostility. I accept that in some workplaces there is hostility; that is unquestionable and clearly something that does happen. However, I can equally think of many examples where the relationship between management and trade union may be—to put it politely—difficult, where it is still one of good will and a wish to engage, negotiate and try to come to an arrangement that works for everyone, rather than the absolute hostility that the hon. Gentleman described.
Michael Wheeler
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way again, because I would not want my words to be misrepresented. In no way was I suggesting that there is universal hostility; I was just talking about the reality on the ground and the way that recognition procedures are often used. Let us bear in mind that voluntary recognition agreements are a thing, so these procedures tend to be used where there is hostility. There is not universal hostility in the workplace. In fact, I worked in a union that had the largest private sector partnership agreement with a large private sector employer, and it was harmonious and beneficial for all involved, so I would not want my words to be taken out of context or misrepresented.
Greg Smith
I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman in any way, shape or form, but I return to my central argument. Although I entirely accept what he says—that there are examples of hostility—and I understand why the Government wish to take measures to overrule them, it is impossible to view clause 47 in isolation. It must be looked at as part of the package of measures in the Bill. If, having become law, they still fail at some future point to counteract the problems that he talks about, there is something much more fundamentally problematic occurring, which the clause alone would not solve. I therefore ask the Minister to reflect on how he envisages the other provisions impacting the need for the clause to be implemented in the first place, particularly if an already low threshold of 10% has the potential, under the Secretary of State’s direction, to become even more absurdly low by the test of reasonability and go down to 2%.
If Members were to go to the average high street to do one of those dreaded media-style vox pops and ask, “Is 2% a reasonable threshold to allow in any of these circumstances?” I think the general answer would be that 2% is absurdly low, and that 10% is already low enough. The test of public opinion is important. I dare say that many more consultations are to come, and it is important that they tease out what is reasonable and what is not.
Steve Darling
To me, the clause is all about resetting the culture within our employment world, and I welcome the proposals within it. It is about driving the partnership approach that we should have in the workplace. The more we can achieve that, the better for our economy.
Laurence Turner
In an earlier intervention, I failed to draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the GMB and Unite trade unions. There has clearly been some learning loss over the Christmas period.
I rise to make a couple of brief points. The shadow Minister said that 10% was not a high threshold. In one sitting before Christmas he encouraged us to listen to Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister; the debates that accompanied the Employment Relations Act 1999 make it very clear that 10% was put forward at that time precisely because it was a high bar for trade unions to meet. It has now been tested by time, and it is the case that for some high-turnover employers the 10% threshold is hard to meet in practice.
I take the point that there might be different views about whether employers’ approaches to trade unions tend to be genial and welcoming or hostile. As former trade union officials, we have had exposure to some of the most hostile employers. There is scope, where there is a limited number of employees who are known to the employer as individuals, to try to whittle down trade union membership to below the 10% threshold. I would also say that 2% is the threshold for the information consultation regulations, which I believe were introduced by the previous Government, so there is some precedent for that lower number.
Let me get to the heart of why we put forward this proposal. The introduction of a statutory recognition regime was an important step forward—we talked before Christmas about some of the historical injustices that gave rise to the regime as it exists today—but there are flaws within it and, where there are flaws, they must be remedied. I draw particular attention to the case of the Amazon Coventry warehouse site, where the GMB union fought a particularly difficult recognition campaign. Having successfully applied for the recognition campaign to start, it suddenly found that the bargaining unit was flooded with a number of new starters, who were very hard to reach in that recognition campaign. Some of that would be covered by the Bill as it stands.
On a related point, the code of practice on access and unfair practices in relation to recognition disputes at the moment does not apply from day one of an application, and I think it is important that that should be changed. This clause clearly contains important changes, however, that respond to some of the adverse and unfair practices that can occur during a recognition dispute. Some Committee members might want the clause to go further in some areas, but as it stands, it should be very strongly welcomed.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my membership of Unison and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain.
I am pleased that the Bill will take significant steps to simplify the union recognition process by removing unnecessary barriers that unions currently face. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield mentioned, recent events at Amazon’s Coventry distribution site, where the unionisation effort was defeated by 28 votes, serve as a reminder of the challenges that workers encounter.
I particularly welcome the flexibility in the Bill to lower the membership threshold required to begin the recognition process from the current 10% to potentially as low as 2%. That will give workers the opportunity to organise effectively from the outset. Ensuring that unions need only a simple majority in favour of recognition will mean that the will of the workers is fairly and clearly reflected without being stifled by unnecessary procedural hurdles.
Justin Madders
We have had a good debate. The main focus of the shadow Minister’s questioning was the 2% issue. The first thing to say is that, as it stands, the 10% figure will remain. We are simply giving ourselves the power to reduce it to 2% following consultation, although as various Committee members have powerfully set out, including my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles and for Birmingham Northfield, there is a strong case for it to be reduced from the current 10%. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield pointed out, the previous Government set a precedent in this area with the reduction to 2% in the Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019, which were introduced not long ago.
The shadow Minister must understand that these measures are about the very worst employers that are actively hostile to trade unions. Most employers recognise the value of a trade union and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles pointed out, enter into voluntary arrangements, but there are examples, such as the GMB-Amazon dispute, of unwillingness to engage. I remember the example of an employer not far from where I live who sacked all the people who joined the trade union. It will not surprise the shadow Minister that no one wanted to join a trade union after that. That is a clear example of why, in the most extreme situations with hostile employers, it is difficult to increase trade union membership. Of course, we also now have workplaces that are much more fragmented, because there is more homeworking and hybrid working, and people are often out in the field.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 126, in clause 48, page 61, line 20, at end insert—
“4A In subsection (1) of section 82 (Rules as to political fund), after paragraph (d) insert—
‘(e) that trade union members who have not opted out of the political fund must signal, in writing, their agreement to continue contributing to the fund at the end of a period of 12 months after last opting into the fund, and
(f) that trade union members must be given an annual notice about their right to opt out of the political fund’
(1B) A notice under subsection (1)(f) must include a form that enables the member to opt out of the fund.”
This amendment would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund, and to obtain an annual opt-in to the political fund from their members.
Greg Smith
I rise to speak to amendment 126 standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Committee. The amendment would require trade unions to notify their members every year of their right to opt out of the political fund and to obtain an annual opt-in to the political fund from their members.
It is as clear as day that Conservatives believe that it is important for people to have control over the money that they earn, which is why, as part of the Trade Union Act 2016, the Conservative Government made it unlawful to require a member of a trade union to contribute to the political fund if the member had not given that union notice of their willingness to opt in to the fund. The Bill aims to reverse that simple proposition, so that a member of a trade union is a contributor to the political fund of the union unless they have given an opt-out notice to the trade union. It seems that the sentiment underlying this change is that trade unions have more right to their members’ wages than their members do. Otherwise, why would this Labour Government seek to reverse that position?
Our amendment comes in two parts, of which the second part concerns the opt-out process contained in the Bill. It is not clear in the Bill whether there is any requirement for trade unions to remind their members of their right to opt out of the political fund. We think it only reasonable that they should have to do so annually, and that they should provide the necessary paperwork with the opt-out notice, so that those who wish to opt out can do so as easily as possible.
Polling published only this week shows that it has taken just six months—far less than the annual requirement that we are proposing—for a quarter of people who voted Labour last July to regret doing so. That might reflect the number of union members who previously opted in to a political fund but, within a period of months or perhaps a whole calendar year, having seen where their money has been spent and the causes that it has supported, regret having donated to that political fund through their union membership and no longer wish to do so.
I am sure that in the hustle and bustle of our busy daily lives, we have all had the experience of forgetting to cancel that direct debit or unsubscribe from a list or a newspaper—whatever it might be. We need to make that process as easy as possible. Just as companies that are about to increase a subscription on something or change the terms and conditions of a mobile phone contract, for example, are required to inform the customer of those changes in a timely manner, unions should be required to give their members not only a detailed reminder that they have the right to opt out of the political fund, but a clear instructional path through which it is as easy as possible to do so.
I do not see how the Government can object to our simple proposition that union members should be reminded annually of their right to opt out. Should the Minister or any Government Members disagree, I invite them to inform the House whether there will be any requirement on trade unions to remind their members, even in the most vague terms, that they can opt out. If so, how often will they have to remind their members of that right? If there is no requirement for trade unions to remind their members of that, or the Government are not interested in accepting the Opposition’s amendment, it seems to me that the legislation creates a subscription trap—to put it in any other terms would not do it justice.
We Conservatives feel strongly about this issue. In the last Parliament, we passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which contained two significant and notable proposals on subscription contracts that are directly transferable to the principles of the amendment. First, it contained proposals on reminder notices, which mean that businesses need to provide notices to consumers to remind them that their subscription contract will renew and that their payment will be due unless they cancel. Secondly, it set a precedent to allow consumers to exit a subscription contract in a straightforward, cost-effective and timely way, with proposals that mean that businesses need to ensure that the process for terminating is not unduly onerous and that consumers can signal their intent to end the contract through a single—that is the important part here—communication.
During the passage of that Act, which set the precedent for much of amendment 126, the Labour party, then in opposition, supported those aims—in fact, the Bill did not go far enough for Labour. On Report, the then shadow Minister tabled new clause 29, on which the Labour party divided the House in order to support. It now seems to be arguing the other way on those very principles that apply to consumers, and to all our constituents, when it comes to trade unions and contributions to the political fund.
Greg Smith
I give way to the hon. Member for High Peak, although he now wishes for it to be in Greater Manchester.
Jon Pearce
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB. I am interested in the shadow Minister’s proposition, because the number of members of the Conservative party relative to other parties has been in the press over the last few weeks. Does the Conservative party do what he proposes and remind its members of the opportunity to leave on an annual basis, or do its members just do that of their own volition?
Greg Smith
As I alluded to, the hon. Gentleman seems to want his constituency to leave Derbyshire and join Greater Manchester, so he is opening up a can of worms there.
I am happy to tell the Committee that I pay my membership fees to the Conservative party by direct debit and I get that annual email reminding me that my renewal is coming up. I cannot see any circumstance in which I would ever wish to leave the oldest and most successful—most of the time—political party in the country, but it is very clear in those emails how to do so, just as I am sure it is for the Labour party and for some of the smaller parties that exist as well. That is an important principle. It is only to be regretted if we want to stray into the politics of that, which are relevant to the principles outlined in amendment 126 about opting out of political funds.
Of course it will happen time and again that, when an individual signs up to anything at all—be it a trade union political fund, political party, club, society, lobby group or whatever—they change their mind and wish to leave it. The best example that I can give is when the Labour party changed quite significantly on the election of a particularly left-wing leader after the 2015 general election, and many members of the Labour party, including Labour MPs, chose to leave it. Of course, they should have had that right and that freedom to do so, and I do not see why that right and that freedom should not be as equally applicable, as amendment 126 suggests, to the political fund of trade unions.
Labour’s proposed new clause 29 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 has direct read across to amendment 126, which we are debating today, and it had a two-pronged approach. It required traders to ask consumers whether they wished to opt in to subscriptions renewing automatically, either
“after a period of six months and every six months thereafter, or…if the period between the consumer being charged for the first and second time is longer than six months, each time payment is due.”
The second limb of that new clause would have required:
“If the consumer does not opt-in to such an arrangement, the trader must provide a date by which the consumer must notify the trader of the consumer’s intention to renew the contract, which must be no earlier than 28 days before the renewal date.”
If the consumer did not provide that notification, the subscription contract would not renew.
There seems to have been a considerable shift in the Labour party’s policy position on subscription traps. It seems to believe that consumers should be given every possible opportunity to cancel subscription contracts with businesses, but that it should be as hard as possible to cancel a subscription to a trade union political fund. That is not a coherent position, and that is not something that I think any Labour Member would wish to defend.
It is to keep the Labour party honest that we have tabled the first part of our amendment 126, which would require that, where trade union members have not opted out of the political fund, they must put in writing their continued agreement to pay the fund annually. Given that the Labour party wanted to enforce a more stringent mechanism on businesses taking people’s money through subscriptions, which would have been opted in to originally, I cannot see why the Labour Government would not accept that union members should continue to have to indicate in writing that they wish to continue to be subscribers to the trade union political fund.
This amendment is a simple, straightforward proposition that is entirely consistent with the lines that Labour Members took when they were in opposition in the last Parliament, which they now seem to wish to row back on. When the Minister responds, or when any Labour Member wishes to stand up, it is incumbent on them to say why they believe those subscriptions traps should continue and should be nakedly allowed for trade union political funds.
Laurence Turner
I think we have all followed with interest, and perhaps some entertainment, the shadow Minister’s embrace of red tape and pettifogging bureaucracy in as much as he wishes to apply that to trade unions. It is of course important to state that each trade union member has opted in to the political fund, has the right to opt out at any time and has a means of recourse, through the Certification Officer, if there is a complaint about any attempt to opt out that is not successful.
The comparison drawn by the shadow Minister was completely ill-founded. The amendment not only seeks to inform trade union members of their right to opt out of the political fund—that is already well understood—but requires them to continue to opt in annually. Throughout the history of the Conservative party’s relationship with trade unions, it has repeatedly sought to apply punitive legislation in respect of the political fund. That is what the amendment represents: it is nothing more than a transparent attack on the funding of the Labour party and on the wider political activities of trade unions.
Let us not forget that many trade union political funds are directed towards not only party political activity but welcome campaigns, including some taken up and implemented by the previous Conservative Government. I draw attention to one: the campaign to introduce the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. Had the amendment been in force, that Act would have been much harder to accomplish, and paramedics, prison officers and police officers assaulted in their line of duty would have had less recourse to legal protection.
I am sorry but, to return to the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles, this is a ridiculous amendment. Were it to be implemented, we would have to look closely to ensure that there was not a two-tier approach to donations made by other entities, such as publicly listed companies. Should there be a requirement for shareholders to be informed of, and be able to veto, any donation in furtherance of a political activity? What about other civil society organisations? That is an enormous can of worms that is not particularly pleasant to smell once opened up, and it is a naked and transparent political attack that should be given short shrift.
Sir Ashley Fox
The amendment is designed to give trade union members the right not to contribute to the political funds. Why does the Labour party want to stop them having that right? It is pure self-interest. Labour wants a conscript army of trade union members to contribute to the funds. Furthermore, I dare say that a good proportion of the political funds end up supporting the campaigns of Labour Members, who one by one in Committee have declared their membership of individual trade unions.
Earlier, we heard the Minister say that, annually, he wanted employers to remind workers of their right to join a trade union, yet he does not want those same members to have the right to opt out, or to be reminded of their right to opt out, of the political fund. I therefore support the amendment, which will assist trade union members to know that they have the right to opt in or out of the political funds.
Michael Wheeler
I might surprise Conservative Members by saying that I welcome the amendment. Before those on the Labour Benches start to panic, I welcome it because it is a reminder that the only place in the country where Conservative Members support increasing red tape is for trade unions.
It is always nice to follow and to be of one mind with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, so I will try not to repeat too much of what he said—although I agree with it all. The shadow Minister challenged Labour Members who have spoken, but it is fundamental to point out that the analogy he drew is false. A trade union is a member-based democratic organisation designed to protect those who are part of it. It is not a subscription or an entertainment package on TV. It comes with more rights, more democratic involvement and more control over where money and resources go. A fundamentally false analogy was drawn.
We heard earlier about businesses. I gently push back on what the hon. Member for Bridgwater said; I do not think I heard the Minister say it would be an annual notice. It was up for consultation, but even one notice was described by Conservative Members as onerous. Yet here we have an amendment pushing not just for reminders but for annual reconfirmation, from people who have already given their consent to pay into a political fund, that they are happy for that to happen, as a compulsory measure. That is deemed reasonable by Conservative Members, but it is not. The amendment is a continuation of a decades-long attack on the trade union movement by the Conservative party.
Michael Wheeler
I was one sentence from the end, but I will always happily give way.
Greg Smith
Perhaps I can put to the hon. Gentleman a hypothetical scenario. If his trade union, the political fund of which he had willingly opted in to because in some cases it might support the Labour party, decided, like a quarter of Labour voters, that it regretted that political choice and now wished to go even further to the left and support the Liberal Democrats, would the hon. Gentleman wish to opt out of that political fund and have clear instruction on how to do so should that be the case?
Michael Wheeler
For once in this place I will give a direct answer. Yes, I would. As a paid-up member of a trade union I would know exactly how to do that. I do not need the measures in the amendment to do so. Conservative Members talk about trade union members in the hypothetical, trying to understand what they would like. Other than those of us in this place who are trade union members, I wonder how many they have ever met. As someone who worked for one in the background, I think I know the mind of a trade union member.
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend and I have both helped to administer the internal democracies of trade unions. Does he agree that the caricature of trade unionists as conscripts who just do as they are told is not based on any kind of reality? There might have been times when he and I wished that was the case, but the reality is that unions are democratic organisations and no one within them takes a particular action because they are instructed to do so.
Michael Wheeler
It could be dangerous for me to admit that sometimes I might have wished to instruct a member, but I can reassure everyone here that the instructions flow the other way when someone is a trade union official acting at the behest of members at all times.
I was one sentence from the end before the interventions. I have been thoroughly derailed by people in this room, so I will wrap up and say that I do not agree with the amendment. I disagree with a lot of what was raised in the debate and the false analogy around subscription models versus membership of a democratic organisation. I will obviously not support the amendment.
Justin Madders
We have had a good debate on the amendment. It is fair to say there is a deep divide in our positions. I will address the amendment and the clause stand part debate.
Amendment 126 would make two changes to clause 48. First, it seeks to retain the requirement on trade unions to provide their members with an annual notice of their right to opt out of contributions to the political fund. Secondly, it seeks to require trade union members to opt in to contributions to the political fund annually. As we have heard, that would place substantial and unnecessary bureaucratic requirements both on trade unions and on their members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles said, this is one of those rare occasions when the Conservative party seems to be in favour of more red tape, which is clearly something that we want to see reduced.
I will start with the change that would retain the requirement for trade unions to send an annual notice to members reminding them that they can opt out of contributing to a political fund. The amendment targets the wrong section. It would amend section 86 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which relates to ensuring that employers do not deduct contributions through check-off from the member where the union member has opted out of the political fund or where the opt-out notice has been given but is not yet in force.
However, I will respond in terms of the spirit of the amendment tabled by the shadow Minister. The Government have been clear in our intention to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, which was a clear manifesto commitment. We have a mandate to deliver on that. The amendment seeks to frustrate that clear intention by retaining the substantive effect of section 84A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by the Trade Union Act 2016.
We should be clear that members are, of course, free to opt out of contributing to a political fund whenever they wish. Clause 48, which I will come to, sets out how that is possible. Currently, alongside the requirement to ballot members on the maintenance of a political fund every 10 years, trade unions must also remind their members of their right to opt out of a political fund. The Government are proposing to remove the ballot requirements. We have consulted on whether to retain a requirement for trade union members to be reminded on a 10-year basis that they can opt out of the political fund.
Greg Smith
I understand the point the Minister is making. On the one hand, he wants everyone to be reminded annually of their right to join a trade union, but he wants them to be reminded of their ability to opt out of the political fund only every 10 years. Surely he can see the inconsistency in that approach. Even though I am sure that he wants the political funds to be as bulging as possible, certainly for those unions that donate to the Labour party, surely he must see that there is an inconsistency between reminding people of their right to join a trade union annually but reminding them of their right to withdraw their support for the political fund on a less frequent basis.
Justin Madders
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. I have not actually said that we will require members to be informed of their right to join a trade union annually—we are simply consulting about the frequency of a reminder. That is the point the hon. Member for Bridgwater raised earlier. We are consulting on that point, and we are consulting on the 10-year reminder about being able to opt out of the political fund. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the shadow Minister thinks we should not inform people annually of their right to join a trade union, presumably he would also agree that they should not be reminded annually of their right to opt out. The arguments work both ways.
Greg Smith
In the spirit of following that debate through to its natural conclusion, no matter where we stand on the politics, surely the happy medium would be to marry up whatever the consultation ends up concluding for the reminder of the right to join a trade union in the first place with the reminder of the right to opt out of the political fund. Surely that would be the fair and equitable way through this—to simply say that the answer is to marry up the reminder of the right to join a trade union with the reminder to opt out of the political fund, with whatever frequency the consultation says.
Justin Madders
Those are of course two entirely separate requirements. At the moment, trade union members can choose to opt out of contributing to the political fund at any time. Clause 48 sets out clearly how they can do that by post, email or other electronic means. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles so eloquently said, most trade union members will be aware of their rights in this area should they wish to exercise them. The comparisons between trade union membership and political funds and Netflix subscriptions and insurance contracts are bogus, because they are not the same thing at all. Membership of a trade union and a political fund is membership of a democratically organised society and independent trade union. The members have control of the organisation because it is democratically organised, so it is not the same thing at all.
Greg Smith
The Opposition stand by our amendment 126. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that I made in my substantive speech. However, I listened very carefully to the Minister’s response and to the other contributions to this debate and I am still utterly lost as to how Labour Members can argue that all these rights should exist when it comes to consumers, but call them red tape, bureaucracy and getting in the way when it comes to trade unions, saying that they are somehow trying to undermine the Labour party.
It will come as no surprise to Labour Members that, generally speaking, Conservatives do want to beat Labour candidates in elections. However, in no way, shape or form would I take away or argue against their ability to go to trade unions and ask for donations or just to willingly receive donations from trade unions, if that is what those trade unions wish to spend their money on. Of course, the rub, the difficulty, is this: where do the trade unions get their money from in the first place? It is from their members; just as those on this side of the Committee willingly pay to be members of the Conservative party and those on the other side willingly pay, I am presuming, to be members of the Labour party—presumption is a dangerous thing.
As we have heard, the opt-outs exist. There are the reminders that come with the annual direct debit, monthly direct debit or however people pay. The position is clear, so why should not the same principle apply to the trade union political fund? It is beyond comprehension that something can be argued for in respect of one sector of society but not the other.
If the Labour party wishes to be funded by the trade unions, that is fine, democratic and clear. But there must be consent from those who put in the money in the first place, on a recurring basis; it must be clear that that is still where they wish their money to go. Those members may change their mind on their political allegiance. They may decide that they no longer wish to support Labour. They may decide that they wish to support another political party, whichever that may be. I think it is a matter of fairness that they are given not just the right to opt out, which I accept exists, but the regular reminder of how to opt out that every other section of society and every other subscription model, be it political, consumer or otherwise, has.
Laurence Turner
I welcome, for the purpose of the record, what was a brave and interesting admission from the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire: in his words, this amendment is motivated by a desire to beat Labour party candidates.
Laurence Turner
If the hon. Member wants to correct the record, I will of course welcome that. He is talking about Labour-affiliated trade unions, but of course many trade unions are not affiliated or do not have a relationship with a political party. Many of them are studiously non-party political in their approach. Has he considered the impact on those unions of the approach that he proposes, and what consultation has he had with unions such as the National Association of Head Teachers?
Greg Smith
I do not think I need to correct the record, in that I made a statement of the obvious, which is that Conservatives wish to beat Labour in elections, but equally I went on to say that, with the right consent, it is perfectly fair, democratic and legitimate for the Labour party to receive funding from those trade unions that wish it to do so. I went even further by saying that that is perfectly fine; so long as it is done transparently and stated on the record—as Labour Members have assiduously done every time they have stood up to speak during this Bill Committee and, indeed, in other debates—there is nothing wrong with it.
This is about the process for members, whether they are contributing to political funds where the unions do donate to Labour, or to any other cause, be it party political or a campaign on this side or the other— the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield himself recognised and spoke earlier about the very good campaign in relation to attacks on emergency workers. That is a perfectly good, legitimate and worthwhile use of that money, to which I would anticipate—although presumption is a dangerous thing—that most, if not all, contributors to the political fund that supported the campaign would happily continue to contribute. However, there are circumstances and times when trade union members contributing to political funds may not see that money being spent as they would like it to be. It is the ease of being able to opt out, not just having the right to opt out, that the amendment gets to the heart of.
Before the Committee divides on amendment 126, I urge Committee members to reflect on whether they really want to say to the outside world that, while consumers have the right to be reminded on a monthly or annual basis of how to opt out of their mobile phone contract, magazine subscription or whatever else, such a reminder of how to opt out of political funds—not the right to opt out but how—should be denied to trade union members.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister talks about this being a rule that applies to every other section of society. Is he saying that the principle should apply to every membership organisation, be it the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution or any of the many other membership organisations that exist in the country? There will be millions of members of those organisations, so should the principle apply equally to them all? Is he aware that it applies at the moment?
Greg Smith
For the most part, I would say that it does exist. I am thinking of membership organisations outside the world of politics that I have subscriptions to: at the annual point of renewal—most of the ones I have are annual—I do get either an email or a letter saying, “Your direct debit for the next year is going to be £2 higher a month. It will automatically renew unless you do x, y and z.” The x, y and z to opt out, stop or unsubscribe is always very clear.
Greg Smith
The Minister is going to tempt me to say which memberships, isn’t he?
Justin Madders
I am not sure that we need to know about the shadow Minister’s memberships. I have two points: there is not legislation requiring this, and when trade unions raise subscriptions they will send a similarly worded letter out. The analogy the shadow Minister has drawn already takes place.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for that, but there is not an increase every year.
Greg Smith
Well, there is. The Conservative party held our membership at £25 for far too long, which was why the increase was so big a couple of years ago. I appreciate that most Labour Committee members, beyond those on the Front Bench, were not in the last Parliament, but the general point of principle here is that when it came to other legislation in that Parliament, the then Opposition argued vehemently for similar provisions to apply in other parts of business and consumer society that they now wish to deny to trade union members. That is a point that the Government are going to find difficult to defend when going forward with the consideration of the Bill.
To me, it is a simple proposition: the Opposition think it is fair and clear that everybody should get an annual reminder of not just their right to opt out but how to do so in a simple and straightforward way. People change their minds and decide that they no longer wish to support particular causes, parties or campaigns. It is surely right that they get a clear and simple reminder on a frequent basis—annually, or, if we are generous, every two years.
Justin Madders
The clause is relatively simple in that it seeks to repeal section 15 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by amending the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to remove section 116B. Section 15 of the 2016 Act required trade unions to pay public sector employers where they administered payroll deductions for trade union subscriptions—known as check-off. Section 15 further mandated that the service be made available only where workers had the option to pay their union subscriptions by other means.
The check-off regulations were apparently introduced as a cost-saving measure, with estimated annual savings of £1.6 million, totalling £12 million over the next 10 years. However, as last year’s check-off impact assessment acknowledged, the Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2024 brought a cumulative cost of £17 million to public sector employers and trade unions over that period, which is far higher than the estimated cost savings.
In the spirit of wanting to save businesses and the public sector from burdens, we think that this is an entirely sensible move. I urge members of the Committee to support the clause.
Greg Smith
Of course we wish to save taxpayers money, particularly when it comes to the public sector, but likewise we do not see why businesses should bear the cost of trade union subscription collections. That should be a cost entirely for the trade unions to bear, just as we would never tolerate—on the Opposition Benches for sure—the public purse or the taxpayer’s pound having to subsidise any other body that should be funding itself.
I understand where the Minister is coming from. As he looks across other parts of the Bill, I urge him to have a similar approach to saving businesses and taxpayers money across the piece.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Employment Rights Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Tuesday 7th January 2025
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 January 2025 - (7 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 114, in clause 51, page 64, line 9, after “employer”, insert—
“(aa) in relation to a public sector employer, the performance condition is met.”
This amendment paves the way for Amendment 115.
Amendment 115, in clause 51, page 64, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) The performance condition is met if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the public sector employer is meeting any performance standards set out in a relevant enactment.”
This amendment, together with Amendment 114, prevents facility time for equality representatives being provided unless the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory targets for performance.
Clauses 51 and 52 stand part.
New clause 18—Facility time: cost assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an assessment of the cost and prospective cost of—
(a) time off and associated payments under sections 168 to 170 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and
(b) implementing section 168B of that Act,
in relation to each sector of the economy.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a sector of the economy means—
(a) an area of the economy in which businesses share the same or related business activity, product, or service, or
(b) in relation to the public sector, a sector which provides similar or related services.
(3) The Secretary must lay a report of the assessment commissioned under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to undertake a sectoral cost assessment of trade union facility time, and see also Amendment 113.
Amendment 113, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But the provisions of section 51(2) to (12) may not be brought into force before the report of the cost assessment referred to in section [Facility time: cost assessment] has been laid before each House of Parliament.”
This amendment provides that the amendments made in Clause 51 cannot come into force until after the completion of the review referred to in NC18.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I wish you a happy new year. As always, I will start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I shall attempt to navigate this mega-grouping of clauses, amendments and new clauses. Clause 50 will amend section 168 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to provide that an employer that permits an employee to take time off for carrying out trade union duties, including as a learning representative, must, where requested by the employee, provide the employee with accommodation and other facilities for carrying out their duties or undergoing training related to their trade union duties, as is reasonable in all the circumstances. “Facilities” could include office and meeting space and access to the internet or intranet. In providing the employee with facilities, the employer should have regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS.
The clause will also strengthen the existing right to reasonable paid facility time for union representatives, including union learning representatives, by establishing a presumption that the employee’s view on what is considered reasonable time off is reasonable in all the circumstances, having regard to any relevant provisions of a code of practice issued by ACAS. The clause will require that the employer show that it was not a reasonable amount of time off at an employment tribunal, in the event of legal proceedings.
Despite the fact that most union representatives receive paid time off, it is often insufficient to allow them to carry out all their trade union duties, and many union representatives use significant amounts of their own time to do so. This Government want to ensure that union workplace representatives can take sufficient paid facility time and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties. That will lead to improved worker representation and industrial relations by giving trade unions and workplace representatives the freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers and to increase co-operation between employers and unionised workers, leading to beneficial outcomes for the economy.
The Government will not support the shadow Minister’s amendments 114 and 115, which would place an unnecessary restriction on trade union equality representatives’ ability to take time off during working hours to carry out their role as equality representatives. Equality representatives have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. Placing a performance condition on the right to paid time off for equality representatives is at odds with existing rights and protections for other trade union representatives, such as union learning representatives.
In addition, the Bill is clear that the amount of time off that an employee is permitted to take, the purposes and occasions for which it is taken and any conditions subject to which it may be so taken are those that are reasonable in all the circumstances, having regard to any relevant provision of a code of practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State. The existing code of practice on time off for trade union representatives will be updated in due course to cover equality representatives. The Government would therefore strongly argue that the additional condition is not required for equality representatives.
Clause 51 will insert new section 168B into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The proposed new section requires that an employer must permit an employee who is a member of an independent trade union recognised by the employer and an equality representative of the trade union to take paid time off during the employee’s working hours for the following purposes: carrying out activities for the purpose of promoting the value of equality in the workplace; arranging learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace; providing information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace; consulting with the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace; obtaining and analysing information on the state of equality in the workplace; and preparing for any of the things mentioned previously.
The above applies only if the trade union has given the employer notice in writing that the employee is an equality representative of the union and has undergone sufficient training to enable them to carry out the activities listed above, or if the trade union has in the past six months given the employer notice in writing that the employee will be undergoing such training—this can be done only once in relation to any one employee—or within six months of the trade union giving the employer notice in writing that the employee will be undergoing such training, the employee has done so and the trade union has given the employer notice of that. “Sufficient training” is that which is sufficient for fulfilling the purposes of an equality representative, having regard to any relevant code of practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.
Clause 51 will also require an employer to permit an employee to take paid time off during working hours to undergo training relevant to their role as an equality representative and, where requested, provide the employee with accommodation and other facilities to enable them to fulfil their role, having regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS. Should an employer fail to permit the employee to take time off or provide the employee with facilities as required, the employee may present a complaint to an employment tribunal, at which it will be for the employer to show that the amount of time off that the employee proposed was not reasonable.
Trade unions have long fought for equality. Equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. Clause 51 therefore recognises in statute the role of trade union equality representative, which is defined in proposed new section 168B(12) as a person appointed or elected in accordance with the trade union rules and defined by reference to, and in a manner consistent with, the Equality Act 2010.
I turn to the shadow Minister’s amendments 113 and new clause 18. I should start by stating that sections 168 to 170 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 are long-standing provisions that require employers to provide facility time for union representatives and union learning representatives of a recognised trade union.
Our legislation also requires employers to make payments to union representatives for time off for carrying out their union duties. Despite the fact that most union representatives receive paid time off, it is often insufficient to allow them to carry out all of their trade union duties, and many union representatives use significant amounts of their own time to do so. We want to ensure that union workplace representatives can take sufficient paid facility time and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties. That is why we are strengthening the rights of trade union representatives in the Bill. As part of that, we are also providing—in clause 51, which will insert new section 168B into the 1992 Act—new rights for time off for union equality representatives. Equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer.
The shadow Minister’s new clause 18 would require Ministers to commission a cost assessment of facility time for trade union representatives and for union learning representatives and the prospective costs of time off for equality representatives across all sectors of the economy. It would also require Ministers to lay a report before both Houses of Parliament once the assessment has been made. Amendment 113 would further require that the provisions of clause 51 could not come into force until after completion of the assessment referred to in new clause 18.
New clause 18 is not necessary. We do not need such a time-consuming assessment across all sectors of the UK economy. Also, union representatives under our legislation are already entitled to reasonable paid facility time to enable them to carry out their duties. As I have said already, we know that many union representatives do not have sufficient time; the Bill is intended to rectify that. I also note that no such assessment of facility time, sector by sector, for the entire UK economy was ever carried out by the previous Government.
Clause 52 will repeal sections 13 and 14 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by removing sections 172A and 172B of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Regulations made under section 172A, inserted by section 13, require relevant public sector employers to publish information relating to facility time for relevant union officials. Section 172B, inserted by section 14, provided a power—although I do not think that it was ever implemented—to impose a cap on public sector facility time. Repealing these sections will help to ensure that trade union representatives have sufficient time to represent workers, negotiate with employers and conduct training.
The removal of the reporting requirements represents a significant step in resetting the relationship between public sector employers and trade unions by recognising the importance of union representatives and the time needed for them to fulfil their duties effectively. The removal of the regulations will reduce the annual administrative burden on many public sector employers, freeing up more time to focus on delivery for the public.
This Government believe that it is for each employer to work in partnership with their own recognised trade unions to determine the facility time needed to ensure that their trade union representatives can properly represent their members and the workforces within which they operate. It is unnecessary to require annual reporting or to introduce an arbitrary cap on facility time. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire not to press amendments 113 to 115 and new clause 18. I commend clauses 50 to 52 to the Committee.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I, too, wish you a very happy new year.
I will start with amendments 114 and 115, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Committee. The amendments would prevent facility time from being provided for equality representatives unless—this is the important bit—the relevant public sector organisation is meeting its statutory performance targets.
In workplaces in which a trade union is recognised, trade union workplace representatives have a right to paid time off for the purpose of carrying out their trade union duties or to take part in union training. That right currently applies to workplace representatives, health and safety representatives, union learning representatives, and information and consultation representatives. The Bill will extend that right to equality representatives, who will now be allowed paid time off to carry out
“activities for the purpose of promoting the value of equality in the workplace”;
to arrange
“learning or training on matters relating to equality in the workplace”;
to provide
“information, advice or support to qualifying members of the trade union in relation to matters relating to equality in the workplace”;
to consult
“the employer on matters relating to equality in the workplace”;
and to obtain and analyse
“information relating to equality in the workplace.”
I make no criticism or comment about the value of those activities, but what I would say is that they are straightforwardly set out in the law already, and employers already have a duty to consider them. Creating a duty to allow more facility time for this purpose seems to be at cross-purposes with what employers are already, rightly, under an obligation to consider.
The amendments are an attempt to ensure that the taxpayer gets something out of this latest concession from the Labour Government to the trade unions. We would like to make sure that equalities representatives working for public sector employers are entitled to facility time only if that employer is meeting any statutory targets that it has. We suggest that if the employer is not meeting those targets, that is more important to taxpayers than facility time.
New clause 18 and amendment 113 also stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends on the Committee. As the Minister says, new clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a sectoral cost assessment of trade union facility time. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the cost, and prospective cost, by sector of that facility time. Amendment 113 would provide that clause 51, which will introduce facility time for trade union equalities representatives, could not come into force until after the completion of the review referred to in new clause 18.
That is an eminently sensible step. I cannot see how anyone could object to a cost analysis and assessment being done before provisions come into effect. People need to know what they are dealing with and how much it will cost them, whether that is in the public sector or the private sector, a Government Department or a Government quango, a council, an NHS trust or a private business. It is not reasonable for these things to be asked for without a true assessment and understanding of the cost.
The Opposition are concerned about the increased impetus that the Bill places behind facility time and about extending it to equalities representatives. We would therefore like to make sure that the Government have done their homework and understood the cost to business of these changes before they implement them.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of GMB and Unite.
The shadow Minister has set out a number of new restrictions that he is seeking to impose, but in 2014 he brought a motion to Hammersmith and Fulham council that said:
“Council staff will not be paid for any time they spend on trade union activity.”
Is that still what he believes?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that up. He has clearly been doing his homework and researching the wonderful transcripts from my time on that local authority. I have some very happy memories of it—I remember cutting council tax by 20%, which I am very proud of—but he is really going to stretch my grey matter if he wants me to remember that particular motion. However, I am certainly of the view that it is not for taxpayers to fund trade union activities; it is for trade unions to meet their own costs. It is for trade unions, just like any other body, not to require taxpayer subsidy or the state to step in and help them meet their costs. I certainly remember campaigning on the expansion of facility time back then, with many across the Conservative party. From memory, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Pickles took a particular interest in the issue.
My direct answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no: taxpayers should not be funding trade union facility time. That is for the trade unions themselves to fund out of their membership fees and other income streams, where they have them, so that they can go about doing their work. I repeat that it is really not for taxpayers to fund that. There needs to be wider reform to protect taxpayers from indirectly—or directly, in this case—funding third-party organisations such as trade unions.
We have to consider the extra burden to employers in the round. Along with other elements of the Bill, such as the provisions on unfair dismissal, and the growth-stunting hike to employers’ national insurance contributions in the Budget, this is another straw that may yet break the camel’s back for a number of businesses. The Government are carelessly piling cost and red tape on employers with this Bill and other measures, and are just expecting those burdens to be absorbed. We would like to be reassured that it is possible to find a better way that does not burden the taxpayer or private businesses with the provisions that we find in this Bill. We have tabled these amendments to rectify that and to put those protections in place.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Happy new year, Sir Christopher. I have a small amount of sympathy with the shadow Minister—I understand the cost to business, so I welcome that element of the amendments—but I have great fears. One need only have listened to the radio this morning to have heard about the issues for McDonald’s workers that have not been sorted out. I accept that that is the private sector, and the amendments are about the public sector, but it demonstrates that if equalities issues are not taken seriously in the workplace, it can cause major harm to employees and to the culture of improvement that we need to see.
Greg Smith
Nobody is suggesting that equalities issues should not be taken seriously. The point that I was making about our amendments is that the law is already very clear about equalities, and employers should be held to that law. There is no need to place this additional burden on the public sector or the private sector. Equalities are incredibly important—nobody in the Opposition is denying that—but we must find the right vehicle to ensure that equalities duties are enforced. This Bill is not it.
Steve Darling
I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman is taking a Panglossian approach that all in the world is perfect. It is far from perfect, which is why I welcome large tracts of the Bill, as long as we are supporting employers on the journey.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher.
I rise to speak in support of Opposition amendments 113 to 115 and new clause 18. These are modest proposals to ameliorate the additional costs and burdens that the Bill is will place on employers and the public sector. It seems extraordinary that the Government want to introduce this new facility time without any thought about what the cost will be. It strikes me that the measures the Government are bringing forward are simply a bung to their trade union friends to provide extra money to employ extra trade union officials to do work that genuinely does not need doing.
The law is clear and should be enforced. We do not need the state to impose further burdens by employing trade union officials to effectively double up as Government inspectors. I shall therefore support the amendments and vote against the Government’s new clauses. A pattern is being followed through this Bill, whereby Ministers rise and say that each individual proposal is reasonable and modest, yet each one is an additional burden on the taxpayer and/or employers. The net result is £5 billion in additional costs, which will make this country less competitive, efficient, and effective.
Justin Madders
I will respond briefly to some of the points that have been made. I was asked why we need to put equality representatives on statutory footing. I think the hon. Member for Torbay gave just one example of the ongoing issues of discrimination in many workplaces up and down the country but, of course, this Bill also seeks to expand family friendly rights. Anyone who takes cognisance of local authority matters—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield does so more than most—will be aware that equal pay is still a huge issue in many local authorities. This is over 50 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970 was brought into force, so there is a strong case for allowing equality reps to bring their value to the workplace.
The amendment on performance targets is particularly unfair. In effect, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire is seeking to punish trade union members for the failings of their employer if they do not hit performance targets. None of those targets have been specified in the legislation. Perhaps it is a reflection of the fact that under his party’s Administration, most public services did not meet performance targets, and he was hoping that if they got back into power he would be able to use that to deny facility time to all trade union representatives.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does the Minister really expect us to believe that his Government has not costed these proposals? Does he believe that providing additional facility time to trade unions will improve public sector performance? What we have said is that in cases where Departments are not meeting their targets, the Department should use taxpayer money to meet those targets before granting additional facility time to trade union officials.
Justin Madders
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point but I refer him to the impact assessment, which sets out the cost of these individual measures and their cumulative impact. For facility time, the amount is very small indeed. It has been green-rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee, and studies by the predecessor Department of the Department of Business and Trade showed that facilities time did lead to significant savings and reduced dismissals, reduced employment tribunals, reduced voluntary exits and enhanced productivity. We are talking about figures in the region of hundreds of millions of pounds here. I accept that it is an old study, but the principle remains the same. We heard repeatedly during evidence that strong engagement from trade unions is a good thing for employers, because it helps to engage the workforce and improve productivity. Therefore, I do not accept the premise of his argument.
Regarding the general thrust of what is coming from the Opposition about the use of facilities, the Trade Union Act 2016 was designed to make it more difficult for trade unions to perform their duties by increasing the amount of investigation and focus on their time, but the reported figures in terms of the percentage of the public sector pay bill were the same at the start of the reporting requirements as they were at the end, which was 0.07%—007; we are back to James Bond again. That shows that the requirements of the 2016 Act were simply burdens that added nothing. I therefore urge hon. Members to reject the Opposition amendments and to support the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 51 and 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Blacklists: additional powers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause will enable us to strengthen the protections against blacklisting. The Consulting Association scandal, in which thousands of union workers were blacklisted, underscored the need for strong anti-blacklisting laws. Blacklisting persists, yet the rules have not been updated for over a decade. That is why we are taking steps to modernise them.
The clause amends section 3 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. It will enable regulations to be made that extend prohibitions to lists that are not prepared for the purpose of discrimination, but are subsequently used for that purpose. Secondary legislation and guidance can then make clear that blacklisting prohibitions extend to lists created by predictive technology.
The clause also extends the scope of the powers, so that prohibitions no longer have to be limited to employers or employment agencies. First, the reference to employers or employment agencies is removed from section 3(1)(b) of the 1999 Act. Secondly, an amendment to section 3 adds a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to third party use of blacklists. It is important that the Government continue to make it clear that blacklisting is unacceptable, and updating the law supports that.
Greg Smith
This is one of the less contentious clauses in the Bill. The Minister is right to say that something that has not been updated for a decade probably should be looked at again, especially in the light of some of the technology that we see emerging. We will not oppose clause 53 standing part of the Bill.
Steve Darling
I strongly welcome this modernisation of approach.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Industrial action ballots: turnout and support thresholds
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 55 and 56 stand part.
New clause 32—Workplace intimidation in regard to balloting—
“(1) The Employment Relations Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 54 (12) (c) insert—
‘(d) measures are in place to prevent workplace intimidation.’”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to consider whether there are sufficient measures to be in place to prevent workplace intimidation before they make any order to allow balloting to take place by a means other than by postal ballot.
New clause 33—Balloting in the workplace—
“(1) The Employment Relations Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 54 (12) insert at end—
‘(12A) No order may be made under this section that would permit balloting to take place in the workplace.’”
This new clause would prohibit the Secretary of State from making an order to extend the means of voting in trade union ballots and elections that would allow the ballot to be held in the workplace.
New clause 43—Industrial action: impact assessments and family tests—
“In Part V of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, before section 234A (and the italic heading before it), insert—
‘Industrial Action: impact assessments and family tests
234ZA Impact assessments and family tests
(1) No ballot for industrial action may take place unless the trade union has taken the following steps—
(a) published a report containing an economic impact assessment of the industrial action;
(b) published a report containing a family test on the impact of the industrial action; and
(c) informed members of the trade union of the publication of reports required under paragraphs (a) and (b).
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “family test” is defined as an assessment on the impact of industrial action on family relationships.’”
This new clause would require trade unions to carry out an impact assessment and a family test, for the reports of these to have published, and trade union members informed of their publication, before a ballot for industrial action can take place.
Justin Madders
This is a large group of measures, comprising clauses 54, 55 and 56 and new clauses 32, 33 and 43. Clause 54 seeks to repeal sections 2 and 3 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by amending section 226 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to reverse the changes made by sections 2 and 3 of the 2016 Act. This will mean that trade unions will no longer have to meet a minimum turnout or support threshold for a ballot for industrial action to be successful. The trade union will only need a simple majority of those voting in the ballot to vote in favour of industrial action, as was the case prior to the 2016 Act being passed.
Greg Smith
This is another bumper grouping for us to debate. As the Minister said, new clause 32 would require the Secretary of State to consider whether sufficient measures are in place to prevent workplace intimidation before making any order to allow balloting to take place by any means other than a postal ballot. The Bill liberalises the law on balloting and industrial action, and I am normally very much in favour of deregulation and liberalisation, but on this occasion, there are considerable concerns, which is why the Opposition tabled this new clause.
The Bill lowers turnout and support thresholds and allows electronic balloting on industrial action. It is important that there are protections in place for workers in that. We want to make sure that, before allowing electronic balloting for industrial action, the Secretary of State is reassured that unions have sufficient measures in place to prevent workplace intimidation.
If balloting can take place electronically, it can take place in workplaces, where it is much easier for pressure to be put to bear on union members in terms of casting their ballot—that hand on the shoulder, that peering over to see what someone is doing, or the potential requirement from those up to no good to demand proof of the way that someone has cast their ballot, be that on their mobile phone, iPad, tablet, laptop or computer, or whatever it might be. These are practices that I am sure every Member of this House would condemn and say are totally unacceptable and inappropriate, but that I can see happening without robust measures in place to prevent them.
We want the Secretary of State to be able to reassure the House that sufficient protections are in place to ensure that ballots are free fr.om intimidation and coercion before they are allowed to take place electronically. I listened carefully to the Minister’s appeal to the Opposition not to move our new clauses, but I am yet to hear a compelling and reasoned argument why the Government cannot support new clause 32. Surely, we all wish to ensure that intimidation and coercion have no place in any part of our society, least of all in the workplace. I do not understand why the Government are so reticent to take what I would argue is a very moderate and reasonable step to strengthen the Bill and tackle intimidation and coercion.
New clause 33 would prevent voting in trade union ballots and elections from being done in the workplace. Many of the arguments I made on new clause 32 very much apply here; in a similar spirit, we have tabled new clause 33 to create a little more balance and protection in the Bill. It is important that all those exercising their right to vote on industrial action can do so free from pressure from colleagues or trade union members, and that is why the new clause would stipulate that voting in trade union ballots and elections should not happen in the workplace. We also do not believe that workers should spend time when they are being paid to do their jobs voting on trade union matters. Such voting should be done in members’ personal time outside the workplace, and employers should be protected from having to pay for it.
Before I move on to new clause 43, I want to emphasise that while that last point is important, it is a matter of principle that in this country, we believe in the secret ballot. If there was any suggestion that any of our elections, whether elections to this House, council elections or police and crime commissioner elections, could take place on someone’s phone in front of other people without the protections we all enjoy at the ballot box, there would be outcry—there would rightly be outrage. When it comes to something as significant as voting for or against industrial action in a trade union ballot, it is absolutely the same principle: the integrity of the secret ballot should be upheld, in the same way that we would expect in any other walk of life.
Indeed, we have protections in the 1922 Committee in this House. We have the occasional leadership election, and mobile phones are not permitted into the room in which we vote, to stamp out the very possibility of people looking over others’ shoulders and the secret ballot being compromised. I am not sure what the parliamentary Labour party does. The secret ballot is an important principle enshrined in our democracy that should apply equally to trade union ballots. This moderate, measured request to ensure that those ballots do not take place in the workplace is an important step to protect the secrecy of the ballot.
Laurence Turner
The shadow Minister talks about the 1922 Committee, which I think my predecessor as representative of Birmingham Northfield knows more about than me. A few years back, the Conservative party membership effectively elected the Prime Minister through an electronic ballot. That is a comment on the process and not the merits of the outcome. Why do the shadow Minister’s arguments against electronic balloting in industrial matters not apply to that situation too?
Greg Smith
I think we were still on paper ballot papers, for the large part, the last time there was a change of leader of the Conservative party while we were in government. The election of the current Leader of the Opposition did happen by electronic ballot, but that is not the point of new clause 33. It does not seek to prevent electronic balloting; it seeks to prevent it from taking place in the workplace—the very place where trade union organisers, or other colleagues or employees, could put pressure on those who have a vote. They might bully their way into seeing how someone has voted, or put pressure, either nakedly or slightly less visibly, on someone to vote in what they might consider to be the right way or otherwise. If ballots could only take place outside the workplace, while not a perfect solution, it would take away the pressure that might be brought to bear in the workplace on the way individuals vote. That could—I emphasise “could”—lead someone to vote in a way that they do not want to, for fear of the way that their vote might be perceived by others in the workplace.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Does the shadow Minister accept that the strikes he talks about happened under an incredibly restrictive regulatory and legislative regime? The measures in the Bill seek to foster a better industrial relations environment, which will lead to fewer strikes, not more. Under the previous Government, we saw an incredibly restrictive environment, which ratcheted up the tension and resulted in more strikes.
Greg Smith
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I gently ask him how a no-strings-attached bumper pay rise for the train drivers worked out in practice when it came to strikes over the Christmas period. We have heard repeatedly from Labour party politicians that they will prevent or stop strikes. The most visible example of that in our newspapers and on our television screens was the Mayor of London, who made some pretty bold promises about stopping strike action. Londoners and those coming into London for work, pleasure or hospital appointments have suffered multiple times during his tenure. I am not sure I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that the Bill will somehow magically reduce the number of strikes, when the reality on the ground has been very different.
Given the prolonged and repeated strike action made easier by the Bill, it could almost certainly lead to large costs across the economy. We think it is only right that a level of transparency similar to that applied to Government Departments should be applied to trade union decisions. Trade unions should exercise some responsibility and consider the consequences of their decisions to undertake strike action. We would therefore like trade unions to assess the likely impact that their going on strike will have on real people and their lives, journeys, hospital appointments, theatre tickets, enjoyment, pleasure or whatever it might be that the strike action will prevent them from doing—and, of course, on our children’s education, which is so important.
New clause 43 would require trade unions to carry out impact assessments and family tests, to publish the reports of those, and to inform members of the trade union about their contents, before a ballot for industrial action can take place. It is hardly a controversial position that people should know what they are voting for before they are asked to cast a ballot on it, and that they should understand the consequences of the strike action not just for them, but for the wider economy and people’s health, education, and so much more across our great country. We think it is only right that trade union members should be fully informed of the consequences before they cast their votes. Such information would provide some public transparency about the cost and inconvenience that trade unions are willingly inflicting on the British public.
Steve Darling
I have some sympathy with the desire to understand the cost, but to me, the vast majority of the Government proposals before us today are about modernising the system appropriately. I am concerned that this afternoon we have seen the official Opposition one minute say that all in the garden is rosy and there is no need for equality, and the next flip over and catastrophise about the Government’s proposals. We need to get a firm hand on the tiller and see that the vast majority of these proposals simply entail modernisation. I welcome them.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister asked why we cannot support new clauses 32 and 33. The simple answer is that there are already legislative protections in section 54(12) of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which sets out the conditions that must be adhered to in order to ensure that balloting is done in a secure and safe manner. He made some interesting points about people peering over others’ shoulders when votes are taking place. Clearly, his colleagues in the parliamentary Conservative party cannot be trusted to behave themselves when electronic voting takes place. That is something he will no doubt address with his colleagues in private.
If the shadow Minister is concerned about the impact of electronic balloting in all spheres—I am sure there are sometimes reasons in his own party to question the outcome of the electronic ballot—we can look at that, but there is already clear provision in law about how any trade union ballot is to be conducted. The working group will be considering that. If the Conservative party thought there were concerns about the use of electronic ballots for industrial disputes, they might not have commissioned the Knight review back in 2017 to consider the matter. That they did so suggests that they considered that it is right and appropriate that we modernise trade union practices to allow for electronic balloting for industrial action.
Moving on to the assessments the shadow Minister is requesting, the Government are pretty clear that, through new clause 43, the Opposition seek to add another administrative hurdle for a trade union that wants to take industrial action. There is no doubt that any such tests or assessments that were undertaken would lead to a multitude of satellite litigation, delay resolution of disputes, and divert both parties’ focus from resolving the disputes to arguing about impact assessments. I am not quite sure what the family test is. I think there is a family and friends test that some organisations use. It is a little vague. It is also unclear who would be the arbiter of whether these tests and assessments were being done sufficiently accurately. It is also fair to say that trade union members know, when they take industrial action, that there will be consequences. They are well aware. They do the job every day, they know the impact, and that is why they always take these matters very seriously.
The central point that the Bill will lead to more industrial action is counterintuitive, given that we are, in the main, reversing provisions of the 2016 Act. As we know, there has been more industrial action in recent years than there has been for decades. Perhaps there is not a cause and effect relationship between that and the 2016 Act, but I would suggest that the evidence points to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 55 and 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Industrial action: provision of information to employer
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 167, in clause 57, page 69, line 16, leave out “seventh” and insert “twenty-first”.
This amendment would increase, from seven to 21 days, the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action.
The amendment would increase from seven to 21 days the notice period that trade unions are required to adhere to when notifying employers that they plan to take industrial action. As we noted in the debate on the previous group, the Bill liberalises trade union law and repeals legislation passed by the last Conservative Government that brought some balance to the relationship between employers, the British public and trade unions. We think it is fair to require trade unions to provide 21 rather than seven days’ notice to employers that they plan to take industrial action, particularly given that the Bill repeals the minimum service levels legislation passed by the last Conservative Government to ensure sufficient levels of critical public services during strike action.
Given that the British public no longer have that protection, we think it is only fair that employers should have more time to prepare to mitigate some of the damage that occurs during strike action, particularly in vital public services such as ambulance and rail services. When strike action takes place, while of course employers have to prepare to mitigate its effect and put in place other steps to ensure that people still get their healthcare, education or critical services such as transport, the general public also need to make considerable preparations. Preparing properly and putting in place other ways of doing things often cannot be done at the last minute.
I would rather the minimum service levels legislation remained in place and, indeed, was strengthened, but when there is strike action on the railway, for example, it takes place at the drop of a hat—I consider seven days’ notice as at the drop of a hat. I think of the number of children in my constituency who get on at Wendover and Stoke Mandeville stations to travel to Dr Challoner’s grammar school in Amersham, and the number of my constituents who rely on the railway to get to hospital appointments, often in London. Some 7% of Buckinghamshire cancer referrals are to Mount Vernon, which is within London, and most of my constituents who go there for chemotherapy try to travel by train. To put in place a different route to that key chemotherapy appointment, or for parents to mitigate against or make different arrangements for their child to get to school, takes more than a handful of days.
I appeal to the Government to listen to us on what I argue is a moderate and reasonable amendment. Increasing the time limit would give people a fighting chance to put in place different ways of getting to their hospital appointment and getting their kids to school.
Greg Smith
I will come up with another example when the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield is finished.
Laurence Turner
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; he has been characteristically generous in the number of interventions that he has taken. Can he name a single country that applies a limit of 21 days or more? Was it his intent to propose a limit higher than that which the International Labour Organisation Committee on Freedom of Association has found is consistent with freedom of association?
Greg Smith
My straightforward and simple reply is that I want to get this right in the United Kingdom’s interest. No, I cannot name another country that has 21 days’ notice, but that does not mean we should not do it ourselves. It would give all our constituents a fighting chance to find a way through the challenges that they face when there are train strikes, doctors’ strikes and industrial action in our schools. It would help them to find alternative provision to ensure that their children are looked after, so that they themselves can still go to work and meet their commitments. It would ensure that life can still go on around strikes, particularly in critical services such as healthcare and education, which I am sure no Member of the House wants their constituents to be denied; I certainly do not. I could easily propose a period longer than 21 days, but I have not done so in the interests of trying to reach a compromise and appealing to the Minister’s better instincts. I want to get on the table something that we can work with and that gives all our constituents a fighting chance.
Justin Madders
As the shadow Minister eloquently set out, amendment 167 seeks to increase from seven to 21 days the notice that a trade union must give an employer of industrial action after it has secured a ballot mandate and before any such action is taken. As we know, the Trade Union Act 2016 brought in a requirement for unions to provide 14 days’ notice to employers. As we are committing to repealing the 2016 Act through this Bill, it stands to reason that if the clauses are agreed to, the seven-day notice period that was required prior to the 2016 Act will apply in its place.
We want to reset the relationship with both employers and unions to resolve disputes through meaningful negotiations. Far from supporting the economy, the effect of the legislation in recent years has been an increase in strikes. In 2023, close to 2.7 million working days were lost to strikes, up from 2.5 million in 2022. Both those figures were the highest since the 1980s.
However, we recognise the importance of striking a balance between allowing for effective strike action and ensuring that employers can reasonably prepare. That is especially important in public services such as the NHS, as the shadow Minister has mentioned, where managers need adequate time to plan for periods of industrial action, and that includes adequate time to agree patient safety mitigations with unions. That is why we have given employers, workers, and trade unions the opportunity, through a consultation, to comment on what notice of industrial action should be provided to employers. That consultation closed on 2 December 2024 and our response will be published in due course.
It seems to me that the shadow Minister’s proposal of a 21-day period is effectively a finger-in-the-air job rather than something considered. If he had tabled an amendment to keep it at 14 days, that would at least have been consistent with his party’s previous position. His statement that it is important to change this in the light of the repeal of the minimum service levels legislation is slightly erroneous given that, to our knowledge, no one has ever actually used the provisions of that Act. When we consider the consultation responses, we will look at whether there is a case for changing the length of the notice period from seven days. I therefore suggest that the amendment is unnecessary, and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it.
Greg Smith
I accept the Minister’s point about where precisely the number of days should sit. I slightly take issue with him when he says that the 21-day proposal was a finger-in-the-air job. Most people would describe that three-week window as a reasonable notice period to enable people in many walks of life to make plans, such as alternative provision for childcare.
If the Minister is offering up 14 days, we might well take him up on that, but I suspect he is teasing us rather than making a firm offer. Therefore, we stick with our belief that all our constituents deserve fair and reasonable time to plan and make provision in their daily lives to mitigate against strike action and industrial action, which have such a devastating impact on our economy and on people’s healthcare and their children’s education. We wish to see amendment 167 in the Bill, and we will press it to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee long, because we have kind of had the debate already. Clause 57 seeks to repeal section 8 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by amending section 234A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. This will revert the notice period that trade unions need to provide, after securing a successful mandate, from 14 days to seven days.
As I have said, the Government are committed to modernising employment laws, striking a balance between enabling effective industrial action and ensuring that employers can reasonably prepare for such action. We have sought views on what notice period is suitable for modern working patterns and practices through a formal consultation, which closed last month, and we will be reporting on its outcome in due course. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Greg Smith
The bulk of the argument to be had on the clause was made in the debate on amendment 167. The Opposition still believe that the time period stated in this clause is insufficient to enable real people to plan. I therefore urge the Government to go back and consider this, and to see what more reasonable compromise they might be willing to offer our Great British public on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Union supervision of picketing
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause seeks to reverse the effect of section 10 of the Trade Union Act 2016, thereby removing the requirement under section 220A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for trade unions to appoint a picket supervisor and to meet other bureaucratic and administrative burdens in relation to the supervisor, such as taking reasonable steps to provide their name to the police. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, administrative requirements and bureaucratic hurdles do not prevent strikes; they only make it more difficult for trade unions to engage in good faith negotiations with employers. These changes will bring trade union law into the 21st century and fix the foundations for industrial relations that have not delivered for workers, employers or unions in decades, costing the economy £3.3 billion in lost productivity in the last two years alone.
The Government recognise that regulations governing picketing lines are important, however. That is why the Bill repeals only those measures introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016 in relation to the role of the picket supervisor. Other legislation and an amended code of practice on picketing will remain in place. We are returning the law on picketing to what it was prior to 2016, when I believe that it was working well and was clearly understood by all parties. I therefore commend clause 58 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I will not take much of the Committee’s time on this. The Opposition do not understand why the Government wish to remove perfectly sensible measures from the statute book, other than that the trade unions have clearly demanded that the change be made. It does not seem proportionate or reasonable to us, and we think that those picket supervisors should instead remain on the statute book, as they are the status quo.
Justin Madders
Our view was that the legislation was not required when it was introduced in 2016. There was no evidence at the time that there were issues with picketing, and there was already a code of practice in place to deal with abuse and intimidation on picket lines. Therefore, we believe that reverting to the pre-2016 position, when in most people’s opinion everything was working as it should, is an entirely reasonable move.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Protection against detriment for taking industrial action
Amendment made: 83, in clause 59, page 71, line 4, leave out “three” and insert “six”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would increase the time limit for bringing proceedings under the new section 236A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 from three months to six months.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 166, in clause 59, page 72, line 21, at end insert—
“236E Actions short of a strike: exemption
(1) The right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment under section 236A does not apply in cases where the worker is involved in one or more of the following activities—
(a) intimidation at picket lines;
(b) protests organised by trade unions in furtherance of a dispute—
(i) at the premises of a company;
(ii) at the private residences of senior managers; or
(iii) at the premises of other organisations that are connected with the dispute;
(c) harassment or bullying of non-striking workers, or those who are covering for striking workers;
(d) victimisation or harassment of senior managers; or
(e) action aimed at damaging property or disrupting business contingency planning.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that the circumstances under subsection (1), in which the right of a worker not to be subjected to detriment do not apply, are set out in a code of practice.”
This amendment would disapply the right not to suffer detriment as a result of industrial action in certain circumstances.
Amendment 166, which was tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk, for Bridgwater and for Mid Leicestershire, would disapply the right not to suffer detriment as a result of industrial action in certain circumstances. This amendment is designed to target what has become known as leverage, which is action taken by a trade union other than traditional industrial action to put pressure on an employer to settle a dispute or meet various demands. When describing leverage in the context of the Grangemouth dispute, Unite said:
“Leverage targets all areas of weakness of an employer, group of employers or sector—both direct and indirect. Leverage is an extension of the understanding that ‘weight of argument’ does not change the position of an employer. Leverage analyses what will change the position of the employer. Leverage is the translation of an organising mind-set into the planning and implementation of a campaign strategy, underpinned by the escalation of pressure to create uncertainty.”
Those are not my words, but the words of a spokesperson for Unite the union. Unite was also of the view that in a leverage campaign
“the employer is routinely treated as a target to be defeated not a friend to be convinced.”
I am not sure that is the good faith relationship between trade union and employer that Labour Members have tried to paint as the normal back and forth between the two. I would certainly condemn as unacceptable any relationship between a trade union and an employer in which
“the employer is routinely treated as a target to be defeated not a friend to be convinced”.
That is not good faith.
Laurence Turner
Even if I accepted the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, which I do not, does he accept that there are some issues with the amendment as drafted? For example, subsection (1)(b)(i) is about protests organised by trade unions in furtherance of a dispute at the premises of a company. I have been part of protests at the premises of a company that were not on land owned by the company but were immediately adjacent, on the public highway. If that were tested in court, that could conceivably fall under the definition of “at”.
Similarly, the amendment seeks to carve out an exemption to the protection of protests at the private residences of senior managers. Conceivably, protests could be organised outside the home of a middle manager or someone lower down the organisational structure. I am sure that is not what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve.
Greg Smith
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s constructive approach. If he accepts the principle of what we are saying, we will work with the Government to polish it, and to ensure the amendment gives the maximum protection and protects junior managers as well as senior managers, and land adjacent to a premise that may not be owned or leased by the company. I will happily work with him and the Minister in a constructive tone to ensure the protections against leverage are as strong as possible. I will happily withdraw the amendment if the Minister commits the Government to working with us and coming up with a stronger amendment on Report that will stamp out the practices I have outlined. I dare say that we will see in a few moments whether he does so.
Justin Madders
I think it would be helpful if I set out why we are seeking to address the issue of detriment within the Bill. The reason is that new section 236A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is required because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in April 2024 that section 146 of the 1992 Act is incompatible with article 11 of the European convention on human rights, because it fails to provide any protection against detriments intended to deter or penalise trade union members from taking part in lawful strike action organised by their union. Hopefully, Members will accept as a starting proposition that we cannot continue to be in breach of our international obligations under the ECHR.
The intention is to rectify that situation by inserting new section 236A into part V of the 1992 Act. This will provide that a worker has the right not to be subject as an individual to detriment of a prescribed description by an act, or any deliberate failure to act, by their employer, if the act or failure to act takes place for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action, or penalising the worker for doing so. The prescribed detriments will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation, which will take place after the Bill gains Royal Assent.
The shadow Minister made some interesting points in his speech. However, his amendment seeks to prejudge the consultation on this issue. He made some valid points and I am sure that we will discuss this issue again in future, because there is a need for us to clarify what is considered a detriment, for the reasons that I have outlined.
Some of the examples that the shadow Minister gave are of things that are already catered for in the law. The protection from prescribed detriment only applies where the sole or main purpose of an act or a failure to act is to subject the worker to detriment, to prevent them from or penalise them for taking protective industrial action. For example, if a worker is subjected to detriment solely because, for example, they have damaged property, the protection would not apply. That is the existing position.
Of course the criminal law would still apply to pickets, just as it applies to everyone else, so no person involved in activities associated with pickets or organising pickets has any exemption from the provisions of the criminal law as it applies, for example, to prevent obstruction and preserve public order, or to regulate assemblies or demonstrations. There is already a relevant code of practice in place for that. Consequently, although I understand the points that the shadow Minister is making, I say to him that this issue will be dealt with in detail in a forthcoming consultation. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Laurence Turner
The Minister raised the Fiona Mercer case, which was brought by Unison. As he said, the final judgment in that case found that new protections are needed to prevent the victimisation of workers who undertake lawful industrial action. Can he confirm that, as a result of the changes that we are making here today, the UK should now be compliant with international law?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is correct. That is indeed the purpose of the—well, we will get to the clause stand part debate shortly, when we will hopefully deal with that issue. However, this measure is about dealing with a particular ECHR judgment. Therefore, as I say, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his amendment.
Greg Smith
I understand the point that the Minister makes about prejudging any consultation, notwithstanding the points he makes about international obligations, but this is one of those areas where we have a particular identified problem in leverage that is not being challenged. I should be grateful if the Minister would provide further detail, not in Committee this afternoon but perhaps in writing, on where he thinks that protections exist around this.
From our perspective, it looks very much like this practice is happening and there are no protections against it. If there are protections against it, they are not being enforced. If they are not being enforced, there needs to be a mechanism to enable and allow that enforcement to take place. In good faith, I will withdraw the amendment for now and reserve the right to bring it back on Report, but notwithstanding some of the legitimate points made by the Minister, it is incumbent on us to properly stamp down on this practice and see it as very separate and distinct from the more traditional form of industrial action—strike action. The public understand that in a way that means that there would be even less sympathy when it comes to leverage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
We touched on this in our debate on the shadow Minister’s amendment. Clause 60 addresses the Supreme Court ruling made in April 2024 that section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is incompatible with article 11 of the European convention on human rights, in so far as it fails to provide any protection against detriments intended to deter trade union members from or penalise them for taking part in lawful strike action organised by their union. Clause 59 therefore amends the 1992 Act by inserting new section 236A into part V of the Act.
New section 236A provides that a worker has the right not to be subject as an individual to detriment of a prescribed description by an act, or any deliberate failure to act, by the worker’s employer if the act or failure takes place for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action or penalising the worker for doing so. The prescribed detriments will be set out in secondary legislation following consultation, which will take place after Royal Assent of the Bill. I will write to the shadow Minister with further detail on that in due course. However, the power in the Bill enables the Secretary of State to prohibit all detriments in secondary legislation should that be the preferred approach following consultation. Employers will continue to be able to deduct pay from workers in proportion to hours taken by strike action.
If a worker or former worker believes that they have been subject to a detriment by an employer in contravention of new section 236A, they may present a complaint to an employment tribunal within six months of the detriment occurring, or later if the tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented within that time period. On complaint to the employment tribunal, it is for the employer to show what was the sole or main purpose for which the employer acted or failed to act. If the tribunal finds that the complaint is well-founded, it must make a declaration to that effect and may make an award of compensation to be paid by the employer. The approach taken in the Bill addresses the ruling by the Supreme Court and, once the relevant secondary legislation has been made, will ensure that our legislation is compatible with the ECHR and ensure that protections against some forms of detriment for trade union representatives and members extend to industrial action.
Section 238A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act currently provides that workers can claim unfair dismissal if they are dismissed for taking protected industrial action and the dismissal takes place within 12 weeks of the worker starting the industrial action. The strike action could be intermittent rather than continuous. The worker will also be automatically regarded as unfairly dismissed if they are dismissed after the 12-week period but had stopped taking action before the end of that period or the employer had not taken reasonable steps to resolve the dispute. Industrial action is protected if it is official action for which the union has immunity under section 219 of the 1992 Act.
Clause 60 amends section 238A of the 1992 Act so that protection against dismissal will apply whatever the length of the strike action. Should the employer wish to dismiss an employee as a result of a long-running protected industrial action, the dismissal would have to be for reasons other than participating in industrial action. The clause also makes consequential amendments to sections 229 and 238B of the 1992 Act and sections 26 to 28 of and schedule 1 to the Employment Relations Act 2004. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Greg Smith
We debated clause 59 at length in the debate on amendment 166, so I will not dwell on it further, but I am grateful for the Minister’s commitment to write to me on the provisions around leverage.
I will focus my remarks on clause 60 and the removal of provision for a 12-week protected period, with the result that the period would be extended indefinitely. I worry about the potential to create a bit of a lawyers’ charter, where someone will for evermore be challenged, if they are dismissed, on whether it was because they once took part in some form of industrial action. There needs to be some protection and commitment around that, to ensure that employers who have a legitimate reason for dismissing an employee that is not related to their participation in industrial action, are still able to dismiss the employee without fear of industrial action and of constantly being dragged back by lawyers, or potentially trade union representatives, seeking to exploit the removal of the 12-week period.
I accept that this is a niche and hypothetical point, but so much of the law and regulation that we pass in this place can be open to pretty wide interpretation. I think it is important, during line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, that commitments are made by the Minister that the courts can look back on in years to come to see the true meaning of what the Government are trying to bring about with clause 60. Without those commitments, which in my opinion can be given verbally as part of the debate, some might find themselves in a very sticky spot.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Christopher. I know that the shadow Minister likes us to draw attention to our union membership, so I again draw attention to my membership of Unison.
I welcome clause 59 because it addresses the critical issue of protecting workers taking part in industrial action, ensuring that they are safeguarded not just against dismissal but against other forms of detriment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield has previously mentioned, the case of Fiona Mercer, a care worker suspended after participating in legal industrial action, highlights why the reforms are needed. Like so many care workers, Fiona dedicated her career to supporting some of the most vulnerable in our society—in Fiona’s case, adults with learning difficulties. Yet she faced suspension for standing up for fair pay and better conditions. Her case is a pertinent reminder of the vulnerabilities faced by workers in critical sectors such as social care when their legal rights are not adequately protected.
Therefore, I welcome the clause’s introduction of protections against detriment, ensuring that employers cannot punish workers like Fiona for exercising their right to strike. This provision is essential to safeguard the ability of care workers and others to advocate for fair treatment without fear of suspension, demotion or other retaliatory measures. The removal of the arbitrary 12-week protected period for unfair dismissal means that workers like Fiona can continue to fight for justice without compromising on protections.
Justin Madders
I will start by recognising the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby; the reason we are debating this clause is the case of Fiona Mercer and the quest for justice that my hon. Friend highlights. I will try to put the shadow Minister’s mind at ease about lawyers’ charters. As a former employment lawyer, I stand in the peculiar position of not wanting to see matters go to tribunal if we can avoid it. If we can resolve things before they get to that stage, it is always better. His fears are misplaced about the likelihood of creative lawyers going back many months or even years to link a particular dismissal to a period of industrial action.
There are many other potential claims that people can bring that relate to an act or something they may have done; whistleblowing is a very good example of that. Clearly, the further it is from the protected act and the dismissal, the harder it is to show that there is a connection, particularly, as will probably be the case for most dismissals that take place many months or years after the initial action, if there is an intervening event that causes the dismissal to take place. We do not want to get into the details of what those may be, but there are many intervening reasons why a dismissal might take place that have nothing to do with industrial action, but these are matters of law and fact for a tribunal to determine. We need to move away from a situation where we could have a particularly unscrupulous employer who wished to take advantage of the current law and seek to dismiss those who took part in industrial action 12 weeks and one day after that action had finished. That is not a state of affairs we want to defend.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Repeal of provision about minimum service levels
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 27—Section 61: impact assessment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of section 61 of this Act on the ability of the services listed in section 234B(4) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 to provide minimum service levels during strike action.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before each House of Parliament.”
This New Clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clause 61.
Amendment 133, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) But no regulations under subsection (3) may be made to bring into force section 61 of this Act until the findings set out in the report under section [section 61: impact assessment] have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment is linked to NC27.
Justin Madders
The clause seeks to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which provides powers for the Government to make regulations to set minimum service levels during strike action in some essential services. The previous Government introduced regulations to implement minimum service levels in rail, border security, fire and rescue, and ambulance services. No work notice, however, has ever been issued by an employer to require individuals to work to meet the minimum service level during strike action. This demonstrates the futility and misguided approach of the Act and I urge Members to support its repeal. Minimum service levels unduly restrict the right to strike and undermine good industrial relations. As a result, our plan—it is a clear manifesto commitment—pledged to repeal the Act to give trade unions the freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers.
The clause amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Subsection (1) repeals provisions of the 1992 Act as inserted by section 1 of the Strikes Act, with sections 234B to 234G falling away. A number of further amendments are made by the clause to the 1992 Act to reverse other changes made by the Strikes Act. As a result, all associated powers, regulations, provisions and defined terms related to minimum service levels will also fall away. We want to reset the relationship with both employers and trade unions to resolve disputes through meaningful negotiations, and repealing the Strikes Act will help us to achieve that.
I will now turn to new clause 27 and amendment 133, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Buckingham- shire. The Government will not support his proposals, which unnecessarily ask for an assessment of the ability of essential public services to provide minimum service levels during industrial action, and to lay a report containing the findings before the House. The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, including an assessment covering the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. This was published alongside the Bill at Second Reading and is based on the best available evidence about the potential impact on business, workers and the wider economy. The assessment is hamstrung by the fact that the Act has never been implemented, so we are in some difficulty in seeing whether there was an impact from it.
The analysis we undertook, however, included labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis, including sectoral analysis on industries providing essential services, potential influence on collective bargaining and dispute resolution processes, while also addressing the balance between employer needs and union representation. We want to reset the relationship with both employers and trade unions to resolve disputes through meaningful negotiations, and believe that the Act was a hindrance to doing so. I therefore ask the shadow Minister not to move his new clause or amendment.
Greg Smith
I will focus my remarks predominantly on new clause 27 and amendment 133, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. New clause 27 would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of clause 61, which, as the Minister outlined, repeals legislation passed by the last Conservative Government that implemented minimum service levels in vital public services during periods of strike action. Amendment 133 would specify that regulations could not be laid to repeal minimum service levels legislation until the reports required by new clause 27 had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.
We think that is fundamentally right because, with no justification or explanation, the Government will repeal legislation designed to ensure that, during a strike, levels of service are maintained to ensure public safety. We consulted on minimum levels of service for the ambulance service, fire and rescue services and passenger rail services during the last Parliament. It is an important principle that members of the public, who pay through their taxes for lifesaving public services such as ambulance and fire services, should be able to rely on those services at all times, including when members of those services choose to take strike action. Equally, members of the public depend on rail services and in many cases will have already paid for them through season tickets. They have a right to an acceptable level of service, even when members of unions decide to take strike action.
Therefore, before the Government can commence the repeal of the minimum service levels legislation, we think it is only right that the Secretary of State should demonstrate and reassure the House that, in the sectors that the Conservatives specified as suitable for requiring minimum service levels during strike action—to recap, because I think it is important that we get this back on the record, those are health services, fire and rescue services, education services, transport services, services involved in the decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel, and border security—minimum levels of acceptable service can be provided to the public. I make that point not on a whim, but as a matter of public safety and public convenience, and I would be grateful for reassurance from the Minister on it.
If I may humanise it for a moment, this is not about simply saying that people should not be allowed to strike, or taking away rights or anything, although I am sure it will be painted as that; it is about expanding an established custom and precedent in this country about certain sectors, such as the police, being unable to strike. My father was a police officer for 31 years before he retired. We have always accepted as a country that the police should not be able to strike, because they are there for the fundamental purpose of public safety. We know that when we need them, they will be there and available. The same core public service, which we all pay for through our taxes, is provided by the other professions I outlined, not least fire and rescue services, border security and the niche but important services involved in the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and there absolutely must be minimum service levels there too. Any one of us could need an ambulance at any point at no notice. Whether or not that minimum service level is in place is quite literally the difference between life and death. This is a serious issue.
The Labour party has always been opposed to minimum service levels. It opposed the legislation in the previous Parliament, and through this clause it is taking the quickest action possible to repeal it. I urge Labour Members to consider the practical, life-and-death consequences of not ensuring minimum service levels for fire, ambulance and border security services. If they have issues with some of the detail of the minimum service levels legislation, they should by all means strengthen it, but it would be simply negligent to allow the minimum service levels to drop and to leave any of our constituents—even just one—in a position of potentially life-and-death danger by repealing the legislation.
Justin Madders
I understand the points that the shadow Minister has made, but they would carry rather more weight if we had seen the minimum service levels Act operate in practice. The reality is that not a single day of industrial action has been prevented as a result of that legislation. The Government’s own impact assessment at the time indicated that it would have a detrimental impact on industrial relations, and the increase in strike days in the past couple of years has proved that to be the case.
It is also true that all the public sector bodies the shadow Minister referred to that are covered by the Act had voluntary arrangements in place to ensure that there was no endangerment to life. Trade unions and their members have and always will work with employers during periods of industrial action to ensure that life is not endangered. That is absolutely right. Indeed, there is potential criminal liability for those who do not. The evidence given by all at the time—including employers, who saw that the legislation was designed to drive a wedge between employers and trade unions—was that the existing voluntary arrangements worked and ensured that vital services were able to continue during periods of industrial action.
The minimum service levels Act drove a coach and horses through decades of agreement and understanding about how sensitive issues were dealt with during periods of industrial action. The proof is in the pudding: the fact that the Act was never used by any of the organisations that were empowered to use it shows that it was simply a bad piece of legislation, done purely for cosmetic political purposes, and had no meaningful impact. Therefore, its repeal will have no impact on the issues the shadow Minister has raised. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Annual returns: removal of provision about industrial action
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 63 to 69 stand part.
New clause 44—Certification Officer: growth duty—
“When discharging its general functions, the Certification Officer must, so far as reasonably possible, act in such a way as to advance the following objectives—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and
(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”
This new clause would require the Certification Officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
Justin Madders
Clause 62 seeks to reverse the effect of section 7 of the Trade Union Act 2016. It will remove the additional reporting requirements imposed on trade unions for their annual returns to the Certification Officer regarding details of industrial action taken during the reporting period. Specifically, trade unions will no longer be required to include information on any industrial action taken during the reporting period, the nature of the trade dispute relating to the industrial action, the type of industrial action taken or when it was taken, or confirmation that the relevant thresholds covering industrial action ballots have been met. Additionally, trade unions will no longer be required to include information regarding the results of industrial action ballots—for example, the number of votes cast and the number of those who voted yes or no.
Subsection (1) removes section 32ZA from the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which sets out the additional reporting requirements on trade unions. Trade unions will still be required to submit an annual return to the Certification Officer. However, the amount of information they will be required to include will be reduced. By removing these additional administrative burdens on trade unions, we are freeing up their time to engage in bargaining and negotiation with employers and allowing them to devote more time to representing their members’ interests.
Clause 63 seeks to repeal amendments made to the 1992 Act by section 12 of the Trade Union Act 2016 and thereby remove the requirement for trade unions to include political fund expenditure in their annual return to the Certification Officer. Currently, this information must be provided where a union spends more than £2,000 per annum from its political fund. Subsection (2) removes section 32ZB from the 1992 Act, which sets out the information to be included in a union’s annual return on political expenditure.
Other subsections of clause 63 make other amendments to the 1992 Act that are consequential on the removal of section 32ZB, including as to its enforcement and its application to employers’ associations. Section 12 of the 2016 Act itself is repealed by subsection (7). Trade unions will still have to report to the Certification Officer on their income and expenditure. That includes reporting on the income and expenditure of the political fund. Moreover, all political parties will still be subject to the reporting requirements in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which requires certain donations and loans to be recorded and reported to the Electoral Commission.
Clause 64 seeks to repeal the remainder of the effect of section 18 of the 2016 Act. It removes the power of the Certification Officer to publicise a trade union’s failure to include the required industrial action data in its annual return. Clauses 62 and 63 remove the requirement for trade unions to include details of industrial action and political expenditure in their annual returns, so there is clearly no need for the Certification Officer to retain powers to enforce such a requirement.
Enforcement relating to details of political expenditure is addressed in clause 63, and enforcement relating to details of industrial action in clause 64. Therefore, clause 64(2) removes section 32ZC of the 1992 Act, thereby removing the powers of the Certification Officer to enforce the additional annual return requirements relating to industrial action. The Certification Officer will retain the powers to enforce the remaining annual return requirements in relation to a union’s financial affairs and governance.
Clause 65 seeks to reverse the effect of section 17(1) and (2) of the 2016 Act, which inserted schedule A3 to the 1992 Act. It will repeal the enhanced investigatory powers of the Certification Officer, including the power to launch investigations by inspectors, the ability to compel trade unions to produce documents, and the related powers of enforcement. Schedule A3 to the 1992 Act sets out the details of the Certification Officer’s investigatory powers as introduced by the 2016 Act.
Clause 65(5) removes section 256C of the 1992 Act and subsection (6) removes schedule A3 from the 1992 Act. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) make more minor amendments that relate to the removal of schedule A3. Consequentially, subsection (7) removes section 17(1) and (2) of the 2016 Act, and schedule 1 to that Act, and makes further minor amendments to schedule 4 to that Act and to section 43 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.
The enhanced powers created by the 2016 Act were unnecessary. There was no evidence of regulatory failure, and unions have consistently complied with their statutory obligations in relation to their finances, governance and reporting requirements. Since their introduction, the Certification Officer has never used those additional powers. Removing onerous regulatory burdens from trade unions is part of the Government’s commitment to bringing in a new era of partnership that sees employers, unions and Government work together in co-operation and through negotiation.
Clause 66 seeks to remove the powers of the Certification Officer to investigate trade unions proactively without first having received a complaint from a member of that trade union. Those powers were added to various provisions of the 1992 Act by schedule 2 to the 2016 Act. The enhanced investigatory powers created by the 2016 Act were unnecessary. There was no evidence of regulatory failure, and unions have consistently complied with their statutory obligations in relation to their finances, governance and reporting requirements. In fact, since their introduction, the Certification Officer has never used those additional investigatory powers either.
Subsections (2) to (9) of clause 66 remove the ability for the Certification Officer to proactively investigate a range of issues, reverting to the position pre-2016, when the Certification Officer could only consider and act upon a complaint from a member. Trade unions are voluntary associations, run by and for their members. We are returning the Certification Officer’s role to one of adjudicating when it receives members’ complaints in relation to a union.
Clause 67 seeks to reverse the effect of section 19 of the 2016 Act to remove the ability of the Certification Officer to impose financial penalties on trade unions. The previous Government presented no evidence as to why the Certification Officer needed those additional powers. Since they have come into force, no financial penalties have been imposed on any trade union.
Schedule A4 to the 1992 Act sets out the detail of the power to impose financial penalties. Clause 67(2) removes section 256D of the 1992 Act, which gave effect to the schedule, and subsection (3) removes the schedule. As a result, the clause removes subsections (1) to (3) of section 19 of the 2016 Act and schedule 3 to that Act. The Certification Officer will retain the power to issue enforcement orders, and if those orders are not complied with, the union may be found in contempt of court.
Clause 68 will repeal sections 257A and 258(1A) of the 1992 Act, as inserted by section 20 of the 2016 Act. That will remove the levy charged by the Certification Officer on employers’ associations and trade unions. Furthermore, the Certification Officer will no longer be required to report on the levy as part of its annual report to Parliament. The levy is an impediment to the rights of voluntary associations, and it attracted criticism from international bodies, including the International Labour Organisation.
Clause 68(2) removes section 257A of the 1992 Act, which sets out the requirements for a levy to be paid to the Certification Officer by trade unions and employers’ associations. Subsection (3) removes the requirement in section 258(1A) of the 1992 Act for the Certification Officer to report on the levy. The Government believe that we should interfere as little as possible in the activities of social partners, which are voluntary associations.
Clause 69 seeks to reverse the changes made by section 21 of the 2016 Act to the 1992 Act so that the right of appeal against decisions of the Certification Officer to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is on questions of law only, rather than on questions of law and fact. That brings the appeals process back in line with the position before the 2016 Act and with many other enforcement bodies of employment law. For example, appeals against the decisions of employment tribunals are considered only on points of law, not points of fact. I hope hon. Members were keeping up with that; I shall be asking questions later.
New clause 44 would place a new duty on the Certification Officer, the regulator of trade unions and employers’ associations, by requiring it to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth over the medium to long term when carrying out its statutory functions.
It is helpful at this stage to set out the role of the Certification Officer. It has been the regulator of trade unions and employers’ associations since 1975 and not only carries out regulatory functions, but has administrative and supervisory functions and a significant quasi-judicial function, where it adjudicates on complaints raised by trade union members and other parties. As part of our repeal of the provisions of the Trade Union Act, we will be repealing the Certification Officer’s enhanced investigatory and enforcement powers and the levy imposed on trade unions and employers’ associations. As such, we will be returning the role much to what it was before the Trade Union Act was implemented.
The Certification Officer’s primary role is to ensure that both unions and employers’ associations adhere to the statutory requirements in relation to their finances and governance that Parliament has decided they are required to observe. Its statutory functions are to maintain lists of trade unions and employers’ associations; determine complaints from union members against their unions relating to alleged breaches of statutory duties and some other types of union rules; determine union independence; ensure that annual returns are made; supervise mergers, political fund ballots and members’ superannuation schemes; and investigate alleged financial irregularities and breaches in relation to trade union membership. The Certification Officer therefore has no locus in relation to industrial action and no role in making assessments of how unions and employers’ associations impact the economy. It has no economists or statisticians on its payroll.
In view of the Certification Officer’s functions and role, the new clause is not appropriate. It is not clear how the Certification Officer, in making decisions on whether a union or employer association has breached its statutory obligations, will act to advance the objectives of international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term. Hopefully the shadow Minister will set out how that would work in practice, because it is not obvious to me how the Certification Officer could take those factors into account when determining the statutory obligations that unions and employers’ associations have to observe under Acts of Parliament. For that reason, I ask him not to press his new clause, and I commend clauses 62 to 69 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I congratulate the Minister on his marathon run through clauses 62 to 69. I will focus my comments particularly on new clause 44, which, as the Minister has outlined, would require the Certification Officer to advance the objectives of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for taking slightly less time than I did on this grouping. For the record, I am fully supportive of the Prime Minister’s action plans, milestones, missions and all other types.
Justin Madders
I am afraid that would be out of scope of the Bill Committee. I hear what the shadow Minister says. His essential argument is that we should be able to judge the actions of trade unions in terms of the damage or disruption they cause to the UK economy. Of course, we want to see growth and we want to see industrial action minimised. We believe that by having a more harmonious set of industrial relations, we will see that.
Unfortunately, the shadow Minister’s new clause really mischaracterises the Certification Officer’s role. He is not, as the hon. Gentleman said, there to preside over strikes; he is there to preside over the governance, finances, reporting requirements and statutory obligations of trade unions and employers’ associations—I noted that the hon. Gentleman did not mention employers’ associations. The Certification Officer is not there to preside over industrial disputes and strikes. There are courts to intervene if a party feels aggrieved about the way industrial action has been observed, whether lawfully or not. I can see the intention of the new clause: the shadow Minister wants the Government to succeed in their growth mission. We all do, but I do not think the Certification Officer is the right or appropriate vehicle for that to take place.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 63 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Regulations subject to affirmative resolution procedure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
The clause amends section 293 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, with which I am sure all Members are now very familiar, to require that regulations made under the following new sections of the 1992 Act are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This therefore will apply to the following regulations: section 70ZC, on access agreements, response period and negotiation period; section 70ZE, on access agreements and the period to make an application to Central Arbitration Committee; section 70ZF, on access agreements and determinations by the Central Arbitration Committee; section 70ZI, on the enforcement of access agreements and the maximum penalty; and section 236A, on detriment for taking industrial action. Any other regulations made under section 293 will continue to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. I therefore commend clause 70 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I will not detain the Committee with a commentary on this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
Devolved Welsh authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 30—Repeal of Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017—
“The Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 (anaw 4) is repealed.”
This new clause repeals the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
We now turn to clause 71 and will resist Opposition new clause 30. Clause 71 is the final of the package of clauses to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016. It makes a consequential amendment to the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 following the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. Section 1 of the 2017 Act disapplied some of the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) 1992 Act, as introduced by the Trade Union Act 2016, from applying to devolved Welsh authorities. As the Trade Union Act 2016 and the relevant provisions of the 1992 Act are being repealed, section 1 of the 2017 Act is now redundant. There are also consequential amendments to the 1992 Act to remove the relevant references to devolved Welsh authorities.
New clause 30 seeks to repeal the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 in its entirety. Section 1 of this Act disapplies certain provisions of the Trade Union Act 2016 to devolved Welsh authorities. Repealing the Trade Union Act 2016 means that these provisions are no longer necessary. It is for that reason that we are repealing section 1 of the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 through clause 71 of this Bill. Section 2 of the 2017 Act is not impacted by the repeal of the Trade Union Act 2016. It prevents a devolved Welsh authority from using agency workers to replace striking workers. This Government support a prohibition on using agency workers to cover industrial action and therefore we are content to leave this in the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017. New clause 30 is therefore unnecessary and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it. I commend clause 71 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I will focus my remarks on new clause 30, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk, for Bridgwater and for Mid Leicestershire. It is good to see the Minister in her place on her first outing in the Committee of the day, and as she said, new clause 30 would repeal the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017. Prior to the 2017 Act, there was legal ambiguity in post-devolution case law of the degree to which trade union legislation was a reserved or devolved competence. Following the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016 in the UK Parliament, the Labour-led Welsh Government then passed Welsh legislation—the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017—to disapply a number of trade union measures in Wales in relation to devolved public services. The Wales Act 2017 was subsequently passed with cross-party and cross-institution agreement, and re-established that industrial relations were a reserved competence.
The Conservative-led UK Government at the time pledged to unwind the Welsh Government’s Act and reapply the full 2016 Act to Great Britain following the passage of the Wales Act 2017. However, re-asserting such common trade union law across Great Britain would require primary legislation in the United Kingdom Parliament. Given that the Wales Act 2017 established industrial relationships as a reserved competence, we would like to understand when the Government intend to resolve the changes implemented by the Welsh Government’s Act, which disapplied some of our 2016 Act. I do not think it is an unreasonable ask of the Government that we seek to resolve through the new clause.
Dame Nia Griffith
The point is very clear, isn’t it? In the legislation we are providing now, we are making the first part of the Trade Union (Wales) Act unnecessary, and therefore it is perfectly appropriate to put through a clause in this Bill to keep things in line with what we are doing across the UK. It is perfectly in order to have a clause that seeks to bring that particular legislation in line with the situation in which we now find ourselves.
On the second part of that legislation, as I have just said, that is already something on which we agree with the Welsh Government. We therefore see no particular reason why there should be a repeal of that legislation in the Bill, and we do not propose to do so. I suggest that the shadow Minister’s new clause is not necessary in the current Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 7th January 2025
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 January 2025 - (7 Jan 2025)
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I have a couple of preliminary announcements: Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.co.uk; please switch electronic devices to silent; and teas and coffees are not allowed during sittings. Date Time Witness Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 10.25 am Chief Medical Officers for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 10.55 am Action on Smoking and Health; Action on Smoking and Health Scotland; Action on Smoking and Health Wales; Cancer Focus Northern Ireland Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 11.25 am Cancer Research UK; Asthma + Lung UK Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 2.40 pm Local Government Association; Association of Directors of Public Health; Professor Tracy Daszkiewicz, Executive Director of Public Health and Strategic Partnerships, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 3.10 pm Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; Royal College of General Practitioners Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 3.30 pm National Trading Standards Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 3.50 pm British Retail Consortium Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 4.10 pm Department for Education’s Secondary Headteacher Reference Group Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 4.30 pm Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 4.50 pm Professor Linda Bauld OBE, Bruce and John Usher Chair in Public Health, University of Edinburgh Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 5.10 pm Department of Health and Social Care
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. Given the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally, without a debate. I call the Minister to move the programme motion, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 26 November 2024) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 7 January;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 9 January;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 January;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 16 January;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 January;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 January;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 28 January;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 30 January;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 16; Schedule 1; Clause 17 and 18; Schedule 2; Clause 19; Schedule 3; Clauses 20 and 21; Schedule 4; Clauses 22 to 40; Schedule 5; Clause 41; Schedules 6 and 7; Clauses 42 to 64; Schedule 8; Clause 65; Schedule 9; Clauses 66 to 84; Schedule 10; Clause 85; Schedules 11 to 13; Clauses 86 and 87; Schedules 14 and 15; Clauses 88 to 127; Schedule 16; Clauses 128 to 141; Schedule 17; Clauses 142 to 146; Schedule 18; Clauses 147 to 152; Schedule 19; Clauses 153 to 157; Schedule 20; Clauses 158 to 160; Schedule 21; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 161 to 171; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 30 January.—(Andrew Gwynne.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Andrew Gwynne.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence will be made available in the Committee Room and circulated to Committee members by email.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Andrew Gwynne.)
The Committee deliberated in private.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start putting questions to the witnesses, do any Members wish to make declarations of interest in connection with the Bill?
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I am an NHS consultant paediatrician and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
My mother has some shareholdings in British American Tobacco, but that links to my parents’ having worked for Imperial Tobacco 50 years ago.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I am an officer of the responsible vaping all-party parliamentary group.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I declare an interest as an NHS transplant and vascular surgeon. My wife is a lung cancer doctor.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a public health consultant and a member of the British Medical Association.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a practising pharmacist. [Interruption.]
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I cannot hear everything because of that noise, but I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I declare an interest as vice chair of the APPG on smoking and health.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Sir Chris Whitty, Sir Francis Atherton, Professor Sir Michael McBride and Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith gave evidence.
The Chair
Sorry about the distracting noise; we are trying to sort that out.
We will begin by hearing oral evidence from Professor Sir Chris Whitty, chief medical officer for England; Sir Francis Atherton, chief medical officer for Wales; Professor Sir Michael McBride, chief medical officer for Northern Ireland, who will participate via Zoom; and Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith, chief medical officer for Scotland. We have until 10.25 am for this panel.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: First of all, thank you to the Committee for inviting me to give evidence. I think this is an incredibly important step. I have been concerned—
The Chair
I apologise, but I think people are struggling to hear over the noise; I certainly am. Could everyone enunciate more clearly and speak a little louder?
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: First of all, thank you for the invitation to provide evidence. I think this is a really important step that we can take to protect children from vaping. I am very clear in my mind that vaping has a place in helping those already smoking to stop smoking. It has a place in smoking cessation, but children, young adults and indeed adults who have never smoked should never start vaping; there are too many uncertainties about the health consequences of vaping for that to be encouraged.
In restricting children’s access to vapes and reducing the attractiveness to children of some of the vaping products currently marketed, the Bill will protect children from the potential health consequences of vaping itself and from the potential of vaping to be a gateway to the use of other nicotine products, for which there is emerging evidence. I am certain that the Bill will help to protect children from the dangers associated with starting to vape.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I think the first thing to say is that second-hand smoke is a very serious problem. I think that is underestimated among the general public because, if I am honest, the cigarette industry has been very successful in muddying the waters on this.
There are three key things that really make a difference. The first is the degree of concentration of the smoke. The second is the duration of exposure—let us say you sit next to someone for half an hour; the effect is more significant than if it had been just a couple of minutes. The third is the vulnerability of the people being exposed to it. That is one of the things that this Bill will help with.
Over 88% of the population do not smoke. There are roughly 6 million smokers still. There are significantly more people in the UK, non-smokers, who have medical vulnerabilities that mean that the smoke is particularly dangerous to them, perhaps acutely. They can be exposed to smoke and have an asthma attack, and that lands them in hospital. In severe cases it could land them in a very dangerous situation. The situation may also be chronic—for example, people living with diabetes already have a disease that is going to accelerate things like cardiovascular disease. If people are smoking on top of that, it will accelerate those things still further.
Although outdoor smoking is less in terms of passive smoking than indoor smoking, in most situations if you are close to someone, exposed for a long period or vulnerable, it can have very significant health impacts. In broad terms, if you can smell smoke, you are being exposed to significant amounts of smoke, and that is one of the things that the Bill is aiming to address.
I would like to make one additional point: the cigarette industry has been extraordinarily good at trying to pretend that to be pro-smoking is to be pro-choice. Nothing could be further from the truth. Smoking is highly addictive. Most smokers wish they had never started and want to quit, but they are trapped by addiction. Their choice has been taken away deliberately by these companies as part of their policy. And if you are talking about second-hand smoke, indoors or outdoors, the person downwind or next door has no choice at all at any point. They are exposed to the risks with no advantages at all. If you are pro-choice, you should be firmly in favour of the principles of the Bill. Frank, do you want to add to that?
Sir Francis Atherton: The only thing I would add is that there is no safe level of smoking. As Chris says, if you smell it, you are breathing it in, and there is no safe level. Obviously, indoors is worse than outdoors. The dose response is a big issue, but there is no safe level. I think that is a really important point.
Sarah Bool
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I might ask Michael to come in. I can have the first go and Michael might want to come in after that, because this is a critical point. Historically, the cigarette industry, despite what it claims, has always targeted children. It always deplores it in public, but if you look at its internal documents you discover that that is what it has been aiming to do. Most people, the great majority, start as teenagers before they are 20—you are, of course, correct. To refer back to Dr Johnson’s original question, the same thing is now being done with vaping and exactly the same playbook is being followed. You get people at their most vulnerable and you addict them. That is the aim.
However, were we to stop at, let us say, 21, the cigarette industry, which is extraordinarily good at regrouping around whatever regulations are in place, would simply regroup around 21. To go back to my very first point about addiction, if you are a 21-year-old and you start, you become addicted and then you wish you had stopped. That does not change the fact that your choice has been taken away. So the logic of saying 21, 25 or 30—various people have looked at various ages—is no better than the logic of the current situation.
The advantage of the current model, which was first put forward by Conservative Prime Minister Mr Sunak, to whom we should all pay great tribute on the basics of the Bill, was to ensure that current children are not addicted and do not have their choice taken away, but that rights are not taken away from existing smokers. That is the reason why this particular model was chosen. Michael, do you want to add to that? You are on mute.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: May I take one impact that extends my previous points about outdoor smoking, and then maybe pass on to Sir Gregor and Sir Frank? For outdoor smoking, the previous Bill—the very good Bill put forward by the previous Government—did not have anything that addressed the needs of current smokers. It also did not address the needs of people exposed to smoke, despite the fact that, like over 88% of the population, they are not smokers and many of them are medically vulnerable.
The Bill allows the Government to take powers to prevent outdoor smoking, first with additional public consultation and then additional measures in Parliament. Ministers—you, Minister, have demonstrated this in the House of Commons—have indicated the areas where they intend to use these powers to reduce the risks of passive smoking. These are the areas of the greatest vulnerability: around hospitals, where some of the most medically vulnerable are highly concentrated; and around children’s playgrounds, where children are—I think everybody who does not have shares in cigarette companies would agree that exposing children to second-hand smoke is an unacceptable thing to do. That is one area where the Bill has gone further than the previous one. Maybe Sir Frank might want to add to that.
Sir Francis Atherton: In Wales, we have had smoke-free hospitals, schools and play areas since 2021, under our earlier public health legislation, and it is completely non-controversial. There are clearly issues around implementation and enforcement, particularly around hospitals, but if you go now to schools and hospitals there is no controversy whatever. So that will not make a huge amount of difference in Wales.
The one thing that will make a difference, I think, is aligning the vaping legislation with the smoking legislation. I say that because, going back to the earliest question, vape use among young people in Wales has shot up over recent years—8% of 11 to 16-year-olds regularly vape, up from 5% and a bit in 2021. It has absolutely shot up. Bringing together vaping and tobacco legislation in terms of vape-free and smoke-free places is a really important thing and one for which I have been arguing for quite some time.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: Perhaps I can begin this answer; my colleagues may then want to come in. Alignment in this respect is really important, partly because of the clarity of message that exists to the public around about what is legally acceptable in relation to smoking and to vaping. Alignment across tobacco smoking and vape use is similarly important across the four nations.
Public health messaging is incredibly important. Having a consistent message across our four nations helps to ensure that the message is much more clearly understood and adhered to by the public. I welcome the attempts by Ministers to ensure that alignment exists within the Bill, so that as we go forward we give protection to those who do not smoke in the way that we are planning on doing with the Bill as it proceeds.
One of the most important aspects is to make sure that, although in Scotland, for instance, legislation prevents smoking within 15 metres of the likes of public places such as outside a hospital, we bring that much more closely in line with where the Welsh position is—so to the whole of the hospital grounds. Extending it to protect, as Sir Chris has said, more vulnerable places such as play parks is something I would certainly welcome in Scotland. We should do that in step across the four nations. I again emphasise that public messaging is incredibly important in making sure that we get the adherence we seek.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I have already given my view that, although I have a lot of sympathy for choice and freedom arguments in many situations, tobacco addiction and second-hand smoking are not among those.
Sir Francis Atherton: If anything, choice is undermined by the addictive nature of nicotine. It is incredibly addictive. We know that now; we have known it for many years, actually. The tobacco industry has known it for many years, which is why the industry, through vaping and other means, is quite keen to have the next generation of people in our countries addicted to nicotine. Choice is completely undermined and taken away by the addictive nature of the product being marketed.
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: Nicotine addiction is horrific. Nearly 9,000 people a year still die in Scotland as a result of tobacco-related health issues. Two thirds of people who begin smoking are potentially at risk of dying as a consequence of their addiction. We know that the industry targets both the younger age spectrum and vulnerable groups to sustain their industry.
If you have ever spoken to a patient with a serious tobacco-related illness such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, who is now suffering from the consequences of that—the limited ability to live their life—and the addictive nature of the disease, you soon begin to learn that they are filled with nothing but regret and guilt for the part that their addiction has played in the development of the disease. The stigma associated with tobacco-related disease is quite terrible for those who experience it. The basis of that is this lack of choice that they have developed as a consequence of the addictive nature of the nicotine products.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: If I could just add a specific example from—
The Chair
Sorry, Sir Chris, but before we go further, I am trying to establish whether Sir Michael McBride has contact with us yet. If you can speak, Sir Michael, then we will know whether we have connection. It is as simple as that, really.
Professor Sir Michael McBride: Yes. The problem is not on my side, so I asked that you unlock me. I think I have now been unlocked, so perhaps I can speak.
The Chair
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I just wanted to add an illustration of this, because it is such a fundamental point. I suspect that all doctors on the Committee, as well as my colleagues on this side of the table, will know this. I can remember the first time I was a vascular surgery house officer, watching people who had had one leg chopped off because they had smoked weeping as they had to take another cigarette, which was inevitably going to lead to their other leg being chopped off—and, incidentally, they were smoking over people coming into the hospital. It is an appalling addiction, and people who say this is about choice have never met someone who is seriously addicted to smoking.
The Chair
Sir Michael, now that we have a connection with you, do you have any observations or comments to make in relation to any of the points that have been raised?
Professor Sir Michael McBride: Yes, thank you, Chair, and apologies for the connection problems earlier. Following on from Sir Chris’s comments, all of us who have worked as clinicians on the frontline—I know members of the Committee have experienced that as well—know only too well the horrors of smoking tobacco, the premature death and illnesses that it causes, and the impact that it has on the next generation.
We know for instance that, despite the fall that there has been in smoking, as per one of the Committee’s earlier questions, there are still 127,000 people each year in the United Kingdom who start smoking cigarettes as a result of the effectiveness of the tobacco industry’s marketing—blatant marketing—to children and young people, not just of tobacco and nicotine products, but of vapes.
I too have seen at first hand the impacts of that. I know, as someone whose father was a smoker who died of an acute myocardial infarction aged 46, the impacts that it has on children—the next generation—who are three times more likely to take up smoking tobacco. This is a once-in-a-generation, lifetime opportunity, and we collectively need to seize it to prevent future harms for those who are most vulnerable, for children and young people, and for future generations.
The Chair
I will go to Gregory Stafford first, and then I will move over to the Government side.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: That is a very important question. I think everybody would agree on two things, and then there is a way of making sure that we get to the exact middle point of this argument.
First, as you imply, in this country—it is not universally true—there is a strong view that we should try to continue our support to allow current smokers who are finding it very difficult to get off because of their addiction, which has taken away their choice, to move to vaping as a step in the right direction. I think that is broadly accepted in this country. As I say, there are some countries where that is not accepted so, to be clear, that is not a universal view.
At the other extreme, as you imply—or state directly, actually—I think everybody would agree that the marketing of vapes to children is utterly abhorrent. I think almost everybody would agree that marketing vapes to people who are current non-smokers, given that we do not know the long-term effects of vapes because we have not had them for long enough, is a big mistake. We should not allow ourselves to get into a position where, in 20 years, we regret not having taken action on them.
The question then is: how do you get the balance? In my view, this is sometimes made more complicated than it needs to be. I think it can be very simply summarised: “If you smoke, vaping is safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape; and marketing to children is utterly abhorrent.” That is it, although it is sometimes made a lot more convoluted. Our view is that the Bill gets that balance right.
In general, if people’s profession is getting people who are current smokers off, they tend to be more at the pro-vaping end, because they see the dangers for current smokers. People who deal with children, such as Dr Johnson, who has taken great leadership in this area and is very much in the centre of her profession, and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health take a very strong anti-vape view, because they have seen the effects on children. It is getting the balance between those two, and I think that the Bill does that.
But—and it is an important but—the Bill takes powers in this area, and that means that if we go too far in one direction or the other, there is the ability to adjust that with consultation and with parliamentary secondary legislation. That allows for the ability to move that point around if it looks as if we have not got it exactly right. It may also change over time as the evidence evolves.
Dr Cooper
Q
Professor Sir Michael McBride: That is a really important question. We talked before about the blatant marketing of tobacco and vapes. There is also the preying of the industry on those more socioeconomically deprived areas.
If we look at smoking rates in those more socio- economically deprived areas, they are two to three times higher than in less socioeconomically deprived areas. If we consider the death rate from smoking-related conditions, it is twice as high. If we look at lung cancer rates, they are two and a half times as high in those areas. That is a direct consequence of the smoking incidence in more socioeconomically deprived areas. The health inequalities associated with the consumption of tobacco are significant and great.
If we look at smoking in pregnancy and all its consequences in terms of premature birth, stillbirth and low birthweight, we see that smoking among women from more socioeconomically deprived areas is four and a half times higher than among those in less socioeconomically deprived areas. The health inequalities argument and the case to be made for addressing that within the Bill is huge. This is an opportunity that we must not pass up to narrow the adverse health consequences.
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: It is my very clear view that the provisions within the Bill will help us to tackle some of the inequalities associated particularly with tobacco smoking. If I look at the situation in Scotland, 26% of our lowest socioeconomic group are smokers, compared with 6% of our highest socio- economic group.
The gradient that Sir Michael has spoken about in terms of the subsequent tobacco-related disease that those groups then experience is really quite marked, whether that be cardiovascular disease or the numerous cancers associated with smoking. All of those can be addressed by trying to tackle the scourge of these tobacco companies preying on more vulnerable groups within our society, whether that be those who experience socioeconomic circumstances that are much more difficult and challenging for them, or whether that be particular groups that are more likely to experience mental health conditions.
All of these must be tackled; people must be assisted not to develop addictions that lead to lifelong smoking and problems with their health thereafter. I am very clearly of the view, both in terms of smoking and, it is important to say, of vaping, that the targeting of those groups that creates those inequalities within our society is something that this Bill can address.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Sir Francis Atherton: The issue of flavours and colours speaks to the issue of marketing towards children that we have been speaking about so far. I have no reason to believe that taking away colours and flavours that are appealing to children would remove vaping as a stop smoking tool. It remains an important tool in the box that we have to have alongside nicotine replacement therapy and alongside education, and it will remain an important tool to stop people smoking.
The prime aim here, of course, is to stop the marketing towards children. If you think back to when tobacco was advertised in shops, we saw big gantries in shops, and what we have seen in recent years is that we now have vape gantries in almost all our shops. Taking away that marketing opportunity towards children—the colourful and flavoursome displays—can only be of benefit to reducing childhood vaping and the nicotine dependency that comes as a consequence of that.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: Let us be really clear about this: the vaping industry will claim it is not marketing to children while putting in flavours, colours, cartoons and placements that are clearly aimed at children. You just look at them—you do not need anything else—and you see the rates going up in children. It is very clear that the industry is doing that, and it needs to be tackled.
Professor Sir Michael McBride: If you look at products with names “gummy bear” and “rainbow surprise”, who are they actually aiming those products at? Our Public Health Agency did research with more than 7,500 children and young people in Northern Ireland, using focus groups and online surveys. Some 77% of them told us that what appealed to them about vapes was the colours and flavourings. The public consultation had the strongest and highest support for banning flavours and colourings. More than 75% of the population in Northern Ireland supported that ban. We should not delude ourselves about the exploitative marketing of those products.
In terms of next steps, it is really important that those who want to use vapes to quit smoking, as Sir Frank has said, can continue to access them. The Government undoubtedly will consult carefully on those measures to ensure that we do not—as the question is rightly exploring—restrict access or discourage individuals from using vapes to quit smoking.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: I am not sure we have the data or the evidence to back that up, but I have certainly heard people claim that in the past about the addictive nature of nicotine. One of the important aspects of this issue is the very rapid re-emergence of that addiction by small exposures after people have managed to quit. Certainly we should be in no doubt about the addictive nature of nicotine and the risks—going back to the harmful effects of passive smoking or being in the company of people who smoke—associated with the re-emergence of that addiction and of people’s tobacco smoking habits. That is something very real. Therefore, the best protection is never to start in the first place. If we can prevent people from taking those first nicotine products and prevent the addiction from forming in the first place, there is obviously a much greater chance that they are not going to suffer the health consequences.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: Our view is that the benefits of preventing people who are not currently vaping, particularly children, from vaping through what is proposed in this Bill significantly exceed that risk. However, that risk exists; we all accept that. To go back to a previous point I made, that is why having these powers gives us the advantage that if, as a result of where we get to—remembering that this change will come after consultation and there will be secondary legislation going through Parliament—it looks as though we have gone too far, it will be possible to ease back. Our view, though, is that at this point in time, and subject to what the consultation shows, the net benefit in public health terms is positive for the prevention of children starting smoking, over any risk for adults.
The area of greatest uncertainty is on flavours. There is some genuine debate around that, with a range of different views from people who are quite seriously trying to wrestle with this problem—rather than doing marketing masquerading as wrestling with this problem—but in all other areas, most people think that the benefit outweighs the risk.
Dr Ahmed
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I will give a view, and I think Sir Gregor will want to add to it. It will make a very substantial difference. The thing to understand is that not only does cigarette smoking cause individual diseases, but many people as they go through life have multiple diseases from smoking. They will start off with heart disease, for example, as a result of smoking, and will go on to have a variety of possible cancers, and they might have chronic obstructive airway disease, and they will end up potentially with dementia. All of these would have not happened at all or would have been substantially delayed had they not smoked. Of course, this is heavily weighted towards areas of deprivation, people living with mental health conditions, and other areas where I think most people would consider it really unjust in society. All of us, and anybody who has looked at this in public health terms, would say that if you could remove smoking from the equation, the chronic disease burden would go down very substantially, and be delayed, and the inequalities of that burden of disease would also be eroded. The arguments for this are really clear.
To give some indication of the numbers involved, we have thousands of people every year—millions over time—going into hospitals and general practices only because they are smoking. Had they not smoked, they would not have to use the NHS, and they would not have the chronic disease burden that disbenefits themselves, disbenefits their families and, of course, because of the impact on wider society, disbenefits everyone else as well. Undoubtedly this Bill—if it is passed by Parliament—will reduce that burden and have an enormous impact.
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: Thank you for raising this as a question, because it is a very important point to understand. I will speak to the experience in Scotland. The Scottish burden of disease study published by Public Health Scotland suggests that from now to 2043 we are going to see a rise of 21% in overall burden of disease across our society in Scotland. That burden of disease is very much weighted towards a number of conditions such as cancer, dementia including vascular dementia, cardiovascular disease, and others. There is no doubt in my mind that smoking contributes to those.
Chris’s point about the multimorbidity that people experience is really important in this context. There are more people in Scotland who experience multimorbidity under the age of 50 than those who do over the age of 50, and much of that is related to smoking. Anything that we can do to reduce that burden of disease on people will not only make their own lives so much better, but make them more productive—they will be able to spend more time with their families, they will be economically active for longer, and they will also use health services less. So there is both a compelling health argument and an economic argument here on the preventive nature of stopping smoking and stopping people from beginning to smoke, which is really important to understand in the context of that projected increase in the burden of disease.
The last thing to remember is that our experience of disease can sometimes be cumulative. As Sir Chris alluded to, people who have developed diabetes for other reasons but who smoke as well, will have accelerated disease as a consequence. Removing as much as we can, step by step, the risks that are associated with the development of that accelerated disease—you will have seen it very clearly in your role as a vascular surgeon—has to be a step that we take to maintain both the health and the economic prosperity of our nation.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: The numbers that I was looking for—
The Chair
I am sorry, Sir Chris. Just for the purposes of timekeeping, which is my job, we have about 20 minutes left and five people wish to ask questions, so can we keep the questions as tight as possible, and within reason the answers as well?
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I wanted to give the exact numbers, which I just found in my notes. Some 75,000 GP appointments a month are caused by smoking—just think of that when you phone up the GP—and 448,000 admissions to the NHS: again, think of that when you look at these areas. So the impact of this is really very substantial.
Jim Dickson
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I have a very strong view. The tobacco industry is extraordinarily adept at pretending that it is on the side of the angels, and that it is trying to help with the problem. This goes along with slimline cigarettes, filters, low-tar cigarettes—many other marketing things, all of which claim to try and help with the health effects. Tobacco is extraordinarily dangerous, as well as being addictive. The heated tobacco products have probably slightly lower levels—they do have lower levels of the multiple chemicals that are toxic: multiple, not just one or two, but they are way away from safe levels. So heated tobacco products, while arguably being slightly lower in terms of the risk if someone had exactly the same amount, are a long way short of anywhere near safe, and they are still addictive. They also have some side-blow areas where they will have some issues for people around them as well. So the idea that this is some kind of solution only makes sense if you have shares in a company. So I would very strongly argue against trying to exclude these and carve these out.
Sir Francis Atherton: Nicotine is addictive however you take it—whether it is in heated tobacco, in cigarettes, in snus, in chewed tobacco or in shisha pipes—so in terms of protecting the next generation, the great value of this Bill is the flexibility to deal with not just the issues that we see in front of us, but the things that may well come down the pipeline in the future. I believe the Bill is flexible enough to allow us to protect the next generation from these terrible problems that flow from addiction.
The Chair
Sir Michael, you were nodding. Did you have any comment to make?
Professor Sir Michael McBride: I simply echo Sir Frank’s comments on the flexibility that the Bill affords us, and again confirm my agreement with Sir Chris’s comments. Let us be clear: there is no other product that causes life-limiting addiction, that kills two thirds—kills two thirds—of the people who use it. It is staggering, and this Bill provides us with an opportunity to address a scourge on our society. There is no safe tobacco product —none.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: Would Sir Michael like to go first?
Professor Sir Michael McBride: Yes. Thank you for the important question. You are quite right that the evidence on the potentially harmful effects of vapes is still developing, and we are not at the stage that we are with our knowledge of tobacco. Certainly, as we have said already, the harmful effects of vapes are, and are likely to be, significantly less than those of tobacco, but are unlikely to be zero. This is an area in which there is ongoing research. The World Health Organisation has raised concerns about the potential impact, particularly in children, in terms of brain development. I know you will hear more about that later from other panellists. That is something that we will obviously need to continue to keep under review. The Bill provides us with the opportunity to introduce further measures, should that be required.
However, in all this there is a need for balance. Obviously, the Government—and certainly the Northern Ireland Assembly, when they will be debating this in the coming weeks—will wish to ensure that there is a balance between ensuring that vapes are accessible to individuals to assist cessation of smoking and help them to quit, but also that we are guided by the evidence to ensure that any legislation that is introduced is proportionate. That is incumbent on all of us at this time. Certainly, should further evidence of harmful effects become available, there is the opportunity and flexibility within the Bill to look at this again.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I would add only that it took us some decades to work out the extraordinary impact of smoking. Much of that tends to be cumulative over time, so you do not see the major effects of someone starting to smoke in their 20s till they are in their 50s, 60s and 70s. What we do not want is to be looking back in 20 years’ time and saying, “We knew these were addictive; we knew that people were smoking things.” Things that go into the lungs are much more dangerous than things you eat, for a variety of reasons. Just basing it on lab studies is not a safe way to proceed. I think all of us were therefore thinking that the sensible thing to do, while maintaining vapes as a smoking quit aid, is to avoid a situation where people who are currently not smokers take up vapes, because they will definitely get addicted—the nicotine is there, and there is a high chance in our view that they will have harms, although the size of those harms is currently difficult to put an exact number on over time. Some people come to extreme harms quite quickly, actually, but those numbers are fortunately relatively small.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Q
Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith: It is very difficult to disentangle the evidence about vaping, because so many of the people who are currently vaping are either current or ex-smokers as well. To do some form of longitudinal study that actually gets to develop the evidence base for any potential harm that is caused by vaping is difficult—although there are attempts to try to do that, such as through the Our Future Health study. At this moment, I think the provisions within the Bill represent a proportionate and reasonable approach with the flexibility that exists within it to be able to respond as new evidence develops, either towards or against the harms that are associated with vaping. I think it is proportionate in that it maintains vaping as a potential tool in the armoury to help people to stop smoking, but similarly it is proportionate in stopping the abhorrent marketing of vapes to children, which Sir Chris has already mentioned, and in allowing the position, which I think is correct, that if you have never started vaping or smoking, you should not. The proportionality of the provisions just now is heading in the right direction, but with the ability to flex as future evidence emerges.
The Chair
We have one more question, which I am afraid is probably the last one to this set of witnesses, from Liz Jarvis.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: It is important to be realistic about the fact that—as I suspect you will all remember from your schooldays, and if you have children, you will know from them—people do not stick exactly to the current law as it is. The idea that, magically, there will be a cut-off and people will exactly follow it strikes me as flying in the face of lived reality. However, as the age of sale moves up over time, I am very confident that it will lead to a significant reduction over time in the number of children buying cigarettes, because it will be illegal for people to sell them to them. It will not be illegal for them to possess cigarettes—that is an important distinction—but it will be illegal for people to sell them to them. If you are a 17-year-old you can usually pretend to be an 18-year-old, but pretending, or even wanting to pretend, to be a 30-year-old is a different thing completely. Over time this measure will become more effective.
The impacts will be seen first in things such as children’s asthma and developing lungs. It will probably next be seen in birth effects, because the highest smoking rates are in the youngest mums: the rates are up to 30% in people who have children before they are 20, but much lower in people who have them in their late 20s or early 30s. In that younger cohort, the effect on stillbirths, birth defects, premature births and so on will be the next big impact that the Bill will have, and gradually it will roll over time.
It is not a perfect mechanism—I do not think any piece of law that has been designed is a perfect mechanism—but, as a way of gradually driving smoking down in a way that does not take away anyone’s existing rights, it seems to me a reasonable balance between those principal aims. To go back to my first point, in reality the borderline will probably be a bit fuzzy, because it always is, but over time the effects will be very substantial.
The Chair
I have about three minutes left, so I will ask Mary Kelly Foy to ask a very brief question with a very short answer, because we will be finishing spot on 10.25 am.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
Professor Sir Chris Whitty: I will suggest that Sir Frank takes this question, because it is his very last answer to a parliamentary question; he is about to stop as chief medical officer, so he is going out on a high.
Sir Francis Atherton: What the Bill does is to simplify matters, making it as simple as possible: a smoke-free place is a vape-free place as well. That does not take away people’s ability to go into a place where smoking and vaping are allowed, but it helps to disentangle the confusion that currently exists about where people can legitimately use those products. It is a simplification that can only help to lead, in the long term, to that reduction that we need. In Wales, 13% of people continue to smoke. Our ambition is to get to 5% by 2030; we will struggle to get there, but this Bill will help us to get there.
The Chair
I am afraid that that draws this particular session to a close. I thank our witnesses, Sir Chris Whitty, Sir Francis Atherton, Sir Gregor Smith and Sir Michael McBride, for their attendance and for their helpful contributions, and I thank Members for their helpful questions. Thank you very much.
Examination of Witnesses
Hazel Cheeseman, Sheila Duffy, Suzanne Cass and Naomi Thompson gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Hazel Cheeseman, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health; Sheila Duffy, chief executive of ASH Scotland; Suzanne Cass, chief executive of ASH Wales; and Naomi Thompson, health improvement manager at Cancer Focus Northern Ireland. We have until 10.55 am for this panel. I call the first Member to ask a question—the Minister.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Hazel Cheeseman: We are all delighted to see this Bill return, and in such a strong form. There is complete consensus across the ASHs of the four nations that this is a Bill that is needed, wanted and workable.
As the chief medical officer said in the previous session, the improvements in this Bill are that there are more provisions that will assist in reducing smoking among people who are already smoking and in protecting those exposed to second-hand smoke. It also creates a comprehensive set of regulations around all tobacco and nicotine products and provides us with that future-proof—the flexibility to respond to evidence as it emerges and changes and to the market as it emerges and changes over time.
The Bill is enormously welcome for its comprehensiveness and robustness, and therefore for the opportunity to significantly reduce the uptake of smoking among the next generation and to aid people in quitting. The Minister will not mind me saying that I think there is more that the Government will need to do to accelerate that progress, in terms of investing in support for those who are already smoking and ensuring that we have the right strategy in place for that, but the Bill is a really good step in the right direction.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Sheila Duffy: We have seen that tobacco control measures work. We have seen that they have reduced adult smoking rates over time. The points made by the chief medical officers were well made: we are looking to the generation growing up now in the UK; we are looking to protect them from addictions that so many now regret and that are claiming lives unnecessarily.
Suzanne Cass: I would add that tobacco control policies that are put in place are popular, and are really welcomed among members of the public; they are also welcomed among people who smoke. There is a huge surge of public support for tobacco control policies, and that grows—it does not diminish—as we introduce new policies; it grows, and that public support increases.
Naomi Thompson: In Northern Ireland, we are working towards a smoke-free Northern Ireland by 2035, and the reality is that tobacco control over the past 10 years has managed to bring things down to a stage where 2035 has potential. That is why tobacco control needs to continue. A Bill like this is just brilliant to keep that focus. If we can prevent people from starting, that will be absolutely key to making Northern Ireland, certainly, smoke-free by then.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Suzanne Cass: As you know, ASH Wales and the Welsh Government have been at the forefront of implementing smoke-free spaces. We campaigned for smoke-free playgrounds and smoke-free school gates, both on a voluntary basis. Luckily, the foresight of the Welsh Government has made that provision legislation when it comes to hospital grounds, playgrounds, sports grounds, mental health units and a raft of other smoke- free spaces. We are obviously delighted that the Welsh Government has implemented that legislation.
The legislation has made a huge difference, in that it has allowed a platform for communication—communicating the message that it is not okay to smoke around children. There is a massive amount of public support for that messaging, and we have had the opportunity to communicate it. When it comes to smoke-free hospital grounds, a lot of us are looking at that legislation and the possibility of implementing it.
We have obviously had the legislation in place in Wales since 2021, and what we would say on the lessons learned is that there has to be a package when it comes to implementation. We cannot just legislate; we need to be looking at the support that is in hospitals for smokers to quit, we need to have trained staff and we need to have enforcement on the ground. There needs to be a whole package that comes with that legislation. That is the enormous lesson that we learned.
We implemented that legislation in 2021—in the midst of covid, which was tricky—but we have had problems around enforcement and problems around compliance. It is a very different kind of tobacco policy from that in the other smoke-free spaces. When it comes to the other smoke-free places—playgrounds, sports grounds and other areas like that—there is a lot of compliance, but when it comes to hospital grounds, you have to do a bit more of the legwork. But it is well worth it, because what comes with that is on-site hospital support for stopping smoking, and the message to everybody coming on to that site that smoking is not okay and that there is support available if you want to quit. So it comes with a whole raft of measures that support that smoke-free message.
The Chair
I call Caroline Johnson—apologies; I should have called you before the Minister.
Dr Johnson
Q
Hazel Cheeseman: That will be a really crucial question as this Bill progresses, and it was touched on by the chief medical officers. The nature of this Bill is that we are taking powers across a range of areas, which we know will help us to prevent the uptake of vaping among children, which we are all concerned about. We are restricting the marketing of vapes and the way they are branded, and taking powers around the design of products and in relation to flavours. It is important that those powers, as was discussed in the last session, are broad in the Bill and defined through further consultation and regulation, giving us that flexibility to shape policy going forward. We know from our experience in reducing smoking among children that the things that will work are reducing the appeal, reducing the availability and reducing the affordability of products. The Bill, alongside the excise tax that is planned for 2026, will take us a long way on that journey to addressing those aspects and reducing the appeal among children.
We also want to ensure that products remain available for adult smokers to switch to. We know from our own research that adult smokers have very inaccurate views at the moment about the relative harms from vaping compared with smoking. Part of the issue is the way in which products are branded and pushed in people’s faces when they go into every corner shop up and down the country. That prevents the understanding that these products might be valuable for smoking cessation and promotes the idea that they are a kind of lifestyle choice for teenagers. Removing the branding and the displays in shops will allow the message that these products could be valuable to help people stop smoking, and will allow that message to land more easily than it currently does. That will hopefully realign those misperceptions and get us back to the position that we were in in, say, 2019 or 2020, where these products were being used as a smoking cessation tool and not really being used by other groups in the population. If we can get back to that, that would be the ideal scenario. Hopefully, the legislation takes us a bit closer to that.
Dr Johnson
Q
Sheila Duffy: We see that socioeconomic inequalities and smoking rates are closely patterned. ASH Scotland’s work with low-income communities in Scotland suggests that people regret beginning tobacco, but find it hard to move away from it. It also identified the dangers of less regulated novel products such as e-cigarettes in enticing their children and grandchildren into the kind of addiction that they themselves so regret. One of the real strengths in the Bill is the ability to bring some of these tobacco-related products into the kinds of control and regulation that we have fought so hard over decades to get for tobacco products.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Hazel Cheeseman: The purpose of the legislation is to reduce smoking. The Department’s projections in the impact assessment clearly show that, even on conservative estimates, it will achieve that goal over time. So the question then is, does that lead to displacement into other products? Given that the legislation is comprehensive in relation to tobacco products, it is to be hoped that it will not lead to displacement into other kinds of tobacco products, but it might lead to some displacement into other nicotine products. As the chief medical officer said in the previous session, it is unlikely that nobody will take up smoking in the affected age group. Some people will; some of the 15-year-olds who will be affected by this legislation have already tried smoking. So we need there to be a legal nicotine product that those people will be able to use, with the restrictions that are coming into place in relation to vaping and other nicotine products in this legislation. One would not expect the overall consumption of nicotine to be greater than it otherwise would be, if that makes sense, but there may be some displacement into other nicotine products as we transition away from smoked tobacco and from tobacco being used widely in that group.
Sheila Duffy: Dual use is a real concern in Scotland. Nearly 43% of people are dual-using cigarettes and e-cigarettes. The international longitudinal cohort evidence clearly shows a higher risk of progression to using combustible tobacco for young people that start vaping. I think this legislation has the real potential to move us away from that.
Suzanne Cass: We also have to remember that the killer in the room is tobacco. The generational ban is the most crucial part of this legislation that we need to push forward. Therefore, we need to keep our eye on the ball when we are looking at the health impact, and the potential public health impact, of this Bill, and to make sure that we focus on driving down that tobacco use.
Naomi Thompson: Just to reiterate what Suzanne has said, tobacco is the issue. The impact of tobacco was repeated multiple times in the previous session. If young people start, they continue, and they find it very difficult to stop. Therefore, if we can sort that, it is a great first step. There may be a small move towards other nicotine products, but we can work on that. Tobacco is the one that kills.
The Chair
Can I just, as is my job, remind everybody that we are finishing at 10.55 am, which is in about 15 minutes or thereabouts? I have six people who wish to ask questions, so can I ask that the questions and responses are as tight as possible? Thanks.
Dr Cooper
Q
Suzanne Cass: In Wales, we have obviously implemented smoke-free legislation. We have seven different health boards and various approaches to that legislation when it comes to the implementation alongside vaping. When it comes to indoor spaces, there is already a huge amount of compliance with voluntary bans. People generally do not smoke in indoor spaces, so there is already that public consensus in those areas. When it comes to the outdoor spaces, there is not necessarily a consistent approach across Wales regarding smoking and vaping, which can cause confusion among the public.
I think that we need to be considering this very carefully, in terms of providing as much support to smokers as possible in these areas. We need to be considering exemptions to vape-free spaces, particularly in smoke-free spaces in hospital settings, mental health units and places where vulnerable patients who smoke are situated. That would be the message: we need to really consider those exemptions.
Sheila Duffy: In Scotland, we put medicinally therapeutic products front and centre with smoking cessation. Smoking cessation is vital, but we need to remember that there is no medicinally licensed e-cigarette product anywhere in the world, and that medicinally licensed products have a very different set-up. With e-cigarettes, you are talking about more than 30,000 different variants listed with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and four or five generations of devices, with very different health profiles.
Most of the comparisons are made with the toxins in tobacco, but there are different additional toxins in e-cigarettes, and there is new research—for example, AI modelling—on the impacts of heating some of the chemicals in e-cigarettes to vapour point, where they produce highly toxic outcomes. We need to bear that in mind. We also need to look at the research on air quality, because e-cigarettes conclusively contain the kind of particulates that we worry about for air quality and that cause harm to health. I think that that is an issue arguing for vape-free spaces.
In Scotland, we are supporting people to quit smoking in whatever way works for them—we are supporting individuals—but we are actively recommending only medicinally licensed products, because they have that context of appropriate use, safety and quality control, which e-cigarettes do not have.
Sarah Bool
Q
Suzanne Cass: Absolutely. I think we need to consider the vulnerable smoker at the heart of this and how they are managing to abstain from that addiction. It comes back to that addiction all the time. With smoking, nicotine is such an addictive substance that it is very difficult just to tell somebody that they cannot do it. You need to give them the right support, as well as the support that they want. When it comes to choice, that is where we need to be looking at what their choices are and how they choose to move away from that deadly tobacco use.
Hazel Cheeseman: On the mental health settings, we have done a lot of work in England with mental health trusts, and vending machines have been one way in which they have been facilitating access to vapes in quite a large number of mental health trusts. It is certainly something that we would be interested in looking at, because it will make it a bit more challenging for them to implement smoke-free policies in mental health settings if the vending machine rule applies across the NHS estate.
Also, going back to Dr Cooper’s question, in mental health settings and those places with vulnerable smokers, vapes have been really important in England in facilitating. We do not have legislation in relation to smoke-free grounds in England, but obviously it is the policy across the NHS estate that they are smoke free. Allowing vaping, particularly in those mental health settings, has been very facilitative of creating smoke-free grounds and supporting those people to maintain their smoke- free status as they move out of mental health settings as well.
Sheila Duffy: Scotland already has a ban on e-cigarettes in vending machines and has had for some years.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
“The government should make good on their pledge to publish a ‘roadmap to a smokefree country’…with a strong focus on tackling inequalities.”
I am from the north-east region, where we have high deprivation and high smoking prevalence. It is the only region that has a clear vision—if you like—and declaration from Fresh and the directors of public health for how to achieve a smoke-free country. Could you explain a bit more why we need that vision and that strategy going forward?
Hazel Cheeseman: The legislation is fantastic; it is world-leading and brilliant, and it will really set us on that path toward being a smoke-free country. However, it will not be the last word in how that is achieved. We have 6 million smokers across this country, and we need to ensure that all of our agencies are lined up to do the job that they need to do to help those people stop smoking—the NHS, local government and integrated care boards across the system need to have the right approach. We also need to ensure that the funding is there to do that too. The Government have committed to the funding in stop-smoking services in local government, but we also need to see funding in mass media campaigns. The chief medical officer was talking earlier about people’s waning understanding of the harms of second-hand smoke. One way to address that would be to go back on TV and radio and explain to people what the harms of second-hand smoke are. That package of measures alongside this legislation would really help us to accelerate progress.
The Bill will massively raise the saliency of the harms of smoking with the public—there is no doubt about that. There has been, and there will continue to be, a strong public debate on the measures in this Bill. By really riding the wave of that public understanding through that coherent strategy and that investment, we could really see smoking rates start to drop, particularly in those disadvantaged populations where we continue to have persistently high levels of smoking.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Suzanne Cass: We obviously have an issue when it comes to the understanding of and the misconceptions around the harms of vaping. In particular, the most worrying stats are among smokers considering them as harmful as or more harmful than tobacco. That is that a significant issue. This legislation allows us to reset the clock and promote these products as smoking cessation products, using health professionals to promote them and getting the right language around them. Rather than their being seen as a recreational toy, they can be seen as a product that is going to help people to quit smoking. When it comes to the positioning of these products, it is essential to readdress those misconceptions and re-place this product.
On standardised packaging, what we did with tobacco was put it in the ugliest packaging you could ever imagine. We are not talking about that when it comes to vaping products; we are talking about plain packaging—something that is informative but not necessarily attractive to young people. There is a big difference between something that is repulsive and something that is not attractive. That is where we see the difference, and that is where we see this legislation coming into its own and allowing us to reset and to have that different conversation.
Hazel Cheeseman: I am sure we will tease more of it out through the consultation process that will follow this legislation, but some of the early research that has been done has indicated that you can, to some extent, have your cake and eat it on this. If we remove some of the attractive branding elements on packaging, which we know appeal to children, that does reduce the products’ appeal to children, but it does not damage their appeal to adult smokers and it does not damage harm misperceptions. We can progress with this legislation, via the consultation and looking properly at the evidence, to make sure that we get the balance right.
There are also provisions in the Bill to allow public health bodies to do marketing and public health messages around vapes as a smoking cessation tool. It will be important that the Department of Health and Social Care and the Advertising Standards Authority work with public health bodies to make sure that they have the right guidance to be able to do that and to give smokers directly the right information about how vapes can be used as a cessation tool.
The Chair
Thank you. I am afraid this will probably be the last question before the next panel of witnesses. Tristan Osborne, we have about two and a half minutes left.
Tristan Osborne
Q
Hazel Cheeseman: Currently, vapes are much less expensive than smoking, and that is the kind of gap that we need to maintain. As the excise tax comes into force in October 2026—that is its planned enforcement date—the intention is to raise the tax on tobacco at the same time to maintain the price differential. That is crucial. We do want to find a sweet spot for the price of these products that makes the entry level for young people and non-smokers higher. It is a dissuasive technique so that people who do not need to be using these products do not use them. We obviously want them always to be cheaper than smoked or combusted tobacco, so that there is always that incentive for people to switch from the more harmful to the less harmful.
As has been repeatedly said, there is flexibility in the legislation: it allows us to calibrate. In particular, unlike the previous Bill, it allows us to regulate around product design and the size of products, so you could, for example, look to make them more expensive by changing the minimum size of the amount of liquid that could be sold. All this needs to be looked at once the Bill has passed. There is an awful lot of work to be done to calibrate around things like price, branding and so on, as the Bill passes and we move on to the secondary regulations.
Sheila Duffy: Absolutely—
The Chair
I do apologise, but I have to bring the session to a close as the time has been used up. I am sorry for interrupting. I thank our witnesses Hazel Cheeseman, Sheila Duffy, Suzanne Cass and Naomi Thompson for their evidence, and I am grateful for the questions that have been asked.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Ian Walker and Sarah Sleet gave evidence.
The Chair
We have the third panel of witnesses from now until 11.25 am. We will hear evidence from Dr Ian Walker, the executive director of policy at Cancer Research UK, and Sarah Sleet, the chief executive officer of Asthma and Lung UK.
Dr Johnson
Q
Sarah Sleet: In general, there is very little evidence around vaping, and we need a really considerable effort to get the evidence in place, but we do know that nicotine in general is not healthy for children, and vaping nicotine products will not be good news. We have some evidence about the harms that it causes—we know that nicotine in particular is very problematic for very young children and developing brains—but we do not have the same level of evidence base that we have with tobacco. That is why this Bill and the precautionary approach that it takes in terms of restricting children’s access to vapes and the attractiveness of vapes to children is very important.
Dr Johnson
Q
Dr Ian Walker: First, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I start by thanking Parliament for boldly introducing this Bill; it is genuinely world leading. I have spoken to organisations across the world that are envious of the position we find ourselves in. That is a very important question, and the answer is absolutely yes—I think this Bill will be very important in reducing the number of cancers caused by smoking tobacco. We know that there is no bigger thing we could do to actually influence that going forward for the next generation and generations thereafter.
As you have heard this morning, we know that we still have 6 million people smoking across the UK, and we know that we can expect hundreds of thousands of cases of cancer caused by smoking over the term of the next Parliament. As we move towards a truly smoke-free generation over the next 20, 30 or 40 years, we will absolutely expect to see the number of cancers caused by smoking—and, alongside that, the number of other illnesses associated with smoking—reduce.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Dr Ian Walker: To start with smoking and cancer, the links between passive smoking and cancer, particularly lung cancer, are very clear. It is fair to say that there is less evidence around different scenarios that you might predict through this Bill, such as different outdoor environments and so on, but that is more because those studies have not necessarily been done. It is an important point to make that there is an absence of evidence, rather than evidence of absence.
You heard from the CMO of England this morning that if you can smell cigarette smoke, you are exposed to it. The direct risk, then, is linked to how long you are exposed to it, how concentrated the environment is, how close you are to it and so on. Nevertheless, passive smoking is harmful—not just for cancer, but for vulnerable people with many other conditions as well—so we are very much supportive of the introduction of smoke-free places and the ability to restrict people smoking in particular outdoor spaces.
Sarah Sleet: When it comes to people with lung conditions, second-hand smoke is incredibly important; it is a well-known, severe risk factor for people with lung conditions. About one in five of us in the UK will experience a lung condition—there are around 7 million people with asthma and about 1.6 million people living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Those are two major conditions that are profoundly affected by second-hand smoking, and are clear risk factors in terms of deaths from asthma and people being hospitalised with exacerbations, so it is incredibly important that we deal with the issue of second-hand smoking. People said earlier that there is no choice about second-hand smoking, and yet it profoundly affects those with lung conditions. It is incredibly important that we ensure that we protect those vulnerable people as far as possible.
When it comes to the discussion about how far we should go in terms of smoke-free and vape-free places, we would consider going further than what has been suggested already and looking at other areas to make smoke-free. I know there has been discussion about hospitality and trying to balance the potential economic impact that has been talked about if we make the outside of hospitality places smoke-free. However, we think, given the balance between the public health impact and what we have seen with smoke-free indoor spaces and its impact on business, we could go further and should go further, there.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Sarah Sleet: People with asthma and lung conditions are in the middle, where they are affected by both smoking and vaping. It is really important to get the balance right. Smoking is terrible—it is terrible for people with lung conditions—and we need to make sure we can drive down smoking rates as much as possible.
Vaping can play a part in helping with smoking cessation, but it should only be used for smoking cessation. People who have never smoked, and definitely children, should not be taking up vaping. We see vaping as a staging post to being completely nicotine-free. It is important to get the balance right between making vaping available for those who need smoking cessation and not encouraging people to try vaping or to keep vaping longer than they need to.
The legislation is good in allowing that flexibility for adjusting over time, as we get more evidence in. It is really important to put evaluation in place and make sure that robust evaluation does flow through over time, so we can adjust and respond to it. Traditionally—certainly in respiratory diseases—there has generally not been enough research and evaluation, so we need to correct that now.
Dr Ian Walker: First, I want to confirm that we are very much supportive of taking those powers. I think one of the real strengths of the Bill is the ability to adjust, moderate and titrate those powers and the actions that we take over time, not just as new evidence emerges, but as the tobacco industry and new products may emerge to try to circumvent the regulation that is in place. That is a really important part of the Bill.
I think the crux of the question was about what is important to consider through the consultation. From our perspective, it is important to get a balanced view on what the right actions are in this area. Of course we all agree that we want to limit, reduce and stop access for children and young people and to limit the appeal to never-smokers, while balancing that carefully against making cessation tools available to people who are trying to quit. It is important not to forget the 6 million people who are currently smokers and the long-term health implications ahead of them. We need a balance so that it is as easy as possible for those people to quit when they have chosen to do so. There will be many balancing features and balancing points of evidence that will be really important through the consultation in coming to the right outcome.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Dr Ian Walker: Critical. Without a doubt, there is no single bigger action that you could take to reduce the cancer burden on the country. The cancer burden sits at a very personal, individual level for people getting their own diagnosis; it sits at a family level and at a friend level. It also sits at an economic level for the country and at an NHS level, in terms of the burden that smoking-related illnesses cause for the NHS.
From my perspective, this is a world-leading piece of legislation. It is absolutely an opportunity for generational change and a long-term legacy that will see our children and grandchildren never able to legally buy tobacco in the UK and never exposed to the harms that that would cause them.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Sarah Sleet: As I said earlier, the research evidence around vaping harms is currently very poor. There has not been enough. It takes a long time to build up evidence of things that are generally very progressive rather than having an immediate impact, so we will have to wait. We need to put that in place, and we are going to have to wait to get that evidence back.
We have had anecdotal reports from our beneficiaries and those who contact the organisation about places—particularly in closed spaces, but sometimes outside—where there is a concentration of vaping. It is that classic thing where you go through a door and suddenly everybody around you is vaping immediately outside it. We get reports that that exacerbates people’s asthma and sometimes their COPD, but they are anecdotal. We really need the evidence base to support what is happening.
Dr Ian Walker: The only thing that I would add specifically from a cancer perspective is that although there is very little long-term evidence, because the products have not been around long enough and the cumulative effects have not been seen yet, what we do know, based on the current evidence, is that vapes are far less harmful than cigarettes. You heard the advice earlier that if you smoke it is better to vape or take other nicotine products, but if you do not smoke you should not vape, because we do not know yet what the long-term effects will be. In particular, we are very light on evidence on what the impact of vaping will be on bystanders.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Dr Ian Walker: The impact of the Bill will reach every sector, on the face of it. Obviously the aim of making a smoke-free UK will impact everybody in whichever sector, but I think you are probably referring specifically to increasing smoke-free places, or places where smoking is not allowed. For people who are exposed unavoidably by their working environment, of course this will be good news and a good expansion.
As you heard from Sarah, we did not quite get to hospitality in the Bill, but it will be interesting, as we go through consultation, to review the evidence and understand the sentiment. Clearly, people working in hospitality are likely to be exposed to smoke in their work environment, even if that is outside. The Bill makes important steps in increasing the number of smoke-free places and reducing exposure to tobacco smoke.
Sarah Sleet: As the CMO said earlier, it is about the duration as well as the density of smoking. If you work in hospitality in those outdoor spaces, the duration will clearly be longer; if you work on a coach concourse, you will be exposed for longer. It is really important to remember that.
Another issue is inequality. There is a concentration of working lives that are more exposed to second-hand smoking, which is exacerbated by inequality.
Mr Barros-Curtis
Q
Sarah Sleet: That is a tricky one. We know that a lot of people who use vaping to stop smoking end up dual-using for a while. Some then move on to just vaping, and some eventually move completely away from it. We seriously need a comprehensive programme for nicotine cessation and smoking cessation to support people on that journey and make sure that people who go on that journey do not come back in. We heard earlier from ASH Wales about some really good measures that have been put in place, but without that wider context it is hard to cement the behaviour needed to move completely away from it. We need to think broadly about the whole support structure to help people to get off smoking and eventually to move away from nicotine altogether.
Dr Ian Walker: I agree. The real killer in the room, if you like, is cigarettes and tobacco. There is no safe way of consuming tobacco. The alternative of smoking versus vaping is very clear; even though we do not know the long-term health implications of vapes, we know that you are much better off vaping than smoking. Having said that, of course we do not want young people and never-smokers to vape either.
The power of the legislation is its double-pronged approach: preventing people from ever smoking in the first place by raising the age of sale by one year every year, and putting in place a comprehensive package of measures alongside that to control vaping, particularly the access to vaping and the appeal of vaping for young people, to reduce uptake in those communities. All those things together, alongside—you will forgive me for saying this—the investment that will be required for smoking cessation services and to support enforcement by Border Force, HM Revenue and Customs and retailers, will be important components of the Bill’s ability to drive the change that it can make.
Jim Dickson
Q
Sarah Sleet: Health inequalities relating to lung disease are profound. The three conditions with the biggest gap in health outcomes between rich and poor are lung conditions: asthma, COPD and lung cancer. All three are profoundly affected by smoking, and smoking is concentrated in socially and economically deprived areas. Those in the poorest part of the country are twice as likely to smoke as those in the richest part of the country.
It is even more profound in certain segments. We heard that young mothers are four times more likely to smoke in poorer parts of the country than in richer parts. If we can drive down smoking, particularly among young people, the impact will be greatest in those areas that are most in need of help and support. This is probably one of the biggest things that can be done to tackle health inequalities. For that reason, I think the Bill is probably the most important public health measure being passed through Parliament in a very, very long time.
Dr Ian Walker: Thank you for the question, which I think is a really critical one. At CRUK, we have done a lot of research and work on cancer inequalities, which are part of broader health inequalities and which generally mirror similar trends. We know that people in the most deprived communities have higher incidences of cancer. They typically present at a later stage, they typically engage less with screening, they typically have worse outcomes and they typically do not get optimal treatment —it is a pretty difficult story right along the pipeline. The reasons behind that can be very complex and involve lots of different things.
Despite all that, the one thing we do know is that higher smoking rates, particularly among children and young people in the most deprived communities, are a really significant contributor to health inequalities. It is very clear from the evidence that the most deprived communities across the UK are the ones that suffer most from the impacts of tobacco.
This Bill is clearly not a magic switch—it will not change those things overnight—but it sets us on the pathway to fundamentally reversing some of those inequalities and to reducing some of the cancer inequalities that we see across the UK. Alongside the important measures in the Bill, a really clear, targeted set of actions around health marketing interventions in those communities and the effective funding of cessation services where we need them most will contribute to reducing health inequalities much more quickly and much more effectively. Again, it is a very positive story in terms of the potential impact on health inequalities.
The Chair
Thank you very much. As there are no other questions from Members, let me thank the witnesses, Ian Walker from Cancer Research UK and Sarah Sleet from Asthma and Lung UK.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 7th January 2025
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 January 2025 - (7 Jan 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I beg to move a manuscript amendment: Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 3.10 pm Professor Linda Bauld OBE, Bruce and John Usher Chair in Public Health, University of Edinburgh Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 3.30 pm National Trading Standards Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 3.50 pm British Retail Consortium Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 4.10 pm Department for Education’s Secondary Headteacher Reference Group Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 4.30 pm Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 5.00 pm Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; Royal College of General Practitioners Tuesday 7 January Until no later than 5.20 pm Department of Health and Social Care
That the Order of the Committee of 7 January 2023 be varied by leaving out from “Aneurin Bevan University Health Board” to end of table and insert—
This amendment is in order to accommodate witness availability. It would take Professor Linda Bauld at 2.40 pm and move the witnesses representing the royal colleges to start at 4.30 pm. This will add an extra 10 minutes to the last two panels, concluding oral evidence at 5.20 pm.
Manuscript amendment agreed to.
The Chair
I welcome the panel again, although I was not here for this morning’s sitting. We will now resume by hearing oral evidence from David Fothergill, chairman of the Local Government Association’s Community Wellbeing Board, Professor Tracy Daszkiewicz, executive director of public health and strategic partnerships and vice president of the faculty of public health at Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, and Alison Challenger, tobacco and vapes lead at the Association of Directors of Public Health.
For this panel, we have until 2.40 pm. The floor is now open to any members of the Committee who wish to ask questions, but we would traditionally ask the Opposition spokesperson to ask the first question, so, Dr Caroline Johnson, the floor is yours.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Q
My first question is: do the local authorities have the resources they need to enforce these measures, if brought in? If they do not, what further resources do they need?
David Fothergill: I will take that one, if I may. First, thank you very much for the opportunity to come and speak to you. From a local authority perspective, we welcome the legislation, and we welcome the fact that it has been cross-party legislation—with the previous Government, and now with the current Government. The legislation will only be as good as the enforcement, and the question you ask is really important: have we got the resources to do it? We have to be sure that it is not a new burden—on either local authorities or retailers—that we cannot fund.
Therefore we would ask that we have time to implement, because we need to be able to consult with our retailers and our public to make sure that we implement in the right way. We would ask that it is viewed as a new burden, so that we can have additional moneys coming into the local authorities. We would also ask that we set up an apprenticeship scheme for trading standards services, to ensure that we are bringing through new people into trading standards—and environmental health, of course; we have to mention them. However, with time, focusing on those three areas, we will have the resources to make this successful.
Dr Johnson
Q
David Fothergill: The important thing is that we have the right consultation and the right plan for bringing through new trading standards. I think we would be alarmed if you said you were going to introduce this on 1 January next year, but if you said we had two years or slightly longer to implement it I think we would be much more comfortable.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Q
David Fothergill: We argued at the previous Committee hearing under the last Government—I think you may have sat on that Committee—that we needed a licensing scheme to make it effective. We still hold that view. We think that it is right. What we should not do, though, is to overcomplicate this. We already have licensing schemes. Many of you will have sat on licensing committees at local authorities. We have good local people who license alcohol outlets, taxis, gambling and gaming. We believe that licensing is the right route to go. While we think the legislation should be consistent, we do think there need to be local variations we can look at, so that we can bring in what works for our communities, very much as we do with the alcohol schemes.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
Q
Alison Challenger: The short answer is yes, I think they do. The need not to have children exposed to the marketing of vapes is very important. At the moment we see that children are exposed to that marketing and are encouraged to get access to vapes, so it is important that this is brought into the Bill. I think what is currently in the Bill will help us to address that significantly.
David Fothergill: I concur. From a local authority point of view, we have argued long and hard about vapes and have spoken with your colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about disposable vapes, which we have been very concerned about; so it is great to see this legislation moving forward.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
Q
Professor Tracy Daszkiewicz: From the public health community, it is widely accepted and supported. It gives us a great opportunity not only to increase the conversation, but to broaden it. How we embed the legislation into practice will be key: making sure that we are getting it to the point of delivery where we can effect change in terms of protecting our populations in the most effective way, making sure that we have a focus on smoking cessation, that we have a consistent and unified approach, and that we have the agility and adaptability to target different cohorts and different populations effectively. From the public health perspective, though, the Bill is hugely supported.
Alison Challenger: Similarly, from the Association of Directors of Public Health, the Bill is very much welcomed. It will represent a sea change in reducing harm caused by tobacco, which is still our biggest killer. Significant numbers of people continue to smoke and are still addicted to smoking. The product itself is not only extremely dangerous but extremely addictive at the same time. We welcome these measures to address that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
Q
David Fothergill: The engagement has been really positive and constructive. We have faith in the Bill and that it has the right intention, the right measures and the right provisions. Our concern is around the funding, the timing and the pipeline of trading standards. The key thing for us is that it is an empowering Bill; it empowers local authorities. If you tried to legislate for every single local authority to implement it in the same way, we would run into some quite difficult conversations and difficult times; it would make enforcement more difficult. Allowing local councils to do what is right for them is the route to go.
People who sit on licensing committees have local understanding. I can give you an example. Should we ban the sale of tobacco within 100 metres of a school? That would be quite easy to do in an urban area, but I look after villages. If you do that, they have lost their only shop. People would not be able to go to that shop to buy legally. So you have got to have local knowledge. It is the right Bill, but we need to make sure that it is an empowering Bill for local authorities to implement in their local communities.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
David Fothergill: It is very much about keeping our feet on the ground. Let us be honest: trading standards are under a lot of pressure and have been cut over the last 10 years. Trading standards have responsibility for enforcing over 300 pieces of legislation, so there is a lot of pressure on trading standards; but I think that by working with retailers and building the relationship locally and ensuring that we use enforcement as the final tool, we can work very well in our local areas.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Tracy Daszkiewicz: It is a really useful question. It is about looking at it through multiple lenses. So there is the enforcement element of it, but there are also the elements that go behind that. If you take hospitals as an example in terms of having NHS smoke-free sites, enforcement is part of that, but it is also about having cessation services in place. If you have people going in for elective surgery, for example, you have got a period of time where you can put in a smoking cessation intervention. It is a “waiting well” method, if you like, so that people go in for surgery in a way that makes for the best possible outcomes, and have an opportunity to either get towards a quit or at least not go in smoking. That enables patients not to be going outside and using cigarettes and so on, which enables that smoke-free site and also creates better outcomes for our patients. So, we do need to think about that.
There has to be a common-sense approach. We know that vaping is a tool towards quitting smoking; we recognise that is part of the process. Where we can get people off tobacco smoking, that is crucial, particularly around health and wellbeing. The open spaces element and the public spaces element is a part that we have really focused on in Wales. The learning from that is still going on; it is not the end of the road. We are learning all the time, adapting to new evidence and making the changes that we need to make to enforce that more consistently, but in a fair way for our population.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
David Fothergill: We would like to see a licensing scheme that is very aligned with the alcohol licensing scheme, although there clearly cannot be a single scheme. The four provisions within the alcohol licensing scheme brought in by the Licensing Act 2003 were preventing crime and disorder, ensuring public safety, preventing public nuisance and protecting children from harm. If we can build those provisions into this legislation for the licensing of the sale of tobacco and vapes, that will give us enough to work on. I would also say that the flexibility we need at a local level remains critical.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Q
David Fothergill: I will take the fines element first and then talk about the cost of licensing for those retailers. A fine of £200 is quite a low figure. I think it was £100 previously, so it has been increased. If you pay within 10 days, it goes from £200 to £100. If you sell 40 vapes in one day, you have paid your fine. Some retailers—very few, because the vast majority are scrupulous—will take the view that they could sell more vapes to under-age people and those they should not be selling to, and pay that £100 fine within 10 days. So yes, we view it as too low. We would like to see a review brought in within a year to see whether it should be increased.
If we can align the cost of licensing fees with alcohol licensing, that would enable us to find a way to reduce the burden, because the vast majority of people who are selling alcohol are also selling tobacco. We need to work with our businesses to reduce the cost of applying for those licences, which is why we need the consultation period over the next few months, before we bring in legislation, to ensure that we have worked with our retailers, the public and our communities in order to deliver a scheme that actually works.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Q
Alison Challenger: We are ultimately trying to reduce the harm caused by smoking—that is the big killer, and we really would not want to lose sight of that. The Bill also brings in elements around the second-hand smoke agenda. It is important to recognise that there are many vulnerable people who would potentially be harmed by breathing in second-hand smoke, so we welcome the fact that the Bill includes that element. As for whether it will increase vaping, it is really hard to know at the moment how that will work out. Potentially more people might switch to vaping, but ultimately, the Bill brings in a progressive approach to taking out smoking tobacco, which is to be welcomed.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Q
Alison Challenger: I do not have the actual figure, but it is significant. One of the early benefits of the Bill going through will be the impact on children, particularly around asthma. Obviously, second-hand smoke will be exacerbating some of those respiratory illnesses, particularly for children. There is a considerable burden on the NHS as a result of breathing in second-hand smoke. We must also consider those who have cardiovascular disease and those who have existing respiratory illness. It is not always evident that somebody is vulnerable, so it is really important that the measures in the Bill serve to protect those who are vulnerable from inhaling second- hand smoke.
Dr Chambers
Q
Alison Challenger: We are very mindful of that. Some of the statistics we give around smoking prevalence are an average smoking prevalence for often quite large geographical areas. For my own area in west Sussex, our local survey suggests there is a variance of 4.3% in our most affluent area compared with 16% in our least affluent area. Those are still averages. We also know that in households in the most deprived part of our area, 40% of children are exposed to cigarette smoking from a parent or carer. That is through our own survey.
The point I am trying to make is that there is very much a health gradient, and in those who are most disadvantaged and living in our most disadvantaged areas, we see both higher rates of smoking and more children exposed to that smoking. Those children are more likely to take up smoking if they have been exposed to it.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Q
David Fothergill: We have discussed this outside the room, and I think the area we would be most concerned about is illegal sales online. Our local teams could not get into those, and therefore we might need more national resources to break into how people are bringing illegal substances into the UK.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q
Professor Tracy Daszkiewicz: That is exactly the focus: reducing health inequalities and ensuring we get good health equity across all of our populations. When we look at preventable premature mortality, we know that smoking is a huge driver around that. We need to think about this across the life course. If we can stop the harms that second hand smoke causes to children, we can then think about deprivation across the life course and people who are dying early from preventable harms, with smoking being one of the risk factors.
We need to focus really narrowly on that, because it is not just about life expectancy, but about the number of years we live in good health. In my patch across Gwent in Wales there is huge variance, with up to 14 years’ difference in healthy life years between the richest and the poorest parts of the population. It is about not only the health outcomes around that, but the economic part of it, in terms of work productivity and work days lost. When we think about the cost of the NHS, which we often do, that is the cost of healthcare, but if we look at the economic picture of employability, productivity and those kinds of things, it increases that sum tenfold. We need to think about this so that when we look at the inequalities associated with smoking, we do so through a social, cultural, economic and environmental lens, to ensure that we get the full cost impact. It is something that we need to be mindful of.
Alison Challenger: I wanted to make a point about household income. We know that cigarette smoking is incredibly expensive. If one or both parents smoke in a household with a low income, that will have a considerable impact on the family’s spending capability for other things. It is not a matter of choice, either; smoking is an addiction. Seven out of 10 smokers really do not want to smoke, but it is incredibly difficult because of the level of addiction. If one or both parents smoke in a family household, that has huge repercussions for the funding of all the other household commitments.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
David Fothergill: That is where local knowledge comes in. Taking that shop in the village, we would not say that it should not sell tobacco, but we would say that it should not be selling tobacco during these periods—for example, 8.30 am to 9.30 am, or 3.30 pm to 4.30 pm. Knowing the local communities and being able to put in local restrictions would help us to really have an impact. Clearly, in urban areas it would be very different.
When the Minister asked questions about England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I should have said that what we would really like to see—it is in the Scottish legislation—is verification, where people are required to verify their age. Challenge 25 seems to work really well with alcohol, and we would like to see that brought in. We understand that that is in the Scottish legislation, and we would like to see it brought in in England as well.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence today, and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Professor Linda Bauld gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Linda Bauld, who is a Bruce and John Usher professor of public health and co-head of the centre for population health sciences at the University of Edinburgh. Thank you for being flexible and appearing earlier in today’s session. For this panel we have until 3.10 pm. If Members want to refer to Professor Bauld’s contribution and evidence, it will appear further on in your packs.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: Thank you for the question. The first thing I would say is that I very much welcome the legislation. I also welcome the fact that it was introduced by the previous Government and then brought back by the current Government. I welcome the cross-party support I have seen. The academic community has contributed a lot of evidence to inform this legislation.
What I meant by those remarks was based on the previous Bill. There were areas that could be strengthened, and that is what we have seen in the current proposals—new measures are being introduced, many of which will need to be consulted on, and there are powers that can be acted on. In those remarks, I was thinking more about the implementation of the legislation and the regulations that will be required. A lot of that will need to be consulted on, but we need to ensure that we strike the right balance between what I see as the two primary priorities in this legislation: protecting young people and preventing smoking uptake. We must also protect young people from the harms of vaping, while also recognising the needs of the 6 million smokers we still have in the UK, who we need to support to quit.
I think the proof will be in the pudding. As all Members know, a lot of action will need to be taken forward to ensure that we get it right at the regulation stage. Certain elements of that will need to progress at pace to make sure we seize the moment to get it right.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: As you know yourself, it is one of the leading causes of premature morbidity and mortality for the mother if she continues to smoke during and after the pregnancy. It is also a major cause of complications in pregnancy and for the baby, in terms of low birth weight and even stillbirth, along with a variety of other complications. The consequences of low birth weight are manifold in the health outcomes for the baby and the child. Finally, as you have heard from other witnesses, if the mother continues to smoke, or if other members of the household are smoking, that child is exposed to second-hand smoke in the home and is also three times more likely to become a smoker themselves.
As I think we heard from the CMOs—it could have been other witnesses—one of the great promises of the legislation is this prevention piece for young mums and partners, even pre-conception. We know that if we prevent smoking uptake earlier, the parents of the future are far less likely to smoke. The levels of smoking we have in pregnancy now are at around 9% or 10%. They have reduced a lot, but we can drive them down even further. It is important to make the connection between the smoke-free generation measures in this Bill and reducing smoking in pregnancy.
Dr Johnson
Q
I had a look at the evidence for how good people are at establishing how old somebody is. We are often told, “Don’t try to guess someone’s age—you can get yourself into a lot of hot water by doing that.” The research I found online showed that we are remarkably not very good at establishing how old somebody is. We are quite good at establishing if someone is of a similar age to ourselves, but beyond that, it is not that easy. What information do you have on the research in that field?
Professor Linda Bauld: I will speak just to the Scottish scheme. As we have heard from the previous witnesses, Challenge 25 is quite easy to implement. It is widely used and highly effective. The benefit of Challenge 25 is that you have got people who are obviously a number of years older than the legal age of sale for the product they are buying, be it alcohol or another product, and it includes anybody who looks roughly around that age, so asking to check age verification is actually very effective. As the regulations in this Bill are taken forward across the four nations, ensuring that we have robust age verification as part of the scheme could be effective.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: I think we also heard this from previous witnesses, but as the legislation comes into place, it is really not about 34-year-olds versus 35-year-olds; it is about acting on the age of sale gradually, so that we are de-normalising tobacco use and stopping the start at an earlier stage.
By the time we get to the difference between the 34-year-old and the 35-year-old, you will have far lower smoking rates than we do at the moment. The modelling for the legislation that was carried out by the University of Sheffield for the Department of Health and Social Care suggests, as I think Hazel Cheeseman said earlier, that by 2040 we will have reduced the smoking rate among those aged 14 to 30 to 0.4%—down from 0.6% by 2030—so I think you are going to see very low rates. To go back to Challenge 25, age verification is something that we can build in, and, irrespective of how old you are, actually seeing proof of age will support this.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: Thank you for that question, Minister. I have been working in tobacco control for almost 30 years, and the impact has been phenomenal. If you look back to the late 1940s and 1950s, 80% of men smoked in the UK. We have driven that down gradually over the years. We started to measure it in about 1974, and the level of smoking in the UK is now about 12% or 13%—the second lowest in Europe. The reason that we have achieved that is in line with what is being proposed in this legislation. It is about using comprehensive measures and implementing them over the years to regulate what I often call the four p’s: the product, the place, the price and the promotion. You are taking action on potentially all of those—including price, with the levy that is coming in, or the tax on vapes.
We have made a lot of progress, but we are not there yet. I think what you will hear from my clinical colleagues later is that in line with keeping that firm focus on prevention, as you are doing in this Bill, we also need to keep the focus on cessation and particularly on marginalised groups, deprivation, mental health and so on. The key is comprehensive tobacco control. Keep doing it, and that is what the Bill is adding to.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: If I can start with the second part of your question, in terms of not deterring adult smokers, we need to continue making the products available for smoking cessation. We are not banning vapes—that has happened in a number of other countries, as the CMO for England was saying—but we are recognising the things that make them appealing, attractive and affordable to young people, and taking action on those. It is fine for the adult smoker not to be able to see a wide array of advertised products on the shop front, on the billboard or at the point of sale, but to know they are there behind the counter and ask for them. I also do not think that the adult smoker who is trying to quit cares about gummy bears or Coca-Cola flavours—maybe they want some flavours, but not all of them. It is about striking a balance.
Finally, although we are not here to talk about the funding of smoking cessation services today—certainly in England, you have made previous announcements about that—it is important that in clinical settings and through stop smoking services we can give good information about vaping and other cessation aids, and support people to quit that way.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: It is very ambitious on tobacco. We will be the first in the world—after unfortunate events in New Zealand, from my personal perspective—to introduce the smoke-free generation policy, and the world is looking at us. That is good. In terms of protecting people from vaping, the Bill has a proportionate set of measures, but if I come back to the answer that I gave to the shadow Minister, we really need to keep our eye on the regulations and—going back to the Minister’s questions—make sure that we are striking a balance. Given the evidence that we have for much stronger regulations on vaping, I think this strikes the right balance, but we need to make sure that we do that in a proportionate way. Finally, to go back to the comments from the previous set of witnesses, we also need to make sure that local areas have the flexibility around some of the measures to adapt them for their local circumstances.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: Dr Ahmed, you know—as Sir Gregor Smith said earlier—that smoking rates in our most deprived communities in Scotland are about 26%, compared with 6% in the least deprived. That is a very big number, and we see that pattern across the UK.
The Bill will make a difference in several respects. First, on preventing smoking uptake by gradually raising the age of sale, the evidence that we have from studies done by my colleagues at University College London and elsewhere is that previous rises in the age of sale have not exacerbated inequalities but have had a benefit in terms of preventing uptake. We know from the evidence that we have that those measures should be useful and helpful, and should not exacerbate that. The other thing is that, to go back to my earlier answer to the shadow Minister, by preventing smoking uptake in the groups that are likely to be future parents who are already likely to smoke, which are highly concentrated in our most deprived communities, we are going to have an impact there.
I do not see any signs in the Bill, when I look across the measures, that we will be exacerbating inequalities with it. I think that we will probably have the biggest impact in the areas where we have the most smokers which, unfortunately, are our most deprived communities.
Dr Chambers
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: I do not have in front of me the cost to the NHS—other witnesses will probably have it at the tip of their tongue—but it is substantial. If you look at the number of admissions to hospital from smoking, there are over 500,000 every year in England, and we still have over 75,000 deaths. By reducing smoking prevalence, you are going to see very significant impacts and cost savings.
The other thing we know from our research, as previous witnesses have said, is the effect on productivity and workplace absence. As you all know from your constituencies, smoking is also driving some of the loss of people from the workforce in their 50s, early 60s or even younger that we have seen recently. I think that you will see cost savings and an impact on productivity.
The final thing that I would say on that, despite not having the figures in front of me, is that this is an area that causes such a burden to the NHS. One of the things that our CMOs did not make clear earlier, although they said it indirectly, is that if you look at non-communicable diseases in the UK, smoking is the only risk factor that is linked to all four of our NCDs—respiratory conditions, cancer, diabetes and heart disease. It is the only one that is directly linked to all of those. If you think about all of those diseases, and the burden of disease that Sir Gregor mentioned, of a 21% increase by 2040 in my own nation of Scotland, we are going to make an impact on that, and that will achieve cost savings for the NHS—and, importantly, for social care.
Dr Cooper
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: I think there are political aspects to that, which I will not comment on, but obviously the understanding was that it was a very comprehensive and ambitious set of measures that was introduced. Like this Bill, it was about not just the smoke-free generation but other measures as well, including, interestingly, on the density of retail outlets, which might be something for another day or another, potential future measure. A new Government came in and decided not to take it forward.
The learning that we need to take from that, from my understanding and from speaking to colleagues there, goes back to the CMOs’ evidence about the lobbying that is going to occur. The tobacco industry and partners around the industry are very powerful, so persuading colleagues that this is undermining choice and that it will be a burden in terms of regulation, cost to retailers and so on—those were the arguments that were used in New Zealand.
We need to keep a watchful eye, as we think ahead to the regulations and the next steps for the legislation, that we do not open that door too widely and allow those arguments to become too powerful. As you heard earlier, that industry is continually looking for new recruits to replenish those it loses through morbidity and mortality, and that will happen in the UK as well unless we get this right.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: This is quite a comprehensive piece of legislation, with lots of different pieces, so I will give a couple of examples. One area we looked at was protecting more places from second-hand smoke, and the health benefits of that to people who are vulnerable—people with asthma, respiratory conditions and cardiovascular disease—are very immediate. When the smoking ban came in in England in 2007, I did a study looking at admissions to hospital from myocardial infarction after the legislation was introduced, and in the first year we saw substantial reductions in admissions to hospital for heart attacks. So I think some things will be quite quick.
In terms of the pregnancy question, if a woman is not smoking during pregnancy—some of the measures encourage that—the health benefits to the mum and the baby are immediate and long lasting. I also mentioned the modelling statistics on driving down prevalence, which is obviously going to take more time. There are then the regulations to protect young people from vaping, some of which will, I think, have quite a big effect if they prevent somebody from taking up vaping at all, and some will take a bit longer in terms of driving down the rates. It is a balance.
The final thing I would say is—this is my opportunity to make this point, as you would expect—please, let us make sure that we do the research. We must support the academic community to do the research to monitor how the Bill is implemented, so that we can provide evidence that what colleagues have put forward and decided to do actually makes a difference. Other countries will then be able to look at that evidence and make up their own minds.
Tristan Osborne
Q
Secondly, linking to the economic argument you made earlier, you are right that deprivation is key. There is more smoking in deprived communities. I have asked all the witnesses this question. Is there a concern that because of the concurrency of people vaping and smoking, the people who are doing both will move to an economically cheaper option—that is, pick up smoking again because vapes might become more expensive because of other measures that are introduced? Has that concern been raised in academia?
Professor Linda Bauld: Let me start with the first part of your question. Those data come from the Action on Smoking and Health survey covering Great Britain, which was funded by Cancer Research UK and conducted by YouGov for ASH. Those harm perceptions are really concerning to me because we do not want people who have never smoked or young people to be vaping but, from the evidence I have seen, if more of those 6 million smokers could switch to vaping, we would see health benefits. I think those misconceptions are largely driven by the media and some of the myths—the really harmful stories that get the front page. We need to deal with that and make sure that health professionals and others are empowered to give accurate advice about vaping. We have got a distance to run on that, and anything that the Bill can do to assist that would be welcome.
On whether people who are dual using, which is a significant proportion of smokers, are more likely to switch to smoking if we take action on, for example, removing point-of-sale displays or take other measures on vaping, I am actually not sure about that. The key point is that we need to continue to make smoking more expensive than vaping and to make sure that we address the availability of tobacco in our environment and in different settings. If we can keep that balance to show that vaping is a good option for cessation and is more affordable than cessation, while we keep doing the research on it, I would be optimistic that we are not going to see masses of smokers who are currently vaping to cut down just switch back to smoking in its entirety—hopefully.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Q
The Chair
Can I ask people to speak into the microphone if they can? We are often finding it difficult to pick things up, and the volume is on maximum as it is. Thanks.
Professor Linda Bauld: I think that the legislation, as currently put forward, is good. There are not areas where I would say that the research community—the colleagues I work with—would suggest that the right measures have not been put forward; I think they have been put forward. But I will come back to the point I made at the beginning: I think it is about the implementation, and making sure that we get that right.
Again, I would come back to the four F’s that I mentioned at the beginning. Just thinking about implementing this, I think there are things that need to be considered in how we sequence things. For example, in the last session, you heard from witnesses about the licensing scheme; we already have a register in Scotland that works pretty well, and we are going to move to a conditional register. As those licensing elements and so on have been consulted on, let us at least get retailers in England and Wales on a register, so that we know who is selling vapes and tobacco, until we move to that next step.
Thinking about the promotion aspects, and in-store promotion in particular, let me just give you one figure from a recent study conducted by my colleagues at the University of Stirling—the Cancer Research UK-funded vaper study. When they asked young people where they were seeing the promotion of vaping products, it was on shop fronts and in shops. At almost two thirds, that is the most common area where they see advertising promotion, and then on posters and billboards. There are also concerns about social media and so on. So, again, if you are thinking about what you might implement first, some of those in-store promotions are important. Then, on the product, I think that removing those promotional characteristics from the packaging and labelling is particularly important. Those are the kinds of things that I think need to be brought forward first, as well as thinking about really getting the regulation right.
The only other thing I would say is that, in terms of the different products in this Bill—and it is very flexible—let us not forget the categories that maybe you have not asked about yet. I think one colleague mentioned shisha, but there are also smokeless tobacco products, which are used in some of our communities in particular and which often get through the loopholes. I have done a number of studies on oral tobacco, which we know is very harmful and is linked to mouth cancers and head and neck cancers. So let us make sure that we just keep a focus on the range of tobacco products, even though the dominant product used is the cigarette.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: That is an interesting question. My colleagues at UCL did a study that looked at what happened when they raised the age of sale from 16 to 18. I have to be honest with you: at the time, the tobacco control research community would not have pointed to that as the most ambitious measure that you could do; we did not think that changing the age by just two years would make an impact. But, from the data, it actually created 1.3 million more people who could not be sold cigarettes. We also know that, at the same time, due to the action on illicit tobacco, which is really important, the amount of illicit tobacco consumed fell by about 25%. So it is about those two things in partnership: tackling illicit, which of course is really important, and changing the age of sale.
The promise of the smoke-free generation is more ambitious, however. Rather than just raising the age of sale by a few years, we are gradually changing it over time. That protects future generations, because we do not have the big jump to being suddenly ineligible to be sold cigarettes. To go back to the evidence in the annexe to the legislation, which shows the modelling done by my colleagues for the Department of Health and Social Care, it looks pretty robust. I think that this will have a big impact over time. I hope that is helpful.
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Taiwo Owatemi)
Q
Professor Linda Bauld: That is interesting. I think a similar question was asked earlier. I do not think that history bears that out. Often, a concern is that if we take action on one product, we displace youth use to other products. With action that we have taken on smoking over the years, we have not seen a dramatic increase in, for example, youth alcohol use or use of other legal products. There are still major issues with young people consuming alcohol but, actually, the number of young people drinking at harmful levels has reduced in recent years, at the same time as tobacco measures have been introduced over time.
I do not think that we will see a big displacement to other substances by introducing this set of measures, but we need to keep our eye on getting that balance right. In terms of the other products that we are concerned young people might use—obviously, there are illegal drugs, which we have separate legislation on, and we need to keep an eye on alcohol control for young people—all those things need to happen together. But I have not seen any evidence to suggest that taking this kind of action will cause some other public health issue that we need to be overly concerned about.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witness, Professor Bauld, for her contribution. We will move on to the sixth panel of witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Lord Michael Bichard and Wendy Martin gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Lord Michael Bichard, chair of National Trading Standards, and Wendy Martin, director of National Trading Standards. We have until 3.30 pm with this panel. As you can see, because both the earlier panels finished earlier than expected, we have a fair bit of extra time for these two witnesses, if they wish to use it or if Members wish to ask more questions.
Dr Johnson
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: Good afternoon. We will try to be provocative, so we can keep this going until half-past three. It is as long as a piece of string, in a way. If you compare the penalties to those in some other legislation, they are a bit low. On the other hand, trading standards can prosecute if we find, for example, that someone is a repeat offender, and then I think the fines are up to £2,500.
The only thing we thought might be possible would be to have a higher level of fine for a second offence. I think the first offence is a £90 fixed penalty, but you could have a couple of hundred for a second offence. But we enforce; we do not fix the fines—we just do what you tell us. It is not an unreasonable figure, although it certainly could go up, rather than down, and we could have something for a second offence. Also, we could take action through prosecution for someone who was constantly offending.
Dr Johnson
Wendy, do you have any thoughts—
Lord Michael Bichard: Sorry, I did not hear that. The sound is not—
Dr Johnson
Q
Wendy Martin: Lord Bichard has spoken about the rather varying levels of fines that do exist. The other point worth making is that the issuing of a fixed penalty notice is not automatic anyway. A lot of the work, especially around first offences, would be to try to support businesses with advice on how to comply with the law. It is not the case that, immediately you find something wrong, there will be a fixed penalty notice. There are a lot of drivers for compliance, especially with legitimate businesses that want to comply. As we said, prosecution is an option and you have the £200 fixed penalty, but for longer-term or egregious offences—definitely for repeat offences—prosecution through the magistrates’ court is likely to be an option.
Lord Michael Bichard: One of the problems with prosecution is that it costs money. Therefore, if you can train retailers not to offend, that is a better outcome than having to issue a fixed penalty. For local authorities in particular, with their resource situation being what it is, the last thing they want is more bureaucracy around fixed penalties, prosecutions and all the rest.
Dr Johnson
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: Do we welcome that? Yes, I do. It is our task to take a proportionate position. Some people make mistakes, and there is probably no point in even a fixed penalty notice if someone has just made a mistake. As Wendy has said, training is probably a better option. However, if someone is clearly determined to flout the law, you need to increase the penalties.
Dr Johnson
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: This is not complex legislation. One of the points we want to make on behalf of trading standards is that we are used to doing this sort of stuff. We are used to doing it for tobacco and illicit cigarettes. It is not complicated. The main issue is, as you say, age identification. People are increasingly used to having to provide some identity or proof of age for all sorts of things. In terms of training retailers, that is about it: if they have any doubts, they need to seek identity.
Dr Johnson
Q
Wendy Martin: No training exists at the moment, because the law is not in place yet, but you are quite right that Challenge 25 is the industry standard in terms of current age-restrictive products, no matter what they are. Certain industry organisations, such as the Association of Convenience Stores or the British Retail Consortium, put on a lot of training programmes for members. There has been Government-funded training in the past. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute hosts a site called the Business Companion, which has good, simple guidance and information that is designed specifically for small businesses and is easy to read and digest.
There needs to be a change of mindset around needing to ask for a date of birth, rather than asking, “Are you 18?” There does need to be information out there, as long as it is not complex. It is a case of reinforcing that, but I think those routes do exist via those websites, industry groups and pre-existing information that needs to be updated. There should be as much communication as possible with the public and businesses as the Bill goes through and gets Royal Assent about what to expect and what is required.
Lord Michael Bichard: Again, we want it to be proportionate, because small businesses cannot afford to spend a huge amount of time in training rooms. I do not think personally that this requires profound, long-term training. It is pretty simple stuff. A lot of it can be done informally.
Dr Johnson
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: I try to make it a principle of my life not to go around asking for more money from Government or the Treasury, so that would not be my first response. However, you have to look at this in context. Trading standards resources have been reduced by about 50% over the last decade, and staffing in local authority trading standards has gone down by about 30% to 50%, so we start from a very low base.
The suggestion that has been made is that trading standards should get £10 million to implement and enforce the legislation. That sounds like a not unreasonable figure, but the way in which it is distributed is quite important. If it is going to be done on a one-year rolling basis, that makes it difficult for local authorities to employ staff; you need some stability if you are going to employ staff. We think that, if it will be £10 million, it needs to be on a four-year cycle so we know that for four years we have that money and can employ the staff.
The other issue to be concerned about is that local authorities that I know—I am a local authority man originally—have been under huge pressure. There is always a temptation to take whatever money is there and use it on the highest priority. If this money is to go to tobacco and vaping, I am afraid that it probably needs to be ringfenced. I know there are some local authority former members here who will not agree with that—I do not normally agree with it, because I think local authorities should have the space to make their own decisions—but if you want this money to go to tobacco and vaping, it will probably need to be ringfenced.
I will make two final points. I know it sounds like a detail, but quite a lot of money has to go on storage and disposal. We think it is about 50p to £1 for every vape. That has to come out of the £10 million. Finally—this is really important—some investment has to be made at ports of entry. That is probably the most important intervention of all. We depend on UK Border Force in particular to give us the intelligence to enable us to target our efforts. We are already responsible for product safety at ports, so we rely on UK Border Force. That needs to be properly resourced because, as you will appreciate, it has a lot of other important priorities. If it is going to be effective at port level, we feel that about 20% of whatever money we get needs to be spent there.
I say that with some knowledge, because I visited a couple of ports before Christmas just to see how the product safety stuff was dealt with, and I was pretty shocked. I went to Southampton and Dover, and I must say that on occasions I felt that whether or not we were successful was pretty random. As I say, we were often not getting the intelligence from UK Border Force to enable us to target our resource, and I understand why. We only have a very small number of staff at these ports. We should not underestimate how important port entry is and some money has to go to that. That is a long answer to your question: £10 million sounds like a lot, but if you put in storage, disposal and ports, that makes it look rather less generous, and it probably has to be ringfenced and done on a four-year basis if it is going to have an impact.
Dr Johnson
Thank you, that is a really helpful answer. We know that vapes are very difficult to dispose of and to recycle.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: I think we do feel we will have the right powers, based on the fact that we are already doing some of this quite successfully. We seized something like 2 million vapes last year; we carried out 400,000 test purchases—which is how we check whether or not the legislation is being enforced—and we seized, I think, 19 million illegal cigarettes. So in a way, this is not new stuff for us; it is just bigger. We have the powers and we use them quite effectively. We know that HMRC thinks we are pretty effective in relation to tobacco. We like to think we are a good delivery agency.
Wendy Martin: There has been a lot of work in the development of the Bill and the associated Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs legislation around the ban on single-use vaping products with officials, so we have worked together with them to try to get this to a good place in terms of enforcement powers.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: No. Our experience of the illicit tobacco market is that it has reduced rather than increased, despite the additional regulation, the price rise and all the rest of it, so we do not think that is a serious issue. We think that there are a number of myths around illicit tobacco and illicit vapes that do not stand up to close scrutiny. So no, we do not think that is a serious problem.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: Yes, I think we feel that. You might also consider an increase for second offenders before you move to prosecution. I do not think anyone wants to move to prosecution, because it is such a time-intensive process. I know we have limited time, but one thing we have not talked about is retailers. We also ought to be concerned about the online market—or rather, you should be concerned, as we are. It is a difficulty for us and for local authorities, because no single local authority thinks it should be responsible for enforcing legislation in an online marketplace.
We have a solution to that, which is that we have a lead authority that we think could deal with this and avoid the problem with individual local authorities. I think that will become an increasingly important element of the vape marketplace.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: It seems to me that it is now such a part of life that it is not as big a problem as it was; I think it is a problem that will diminish.
Wendy Martin: Certainly the retail violence is of concern and has been well publicised. It is clearly a policing issue rather than a trading standards issue. I guess it needs activity to make sure that everyone understands what is being done and why it is being done, and to make sure that there is a policing response, if possible, where there are issues. I know that local authorities work through community safety partnerships and things like that in local areas if there are particular incidents. Again, it is not specifically a trading standards response, but local authorities and local police forces will work together to do their best to address these things, because nobody wants anyone to be threatened with violence.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: We think it does. You have to look at the package, because you do not just have age regulation or display and promotion regulation; you also have the proposal for licensing—which, by the way, we do not see trading standards being equipped to do; that is a local authority business and, as a former local authority man, I would have to say “with the resources”, because there is always a danger that you give local authorities more power but you do not give them the money.
You have regulation, you have licensing and you have registration of products. If you put all that together, I think it is quite a powerful package, but it does need to be backed up with the resources, because it is delivering it that really matters. We are all used to legislation that sounds great and never gets delivered.
Wendy Martin: I agree; we think the balance is there, hopefully with good communication to businesses. Again, in a similar way, this is not going to be entirely new territory—certainly for those businesses that are already involved in the sale of alcohol and tobacco in particular—in understanding where to go for support and the kind of controls that are in place. Certainly, if the changes are made to the product registration scheme, which should then make it more effective for businesses to be able to check that a product they are stocking is legal and compliant—if the package is right, as Michael said—it should not be too complex for businesses to comply with it.
Tristan Osborne
Q
Secondly, in the United States, you can have products with up to 60 mg-worth of nicotine; that is a standard product in the United States. In the UK, it is 20 mg, or significantly less. Is there an awareness within trading standards of just how much we are potentially out of kilter with some of the key markets that we are aligned to? Our limit is significantly lower than those of other major economies, so do you think that we might therefore have a problem with products perhaps coming in from other sources that are not the same as tobacco? Is that a concern for your Department?
Lord Michael Bichard: I will pass that one to Wendy, if it is not unfair. On the first point, you are right that we think that that is going to make regulation enforcement easier but I will have to leave the second question to Wendy, I am afraid.
Wendy Martin: Just to reinforce Michael’s point around the digital stamps, I am not close to this myself, but I know that trading standards colleagues who are operational experts in this field are working in response to the various HMRC consultations about the implementation of excise and tax stamps, and those sorts of things. I know those conversations are happening, and I think the view is that that kind of simple identification is really important for trading standards.
In terms of the 60 mg versus 20 mg, I am afraid I do not have any detailed knowledge of that personally, but I would certainly anticipate that those kinds of challenges and issues would be built into the guidance and information being put to officers and any planned training programmes once we know the final form of the Bill, the excise duty and all the other changes coming over the next few years as the Bill and other legislation progress. I am sorry that I do not have a detailed answer.
Lord Michael Bichard: But we can get it for you.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: I do not want to sound complacent, because I am not. But this is something we are used to doing, so we do not see that as a major issue or a major problem. That is what we do.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: No, the point I was making was about enforcement.
Wendy Martin: To add to that, as part of the programme that DHSC has been funding for the last 18 months, we tested out a number of issues, and one was online under-age sales. I think we tested 312 purchases, and there was a 10% failure rate. That was significantly lower than premises-based sales. There was a lot in the platform’s corporate website design to try to ask the right questions and kick purchasers out. It is very much about who does it and who takes responsibility, rather than a major problem in itself.
We also work quite closely with the Advertising Standards Authority, and it does a lot around broadcast and published media, and website compliance and claims. That is quite a well-established mechanism for enforcement. It is about the structure of enforcement, as you have rightly identified.
Lord Michael Bichard: It is probably worth pointing out—it does not relate to the online point—that I said earlier that last year we carried out 4,000 test purchases, and 26% of those were failures. Compared to the 10% online, it is significantly higher. This is a very practical point, but some of the other changes that are going to happen will make it easier for us to do test purchasing. At the present moment, we can only use children or young people, so we have issues of safeguarding and we can only do it at certain times of the day. It should become easier, in that sense, for us to enforce the legislation.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: It will be enforced in the same way we enforce it for tobacco and other things. This is not new. Trading standards officers employed by local authorities are constantly visiting premises, and they will therefore deal with any offences that are being committed. They also have their own local intelligence networks. We cannot afford, because we do not have enough staff, to just have a random system where we pop in every now and then. We depend on people giving us intelligence. Some of those people are members of the public, and some are from other agencies. We try to target what we do. When you visit a shop—there are something like 60,000 outlets—you can see whether the current legislation, or future legislation, is being implemented. We can take action against the retailer if it is not.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: Absolutely. I was going to say that if you are making a case for trading standards to have more resources, I am absolutely with you. I think that trading standards does an amazing job with limited resources. One borough in London now has no trading standards officers, and that is a great worry. We are there to protect consumers in all sorts of ways, but we are also there to try to establish a fair marketplace, so we are working on behalf of legitimate businesses. A lot of retailers want to support us in dealing with bad practice among their competitors. Yes, we need more resources.
Wendy Martin: Clearly, the responsibility is on businesses to comply with the law, first and foremost, and the hope would be that the vast majority of those outlets do so, because they are either part of bigger businesses with corporate structures to ensure compliance, or part of trading associations where that training and information is available. Generally, most people want to do the right thing. What that means is that the additional resources are necessary and can be focused on those sectors where there is intelligence from consumers, enforcers and other businesses—businesses will complain, and rightly so, about competitors who are flouting the law. That enables targeting, rather than feeling the need to try to inspect 60,000 or 70,000 premises. That would not work, and it does not need to work like that.
Lord Michael Bichard: Local trading standards officers know the problem retailers, where the problems are. I started my career doing prosecutions for trading standards, so I know a bit about how they work on the ground. They know where to target their efforts. I should also point out that there is a committed workforce here. Recently, we did a survey of the workforce, and 80% of them supported the legislation. It always helps.
The Chair
One final quick question from Jim Dickson, before we have to go on to the next panel.
Jim Dickson
Q
Lord Michael Bichard: I cannot see that it would not be useful, but it is not something that has come across my desk.
Wendy Martin: Mine neither, but intelligence-led enforcement means the more that intelligence is available, the better one is able to target. I do not know exactly what tobacco companies collect, but generally any intelligence is useful.
The Chair
I thank both panellists for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Inga Becker-Hansen gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Inga Becker-Hansen, who is policy adviser for retail products at the British Retail Consortium. For this panel we have until 3.50 pm.
Dr Johnson
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. The question was about age verification, I think—sorry, it is a bit quiet for me here.
Dr Johnson
Yes; what are the challenges in implementing the new regulations?
Inga Becker-Hansen: One of the key challenges of age verification is this idea of the rolling age for the smoke-free generation. At this point it is quite identifiable, with those under the regulation being 15, but in 30 years’ time if you have someone who is 45 versus 44 from the date of January 2009, it may lead to ID for each sale of a given product, if that makes sense. This will eventually lead to potential issues. Points of sale can be a flashpoint for violence and abuse against retail and shop workers, so it is a real concern for retailers that that could be an issue in the future in terms of the smoke-free generation and the ageing of that generation.
We would also like to highlight that a digital ID could possibly make things easier. The Department for Business and Trade is promoting the use of digital ID for alcohol consumption. That could potentially be included as a means of age verification to make the process easier for the average consumer and member of the public.
Dr Johnson
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Specifically for under 30 or 40 years old, I do not think we have anything. I imagine that with the Bill something would be implemented.
The Chair
Could I ask everybody to speak louder, please? The microphones are not very good at picking up the sound.
Inga Becker-Hansen: Okay, no problem. In terms of age verification for product sale, our members have lots of experience of the sale of tobacco and alcohol products. They have till prompts looking at the date of birth of the customer in the store. There are also badges, posters and mystery shoppers to ensure that they are compliant. Challenge 25 has been implemented since 2009, and our retailers are very compliant with it. There are due diligence procedures that are agreed with primary authorities. I imagine that in terms of identifying sales for people under 30 or 40, it would be a matter for retailers to discuss with their primary authority to identify the best route for that in store.
Dr Johnson
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: In terms of the licensing scheme for smaller retailers, it is more about the administrative burden that there will be, and the cost of that. Smaller retailers may not have as much capacity with regard to the licensing scheme. It is quite difficult to comment on it at this point, because we do not know the full detail. If the licensing scheme were to bundle alcohol and vapes and tobacco, or if they are separate or together—those are all the kinds of questions your smaller retailers will have to take on board with regard to the licensing schemes and what they can and cannot provide for their customers.
It will affect revenue for smaller retailers, so it is something to bear in mind. There will be increased bureaucracy and increased costs. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss and contribute to the design of the scheme, but we do not know the full detail, so it is quite difficult to comment on how it will or will not affect smaller retailers specifically.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Retailers are quite comfortable with the licensing scheme for tobacco at this point. That is something we are used to as a whole. One aspect of it is the fact that your larger retailers, for example, who have multiple premises do not have to worry about individual licenses for those individual premises. That is something we are quite concerned about with the licensing scheme, and what that could mean. If individual licenses had to be applied for, that could lead to divergence across a retail brand, and that affects your overall public retail image for customers.
We would also like to highlight that if the licensing scheme were to follow something such as the tobacco licensing scheme—the idea that licensing authorities could approve or deny certain applications—that could affect long-standing, established, compliant retailers, and that could lead to a loss of revenue for them. We appreciate the need for the legislation. We appreciate the need for a level playing field, and that is what we would encourage through the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Currently, retailers are used to the idea of over the age of 18, simply because of tobacco and alcohol sales. The identification of January 2009 is more difficult, in terms of the rolling age and how that will look in the future. Currently, it is quite identifiable. I would say that January 2009 is more difficult for retailers to handle in the future per se.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Yes, currently that is true. However, in the future, if somebody walks into a store and they are 45 or 43, I would not be able to tell that at face value.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: From their ID, you would. What I am trying to say is that it raises the thing of eventually becoming “no ID, no sale”, which is a concept that retailers would have to follow. But it would also mean that consumer-wise, you would require a consumer-facing public awareness campaign to identify and illustrate to the general public that it is “no ID, no sale”, if that is the angle that the Government are focusing on.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Ideally, with a cohesive guideline illustrating to retailers how to implement the legislation. We would also encourage alignment across the regulations in terms of new regulations coming through, such as secondary legislation on the licensing scheme, and consultations on any secondary legislation so that both larger and smaller retailers may contribute their ideas. Ideally, there would be constant communication with industry to understand how these changes are made, as well as a public awareness campaign so that the public is aware of the changes, which would hopefully reduce any potential violence against or abuse of retail workers.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: We would like to see a licensing scheme as a level playing field where small, independent and larger retailers are viewed on the same level. Again, we would encourage the multi-stores to require only one licence rather than looking at individual premises licences, because that will make things more difficult.
In terms of the tobacco scheme, ideally things would be grouped together so that there is less administrative burden and therefore less cost for retailers, so that, if the aim for the Government is to transfer from the idea of selling tobacco to people to selling vapes because of the health benefits, that transition is made easier for retailers. Adding on an additional licensing scheme with additional costs and a separate administrative system makes it more difficult for retailers to handle those things at the same time, particularly smaller retailers and independents.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: It is a bit difficult for me to give you specific details, but in initial response my thinking would be that it would be a discussion between retailers and their primary authority and how that is handled, bearing in mind smaller retailers versus larger retailers. I am happy to follow up in writing and give evidence that way, but I cannot give specific details currently.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Again, I cannot give a conclusive answer at this point, but if you have different shops under one retailer that have different licensing schemes, it devalues customer confidence in the products they are selling across the country, if that makes sense.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Okay.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: If you have certain branches of a certain brand selling alcohol in one shop, and then in another shop, they are selling alcohol and vapes, when you are going to purchase your product, you will think, “Okay, I will just pop to the shop”, but they may not have exactly what you need. But if you see it as a national product per se for the brand, then you have confidence in going into the retailer.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Precisely. But then it should be up to the business or the retailer to decide that strategy for themselves rather than it being implemented.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: It is difficult for the BRC to comment on that, given that we are not public health experts or behavioural economics experts. I would therefore ask that you confirm that with public health experts, rather than the BRC.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Some of the challenges with the restrictions on advertising will be at the point of sale of products for some retailers. There is also a query from retailers about how recycling schemes for vapes can be implemented if they cannot be advertised, and about how the Bill and the Government can support recycling initiatives alongside the reduction in advertising of vapes. Retailers appreciate the need to restrict advertising. Again, there is this idea of creating a level playing field among all retailers, rather than focusing on specific ones.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: Again, I do not have specific details, so I cannot comment. I am happy to follow up in writing.
John Whitby
Q
Inga Becker-Hansen: I think the key would be guidance for retailers on implementation and how the measures will be carried out. Again, there is the idea of encouraging a consumer-facing public awareness campaign that highlights the new restrictions and the safeguards for shop and retail workers so that, when the new regulations go through, the public are aware of the changes.
In any new secondary legislation, we would encourage alignment within the regulations themselves and across the devolved nations so that it is clear and consistent.
The Chair
We can squeeze one more in if anybody wants to ask a question. I thank the witness for giving evidence.
Examination of Witness
Matthew Shanks gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Matthew Shanks, who is the chair of the Secondary Headteacher Reference Group and chief executive of the Education South West multi-academy trust. For this panel, we have until 4.10 pm.
Dr Johnson
Q
Matthew Shanks: That is quite a large question, but I can answer it from an anecdotal point of view and from talking to colleagues around the country.
Vaping is a bigger problem than smoking within schools. Children who would not contemplate smoking—sporty children, dancers and so on—engage in vaping because they see it as harmless. It is easily accessible. It is very difficult to detect in schools in a way that cigarette smoking is not. It is seen as very fashionable in terms of the way it is advertised and promoted. I am not saying that this is happening in every school, every day, but we can report instances of children going out of lessons to vape in toilets or various places. Vaping is difficult to catch, because there is no smell, unless they use bubblegum, grapefruit or other such flavours. It is having a huge impact on discipline within schools—on ensuring that children are in lessons, or are in school in the morning on time, and not off-site at lunch time looking for places to vape and so on.
Dr Johnson
Q
It is difficult to prove what is in vapes. Again, there are instances of vapes containing illegal substances, but that is difficult to prove, because of their small size and where they can be secreted or hidden. There is evidence out there of drugs being contained in vapes—snus or Spice in the vapes—being quite addictive. Any kind of addiction leads to misbehaviour, particularly if you put that into secondary schools or among older children in primary schools.
Dr Johnson
Q
Matthew Shanks: To speak frankly, those vapes are not marketed at 40-year-old people who are trying to give up smoking. I do not think that vaping is marketed at people who are giving up smoking—it is not a cessation tool: it is a tool to encourage young people to engage in something else. I have talked before about this—it is almost the gateway from chewing gum to the next stage. Half a mile down the road, if you walk towards Trafalgar Square, a shop on the right-hand side—I passed it walking in—is full of colourfully arranged vapes, which do not look harmful; it looks like a sweet shop.
Marketing and selling a vape that looks like a mini pen drive or a highlighter is only done so it can be secreted and make it difficult to catch students with them. We have had instances where part of the vape can be slipped into a bra, so we cannot search and find it. As I was saying, it is difficult to know what is in the vapes or whether people are actually vaping, which leads to confrontation between teachers, children and parents.
More recently, one of the things we have found is that, although they are still fashionable, we have seen a lack of fashionableness around the single-use vapes, because of the impact on the environment and the hope that they will be banned. There is far more reluctance—with arguments caused—among children and parents not wanting to give up larger vapes, because they have paid for them, and that therefore brings parents into conflict with teachers when they want to claim back their children’s vapes. Sometimes those vapes are their parents’ vapes or, sometimes, vapes that they have spent a lot of money on. My view and that of colleagues that I am representing is that vapes are not being advertised to help people to cease smoking; they are being advertised to encourage people to take up a habit.
Dr Johnson
Q
Matthew Shanks: At the moment, there is a vacuum around an understanding of what vaping is and what it can and cannot do. I cannot talk to the health aspects, because I am not a health expert, but it is something that is not clear. Because it is not clear, that is enabling children to engage in it and parents to encourage children to engage in it. There are instances of parents giving it as a reward because it is not a cigarette and they therefore see it as being “safe”. I think the Bill will help with that.
What is really important is the messaging and the education around the harm that vaping can do to young people and to adults as well. We need to bring it back to the original reason why vaping came about in the first place, which, as far as I was concerned, was about ceasing smoking. Lots of my friends took up vaping to cease smoking. They do not vape any more or smoke, but lots of children vape who would never contemplate smoking.
Dr Johnson
Q
Matthew Shanks: Children are very clever, and they will find a way round. On the other hand, far be it from me to sit here as a teacher and talk about funding, but vape detectors would cost money. Smoke detectors are in schools anyway, so it is far simpler. I think children will find a way around it. We saw a real decrease in cigarette smoking with the advertising and marketing. I have been teaching for 30 years, and we saw a decrease in that, but you cannot win an argument at the moment with parents or children talking about the dangers of vaping. That is the hardest thing.
Dr Johnson
Q
Matthew Shanks: Yes—very much so.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Matthew Shanks: I think it will, but for some it will not unless it has the education behind it as well. I also think it is too easy for children to purchase vapes. It is all very nice to think of shopkeepers not allowing children to buy vapes or tobacco if they are under age. I am not denigrating them, but we have instances, for example, of a year 9 child who had a loyalty card for a vape shop. She is 13 years of age—she did not look 18—yet she is being sold that at the local shop. You go in and talk to the local shop and they say that no, of course they have not sold it to her, and then there is conflict there. We need to look at the legality of it and sterner punishment, for want of a better word, for people who are found to be selling.
The drop box online purchasing industry also needs to be looked at. I do not know how, but again, we know that people purchase vapes from those places. The education side is for parents, because parents and older brothers and sisters think it is safe and will therefore give them a vape. The Bill will help, but there are other things that could help as well.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Matthew Shanks: Packaging and flavouring is really important. As I said before, it is set out as if it were sweets and bubblegum. Why would you need these different flavours? Why are they making something more attractive that is meant to help you stop doing something, so that if you do not like one flavour, you can try lots of them, and collect the different coloured vapes, or build them up into towers? Addressing all those things would help. Linking vaping with smoking, in terms of not being able to purchase it as you go up the age range, would also help.
Vape-free zones are really important. People are vaping indoors. I have seen it today in London on the tube, in pubs and other places—I have not been in a pub today, by the way; that was over the Christmas period, but people are vaping in pubs in the way they used to with cigarette smoke. Again, it is not seen as something dangerous.
If you put all that out there and then put children into the mix and they are looking up and seeing the colourful packaging, the flavouring and so on, why would they not do this?
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Matthew Shanks: Yes. My question would be: why would we not?
The Chair
Looking at the number of Members who wish to ask questions and the amount of time that we have left, I ask Members to be short in their questions and the panellist to be short in his answers.
Liz Jarvis
Q
Matthew Shanks: I would say yes to the second point, but I would aim the campaign at everybody, because we also need to educate parents to get them to understand. On the first point, I think people who want to find ways of rewarding people to get them to join things that are not appropriate will find something, and vapes are something that is being used at the moment. I am not saying that this Bill will stop that happening, because people will always find ways, but it will certainly help the majority of people to see that vaping is not something they should engage with.
Dr Beccy Cooper
Q
Matthew Shanks: Yes, I think the online area is hugely influential for children. It is where they spend a lot of their time—a huge amount of their time—so it would be really good if this Bill could look at that as well. I do not receive any online marketing adverts for vaping, but I am not 13 years old. I bet if I was, I would, so I think that is an element to look at.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Matthew Shanks: I think the appearance and location of vape shops are important, so there could be better regulation around that. We have talked already about sponsorship bans. We have talked about raising the age of sale for vapes. I think vape packages should have the same kind of warnings that cigarette packages have on them. I really think so, because at the moment, they do not—and why would they not, if it is a cessation? “You are going to stop that, but you could still get this, so actually, we want to stop that.” Ultimately, that is what we should be aiming for.
I think the young people parenting support provisions are engaged in that, because as I have said, parents see this as a way of enticing children back into school or helping them or taking away an argument. You have to appreciate that I am not criticising parents, because they have a tricky job to get them back in. They see this as something safe and think they are caring for their child, so if we make it clear that actually it is not, that will be really important.
I have talked about vape detectors being useful in schools, but would it not be good if actually these things were banned? Then they could not be there. From that point of view, I think it is important.
Tristan Osborne
Q
Matthew Shanks: Yes, but not on its own. It would help, but people will find a way to get something if they want it—we know that. The price hike without the education might increase other instances of unpleasantness between people, such as bullying, bribing, theft and so on. It has to come alongside education. The whole message needs to be that vaping is not something for children to engage in. It is something to help people to stop smoking. That is my view and the view of educators.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Matthew Shanks: It is not that they are not an issue—
Euan Stainbank
I meant that I was pretty surprised that they are such a predominant issue. I would have presumed that disposable vapes were the predominant issue.
Matthew Shanks: Oh yes, they are a huge issue.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Matthew Shanks: The reason disposable, single-use vapes are more popular is that there is less to carry, so it is easier to secrete, hide and get rid of. Refillable vapes are fiddly to fill up, for a start. That is something that is not appealing, if you do not have that speed—I am conjecturing here around it. However, the flavours and colours are certainly something that influences and impacts children using vapes. As I say, I think the size of the single-use, disposable vapes is an issue. We have said, for example, that single-use vapes are banned anywhere on site, which means that parents cannot bring them in as well. What we have then seen in some of our schools is more children bringing in their parents’ vapes, and when you catch them with those, that brings conflict in. I was not trying to imply that people were not still using them, we just cannot necessarily know.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Matthew Shanks: At the moment I would take anything that is not coloured and does not make it look like it is candy, to be honest, in the American version. They are like sweets, and when you walk in to shops, they are in your face with the way they are placed. They are not behind a screen shutter. Yes, the health benefits are not known in the same way, but I would like to see a move towards that for packaging. I would welcome anything that tells children that this is not something that is safe or recreational or a reward, and it will not help them to have a better life or to study better within school because it relaxes them—all those things.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Matthew Shanks: No, with the refillable ones it is the way that the flavours are displayed, as well. It is not just the disposable vapes; it is all vaping. You can go into a shop with a refillable and buy four different flavours in four different colours to refill at a different time, and you all have a different toke of a different type of flavouring. That is exciting and different, because it is a reward and it is pleasant and it can help you to be calm.
The Chair
I thank Matthew Shanks for his evidence today. It has been very interesting and stimulating for those of us who do not know much about vapes. I am sure we will take a lot of what he said into consideration in our deliberations.
Examination of Witness
Dr Laura Squire OBE gave evidence.
The Chair
Now that things have settled a bit, I welcome Dr Laura Squire OBE, from whom we will now hear evidence. She is chief healthcare quality and access officer for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. For this panel, we have until 4.30 pm, which is obviously 20 minutes.
Dr Johnson
Q
Dr Laura Squire: Thank you very much for that question—I welcome the chance to answer it. As you say, we are a healthcare products regulatory agency. That is what we are about. When a medical product comes to us, it has a medical purpose. For example, it might be something that is prescribed to help someone deal with issues of nicotine withdrawal and to get them off a product. That would be licensed as a medicine because the active ingredient in it is a medicine. The Medical Devices Regulations 2002 sometimes come into that too.
In order to give a licence to a product such as that, the manufacturer that has produced it will need to give us a dossier that has clinical and quality evidence in it—all sorts of things that go through a detailed assessment by our very skilled assessors, some of whom are medics and some of whom are skilled in pharmacy and also look at quality.
It is important to say that when we license any medical product, we do not say, “This product is safe.” We consider the risks and benefits of the product, and if the benefits outweigh the risks, we will give it a licence. We always say that medicines are not safe things, so if you do not need them for the benefits, do not take them.
The approach that we take on consumer products is very different. That is not an assessment process; it is a notification scheme that we undertake under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, whereas before I was talking about the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and the Medical Devices Regulations. Under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations, we basically have a notification scheme. The manufacturer of a consumer e-cigarette would have to come to us and show that the product has the 20 mg, and that the refill container has no more than 10 ml, and then there are some limited labelling requirements. But we do not inspect or test that product; it is a data check to see whether those things are true, and then it goes on to the register. It is a very simple notification scheme, which is very helpful in terms of having a single record of what is out there on the market, but it is nowhere near the sort of assessment that we would do if it were a prescribed product that was proven to help people stop smoking.
The other role, once any product within our remit is on the market, is post-market surveillance. We have something called the yellow card scheme—people may have heard much more about it during the pandemic—whereby anybody can report a problem with a product. That covers consumer vapes, medical e-cigarettes and other nicotine-containing products that we might license.
We examine all the reports that we get, and if there is a signal that there is a problem, we sometimes issue a safety communication. We did that a couple of years ago when there was some evidence of lung damage. We have that role, and we often co-operate with other organisations where there is a need for enforcement. We heard from trading standards earlier, which does that. The roles are very different.
Dr Johnson
Q
Dr Laura Squire: I do not have any evidence of that, but it does worry me. We are an organisation that is about healthcare products, medicines, medical devices and blood products—that is our business—and it concerns me that people might think that vapes are safe. When I talk about risk-benefit, what I mean is that vapes are safer than tobacco; I do not think that anyone disagrees with that. However, vapes are not safer than nothing—and we do not actually know how unsafe vapes are, because there is a need for much longer-term study and understanding of the damage that they could cause.
My feeling is that, yes, there is potentially a misleading position with an organisation like ours, which is basically about healthcare products, running this scheme.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Dr Laura Squire: I think we heard earlier about the different elements you need to make something work—licensing, regulations and registration—and I agree with that. I think it was also mentioned that registration is important to allow compliant businesses to check that the product that they have is compliant.
The significant problem with the notification scheme at the moment is that there is not an easy way to take something off the register once it is already on it. That is a problem, because if people are checking the current register, there might be something on it that we would quite like to take off but cannot.
There are powers to take things off the shelves, so if there was a recall issue, that could be dealt with. However, the main problem, or the primary thing in the Bill that I think needs to change, is having powers to take things off the register. Obviously, we must consult on the regulations themselves, but we welcome that change.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Dr Laura Squire: I think somebody talked earlier about the package; the Bill is more than the notification scheme, and I think the whole thing works together to make a much safer environment. I was particularly pleased to see that there is a requirement to carry out studies and a requirement to carry out testing. We are sometimes asked about testing. Testing at the point of registration is one thing, but you need to know that the product remains compliant.
Obviously, there must be consultation about exactly what will go into the regulations, but I would expect that there would be an awful lot more linked to the other requirements of the Bill, and that will make it tighter. I think that would be an improvement, because at the moment the Bill is very light-touch.
Taiwo Owatemi
Q
Dr Laura Squire: For a medicines licence?
Taiwo Owatemi
Q
Dr Laura Squire: That is a difficult one. We had one product that was given a medicines licence in 2015, but it has never been marketed. We continue to try to encourage people to come forward to get medicines licences. However, the reality is that there is such a huge discrepancy between what you can do with a consumer product if you are a manufacturer, in order to get it out there and get it on the market, and what you would have to do to get a licence for it as a medicine—and that is quite right.
What this scheme does is to make it more demanding to be a manufacturer of a consumer product and put more requirement on it. To a certain extent, that reduces the differential between the two, which is welcome. We really continue to encourage people to come forward and talk to us about licensing products. One of the things that will be interesting is the impact this will have on the narrative out there—which was talked about by the previous witness—that vapes are safe. This will perhaps change that narrative and make people realise. All I can say is that we stand ready for more applications for medical licences. We put out some detailed guidance in 2022 to try to encourage manufacturers to do this, and we actually have one coming through the pipeline at the moment. So it will be interesting to see but hard to predict.
Taiwo Owatemi
Q
Dr Laura Squire: With the current notification scheme, we have the resource that we need to do that. As the registration scheme becomes more detailed and demanding, and as there is more in it, I would expect that to require more resource. That is something that we need to continue talking to the Department of Health about as it develops the policy, and we will do that.
Also, as part of that, the impact on us will depend on not only what is in the regulation but who does it. I know that there are conversations about where it is best done, and there are registrations for other consumer products that already exist, so there are conversations happening with the Office of Product Safety and Standards. It is important to learn from those sorts of schemes that are already happening. Where that goes is a policy decision for the Department of Health and Social Care, and we will continue to work with it. I think it would also involve being clear about what resources we might need if we carry on and need more. At the moment, we have what we need to do what we need to do under the current law.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Dr Laura Squire: They would do if it was a licensed product.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Dr Laura Squire: There are not, which is why that is the way we would prefer to do it. Again, if we licensed these consumer products as a medicine, there are very strict requirements on labelling and on what needs to be given to the patient to explain what the product is and its risks. That is not there with these consumer cigarettes. It is going to get stricter under the new rules, but my preference would be that we give people more information.
Dr Ahmed
Q
Dr Laura Squire: It depends on what happens with the actual regulations. At the moment, we do not have powers to test consumer e-cigarettes—that power sits with trading standards. Again, if we license something as a medicine, we go into absolute detail about what is in it. At the moment, it depends on what is in the regulations that come round. We do not do testing at the moment, and it would be important to think about the point at which any testing is done. If it is done at the point where something goes on to the register, that is fine and it tells you that the sample we saw at that point was compliant. But what happens later down the track? I think the role that trading standards has in doing that testing is really important, because it can do it post-market at any point. The question really is about the role of the MHRA—a medicines and healthcare products agency. Is it getting deeper into these consumer products where the risk is not outweighed by the benefits? That is an uncomfortable position for a medicines regulator.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Dr Laura Squire: I do not have a view on whether a vape should be a medicinal product. I have a view on the role of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in regulating products that are not medical products, which is a little confusing at the moment. As I said, when something is a medical product, as with any medicine, you would not take it if you were not ill, because the benefits are not outweighed by the risks. That is really my point. I am pleased to see the strengthening in this area. There are conversations that are still to happen, as the consultation goes through and we understand exactly what the new registration scheme will involve, as to the best people to do this, to give the right message out to the public.
The Chair
Are there any more questions to this panellist? If not, I thank Dr Squire on behalf of the Committee. I am sure that a lot of your evidence will be taken into consideration.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Steve Turner and Professor Sanjay Agrawal gave evidence.
The Chair
For this panel we have Professor Steve Turner, the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and Professor Sanjay Agrawal, the special adviser on tobacco at the Royal College of Physicians. We have until 4.50 pm for this panel.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Steve Turner: I will answer that question. Thank you for accommodating me; I have flown a long way. I thank Professor Bauld for reshuffling the order of the panels. I am passionate about this issue, and I am grateful to be able to contribute.
Vaping is harmful for children, and the evidence is accumulating. Vapes contain nicotine, which is harmful to us as human beings. You have heard previously from Matthew Shanks of the Secondary Headteacher Reference Group about the impact of vaping on children’s education. There are evidences of children coming to harm from vaping devices bursting into flames. There is a lot of talk about something called popcorn lung, which fortunately is very rare, but it is very serious and can affect children who vape. Collectively, there is already a substantial burden of evidence that vaping is harmful for children.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Steve Turner: The Royal College has 24,000 paediatricians in the UK and overseas, so we are a substantial college. We strongly support the Bill as it is. We believe that it provides the right protection for the most vulnerable members of our society—our children, who are our future—and that it is proportionate. We think the Bill as it stands addresses all the concerns that you just raised, and others.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: The majority of adults who vape have smoked, so they are using vapes to quit smoking. The amount of research that looks at populations who have never smoked, who have only vaped, is actually quite small—the longitudinal studies are still not there. We know from shorter-term studies that vaping can lead to things like coughing and throat irritation, but it is important to consider the alternative, which is continued smoking.
I estimate that, in the roughly 30 years since I qualified and started professional practice, about 3 million people in the UK have died from smoking tobacco. The intensive care unit in which I work and the lung cancer clinics that I do are full of people who have come to harm from accrued smoking. There should be no doubt that smoking combusted tobacco is the key thing that we want to prevent future generations being subjected to. There are still 6 million smokers in the UK, and we need to help as many of them as we can to stop smoking. Vaping is one means by which they can stop smoking, and that is really important.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: There are a few things to unpack there. First, a lot of people who smoke and who want to give up use vapes because they have tried other products and have not been able to give up, be that nicotine replacement therapy or tablet pharmacotherapy. One thing those people want to get away from is the taste of tobacco, and having flavours allows them to do that. Actually, other NRT products, such as gums and lozenges, also have fruit flavours—it is not just vapes. Flavours are an integral part of helping people to get away from smoking.
Equally, as we know, flavours attract young people to smoking, so it is really important that we limit the number of them. However, the flavour descriptors are perhaps more important: I think we need to make them bland. The Bill, as it stands, provides powers to restrict all sorts of elements related to vaping, such as the number of flavours, the descriptors, the packaging, the appeal and the advertising. Having bland descriptors and eliminating flavours that we know are popular among children would be really helpful.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: First, there is good survey evidence of what is popular among adult smokers who are using vapes to try to quit, so that is one helpful factor. Then there are flavourings that are potentially associated with harm. Cinnamaldehyde has been associated with harm, so that would be one, for example, that you would remove.
Dr Johnson
Q
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: No.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Steve Turner: Smoking is bad whether you are an active smoker or a passive smoker. Sadly, there are lots of children who still actively smoke, but there are many hundreds of thousands of children who are exposed to second-hand smoke in the home. There is undeniable evidence that that exposure is harmful. I do respiratory paediatrics. Asthma admissions are very common and are clearly associated with exposures.
We can look at natural experiments. For example, in Scotland we had the “Take it right outside” campaign, which was a smoke-free homes initiative. After that, there was a reduction in the number of children coming into hospital. When we brought in the ban on smoking in cars in Scotland, there was another reduction. On that whole-population basis, there is a lot of evidence of benefit to the population, particularly children, from smoking interventions. There are also benefits to the birth weight of children.
There is no doubt that there is a huge amount of harm from second-hand smoke, and anything that reduces the population’s exposure to second-hand smoke will benefit the whole population. As we heard earlier from Matthew, the headteacher, it is part of a package, and it is part of education as well. Smoking continues to be something that children should not do. Children should never vape. Children should never smoke. They continue to do so, and anything that we as a responsible society can do to stop that is to everybody’s benefit.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Steve Turner: Children are very susceptible and can be easily influenced, and they are learning all the time. If they see that it is okay to watch your child’s football match and smoke, or to smoke outside a pub, they will very quickly adapt and think that that is a social norm. There is a powerful social norm exercise there about what we as a society expect is normal, and approving smoking outside hospitals seems to be such a bad, conflicting message. To me, that argument in itself is very powerful.
There were a number of people back in the early noughties who felt that the smoke-free legislation might not have much benefit on pregnancy—why on earth would that reduce low birth weight and premature delivery? Well, it did. That was probably the snowballing effect of stopping smoking in pubs, for example—I think the whole of society changed its attitude and behaviour around smoking. So, going back to the original question, I think that putting restrictions in public spaces will change that social norm to everybody’s benefit.
Andrew Gwynne
Q
Professor Steve Turner: That is a really good question. I think that the balance in this Bill—between supporting the 6 million smokers to quit and not engaging children in nicotine addiction—is the right balance. Going back to what I was saying earlier, getting the message across to young people is a multifaceted intervention that requires education as well as legislation. It is a really difficult balance, but I do believe that the Bill, as it is, has that balance just right.
Dr Chambers
Q
Professor Steve Turner: The impact on the whole of society of second-hand smoking in children is complex, but there are various pieces of the jigsaw. First of all, children come to the clinic, are admitted to hospital, come to the emergency department, or go and see the GP, so there is that healthcare side. If any of you have children, however, when your child is off school, that has implications for you as a family; there are some difficult discussions over breakfast about who is going to work and who is not. Therefore, there are a number of different impacts on us as a society, economically and to the NHS from second-hand smoking.
I am not clever enough to put a number on it, but it is a lot bigger than I think people know. I do know that £46 billion is the number cited as the direct health cost to the NHS of smoking—it is almost too big to consider—but I suspect that the wider societal cost will probably be a magnitude greater than that.
Dr Chambers
Q
Professor Steve Turner: The children who are exposed to second-hand smoke in the home are over-represented among children with respiratory symptoms. Parents do not want their children to smoke, so they feel torn. They are conflicted: they are addicted to nicotine, but they do not want their children to smoke, and having a smoke-free generation will address that almost impossible parental conflict.
John Whitby
Q
Professor Steve Turner: I support the Bill as it stands. I think that the onus has to be on the vendor not to sell, not on criminalising the customer or the child.
Mr Barros-Curtis
Q
I am particularly thinking about vaping here, given that I think there is pretty unanimous agreement on the tobacco side. Therefore, just on vaping, is there any more that you think the Bill could do, not necessarily in terms of vaping as a cessation tool to support the transition from smoking, but in terms of preventing people—obviously children, but even just adults—from beginning that journey and vaping in the first place?
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: From my standpoint, there are the online harms—for example, through social media, gaming and music videos. It is a wild west out there—regarding both tobacco and vapes, actually—and there are lots of depictions that lure people in. There is a lot of advertising and promotion of both tobacco and vaping products. I think that that online and social media area is the one area that we could do much more with. That would strengthen the Bill further.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Q
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: I have not yet had the chance to say this, but first, I think the Bill is really well balanced. It is bold and world leading; all nicotine products and non-nicotine containing vapes are part of it. The people who put this together should be congratulated, but we also have to be aware that industry never sleeps. It will try to adapt to regulation and legislation, and we need to be wary of that and make sure that we use the powers in the Bill in the future, depending on how industry responds.
For example, with disposable vapes, which are due to be banned later this year, I am sure that there will be a lot of companies right now changing their products to make them look as though they are not disposable vapes when, to all intents and purposes, they are. There will be lots of adaptation by industry that we must be wary about. The Bill provides those future powers for us to adapt to industry.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
Professor Steve Turner: Touching on what I have said before, there are communities, invariably the poorer communities, in something called the tobacco map. If you look at the areas where tobacco use is greatest, it maps totally on top of deprivation. We have an opportunity to break that generational social norm of, “It’s okay to smoke.” The people who come to the greatest harm from cigarette smoking and nicotine addiction are invariably the poorest. What is proposed here will be a good step towards narrowing the divide we see in this country in health outcomes, which is totally determined by poverty.
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: We estimate that around 350 children a day start to smoke. A lot of those will be from the most deprived communities. In addition, smoking in the UK brings around a quarter of a million families into poverty, and those families have children. The Bill will go a long way to not only reducing the health harms to individuals, but reducing poverty and hopefully smoking-related deprivation.
To answer one of the questions earlier about the cost of smoking to the NHS, it is estimated that it costs secondary care about £1 billion a year. With primary care in addition, that is a total cost of £2.6 billion to the NHS, around £20 billion a year to social care, and about £50 billion a year in lost productivity. That is the overall cost of smoking to our society, whether at the level of the individual, poverty, deprivation, social care or workforce productivity, and that is why the Bill is so important.
Jim Dickson
Q
Professor Sanjay Agrawal: These additional measures warn people away from smoking—those who might be looking at the packaging or the individual cigarette. Remember, an individual cigarette—every time someone takes out a cigarette—is an advertisement for cigarettes. Lots of times, children are sold cigarettes on a per-cigarette basis, and they have never actually seen the packet; they have only seen the cigarettes. Therefore, having on-cigarette warnings is another measure that we can introduce to warn people off the harms of smoking. It would be great to see that.
The Chair
I was incorrect; we have until 5 o’clock, rather than 4.50 pm, which is now. Do we have any more questions from Members? No. In that case, I thank Professor Turner and Professor Agrawal for giving evidence, which I am sure will be useful to the Committee in its deliberations. The next panellist happens to be the Minister. Instead of asking questions, he will come under fire from his own Committee.
Examination of Witness
Andrew Gwynne MP gave evidence.
The Chair
For the record, our final witness is Andrew Gwynne MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Prevention at the Department of Health and Social Care. We have until 5.20 pm.
Dr Johnson
Q
Andrew Gwynne: Thank you for that question. I was not actually on the Bill Committee when the previous iteration of this measure went through Parliament, because I was the shadow Social Care Minister—I had been bumped away from public health, only to return to it in government.
The starting point is a recognition that the previous Government brought forward a Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which was incredibly foresighted of them. I thank those—including you—who supported that proposed legislation. We have to be mindful of the fact that the first thing we are seeking to do is to make the United Kingdom smoke-free, and smoke-free as soon as possible. As we heard from the chief medical officers from the various nations that make up the United Kingdom, tobacco is a killer. Our first target has to be driving down the instances of smoking and, as a consequence, of tobacco-related death and illness, and the harms caused by second-hand smoking. That is why the measures in so far as tobacco is concerned are far weightier than the measures in respect of vaping.
The other thing I would like to say in answer to your question—this is an important point; we are concerned about nicotine addiction—is that we need to get the balance right. We recognise that vaping is an important smoking cessation tool—as the CMO said, not all countries share that point of view, but in the United Kingdom we see it as an important part of the package to help people to quit smoking. There has been a very successful scheme in this country, the Swap to Stop initiative, and that is an important part of this.
We are really concerned about the scourge of child and youth vaping, however, and that is why we think that the measures in the Bill are proportionate, because we are tackling a specific issue: stopping children taking up vaping and trying to dissuade adults who have never smoked from taking up vaping. As the CMOs have said, vaping is better than smoking, but not vaping and not smoking is the best option of all.
This is a proportionate measure. As you know, we are seeking quite far-ranging powers, and that is to ensure that, across the four nations, we can react as industry reacts to these changes so that this Bill will be future-proof. If we were overly prescriptive, we would then have to come back to Parliament with further primary legislation. While we are not seeking to be nicotine free at this moment in time, there will be powers in the Bill that allow, at some stage in the future, the Governments that make up the United Kingdom to consult to go further. The aim now is to stop smoking, to get to our smoke-free targets and to crack down on childhood vaping.
Dr Johnson
Q
My other question is about advertising. You will be aware that I put forward an amendment to the Conservative Bill to try to restrict advertising, because I think it is important to try to restrict advertising to children. How will health professionals who are promoting vaping as an alternative to smoking specifically in a medical setting, not necessarily on the tube or the side of a bus, be protected from being criminalised?
Andrew Gwynne: This is an area in which this Bill really does build on the previous Government’s iteration of the Bill. I want to take the politics out of it and thank Members such as yourself who really pushed this last time round. We are able to do this because it was a commitment of the Labour party in the 2024 manifesto that we would ban the advertising of vapes and the promotion of vapes in sponsorship. There is 75% support for an advertising ban on vapes.
In terms of being able to promote vapes as a quit aid, of course, you will have read in part 6 of the Bill that it is only an offence if advertising is done in the course of business. That excludes the promotion of vapes as a quit aid. That is something that hopefully you will welcome.
Dr Johnson
Q
Andrew Gwynne: Oh, you will get me on my hobby horse, having mentioned bongs. All tobacco products will be covered by the measures in this Bill. Shisha is covered. Shisha is a harmful product, as are other tobacco products. In respect of paraphernalia, I have raised with officials and colleagues in the Home Office what I see as a potential issue: if this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, and there is further consultation on the packaging and display of vapes, we could end up with a situation where vapes, like cigarettes and other tobacco products, are hidden behind cabinets in plain packages, but those same newsagents have bongs in the window. I am assured by my officials that bongs and grinders can also be used for the consumption of tobacco, and therefore will fall within the scope of the measures in this Bill in that they will not be able to be displayed.
Dr Johnson
Q
Andrew Gwynne: Well, we cannot easily do so. The powers in the Bill mean that we have a statutory duty to consult. As we have already heard, Wales already covers the areas that we wish to consult on in respect of England. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will have their own consultations. But as far as England is concerned, the Government have been very clear that, should this Bill pass, we will consult on implementing smoke-free areas outdoors around children’s playgrounds and schools and outside hospitals.
Given the media interest and speculation over the summer as to outdoor areas to which the Government might extend the outdoor restrictions, including hospitality, it would not be possible for any Government to just wake up one day and decide they were going to extend these measures to x, y and z and for nobody to notice. It would be on the front cover of every newspaper and all over X, Facebook, Bluesky and other social media. People would be very aware of a Government’s intentions to extend outdoor smoking and we would be under a statutory duty to consult and to pursue secondary legislation, which is ultimately subject to a vote of the House.
Dr Johnson
Q
Andrew Gwynne: That is a really important question. It is why, at every opportunity today, I have been asking those with an interest in public health in Wales what lessons we can learn. We want to get this right. The reality is that alongside the package of enforcement we will bring forward—the registration; the licensing scheme; the fixed penalty notices—we have to approach this with a degree of proportionality, particularly to ensure that there is as good a compliance with the regulations as possible.
Most people are law-abiding citizens, and we saw with the indoor smoking ban introduced in 2006-07 that most people complied from day one. I really expect that most people will comply in respect of children’s playgrounds, schools and hospitals. I would hope that the enforcement agencies use a degree of discretion and proportionality at the outset to ensure that those not complying understand that they are potentially breaking the law and should stop doing what they are doing.
The Chair
We have about 15 minutes left, and five Members wish to ask questions. Could they do that briefly, and could we have brief answers too?
Liz Jarvis
Q
Andrew Gwynne: The short answer to both those questions is yes. We have committed to an investment across HMRC, trading standards and Border Force of £100 billion over the next five years to enforce these measures—sorry, it is £100 million. The Treasury will be having a fit; I am getting my billions and millions wrong. I wish it was £100 billion.
As far as public health campaigns are concerned, just this week we committed £70 million for smoking cessation. For this new year, I have signed off a concerted public health campaign for smoking cessation on social and broadcast media. As this Bill progresses and becomes law, there will be a huge public health publicity campaign so that everybody is aware of our Smokefree 2030 target ambitions.
Dr Ahmed
Q
Secondly, could you make a wider comment on the historical context of the Bill? In 2006, it was a Scottish Labour Government in the Scottish Parliament who set in train some of the processes that we are trying to finish today. Over those 14 to 15 years, we have seen many positive short-term and long-term public health outcomes. What do you think will be history’s judgment on this portion of that journey?
The Chair
Could you make the answer shorter than the question?
Andrew Gwynne: Those are two very good questions. This Bill is a landmark piece of legislation. I think it will be the biggest advance in public health for a generation. It will be a truly historic thing. What a wonderful thing to say that, in the near future, no child born after 1 January 2009 will ever legally be able to be sold tobacco. That leads me on to your first point: tobacco is a killer. It kills about 80,000 people in this country a year. It is responsible for a quarter of all cancers. It puts enormous pressure on our NHS and our economy.
The death rate for somebody in a more deprived part of our country is more than two times higher as a consequence of smoking. There is no reason beyond smoking why the life chances of somebody living and growing up in Richmond are so much better than those of somebody growing up and living in Blackpool. It is because the smoking prevalence for somebody growing up in Richmond is about 4.6%, whereas for somebody living in Blackpool it is over 20%. This will save lives. This will narrow health inequalities. That is what all of us, irrespective of our parties, were brought here to do.
Dr Cooper
Q
Andrew Gwynne: We wanted to have a proportionate approach. We recognise the difficulty that the hospitality sector has gone through and is in. We listened to the voices of concern. I cannot speak for ministerial colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but, as far as England is concerned, we decided that we wanted to target outdoor smoke-free places to areas where children and the most vulnerable people are likely to be. That leads to the logical conclusion that we should target the outside of hospitals, where a lot of vulnerable people go through the doors, outside schools and outside children’s playgrounds.
Mr Barros-Curtis
Q
Andrew Gwynne: It is. The four nations that make up our United Kingdom have gone at different speeds and to different depths in terms of tobacco control over recent years. Zubir was absolutely right to point out that it was the Scottish Labour Government that first introduced the indoor smoking ban, and we followed suit soon after, but it is really important that the four nations stand together on this, not least because some of this does require a four-nation approach in legislative terms. It also means that we can meet this ambition together, and that we are all in this together, because, for me, a health inequality in parts of Greater Manchester is just as important as a health inequality in Glasgow, Cardiff or Belfast.
We need to tackle these inequalities, because they are a scourge on our society. That is why a four-nation approach, alongside the permissive nature of this Bill, means that the four nations can go forward together, but also diverge on the basis of extending consultations and so on. That is why we have the support of the devolved nations and the Ministers, who come from different political persuasions across Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland; we are all in one, as far as this Bill is concerned, and we have shaped it together.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
Andrew Gwynne: That is really important, and I want all Members to understand that a key aspect of reaching our smoke-free ambition is to drive down the prevalence of current smokers. That means a real investment in smoking cessation, a close eye on what is happening on the ground, and using the flexibilities in the Bill, should they be needed, to ensure that we reach that smoke-free ambition.
We announced £70 million of stop smoking funding this week, which has been weighted towards the areas with highest deprivation and smoking prevalence, so that we can try to drive down those inequalities. Obviously, future years funding is subject to the usual processes of the spending review, but let me make it clear that it is a priority of this Government to invest in stop-smoking services. We will ensure that local authorities and the public health functions of the country have the resources needed to reach a point where we are smoke free.
Taiwo Owatemi
Q
Andrew Gwynne: That is an interesting question. First, there has been really close engagement between the UK Government and the devolved nations. We have the full support of Mike Nesbitt, the Northern Ireland Health Minister, who has helped shape the Bill, as have his officials. The UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive are in close dialogue with colleagues in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that we discuss at length and in detail the cross-border issues. We will continue to engage with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that the Bill works. Only time will tell whether the Republic of Ireland will decide to follow suit, but the Bill will be a game changer and other countries will want to follow the United Kingdom’s lead.
The Chair
In the short time we have left I cannot allow any more questions.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
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
Workplace Pay Gaps
(2 days, 9 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
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
May I take this opportunity to wish all colleagues present a happy new year?
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered pay gaps in the workplace.
Thank you, Sir Roger. I wish everybody a happy new year, too, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
There are multiple pay gaps in the workplace. I have had emails about the age pay gap, size pay gap and accent pay gaps—as a certified cockney, I know that that is true, and just for the record, some of the most intelligent people I know are cockneys. But today, for Ethnicity Pay Gap Day, I want to focus on gender, ethnicity and disability pay gaps. The key point is that if we measure something, we can fix it, but at the current rate, it will take another 40 years to fix the gender and ethnicity pay gap. Nobody should feel happy about that slow rate of progress; and imagine how long it will take to fix the disability pay gap—it will take even longer.
Last year, the Fawcett Society reported that Equal Pay Day fell on 20 November, two days earlier than the year before, and that essentially meant that from 20 November until the end of the year women were working for free. It is shocking that, on average, women earn £630 less a month than their male counterparts. On social media, people sometimes say, “What is this all about? Are you trying to reduce how much men are paid?” That is not what this is about. It is about fairness and equality and about paying people more, not less. I do not want on social media the manipulation and the misinformation of people saying, when we talk about equal rights and fairness, that that is somehow doing down men, because it absolutely is not. Currently, the ethnicity pay gap is 5.6% and the disability pay gap is 12.7%. That is a whopping pay gap.
The Government are to be applauded for their ambition and plan to make work pay. The Prime Minister said, as part of his new year message:
“The security of working people…is the purpose of this government.”
That is something that we should all applaud: working people should be secure in their job and in their work. Following the King’s Speech, companies of 250-plus employees have to report ethnicity and disability pay gaps, which is welcome. It is also welcome that gender pay gap reporting has been expanded to include equality action plans. That is great, but producing equality action plans is not enough. What will companies do with the action plans? How will they ensure that they use the action plans to close the pay gaps? It is one step, but it does not go far enough.
It has to be acknowledged that what we do now will actually make the workplace better for everybody—not just women, people with disabilities and people of different ethnicities. Everybody will benefit if the workplace is fairer. Research has found that men want flexibility in the workplace. This is always framed as women wanting flexibility in the workplace, but the reality is that men also want flexibility, so if we make that a standard, everybody will be happy. And no matter who is doing the job, doing the work, they should be paid fairly. That should be the case no matter who they are or what they look like, so there also needs to be a concerted effort whereby we stop stereotyping people into jobs or creating structures that try to normalise inequality.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The Equality Act 2010 states that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, yet in 2024, black people earned an hourly mean rate 19.04% lower than their white counterparts. The Employment Rights Bill provides an opportunity for employers to develop and publish an equality action plan. However, those action plans at the moment cover only gender. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to place more emphasis on ethnicity gap issues, and that that Bill, which is in Committee, needs to make that right by covering them at this stage?
Dawn Butler
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If our ambition is to make the workplace fairer and secure it for everybody, we should take the opportunities laid before us. That is one opportunity to ensure that we not only close the gap but make workplaces fairer.
There was one case that was easy to identify as a trade union official: men were called chefs and women were called cooks, and chefs were paid a higher rate than cooks. That was an easy one, once we could figure out what was going on. A more difficult case was that of Kay, who said:
“I had been working as a chef with a large catering company for ten years. During a casual conversation, my colleague mentioned he was being paid £22,000 a year. This was £6,000 a year more than me. I thought the right to equal pay would mean I was being paid fairly. For years, I went to work each day without knowing I was being paid less than those I was working alongside. I am not an isolated case. I know there are many women who, like me, don’t realise they are experiencing pay discrimination.”
That picks up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson). The law is there, but if someone does not know what the person next to them, who is doing the same job, is paid, they could be discriminated against.
Some people will say that some men and women do different jobs, different types of work or different hours. The law says the “same work” or “work of equal value”, but even when men and women work the same hours and in the same roles, nearly two thirds of the gender pay gap remains unexplained. That points to pay discrimination, which we must tackle as a Government. How do we tackle that and move faster towards security, fairness and equality? One way is transparency. It is important for people to know who is being paid what and why. We should introduce the right to know. In Kay’s situation, she should be able to see how much X is being paid and know that there is a £6,000 pay deficit. We also need actionable and enforceable action plans. Again, an organisation may have identified a pay gap, but unless it has committed to closing that gap, that probably will not happen. Another way companies can do that is by assigning it as a key performance indicator. We have found that when organisations assign that to somebody as a KPI, real action is taken and pay gaps begin to close.
The Government have a huge role to play not just through legislation, in terms of the Equal Pay Act and so on, but by securing the circular economy. The Government can have an active role in making the workplace fairer by ensuring, as has been done in some areas, that they give contracts only to companies that pay people well and fairly and do not have a pay gap. So the Government’s procurement contract processes can ensure that they give contracts only to companies that follow good practices, which will enrich the circular economy. This is not just about doing the right thing. Companies that pay people well and employ the right people for the right jobs generally have a 15% higher profit margin than their nearest counterparts. That also plays out in the fact that a lot of young people are becoming socially informed, so they like to shop with companies that have good ethics and consider climate change. This approach will benefit everybody and is good in itself.
As I come to the end of my speech, some may wonder why I have not mentioned fines. The Minister may correct me, but to my knowledge no company has been fined for its gender pay gap. Unless that part of the law is strengthened, it is meaningless. I am interested to know how we can ensure that we fine companies that are not closing their pay gaps, and what the Government plan to do with any money that is collected.
There is a stark difference across UK regions, with some doing better than others. London has the largest ethnicity pay gap, which currently stands at a whopping 23.8%. That is appalling in one of the most diverse capital cities in the world and the financial capital city of the UK. As chair of the London parliamentary Labour party, I want to accelerate the move towards closing those pay gaps. I commend Dianne Greyson, founder of #EthnicityPayGap, for her work on that.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on governance and inclusive leadership—GAIL—I launched a maturity matrix in Parliament. That guide is available online for free for companies to implement in their workplace. It takes them through various stages to recognise and close pay gaps. That has been so successful that companies have asked for it to be expanded for disability and other things, which is currently being done. That is a free resource because, ultimately, we want better and fairer workplaces.
People should be paid fairly on merit. No one should be paid less for their work because of their gender, colour of their skin, ethnicity, background, accent, size, age or class. If we get this right on gender, ethnicity and disability, we will create a better and fairer work environment for all.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. It appears that at least seven Members wish to take part in the debate, apart from the Front Benchers, who each have 10 minutes. On that basis, I am going to put an immediate seven-minute time limit on speeches. I may have to reduce that, which will depend on whether Members choose to intervene. If they do, that will shorten the time available for debate. If Members do intervene, I gently ask that they make interventions and not speeches.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for leading today’s debate. She has worked incredibly hard on this issue. It is good that we can discuss its effect across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I wish to add a Northern Ireland perspective to the flavour of the debate, and to give some examples from Northern Ireland of where there has been a shortfall, where it has been addressed and what we can do better.
With regard to geography, ethnicity, gender and so on, the UK has witnessed, in the past and presently, pay gaps in certain industries. This debate is important to get a full perspective on the situation in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For example, there was a large disparity in teachers’ pay in Northern Ireland, which coincided with the failure of the Northern Ireland Assembly to meet for some time. There was a clear problem of unfairness to teachers working in Northern Ireland. In April last year, a formal offer on teachers’ pay for 2021, 2022 and 2023 was accepted by Northern Ireland’s five main teaching unions. The pay settlement agreed by the Teachers’ Negotiating Committee included a clause on a starting salary of £30,000 for teachers in Northern Ireland.
That is really important because for too long the teachers in Northern Ireland had lagged behind in pay negotiations and pay awards. That 24.3% increase in starting salary is to be warmly received and it makes that salary equal to England, as it should have been for a long time. The title of this debate is “Workplace Pay Gaps” and those are for both males and females, although I will refer to where women have been disadvantaged in other ways, but there should be absolutely no pay disparity anyway. Equality for teachers in Northern Ireland has eventually been achieved after four years. It is absolutely to be welcomed, but waiting on it for four years is hardly fair.
Additionally, there have historically been issues in Northern Ireland and further afield in the United Kingdom regarding the pay gap between men and women. The Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland has revealed that, as of 2023, the overall gender pay gap in Northern Ireland stood at 7.8% in favour of males. The hon. Member for Brent East referred to that issue, and I thank her for it. It has to be addressed by companies across Northern Ireland.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) have both alluded to the gender pay gap. Whatever the justification or otherwise might have been 30, 40 or 50 years ago, when there were different roles in society for males and females in employment, does my hon. Friend agree that those days have long passed? There must now be no distinction of any kind, whether it is based on gender or on any other differential. There needs to be pay equality right across the spectrum.
Jim Shannon
I wholeheartedly agree. For instance, apprenticeships are available at Thales in the armament and military production line in Belfast, and young girls and ladies have the same opportunities as young fellas and men. The same applies at the shipyard and at engineering firms across Northern Ireland, especially in my constituency. I have seen the advantage of those apprenticeships. My hon. Friend is right to raise that point.
For every £1 earned by men, women earn only 92p. That has to be addressed: we need wage equality. Where employers are perhaps reluctant to provide it, the Government need to step in legislatively. The gender pay gap favours females when we consider full-time and part-time employees separately—there are gaps of 3.5% and 1.7% respectively—so there are some anomalies to be addressed.
The gender pay gap has narrowed over the years. It has decreased from 22.4% in 1987 to 8.7% in recent analysis: over 27 years, there has been a great drop in the disparity. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) compared the historical position with where we are today. I believe that the trend reflects ongoing efforts towards gender pay equality.
UK-wide, we have witnessed further pay disparities that certain ethnic minority groups experience in comparison with white employees. The hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) was absolutely right to highlight that clear gap, and the clear evidential gap to be addressed. For instance, in the 10-year spell between 2012 and 2022, black, African, Caribbean and black British employees consistently earned less than their white counterparts.
Furthermore, studies by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency have identified pay disparities between disabled and non-disabled employees in Northern Ireland. I think the hon. Member for Brent East referred to that disparity in her speech. Goodness me! If they are doing the same job to the same ability, they should be getting the same pay. There should be no disparity just because someone happens to be in a wheelchair, have a visual or hearing disability or have a mobility issue. That cannot be ignored. For example, employees reporting fair health, which is a proxy for disability, experienced a gender pay gap—wait until you hear this one—of 16.8%. Those who reported very good or good health experienced narrower gaps of 8.1% and 8.4% respectively. There is a real gender pay gap for disabled people.
Perhaps the Minister can give us some idea whether she has had any discussions with the Minister back home. There is no doubt that much progress has been made in addressing these issues, but there is still a long way to go. There is significant work to be done to ensure full pay equity across all demographics, not just in Northern Ireland but further afield in the United Kingdom. Has the Minister had a chance to raise that issue with the Northern Ireland Assembly?
There is hope that legislation can be introduced to address these issues. I look to the Minister today for a commitment to ensuring that they are resolved. I understand that many of the issues are devolved, but the Government here have a responsibility, centrally, to ensure fairness in pay across all employment sectors.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. To make it easier for Members, I have asked that the clock count down, rather than up, so it is easier to work out how much time you have left. You can now see that very clearly indeed.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing this important debate.
Research in 2023 revealed that mothers in the UK earned, on average, 31% less than fathers—a gap worse than the one 40 years before. The motherhood pay penalty has been overlooked by previous Governments for far too long, significantly contributing to gender pay gaps. The undervaluation of care work, combined with the fact that caregiving responsibilities fall disproportionately on women, means that women are often the ones who take career breaks or reduce their working hours when raising children. This leads to limited work experience and stunted career progression.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that while men’s earnings remain largely unaffected by parenthood, women’s earnings drop significantly after having children. In fact, seven years post childbirth, women earn less than half of what men earn. The penalty is even more severe for black and ethnic minority women, who face additional barriers as the impact of motherhood is compounded by existing ethnic pay gaps and gender and race-based inequalities at work.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving parents’ rights in the workplace through the Employment Rights Bill. The Bill’s increased protections against dismissal for pregnant women, for those on maternity leave and for those returning within six months build on existing safeguards against redundancy for mothers, taking us a crucial step forward in addressing the penalty. Furthermore, the Bill’s removal of restrictions on paternity leave and pay will provide more flexibility and encourage a fairer division of parenting responsibilities between partners.
What plans do the Government have to directly tackle the gap between the earnings of mothers and fathers? What specific measures are being considered for single parents, who will not necessarily benefit from changes to paternity leave and who often bear the responsibility for caregiving? Diolch yn fawr.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The happiest of new years to all. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing this important debate.
Over 1,400 years ago, Islam placed a strong emphasis on justice and fairness in all aspects of life, including the workplace. The principle of equal pay for equal work aligns with Islamic teachings that advocate for equity, justice and human dignity. Several hadiths and Koranic verses highlight the importance of fair treatment and appropriate remuneration for employees. Islamic principles also stress that wage disparities based on race, gender, colour or nationality are unjust and contradict the core values of Islam and humanity.
In more recent times, it is remarkable that nearly a century after women gained equal rights to vote in this country, and half a century since the introduction of the Equal Pay Act 1970, significant gaps remain in pay for women—especially women from minority ethnic backgrounds—and for those with disabilities. I therefore welcome the measures in the Employment Rights Bill as an important step in the right direction to redress this wrong through proposals to extend reporting requirements on employers and for employers to develop and publish equality action plans, including measures to address the pay gap. However, as hon. Members have stated, action plans on their own are not enough; they must be implemented and enforced.
I would like the Government to provide further clarification on two areas. I note the findings in the report by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development for 2022-23 that nearly a fifth of large employers with more than 250 employees said that they had not carried out gender pay gap reporting, despite its being a requirement for all businesses with 250 employees or more in England, Scotland and Wales. Enforcement of the reporting regulations is a responsibility of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that sufficiently robust measures are in place to ensure that employers meet their reporting requirements, as well as ensuring the enforcement of the implementation of action plans?
I also note the TUC’s recommendation that the same reporting requirements be extended to businesses with 50 employees or more. Can the Minister explain why the Bill confines itself to businesses with 250 employees or more? Why does it not seek to cast the net wider? Taking comprehensive steps to address the gender, ethnicity and disability pay gaps is a moral and legal imperative that the Government must address in full, once and for all.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the Unison group of MPs.
We have had gender pay gap reporting since 2017. Although it was a very welcome first step, it has proved to be too weak on its own to fully level the playing field between men and women at work. Women are still being paid significantly less than men on average. Gender pay gap reporting relies on a name-and-shame approach that means that employers can continue to report paying women less, year after year, without having to take any action at all to change this. It is great news that the new Labour Government have already taken decisive action by bringing forward the new Employment Rights Bill. The new law will mean that employers have to publish an action plan setting out how they will take tangible steps to reduce gender pay gaps and discrimination in the workplace. Finally, employers will be held to account to ensure that they pay women fairly.
Today, I want to focus on disabled people in particular. Disabled workers are paid an average of over £2 an hour less than non-disabled workers. That is thousands of pounds a year that disabled workers are losing out on. Disabled women experience one of the worst pay gaps as a result of double discrimination: not only do they suffer the gender pay gap, but they experience the disability pay gap, which has barely moved over the past decade. There was no progress at all under the previous Government, and disabled workers are still losing out.
I am delighted that the new Labour Government announced straight away in the King’s Speech that we would bring forward a new equality Bill that will ensure a full right to equal pay for both disabled and black and Asian workers. The new law will finally extend pay gap reporting to disabled workers and will mean that employers with more than 250 staff must publicly account for the difference in how much they pay their disabled staff. However, as the gender pay gap has shown, we will still need to do more, and the groundbreaking disability employment charter outlines some of the solutions. The disability employment charter is a list of nine demands of Government that will break down the barriers for disabled people at work. It was put together by organisations such as Scope, Disability Rights UK and Unison. Over 220 employers have already backed the disability employment charter but the previous Government failed to act on any of its recommendations.
One of the charter’s key demands is for disability pay gap reporting alongside employment gap reporting, because too many employers just do not employ disabled people in the first place, let alone pay them properly. I hope that the Minister will consider mandatory publication of the level of disabled staff at larger employers so that an employer’s commitment to treating disabled people fairly can be properly assessed. Disabled workers are twice as likely to be unemployed than non-disabled workers. That is caused by discrimination in recruitment, but also by workers being hounded out due to bullying and harassment, or a failure to provide reasonable adjustments. Disabled workers are entitled by law to reasonable adjustments—often small changes that can help them do their job—but research by Unison found that a quarter of disabled workers have waited over a year for adjustments to be put in place and many never hear back from their employers at all. They get ignored and the current law is not strong enough for them to do anything about it.
No one can do their job properly if they do not have the tools to do it, so of course those disabled workers lose out on promotion and get stuck on the bottom rung of the pay ladder. That is a key cause of the disability pay gap. Without the right help, many disabled workers are in pain each day at work, or struggle to perform. The next thing they know, they are out of the door: an outcome that could have been avoided with changes to hours, additional breaks, or with, for example, speech-to-text software. That is a massive waste of talent, which has led to a disability employment gap of 30% and nearly 3 million people stuck at home on long-term sick leave when many of them want to work.
The disability employment charter calls for a new right to a two-week deadline to get at least a reply to requests for reasonable adjustments. Currently, there is no deadline for a response—unlike, for example, flexible working requests, to which the employer needs to respond in eight weeks. I gave evidence on that point to the Lords Public Services Committee in my previous role with Unison and I welcome the Committee’s recommendation of a four-week deadline for responses to requests for reasonable adjustments. I know the Minister will consider that issue as she works with colleagues, including the Minister for Social Security and Disability, on proposals to help to reduce the disability employment gap and the pay gap.
Disabled people are full of talent and creativity. For too long they have been pushed out of jobs that they love because of discrimination, bullying and a simple refusal to give them the basic help that they need to thrive at work. The solutions outlined in the disability employment charter, including mandatory publication of the disability pay gap and the employment gap, and a deadline for responses to requests for reasonable adjustments, will help to finally unleash that talent. I look forward to this transformative Labour Government taking forward this vital work.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is, as ever, a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger and I wish you a happy new year. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), who has been a consistent champion of equalities for the entire time that we have been in Parliament.
We could forgive ourselves for feeling that we have been here before, not only because it is wonderful to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place at every Adjournment debate, but because we have been asking for equal pay and for pay gaps to be addressed in this country for the entire time that I have been in this House—15 years. We are latecomers to this debate: women have been asking for equal pay since 1833. The first recorded instance was in Robert Owen’s labour exchange and, as a Co-op MP, I am sorry to say that it was not received favourably. I hope that we can address that today. Nor should we ever forget Barbara Castle’s contribution as a champion for equal pay. She paid for it with her career because, frankly, people in the Labour movement did not appreciate the argument that she made. Yet her argument was the argument that we always have to make, which is, first and foremost, about our economy.
Pay gaps, whether to do with gender, ethnicity, or disability, represent productivity loss and loss of talent. We have to ask ourselves why this country is languishing in the bottom half of the OECD rankings when it comes to productivity and why we have stagnating living standards. One of the answers is that we do not make the best use of our people. Let us kill the myth that when we talk about equal pay, or the gender pay gap, somehow this is women asking nicely for something as a treat. This is cold, hard economics we are talking about today, which is why it also matters when we do things that may inadvertently increase the gender pay gap. Today, I want to raise some concerns with the Government about that. When we kill the myths, we need to be clear: it is really not us, it is society.
Data from the Fawcett Society shows that even when men and women work in the same occupations, in the same industries, doing the same working hours, and are the same age and ethnicity, two thirds of the difference in their income cannot be accounted for. That is discrimination. Let us be honest about what it is. Women ask just as often for a pay rise; men are four times more likely to receive one. There is segregation within industries and it is increasingly evident that the biggest part of the pay gap is to do with motherhood, which I want to come on to.
I take a very different view to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on the Employment Rights Bill, which is why I think we need to address this issue. Five years ago, in October 2020, I put forward the Equal Pay (Implementation and Claims) Bill, because of the challenges that we are facing. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) is absolutely right that we have had pay gap reporting for many years now, but it is one thing to know there is a gap and another to have the tools to do something about it. The lack of fines and the previous Government’s cavalier attitude towards the gender pay gap and ethnicity reporting—which they promised us, but never delivered—in tackling productivity and highlighting that lack of talent is a real challenge for us.
We need to give people the tools, because there are no fines. One reason why I proposed the Equal Pay (Implementation and Claims) Bill was to give women the right to know the incomes of their male comparators, so they could bring an employment tribunal. We know that this has been one of the few ways that people have actually made progress on this. Last year’s figures show that the average award for sex discrimination was £50,000, while for race discrimination it was £10,000, and for disability it was £17,000, but some of the awards went up to nearly £100,000. I pay tribute to women such as Carrie Gracie and Samira Ahmed, who took on major household names who were not paying women equally. This problem is widespread in our society.
I want to return to the issue of the motherhood pay gap, because it is not just that women face a penalty when they have children, it is that men receive a premium. The evidence from workplaces is clear that even when women do return to work after motherhood, they are undervalued, underpaid, and considered to be less committed. The reverse is true for men. What a waste of talent in this country. What on earth are we doing as a nation, if we think that when someone is able to juggle looking after a family, they are somehow less rather than more capable, and when we do not recognise that we are asking men to do something impossible, which is to not be around their children at an early age and be the guy that they want to be, because we are asking women to pick up the slack for men’s employers?
I am proud of many aspects of the Employment Rights Bill. I am proud of the equality action statements. They will be part of shining the light of disinfectant on the problem of the pay gap. Yet when we talk about the tools to tackle this, we have to recognise that if we inadvertently reinforce the stereotype that only women look after children, we may make the pay gap worse. There is a lot of evidence that even those women who do not have children experience discrimination in the workplace because employers think they might go and have children.
The concern I raise with the Minister is not only the need to introduce a “right to know”—that 2020 legislation was not written by me, but by a brilliant woman called Daphne Romney, who is a fantastic QC on these issues and who worked with the Fawcett Society. I hope I can encourage the Minister to have a look at it and see if there is anything she might want to pick up. However, I also want to bring to the Minister’s attention my concern that if we only strengthen mothers’ rights in the workplace, we might reinforce the idea that it is only mothers who look after children, and therefore the gender pay gap could get worse and not better, and people will be left out. The answer is, therefore, not to reduce those rights, but to give fathers and second carers in a relationship rights to equally paid and protected leave, so that everybody of a certain age who might be looking after children is equally discriminated against.
PAPa, paid and protected leave for fathers and second carers, is something that we could do through this piece of legislation. I will not tell the Minister how long it should be, but the principle that fathers need protected time in their own right is possibly one of the greatest tools for equality and improving productivity that we could bring into our economy.
Many of us, who are so delighted to see a Government that are prioritising tackling the pay gap, are equally concerned to ensure that we do not miss this opportunity to make the progress we need: to give dads back the time they need to be brilliant dads and employees, and to give mums the opportunities in the workplace denied to them, because too often society thinks that they put themselves out to pasture by having children. Only a Labour Government can understand the challenges that we face, but only a Labour Government can live to the highest standards, which Barbara Castle called us to, because it is her legacy that we are here to fight for and her legacy that will deliver for this country.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for bringing this important issue to the fore. As a declaration of interest, I am a proud member of Unite the union and the Community union.
At the heart of this debate is the ongoing problem of inequality and, ultimately, who actually holds the power in our country, which has been the consistent issue that workers have faced for centuries. The truth is that our country and our economy has always been run for the benefit of the few—historically, those who owned the land and its resources, and the people who worked on it. Whoever controls that will have wealth; therefore, inequality is not a new phenomenon. If I may be permitted a little more history, the creation of the Labour party in 1900 meant that at last the working class and the trade union movement had an effective voice in Parliament. But for women, it took until 1928, when the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928 was passed, to deliver them equal voting rights with men. However, pay discrimination for women is still an issue.
To focus specifically on Scotland, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, using the Office for National Statistics annual survey of hours and earnings, has shown that women in Scotland can expect to earn an incredible £3,000 a year less than men. That gender pay gap rose from 6.4% in 2023 to 8.3% in 2024, up by 30%. While the typical Scottish male has seen their hourly pay increase by £1, a Scottish female has seen it increase in comparison by 74p: yet more inequality built into our society.
That is sadly reflected when we look at local government workers in Scotland, approximately three quarters of whom are female. Local authority workers need and deserve a wage that genuinely reflects their worth and value to society. After 17 years of the SNP’s own brand of austerity, the Scottish Government must now invest in workers and the public services that people so drastically rely on.
An article published yesterday described how a FTSE 100 boss’s hourly pay has now hit £1,298. That shows the gross inequality and unfairness that exists in workplaces. The huge disparity between pay for those at the very top of industry and their staff—those who generate that wealth—has grown bigger. We cannot look at pay inequality in isolation because, in the ongoing fight for a fairer society, multiple issues must be linked. In Britain today, as well as pay inequality, millions of people are in the grip of food poverty, living in substandard housing, in a society where, overall, many are victims of tax injustice. We are still a country where wealth and power continues to be concentrated in the hands of corporations and not ordinary working people.
The truth is that the cost of living crisis has not gone away, but it is not a crisis for the banks, supermarkets, utility companies or individual oligarchs who have seen their wealth explode. Austerity and the cost of living crisis have been crises for the poorest, most vulnerable, the most disadvantaged and the working class. Thankfully, over the last two years the British Labour movement has led the fight against insatiable corporate greed and avarice. The collective power of trade unions as an effective fighting force for workers’ rights has thankfully been re-established. The fight for equality in the workplace and across society, just like the cost of living crisis, goes on.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
We now come, slightly earlier than anticipated, to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I wish you and everybody else a happy new year, and hope that in 2025 we do again make progress in this area.
I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this debate because, for me and I am sure everybody in this room, closing the gender pay gap—and all the pay gaps—is fundamental to creating a more equal society. We cannot have true freedom and equality of opportunity, quality of life, standard of life or anything in this country if we do not have equality of pay. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) mentioned Barbara Castle, which made me think about the fact that the Equal Pay Act was actually passed in 1963. I was a toddler—[Interruption]—yes, I was a toddler—and now here we are, when I can just see retirement appearing on the horizon, and we are still talking about equal pay for women, but also for ethnicity, disability and LGBT issues. It is sad that it has taken us so long.
We have, of course, made progress, but so many of the statistics are frightening—none of them are encouraging reading. According to the Office for National Statistics, the median hourly pay for full-time employees is 7% less for women. It goes up to 13.1% when taken across all hourly paid employees. As the hon. Member for Brent East mentioned, we have, I fear, even more serious issues in terms of both ethnicity and disability, because they have not had the attention over the past 61 years that gender has had.
As I say, we have made progress. In government, the Liberal Democrats were instrumental in pushing for large employers to be required to report on gender pay gaps in their organisations. That has led to some transparency and thrown light on some very serious issues, including high-profile, controversial revelations, particularly in the media sector, where we have seen massive disparities. That underlines how far we still have to go, particularly in tackling inequalities in terms of ethnicity, disability and LGBT, where pay gaps are still not published—we do need publication of those gaps.
Moving forward, this Government must tackle the specific economic barriers facing women, ethnic minorities, the disabled and LGBT by expanding access to flexible, affordable childcare, doubling statutory maternity pay and, critically, expanding shared parental leave, because— I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow about this—there is no point in making it about mothers. It has to be about parents, or we simply emphasise the difference, and keep that going.
Flexible, affordable childcare and early years education are critical to our economic infrastructure, and help to close the attainment gap between the wealthy and the poor. They give parents more choice over how to organise their lives and help them to return to work if they want to. Back in 1963, that was not an option that women had. My mother had to give up work when she had me. When she had my sister seven years later, she had gone back to work, and had to give it up again. Then, when she had my youngest sister in 1972, almost 10 years after that equal pay legislation was passed, she still had to give up work—there was no option to go back to work—so it is critical that we address that. It should be a choice.
Lack of access to affordable childcare is a key driver of the gender pay gap. Women lose ground when they do not go back to work after they have had children. I gave up a successful career in journalism not long after my daughter was born because it was simply too expensive, and that was in the 1990s. The progress that we had made by 1997, when I made that decision, was very limited.
We have more to do. As well as improving that specific area, the Government have to look at improving diversity in the workplace and public life. I want to see large employers monitor and publish data on gender, ethnicity, disability and LGBT+ employment levels, pay gaps and progression, and publish five-year aspirational diversity targets. They should extend the use of name-blind recruitment processes in the public sector and encourage their use in the private sector. That is critical, because that is the first step to ensuring that employees are treated fairly. They have to improve diversity in public appointment by setting ambitious targets and requiring progress reports to Parliament, with explanations when targets are not met. As we have heard, we have to start to see heavy fines when that does not happen.
I have been fortunate in my working life, and in those 60 years since the Equal Pay Act, and in the Equality Act 2010, which made a huge difference. I would like to see this Labour Government take this further and ensure that our country manages to achieve the equality that we have striven for. The hon. Member for Brent East says it is predicted to take another 40 years—I will not be here by then, but I would like to see it.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this debate, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing today’s debate, which marks Ethnicity Pay Gap Day.
We have heard from a host of Members this morning on the impact of pay gaps in the workplace. The hon. Members for Brent East and for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) both asked what can be done to hold companies that do not address identified pay gaps to account. The hon. Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) addressed the rights of parents and the motherhood pay gap. The hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) spoke about the disability pay gap and improving the working lives of disabled workers. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke about regional pay gaps in Northern Ireland and Scotland respectively. These are important topics in an area where there is still work to be done, despite the progress made over the last half a century, first by addressing gender pay discrimination and, more recently, by addressing discrimination based on ethnicity and disability. The Labour party’s manifesto pledged to address the issue of pay gaps and stated that it intended to build upon the existing legislation.
Paying men and women different pay for the same work has been prohibited in Great Britain since the Equal Pay Act 1970—legislation that has since been superseded by the Equality Act 2010. Gender pay gap reporting was introduced by the Conservative Government in 2017, through world-leading legislation that made it statutory for organisations with 250 or more employees to report annually on their gender pay gap. Since 2017, the gender pay gap has declined steadily from 18.4% to 13.1% in 2024. I ask the Minister: do the Government anticipate that trend continuing and, to that end, do they believe that the introduction of additional legislation will close the remaining gap more quickly or have no impact on the current trajectory?
Data from the Office for National Statistics on the gender pay gap from 2024 show that it was highest in skilled trades and occupations, and lowest in caring, leisure and other service occupations. Although the Government’s new legislation will seek to ensure that gender pay disparities are eradicated within organisations, what plans do the Government have to address the differing pay gaps across industries?
The gender pay gap is much higher for full-time employees aged 40 years or over than it is for employees aged below 40 years. There are a variety of reasons for why that might be the case. Although I do not have a breakdown for the rationale for that observation, one reason might be the impact of motherhood on careers and earning potential. What steps are the Government taking to address the gender pay gap within that demographic? It is notable that, in occupations where pay generally increases with age, the proportion of women decreases. Additionally, the difference in pay between the sexes is largest among higher earners.
In May 2021, the Labour party pledged to modernise pay laws to give women the right to know what their male counterparts earn, as alluded to by the hon. Members for Brent East and for Walthamstow. Although that detail did not make it into the manifesto—not that that has stopped the Government from implementing some of their other recent policies—do the Government still intend to introduce that right, and if so, will the Minister outline how such a policy would work in practice? Can the Minister provide assurances that private sector pay will remain confidential and not subject to inquiry by co-workers by law?
Close to home, we see how this presents itself in our political parties. In 2023, the Conservative party had a mean gender pay gap of minus 1.8%. Labour party reporting shows that it has a mean gender pay gap of 2% and that:
“The gender pay gap for men and women therefore shows that on average, men’s hourly earnings are higher than women’s within the Party. There has been a change from the -2% recorded in 2022.”
Can the Minister outline what steps have been taken to address the seemingly worsening gender pay gap within the party of Government since the 2023 report was published?
Ms Creasy
I am pleased to hear that the shadow Minister thinks that gender pay gap reporting is something that should drive change. Does he therefore want to apologise for the fact that the only business reporting that his party’s Government abolished, during the pandemic, was gender pay gap reporting? If he thinks the gender pay gap is such an important metric, does he now recognise that that move sent a terrible message about this data?
Ben Obese-Jecty
Obviously, that was before my time in this House, so I am not completely au fait with the detail the hon. Member is referring to, but I will come back to her with some clarification.
I was unable to find a Labour gender pay gap report for 2024, nor could I find any ethnicity or disability pay gap reporting, so I ask the Minister whether she can provide an update on the 2024 pay gap figures for gender, ethnicity and disability for Labour party employees. It would be reassuring to see the party of Government lead by example, by placing itself in the vanguard of organisations that voluntarily provide such clear data ahead of the introduction of the legal requirement to do so.
On race, Labour’s manifesto pledged to introduce a landmark race equality Act to enshrine in law the full right to equal pay for black, Asian and other ethnic minority people. The Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), pledged 18 months ago that such an Act would form a core part of Labour’s plans in government. The aspect of that Act applicable to this debate is the Government’s commitment to fine companies that do not act on data highlighting a racial pay disparity. The right hon. Lady stated that that was a Labour priority, yet as we approach the six-month point of Labour being in office, I ask the Minister who here today to clarify when that Act will be brought before the House and when companies can be expected to have to implement ethnicity pay gap reporting. Labour first made the pledge to introduce ethnicity pay gap reporting in 2021, in a document that has now been deleted from the Labour party website, but I ask the Minister to say how such a policy is likely to be implemented.
In March 2022, the previous Government published “Inclusive Britain”, its response to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. Action 16, which directly addressed ethnicity pay gap reporting and responded to recommendation 9 in the report, was to
“Investigate what causes existing ethnic pay disparities.”
It stated:
“We will address the challenges with ethnicity pay gap reporting to support employers who want to demonstrate and drive greater fairness in the workplace.”
It also said that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy would
“publish guidance to employers on voluntary ethnicity pay reporting in summer 2022. This guidance, which will include case studies of those companies who are already reporting, will give employers the tools to understand and tackle pay gaps within their organisations and build trust with employees.”
The previous Government published their guidance to employers in April 2023. I ask the Minister whether this Government will retain the existing guidance and use the measures already in place. Once reporting becomes mandatory, how will the Government ensure that enough workers disclose their ethnicity to make reporting accurate? Can she give assurances that employees will not be forced to disclose their ethnicity on record? How will the legislation improve individual situations if an ethnicity pay gap is identified? Will employees on the wrong side of an identified ethnicity pay gap be informed of their specific circumstances, or will they be left to see the gap identified in the reporting and then have to rely upon the organisation’s action plan to redress any imbalance?
In January 2023, the then Labour party chairman, who is now the Minister for Women and Equalities, addressed the reported 9% ethnicity pay gap within the Labour party between its black and minority staff, and its white staff. She stated:
“Labour is determined to close these pay gaps, not just among our own staff.”
Two years later, and ahead of mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting being introduced, I ask the Minister to say whether the Labour party has now addressed its own ethnicity pay gap. The Guardian reported in November that senior Labour MPs were frustrated that
“there were no senior black staff members at the very centre of a Labour Government.”
It would appear that the party of Government still has some work to do.
Lastly, the disability pay gap receives far less scrutiny than either the gender pay gap or the ethnicity pay gap. As someone with a close relative who is a wheelchair user, it is easy for me to see how disabilities, both visible and hidden, can be overlooked. The Government pledged in their manifesto to introduce a full right to equal pay for disabled people, as well as mandatory disability pay gap reporting for large employers.
A TUC report from last November highlighted the current disability pay gap, and we would all benefit if that gap was closed. Can the Minister say when the Government intend to introduce mandatory disability pay gap reporting and also how the mandatory action plans will be used to address identified gaps?
A proactive step would be to introduce reasonable adjustments passports to ensure that the impact of employees’ disabilities is documented. Adjustments can be agreed and any future potential adjustments can be identified. An employer then has a clear record of adjustments that have been agreed upon, which can be easily communicated to new managers. I believe Labour also pledged to improve access in its manifesto, so can the Minister outline what progress has been made in that regard?
ONS data for 2023 showed that the disability pay gap was 12.7%. Unlike the gender pay gap, the disability pay gap has remained constant for around a decade, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan). That gap is actually wider for men, at 15.5%, than it is for women, at 9.6%. It is also wider for full-time employees than it is for part- time employees. The ONS’s disability pay gap analysis showed that disabled men earn a median hourly pay that is similar to that of non-disabled women. The ONS data also showed that the biggest impact is on those with autism, epilepsy or learning difficulties. Disabled employees with autism had one of the widest pay gaps, with a 27.9% difference, and those with epilepsy had a 26.9% difference.
I ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to reduce those categories of pay gap with the highest difference. Given the increase in instances of autism in children with special educational needs and disabilities, I ask the Minister: what steps are being taken now to ensure that a better structure is in place for what is likely to be an increase in those disabilities in the workforce?
There is still progress to be made on addressing pay gaps in our workforce. I look forward to the Minister’s response and await clarity from her on the steps the Government have pledged to take to address those issues.
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing this important debate. I thank her, as other hon. Members have, for her long-standing advocacy and campaigning on the issues, which she demonstrated deeply in her speech today. I am proud to have worked with her on them. I also acknowledge the contributions made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, which were summarised well by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). I am pleased to see the support for our direction of travel, and I see that we need to go further and faster.
I hope to comment on as many of the issues as possible that colleagues have raised. I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his comments, but I will say that if there had been as much passion for and commitment to some of these issues over the past 14 years, and such a focus on the Conservative party’s record, there would have been greater change than there was. I hope that he will continue to be a strong voice on these issues, not just in Parliament but in his party.
Today’s debate is a welcome opportunity to reaffirm and highlight the Government’s commitment to workplace fairness. I am incredibly proud that the work we are taking forward in this Parliament comes on the back of a long history of commitment to equalities legislation, whether that is the Equal Pay Act, the Race Relations Act 1965, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Equality Act.
One of the key ways that we can measure fairness in the pay that workers receive is by looking at pay gaps. Pay gaps look at the differences in the average pay between groups—for example, the average earnings of women compared with men—while equal pay is a direct comparison of the pay of individuals doing the same or similar work. We have had a number of contributions today on the ranges of and differences in pay gaps.
Pay gaps do not necessarily mean that pay discrimination has taken place, but frankly, they often do. They can point to opportunities not provided and processes that lock people out. Those are issues of fairness and workplace security. Pay gaps can also mean that employers are missing out on the talents and skills of a diverse workforce and all the benefits that come with that. Closing pay gaps of all kinds is in everyone’s interest, which is why we want to go further and faster in this Parliament to reach that ambition. It makes sense for business, society, employers and our economy.
The timing of this debate is welcome, given that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East said—Ethnicity Pay Gap Day falls tomorrow, on 8 January. I acknowledge the work of Dianne Greyson and other campaigners. Since 2018, the campaign has highlighted the need for decisive action to tackle ethnicity pay gaps. Like Disability Pay Gap Day, which was marked on 7 November, and Equal Pay Day on 20 November, the date serves as a reminder of just how far we have to go. We know that ONS data shows that black, African, Caribbean and black British employees have consistently earned less than white employees, when looking at median gross hourly pay. In 2023, the pay gap between disabled and non-disabled employees was 12.7%, and in 2024, the gender pay gap still stood at 13.1%.
A number of issues have been raised—not just by my hon. Friend—in relation to accountability, enforcement, regional variation, the right to know, and so on. I will make a few remarks before addressing those points, although I recognise that there may be a shortage of time to address all the points that have been raised today, so I will also be happy to pick them up with hon. Members afterwards.
I am proud that in the King’s Speech in July, we strengthened our plans to introduce legislation to root out inequalities and strengthen protections against discrimination. As part of the King’s Speech, we announced the equality (race and disability) Bill, through which we will introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for employers with 250 or more employees, building on the requirement to publish gender pay gap data. That is a major next step in equalities legislation.
The debate on the publication of an ethnicity pay gap report has had the engagement of a range of key stakeholders, including the Runnymede Trust, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Business in the Community, ShareAction, Unison and many others. We also know that many ethnic minority workers still face barriers to progression in the workplace. For example, in March 2023, over 26% of the workforce across NHS trusts in England, but only 11% of those at senior manager level, were from an ethnic minority background.
Similarly, although there has been growth in employment rates for disabled people in recent years, there are still significant gaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) laid out. As we know, disabled people have, on average, lower incomes than non-disabled people, and I want to make a couple of comments about the disability pay gap and employment issues. I know that my hon. Friend, who has expertise in this area, has met the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), to discuss the disability employment charter. We are taking those comments into account in our response to the Public Services Committee that I hope will be coming shortly. We also remain committed to publishing the findings of the disability workforce reporting consultation 2021-22.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. This is entirely my fault. I imposed a time limit on speeches earlier, but two Members then dropped out, which has left us, perversely, slightly under-running. I should have indicated to the Front Benchers at the start of the Front-Bench contributions that we had a little more time than we might need. It is probably in the interests of the House that we hear what the Minister has to say, so I am going to allow the Minister to run over very slightly; if she wishes to take the intervention, she may do so.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her contribution; she will know that my questions to her will never be adversarial. She has referred to disability action. Has she had an opportunity to discuss these matters with the equivalent Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly? That was the thrust of my contribution, as it is really important that we in Northern Ireland follow the same line of thought as happens here.
Seema Malhotra
I understand that we are engaging with our colleagues in the devolved Governments, and across the country in relation to mayors playing a part, and I am very happy to pick that point up with the Minister for Disability. It is a priority for this Government to engage much more with our devolved Governments and work together to ensure that the voice of the whole UK is heard in the legislation that we are bringing forward.
I want to make a couple of comments about parental and shared leave and employment rights. Our plan to make work pay included a commitment to review the parental leave system alongside our wider plans to boost family friendly rights, so that workers and employers can benefit from improvements in productivity and wellbeing. The Employment Rights Bill will make existing entitlements to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave available from day one of employment, and will enable parents to take their parental leave and pay after their shared parental leave and pay.
We are improving access to flexible working, which will be extremely important in how we move forward further in this space.
Ms Creasy
I absolutely welcome the commitment to look at these issues, but I want to put on record that many of us believe that shared parental leave has set us back in terms of equality between the genders. It has been a disaster in terms of who has taken it up, because it asks women to give up their maternity leave and men do not pick it up. We need to give men leave that is paid and protected in its own right if we are ever to have equality between the sexes. I put that on the Minister’s table as something we need to look at, because shared parental leave is not the answer here.
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; her views and her voice are very much heard in this place. A number of these issues go across Government Departments, and I encourage her to continue to engage with other Ministers on this.
Hon. Members have raised issues relating to pregnant women and new mothers. Pregnant women and new mothers deserve to know that the law is on their side. We will put in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who return to work for a six-month period after they return, except in specific circumstances. Strengthening the legislation in this area is an important part of how we are continuing to take our programmes forward in a way that is good for our economy, society and families.
Returning to ethnicity and disability in relation to employment and pay gaps, introducing mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting will provide transparency and the vital data to help businesses to identify and address pay gaps within their workforces and identify and remove barriers to progression. It will shine a light on the businesses taking welcome steps to promote the talents of ethnic minority and disabled workers while holding to account those who neglect to do so and make progress. The equality (race and disability) Bill will enshrine in law the full right to equal pay for ethnic minority and disabled people, and we will seek to remove barriers to redress for claimants.
These measures are not just about diversity and inclusion, as hon. Members have commented: they make good economic sense. Evidence shows that the adoption of such policies leads to improved productivity, improved rates of progression and retention, and profitability. Our analysis in opposition indicated that closing the employment gap faced by ethnic minority people could add almost £36 billion to our economy.
Anyone who is familiar with pay gap reporting knows, however, that the changes that we are making are not simple. These are complex matters with numerous challenges, whether it be disclosure rates, for which we will be producing more guidance, or the granularity of reporting. That is why we have listened to stakeholders when it comes to introducing the measures, and we continue to listen about how we will make this work in practice. That will be part of an important set of consultations that we are to undertake this year, including roundtable discussions over the next few months. I look forward to attending my first one, in collaboration with ShareAction, early in March.
As for when we will introduce legislation, we have committed to publishing the draft legislation in this parliamentary Session. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East, we will bring forward the consultation shortly. That will be an opportunity for many of the issues to be raised in wider dialogue as we move forward with our plans.
On closing the employment gap and on best or good practice in workplaces, the “Get Britain Working” White Paper was published by the Department for Work and Pensions in November last year. It was a groundbreaking piece of cross-Government work. It sets out the details of reform to employment support to help tackle rising economic inactivity levels and to support people into good work, creating an inclusive labour market, all of which is part of the backdrop for how we make legislation more impactful in workplaces. That includes a new service to support more people to get into work and to help them get on in work.
Local “Get Britain Working” plans across England will be led by mayors and local areas and will include a youth guarantee—for all people aged 18 to 21 in England—for education, training or help to find work. I encourage Members to engage in such activity as we take it forward.
We are also making changes to existing reporting requirements further to ensure that employers are taking the steps we need to narrow their gender pay gaps. It is absolutely right to say that progress on reducing the UK gender pay gap has stagnated, and we need employers to take action to change that.
Organisations have been reporting data since 2017, but with employers encouraged to publish action plans voluntarily. Analysis in 2019, however, found that only half of employers had produced details of the actions that they had developed or implemented to address their gender pay gap. As part of the Employment Rights Bill introduced to Parliament in October last year, action plans will become a requirement. They will ensure that organisations are taking effective steps to improve gender equality in their workplace, and we continue to engage on how we will make them most effective. This will also focus minds on steps, for example, to support employees during the menopause and will introduce much-needed accountability into reporting.
Finally, the Government are acting in a number of ways to act on the drivers of pay gaps and to secure fairness more broadly in our workplaces. The landmark Employment Rights Bill contains robust measures to safeguard working people, including protections from sexual harassment and enhanced rights for pregnant workers, as well as measures that have the potential to change workplace culture for the better, with the elements I mentioned to do with flexible working and expanded day one rights.
We have an ambitious agenda to ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, and will empower working people and deliver economic growth. That is why we are working at pace across Government to make this agenda a reality. Over 50 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 and almost 15 years after the Equality Act 2010, I am proud that we are now taking action at pace. In closing, I again thank all hon. Members for their contributions this morning.
Dawn Butler
A big thank you to everyone who has participated in this debate; it has shown Parliament at its best, and it is great to see that there is no real opposition to championing equal pay. It has taken a long time, but we now have a Labour Government and we can deliver it. That is the beauty of having a Labour Government who are committed to ensuring that people who are working are fully paid and respected in the workplace. Although the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said that she wants to be alive to see the gap closed completely, I think we will see that with a Labour Government, so she will be alive to see it.
It is interesting that a country where the pay gap is really small is Norway, where anyone can find out how much anybody else is paid. That is taking things further than we would in the UK, but it is interesting to see that because people there have that disinfectant and that light on the problem, as hon. Members have said today, they are able to see the gap and close it. I do not think that we should be scared of having people know what other people earn, especially if they are working side by side. There should not be anything to worry about.
It is also interesting that the Employment Rights Bill will tackle a lot of this issue. We need to ensure that as it goes through Committee, we take on all the suggestions that will accelerate progress. This has taken way too long. We know that the gap exists and that equal pay is a problem, and everyone here today has said, “Why don’t we close it?” We know that it exists, and it should not exist for anybody, whether they are male or female; regardless of someone’s gender, colour, class, age or size, this should be about fairness and equality.
Yes, we have come far, but not far enough. We will know that we have reached true equality when everybody is paid well. We should shine a light on everything. I thank all contributors to the debate. We have shown that the purpose of government and legislation is to make the world fairer for everybody in it, and we can do that via legislation, by winning hearts and minds and by shining a light on the injustices that exist. If we close the equal pay gap, we will be taking a huge step forward towards that aim.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered pay gaps in the workplace.
National Resilience and Preparedness
(2 days, 9 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
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. I suspended the sitting until 11 o’clock but, with the mover of the motion and the Minister present, I see no reason not to start. I will call Richard Foord to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. As is always the case with 30-minute debates, there is no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. Without further ado, I call Richard Foord.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered national resilience and preparedness.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I have brought this debate to the House so that the people I represent can hear from the Government what they are doing to make the UK more prepared and resilient.
I was partly inspired by the Hallett inquiry into covid-19, and its module 1 report published in July, but I want to go beyond pandemics to think of the UK’s broader resilience and preparedness. At Cabinet Office questions last month, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirmed that the Government would respond to module 1 this month, and we look forward to hearing what the Government have to say. I want to focus on three areas: future pandemics, food security and hybrid threats.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. It is important to have efficient contingency plans across the United Kingdom for all sorts of national crises and disasters, like those that the hon. Gentleman referred to. Local communities are encouraged to engage in activities, emergency plans and response units. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is more the Government can do to engage with the devolved institutions—in particular local councils—to ensure we have a joint strategy across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is an old friend and has been here a long time. We really must get out of the habit of reading into the record pre-prepared interventions. An intervention is an intervention, not a contribution to the debate.
Richard Foord
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the civil contingencies legislation in this country puts a lot of the onus on the devolved institutions and a lot of the responsibility on local government. We cannot afford for national Government to therefore shed all their responsibilities and simply rely on local and devolved institutions.
Resilience is the capacity to withstand or to recover quickly; I suggest that the UK Government do not currently offer us that. The covid-19 pandemic exposed critical weaknesses in the planning and preparedness for large-scale emergencies. While the UK has made great strides in terms of our recovery—and we did after the pandemic—we may still lack the capacity to withstand other crises. Our vulnerabilities to emerging climate change, to food security risks and to hybrid threats from the UK’s adversaries leave us unprepared to endure shocks and unable to recover swiftly.
On covid-19, module 1 of the Hallett inquiry was a crucial call to action. The report concluded that the nation was “ill prepared” and that citizens were “failed” by the systems we had in place at the start of 2020. I think of how Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister at the time, was wandering around hospitals shaking hands while the national guidance proposed that we should do something completely different. The report revealed that the UK’s emergency planning was too much focused on influenza and failed to account for any other sort of pandemic.
One of the most critical failings identified was the “unduly complex and labyrinthine” nature of the UK’s civil emergency planning structures. Responsibility for pandemic preparedness was dispersed across multiple bodies, leading to inefficiencies and a lack of clear leadership. The inquiry also scrutinised the Government’s risk assessment processes, finding five major flaws that significantly affected the UK’s preparedness, including a lack of focus on prevention and insufficient consideration of interconnected risks, including economic and social vulnerabilities.
The 2016 preparedness exercise Exercise Cygnus, which simulated the impact of a flu pandemic, identified critical gaps in the UK’s preparedness, including insufficient capacity in the health system and a lack of essential supplies such as PPE. The recommendations from the 2016 exercise were not acted on, and when covid-19 emerged the same shortcomings persisted, with delays in the provision of PPE, inadequate testing, and healthcare services that became overwhelmed in some places.
Over 200,000 excess deaths have been attributed to covid-19 in the UK, many of which may have been preventable with better planning and better resilience. The pandemic also inflicted severe economic damage, with the UK experiencing one of the deepest recessions among the advanced economies. Businesses closed and jobs were lost. The strain on the public sector and on public services like our NHS is still being felt to this day.
The inquiry’s report set out key recommendations to overhaul the UK’s approach to civil emergency preparedness. The recommendations included regular pandemic response exercises and enhanced data sharing. Yet just last Thursday, Clare Wenham from the department of health policy at the London School of Economics stated:
“We’ve had the biggest pandemic of our lifetimes”
yet in 2025 we are
“we’re worse prepared than we were when we went in.”
When the Minister responds to the debate, it would be interesting to know where the Government are in relation to the World Health Organisation pandemic preparedness treaty. One of the 10 key recommendations from the covid-19 inquiry’s module 1 report emphasised the importance of enhanced data collection and data sharing. The emphasis on domestic resilience—the subject of this debate—has to be balanced with the obligation to co-operate internationally. Pandemics do not respect borders and require global solutions. The Government should act swiftly to implement the inquiry’s recommendations, engage with international frameworks such as the World Health Organisation treaty, and rebuild public trust in the nation’s ability to protect its citizens.
Covid-19 also highlighted some of the difficulties in other aspects of our resilience. We need only think about the supermarket shortages we saw and how people reacted: that was a reminder of just how vulnerable Britain is to food supply shocks.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this really important debate. The latest food security report from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found that fewer households were food secure in 2023 than in 2020. No element of national resilience can be more important than food security, so does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should introduce a comprehensive national food strategy that tackles rising food prices, ends food poverty, ensures food security and improves health and nutrition? Does he further agree that we must give the Groceries Code Adjudicator more powers not only to protect consumers but to address unfair price rises?
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall now get into the subject of food security. She draws attention to the Government’s food security report. Since the 1980s the UK’s self-sufficiency in food production has declined, going from 78% in 1984 to just 60% today. The statistics emphasise what my hon. Friend said. As for the Groceries Code Adjudicator, my hon. Friend is dead right: we need supermarkets to honour their deals and pay on time.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. On the point about the reduction in food security—I think it is actually below 60%, at 58%—he, as my constituency neighbour in the west country, will know the importance of the role that farmers and food producers play in our community, but we have also just seen 18 months of the wettest months on record, following swiftly on from one of the driest summers on record, in 2022, and we know there will be a devastating effect on food production as we see increased extreme weather conditions. Does my hon. Friend agree that climate resilience and action on climate change will also be an important part of the national resilience strategy?
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend is spot on. A report produced last October by the University of Exeter and Chatham House highlighted the fact that climate change and environmental degradation are a real weakness in the UK’s national security strategy. Authors Tim Lenton and James Dyke from the University of Exeter contributed to that report, and talked about the national security strategy having a glaring blind spot for climate threats. The report specifically identified risks to the food supply chain as a critical concern, no doubt exacerbated by some of the challenges we have seen lately from Government policy around agricultural property relief and the proposed changes to inheritance tax.
By contrast, Finland is a shining example, not just on food security but in many respects in relation to resilience. Finland has strategic food reserves, whereas the UK very much depends on real-time logistics, which poses severe risks when we see severe weather events, fuel shortages, or conflict.
Another factor is the UK’s departure from the European Union. Until 2021 a significant portion of our imports came from the EU, and trade disruptions following the UK’s departure from that bloc have heightened the risks. Between 2018 and 2023, import volumes from the EU decreased by 6%, and it is not yet evident how the UK is compensating for the lost relationships with our European partners in terms of food supply resilience.
The UK’s self-sufficiency in fresh vegetables—key in supporting the health of our nation—is at its lowest since records began. We are at just 53% for vegetable self-sufficiency. I have been involved in a campaign to have sections of British supermarkets that illustrate where products are grown in Britain or sourced in the UK, because at the moment it is easy in supermarkets not to know where food comes from. People are able to buy food from all around the globe, all year round. While that may be good in times of peace, we have seen during recent threats to global security that it may not persist.
Threats to food security have reminded us of what we could see in the future for our national security, so let me move finally to the issue of defence and hybrid threats. Defence is no longer just about protecting against armed attacks. Over the Christmas period I read Keir Giles’s book “Who Will Defend Europe?” The chapter on hybrid threats is excellent at illustrating how such threats range from cyber-attacks to disinformation. Those forms of aggression from states such as Russia mean that when we think about defence, we must think so much more broadly than just bullets and bombs.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
On the subject of defence, and particularly technology, does my hon. Friend agree that mandating battery back-ups for all mobile phone masts, both existing and newly installed, would provide a simple, robust solution to ensure uninterrupted communication access, particularly in rural areas such as mine in North Cornwall?
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have not considered battery back-ups for mobile phone masts, but it strikes me as an example of a kind of psychology that we need to get into in this country—a way of thinking about our critical national infrastructure and how we might support it, rather than just supposing that everything is going to be all right on the night.
Just last week, NATO’s deputy assistant secretary-general for innovation, hybrid and cyber warned that Russian hybrid attacks are now at a level that would have been absolutely unacceptable five years ago. We must not underestimate the damage that Russia can inflict on the UK without firing a bullet. The UK’s relaxed approach to security has left some of our critical national infrastructure vulnerable. A stark example is the Loch Striven oil fuel depot in Scotland, which stores fuel for NATO warships and aircraft but was reported late last year to be now surrounded by land brought into Russian ownership.
The UK’s lack of preparedness is evident in many areas. A damning report by the Royal United Services Institute on the NHS’s wartime capabilities reveals that it has no capacity to manage either military or civilian casualties during conflict. I have seen this eroded and undermined in my Honiton and Sidmouth constituency. In east Devon, we have five community hospitals from which beds were stripped out under the last Government. We have seen about 150 beds removed; if that trend is scaled up across the country, it is little wonder that we see shortages of hospital beds during a spike in flu cases, let alone thinking about our preparedness for any sort of national emergency. Hospitals beds are one factor, but we need to think about blood supplies, transport and train personnel, shortages of which would mean the system would be overwhelmed in no time.
A couple of months ago, my researcher Fraser Johnson went to Finland. The Finnish Government showed him that they have taken a long-term approach to resilience and preparedness. They require their people to have a whole-of-society approach to these things. Defence is not solely the responsibility of state authorities: it involves citizens, charities, non-governmental organisations, businesses and schools. The schools teach children how to analyse sources and combat disinformation. Finland has regional security committees that conduct local defence exercises twice a year. The concept of citizens as security actors ensures that resilience is embedded throughout society. Helsinki’s emergency preparedness is a model of comprehensive planning. It has underground shelters equipped with oxygen supplies, water reserves and beds for 800,000 people to be used in staggered eight-hour shifts.
Of course, Finland is not the UK; it has some fairly unique challenges, such as being desperately cold and having a very long border with Russia, but we need to take some lessons from our north European neighbours. Finland’s broadcaster operates a secondary news desk 30 metres underground with its own energy supply, ensuring uninterrupted communication during emergencies. The Finnish National Emergency Supply Agency maintains a network of 1,000 public and private partners to ensure stockpiles of six months of fuel. We saw during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 not only that the UK had become dependent on gas exports from Russia, but that we did not even have sufficient gas reserves in the UK, with the result that the price here spiked considerably.
Despite its proximity to Russia, Finland achieves all that with a defence budget of 2.4% of GDP, so it is partly about how we use the funding that we have. Our geographical distance from Russia should not lull us into complacency. By their nature, hybrid threats are difficult to detect and combat, and their impact will only escalate without decisive action. In January 2024, the Chief of the General Staff called for a shift in mindset to prepare for the possibility of war. The journalist David Parsley broke a story months later about how the Ministry of Defence is sketching out plans for a so-called citizen army of perhaps 200,000 volunteers, trained by reservists.
The UK should adopt a total defence approach focusing on stockpiling, training and central co-ordination to enhance resilience against hybrid threats and other challenges. We must move beyond our piecemeal responses and develop a proactive plan to safeguard our nation and its future. Will the Minister commit to implementing the UK covid-19 inquiry’s recommendations to strengthen our emergency preparedness? Will she prioritise a national food security plan to ensure resilience against climate change and supply chain disruptions? Will she outline the steps the Government will take to develop a comprehensive strategy to counter hybrid threats and protect our national infrastructure?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)
I thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue. I also thank you, Sir Roger, for chairing today’s debate. Happy new year, everybody. I also thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) for their important interventions.
The Government’s first responsibility is to keep this country safe, which is why national resilience has been at the top of the agenda since we came into government. As the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth rightly said, the covid and Grenfell inquiries have shown that we inherited a challenging situation. Let me explain the situation that we face. We are dealing with huge underinvestment, and the impact of covid-19 on our public services has been well documented. We know that there was underinvestment before the pandemic, and our public services are massively stretched. That is particularly true in the NHS, where key workers feel the burden and have been asked to go above and beyond. Society is less resilient than it was before the pandemic and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, our resilience has been eroded at a time when wider threats, including those from nation states, are increasing and global trends are making the risk landscape more volatile.
Therefore, since coming into office, we have taken immediate steps to strengthen national resilience by establishing a dedicated sub-committee of the National Security Council on resilience. As the hon. Member will know, the sub-committee is chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We are also looking at how we can improve our approach to national risk assessment, including greater external challenge, and we are designing a national exercising programme with guidance to improve exercising at all levels and help those on the frontline identify people who are vulnerable, which was a common theme from the covid-19 module 1 report. The Government have also adopted the 2023 biological security strategy in full, and we are committed to ensuring that we have the capabilities we need to protect the public from a spectrum of biological threats.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth mentioned the particular need to look at the threats we face on a daily basis and ensure that we have a robust strategy, and we are looking at how we can strengthen those capabilities. The new floods resilience taskforce, of which I am a member, is doing vital work to finally speed up and improve the delivery of flooding schemes and stop communities going underwater. I know that that is an important issue to the hon. Member, whose constituents have suffered from flooding and its consequences across Devon.
In the year ahead, we are looking to build on that work, starting with the Government’s response to the covid-19 inquiry module 1 report this month—I hope that that answers the hon. Member’s question. We are also continuing our review of resilience announced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in July last year. The review is a focused exercise, designed to rapidly identify what is working well and should be kept, what needs to be changed and what needs to be stopped. We are also considering a wide range of evidence, lessons learned, risk and organisational knowledge.
A particular focus for me has been to ensure that all relevant voices are heard. A common theme from both the covid-19 module 1 inquiry and the Grenfell inquiry is that certain voices were not engaged, so we need to move away from having conversations in echo chambers and group thinking. I am undertaking a programme of engagement with stakeholders across the public, private and voluntary sectors, including the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For example, just before Christmas, I held meetings with senior leaders from charities and representative organisations that support people at risk, who are so often disproportionately affected during emergencies. I also chaired a discussion in the autumn with 20 business leaders, where I emphasised the importance of Government and industry partnership.
This month, I will invite Members of both Houses to attend parliamentary drop-in sessions. I will hold two sessions where I will answer questions about the review and discuss its progress. There will also be an opportunity for Members to put on record anything that they think the Government should be looking at, so this debate has been particularly timely given the issues that have been raised. I will also meet members of the National Preparedness Commission to gather views on where our approach to resilience could be bolstered. Finally, I want to assure all hon. Members present that this work will be closely linked to our consideration of the covid inquiry module 1 report and the Grenfell inquiry final report, which the Government will respond to within the deadlines.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth has raised important issues today, particularly on the future pandemic, food security and hybrid threats. The UK Government are aware of the risk around food security. We currently source around 60% of food domestically, so it is important for us to look into that. We are also addressing hybrid threats. I found the information mentioned by the hon. Member, particularly relating to his researcher’s findings when he went to Finland, really insightful and useful, so I will look into that.
I also share the hon. Member’s view on a whole-society approach. It is important not only to look at resilience at a Government level, but to get to a point where the whole of society plays a role in that. That is why, particularly through the resilience review, we are looking at how we can work collaboratively across Departments, and also why, through the work that I have been doing, particularly at a grassroots level, we are ensuring that we hear people’s concerns about what we can do to strengthen resilience and making sure that everyone is part of that conversation.
I hope that the hon. Member feels reassured that we are taking this seriously, particularly as we are conducting a review into national resilience. I look forward to working in partnership with him and other hon. Members here throughout the resilience review and making sure that we feed this properly into Government delivery, so that wider society benefits.
Question put and agreed to.
Budget: Scotland
(2 days, 9 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
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the fiscal impact of the Autumn Budget 2024 on Scotland.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am delighted to begin this important debate on the fiscal impact of the UK 2024 Budget on Scotland. The Chancellor delivered a Budget on 30 October that was the largest settlement for the Scottish Government in the history of devolution. It means an additional £1.5 billion for the Scottish Government to spend in this financial year, and an additional £3.4 billion in the next. That amounts to a total of £47.7 billion for Scotland’s budget in 2025-26, the biggest financial settlement in the history of devolution.
The Budget keeps Labour’s promises to Scotland and the Scots, who put their faith in a Labour Government. The road ahead is not easy, nor were all the individual decisions made in the Budget, but the appalling economic inheritance left to this Government by the Tories, who gave us austerity, Brexit chaos, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, needs clearing up.
After 14 years of Tory chaos, division and decline, the Budget turns the page on those lost Tory years, fixing the foundations and rebuilding our country. It supports Scottish businesses to get the Scottish economy motoring again. It provides funding for green freeports, city growth deals, Great British Energy and hydrogen projects to fire up growth and deliver good jobs across Scotland. It will remove connectivity black holes, through Project Gigabit and the shared rural network, boosting 4G coverage in the highlands and islands, and provide £125 million for GB Energy, headquartered in Aberdeen, with hubs in Edinburgh and Glasgow. It will fund two hydrogen projects in Cromarty and Whitelee, and extend the innovation cluster in the Glasgow city region for a further year.
The Budget will implement the 45% and 40% rates of theatre, orchestra, museum and galleries tax relief, to provide certainty to businesses in Scotland’s thriving cultural sector. It will provide Scotland’s world-renowned whisky industry with up to £5 million for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to reduce the fees charged by the spirit drinks verification scheme, and end the mandatory duty stamps on spirits from May this year. It will kick-start growth at a local level by investing £1.4 billion in local growth projects across Scotland for the next 10 years, including £26 million for the Forth green freeport.
The list goes on. The Budget supports working people by boosting the national living wage, resulting in a pay rise to around 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots, and extends the temporary 5p cut in fuel duty, benefiting an estimated 3.2 million people in Scotland by £58 a year. The Budget also supports Scottish pensioners and those on welfare benefits. The Government’s commitment to the triple lock will see over 1 million Scottish pensioners benefit from £8.6 million a year more during this Parliament.
Pension credit is up, benefiting 125,000 of the neediest pensioners in Scotland. The Budget uprates working-age benefits by inflation, resulting in 1.7 million families in Scotland seeing their working-age benefits going up by an average of £150. It also reduces the maximum level of debt repayments that can be deducted from a household’s universal credit payment each month, from 25% to 15%. That will benefit the average Scottish family by more than £420 a year. And that is not all: Labour’s manifesto commitment to Brand Scotland has been realised. An initial investment of £750,000 this year will fund trade missions, promote Scottish goods and services around the world, and help Scottish businesses export for the first time.
This Budget also marks the end of the era of austerity. It provides billions of investment in public services and prioritises investment in our economy to jump-start growth, while raising money from those with the broadest shoulders. It provides significant increases in investment to ensure that we have the public funding available for Scotland’s NHS, schools and public services. In short, this Budget is good for Scotland.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
One other thing that the Budget did was to remove the ringfence around agricultural support payments. Surely an intervention as significant as that in the operation of a UK-wide market should be made on a UK-wide basis. I do not understand the rationale for the Treasury decision. Can the hon. Gentleman explain it to me?
Gregor Poynton
As I said at the start, not all the decisions in this Budget were easy. We had been left a horrible economic inheritance by the Tories, and we needed to make decisions to tackle that and clear the mess up that they made.
The decisions in the Budget mean that the Scottish Government are receiving more per person than the equivalent UK Government spending for the rest of the UK. As I said, in 2025-26, we will see the biggest financial settlement to the Scottish Government in the history of devolution. Sadly, however, we know from bitter experience that more money to the Scottish Government does not guarantee success, because the Scottish National party is taking Scotland in the wrong direction and being careless with Scotland’s money.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman speaks about the ending of austerity, but how can he say that when we have seen the removal of the winter fuel payment and a refusal by the Labour Government to end the two-child cap?
Gregor Poynton
We have delivered the largest budget settlement in the history of devolution—that is the end of austerity. [Interruption.] Well, you have it to spend.
SNP decisions have left a black hole in Scotland’s finances. The billions in extra cash delivered in this Budget must not be used simply to cover up the SNP’s “buy now and pay later” policies. That money must reach the frontline, to bring down waiting lists and drive up educational standards. The SNP has nowhere to hide now.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The changes to national insurance contributions mean that Aberdeenshire council has to find an extra £13 million in its budget this year. How will that help with education standards and health in Aberdeenshire?
Gregor Poynton
The largest settlement ever received by the Scottish Government in the history of devolution is driving up additional funding that can be spent in Scotland. The SNP has nowhere to hide; it has no more excuses. It cannot continue to blame others for its economic and financial incompetence, because the problems in Scottish public services are not solved by simply having more money to spend. The Scottish Government need to get much, much better at spending it.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for chuntering from a sedentary position earlier; that was not very polite of me. He says that we need to see an end to the SNP’s “buy now and pay later” approach. Of course, he will be familiar with the fact that the SNP Government, or any other Scottish Government, must have a balanced budget every year, so what does he mean by “buy now and pay later”?
Gregor Poynton
You can borrow to invest. Also, the hon. Gentleman’s party has announced that it is ending the two-child cap but with no money to pay for it—that, to me, is “buy now and pay later”.
Scots can see that the SNP has lost its way and is out of ideas, and that its Ministers are incompetent and wasteful with public money. Scots earning over £29,000 a year pay more in tax in Scotland than people in the rest of the UK, which Scottish Labour will look at if we win the next election. What do Scots get for those higher taxes? They get a Government who waste millions on delayed discharge and agency staff in our NHS, ferries that do not sail and pet projects that do not deliver for Scotland, all while decimating local community funding, which means that vital services are lost.
Where, for example, is the vision for reform of Scotland’s NHS, which lurches from crisis to crisis? What was once an annual winter crisis now stretches further and further into other seasons. Our heroic NHS staff do a fantastic job under the most difficult circumstances, but they and the Scottish public are being badly let down by their political leadership, who waste millions on delayed discharge and agency staff.
This week, we have seen the UK Labour Government commit to a plan to get waiting times down from 18 months to 18 weeks, and to put in place the firm foundations to deliver proper social care services. Where is the SNP’s ambition on either of those two issues?
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Labour colleagues like nothing more than to talk about the Scottish Government—they do it every time they get the opportunity. But does the hon. Gentleman not understand the depth of anger right across Scotland about this Budget, whether it comes from pensioners who are freezing in their homes right now, child poverty campaigners who are disappointed that it will do nothing about the two-child benefit cap, employers who are paying the cost of the national insurance rise, or farmers?
Pete Wishart
Is this the reason behind the massive fall in Labour support in Scotland?
Gregor Poynton
That was a long intervention. As I said before, they have the powers and the money, and it is up to the Scottish Government to make the decisions that SNP Members talk about. They complain about every single penny that we have raised in this Budget, but that money is being invested in Scottish public services. They cannot enjoy the money that is being spent on the one hand and complain about every penny piece that has been raised on the other.
A National Care Service Bill that was ill-thought-through has now been binned, and there is no plan to reform or be ambitious for Scotland’s NHS to deliver the care our constituents need. The proposed East Calder medical centre in my constituency is a textbook example of how these failings manifest themselves at a local level. Patients, doctors, the local community and the health board all agree that we need a new health centre in East Calder. The one thing holding it back is the Scottish Government’s management of NHS resources. With this year’s unprecedented Budget settlement, the funding is now there to deliver projects such as this, and there can be no more excuses.
Where is the planning reform to unleash growth and get Scotland building again? There is a terrible shortage of planning officers in Scotland and no plan to tackle it. There is no substantive commitment to build more homes or any sign of the action needed to make that happen. The drift and lack of vision is summed up in the Scottish Government’s behaviour around the proposed Berwick bank offshore wind farm. The planning application was submitted in December 2022 but still awaits a decision from Scottish Government Ministers. What are they waiting for? Why are they dithering? Why is it taking so long for Scottish Ministers to get a grip of this important decision? As the Aberdeen & Grampian chamber of commerce has said, all they are achieving is putting potentially billions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-quality green jobs at risk.
And the list goes on. Where is the investment in skills and in the future of our young people, our economy and our country’s prosperity? We know what the jobs of the future are. There are many sectors in which Scotland has the potential of competitive advantage if only the Scottish Government would take action and get ahead of the curve. But we have seen the precise opposite of urgency, ideas and energy from them. Why are we not preparing and supporting our workforce, young and old, with a wartime-like effort to train our people to take advantage of these enormous opportunities and grow our economy? There is just more dither, delay and a lack of ambition and vision for Scotland.
What are we doing to arrest the decline in educational attainment and the widening attainment gap? Nicola Sturgeon once said that closing the attainment gap was the “defining mission” of her Government. Instead, it is getting worse. Educational attainment for all children is down. For those children from the poorest homes, it is down most of all. What a shameful record of almost 18 years in power. For John Swinney, just being a bit better than Humza Yousaf is not good enough. This is a Government not holding themselves or Scotland’s public sector to anything like the high standards the Scottish people deserve.
I applaud the Chancellor’s Budget of 30 October. I applaud, above all, the huge investment in Scotland and the highest ever budget settlement for the Scottish Government, but the ball is now in the Scottish Government’s court. They have nowhere to hide. They must halt the drift, the buck-passing and the managed decline. They must seize this opportunity to unleash the enormous potential of Scotland or make way for a Scottish Labour Government who are ready and eager to make that happen.
Several hon. Members rose—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
A number of hon. Members wish to speak, and we will have to take the wind-ups at about 3.28 pm.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz—we always have to say that, but in this instance, I genuinely mean it. I am grateful to speak on this issue. When I saw this coming up on the agenda for Westminster Hall, I thought, “Goodness me, who has brought this?” It turns out that it is the Government. I thought, “That is all right. Well, let’s see what the facts are because this Budget had precious little in it to be welcomed in Scotland.”
I will start with that which could be welcomed for Scotland. Thankfully, the Chancellor heeded the SNP’s manifesto call to change the fiscal rules to allow more investment in capital infrastructure. That was good and welcome, and it will be helpful. They also heeded the SNP’s pre-Budget call for greater investment in the NHS, which will be very welcome as we try to recover from covid and staffing challenges. But aside from those two things, on which the SNP gave the Government a menu, the Budget has been an unmitigated disaster for Scotland and Scotland’s economy. It has imposed billions of pounds of service cuts and tax rises that will hit working Scots in the pocket and do very little, if anything, to deliver on the promise that the people of the United Kingdom were offered as a prospectus in the run-up to the election.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Would the hon. Gentleman describe £50 million for Argyll and the Isles and £20 million for the Western Isles as a “disaster”?
Dave Doogan
I hope that that money will be spent and make a great difference, but it will not compensate the Western Isles and the Northern Isles one bit for the money that they have lost as a consequence of Brexit. The hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) and many of his colleagues herald this as the largest Budget settlement for the Scottish Government, as though Budget settlements go up and down. But they continually go up: every latest Budget settlement is the biggest Budget settlement since the last one.
As various Bills have passed through the Chamber, I have not run out of opportunities to point out to the Government how the basics of fiscal policy and economics work, and here we are again. All power to the communities of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton). I hope they get great benefit from that money but it does not fully compensate them for what they have lost, and no mistake.
The tax rise of £40 billion represents the biggest since Norman Lamont in 1993. Do not forget that when this Government came in, they inherited the highest tax burden in living memory, or certainly since the end of the second world war at least—
Dave Doogan
Yes, the highest—so it is not as if there was some kind of low-taxation holiday spree and the Labour Government came in and put taxes up to compensate for it. Taxes were already the highest that anybody can remember and now they have gone up again by the highest amount in 32 years. It is absolutely eye-watering. The Chancellor’s refusal to step back from cutting the winter fuel payment from around 900,000 pensioners is absolutely—[Interruption.] They are chuntering that the winter fuel payment is devolved.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dave Doogan
No.
Let us get it on the record that the fuel payment did not use to be devolved and that, at the same time as it was devolved, they went and cut the budget. That is the Labour Government at a UK level for you. So yes, I know it is devolved.
Dave Doogan
No. If the hon. Gentleman can get one of his colleagues to intervene, I will give way to them.
The Government’s decision to raise national insurance was like them showing that they do not know how the real economy works without showing that they do not know how the real economy works. It is a punitive lowering of the floor and increasing of the rate to try to wring out of employers the money required to recover the economy. It is a drag on employment, investment and wage rises. It is absolutely unforgiveable and totally counter to what the Labour party stated, ahead of the election, was its aim: to create a Budget for growth. There will be absolutely no growth as a consequence of that autumn statement. The Government think they will raise over £20 billion but, by the Treasury’s own measure, that figure is down to around £10 billion after they have made all the compensations. It is a massive swage of pain for very little gain in investment.
In moving the motion, the hon. Member for Livingston said that we in the SNP are keen to spend the extra money we will get but not to say how we would raise it. Actually, I will tell him how we would raise it, and our way would be much more cogent than what the Labour Government in Westminster have said they will do. Over and above that, in a Scotland-specific context the hike in duty on Scotch whisky was, in the words of the industry itself, “an indefensible tax grab”. Yet somehow we are expected to believe that everything will be okay because Anas Sarwar is going to speak to the Chancellor about it. The Chancellor will presumably then do what the UK Government always do when Labour in Scotland ask them to do something: absolutely nothing, if not the exact opposite.
The hon. Member for Livingston also talked about energy. He should go up to the north-east of Scotland to talk about energy: we are six months into this Government and there is no evidence whatever of GB Energy making any impact in Scotland. The last time I checked, it had one employee and was based in Manchester. The hon. Member also talked about the investment that would be realised. Somehow, the Acorn project in Scotland —the most deliverable carbon capture, usage and storage project across GB—is still not being funded by the Labour Government, despite their funding a further two CCUS projects in England, in addition to the two already there. Sadly, it is England 4, Scotland 0—it is like a football match.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The point about green jobs and giving consent at Berwick Bank was made earlier. I ask the hon. Gentleman: when will that happen, to enable investment to come forward? That is another example of things being held back.
Dave Doogan
Like the hon. Lady, I am very hopeful that we will see Berwick Bank approved and into the construction phase as quickly as possible, to cement Scotland’s enviable position as the renewable powerhouse of Europe. She shares that ambition with me, but what we are talking about is due process. It ill behoves elected Members of any stripe or any Parliament to meddle in the statutory process of a consenting major development; that will unwind in the way it unwinds, but I very much hope it is positive and expedient.
I turn to the Women Against State Pension Inequality—the WASPI women. They will absolutely have been left wondering what they have done to deserve such a catastrophic betrayal by the Labour party of their very modest and reasonable ambitions. During the debate on the autumn statement, I said that it was fantastic news that the Government, to be fair, had made sure that the money was there for the infected blood scandal and that the postmasters were properly compensated. Neither of those two scandals was of the UK Government’s making—well, not deliberately of their making; certainly not the infected blood scandal—but the WASPI women’s situation was. We now know the Government have turned their back on those people in the most reprehensible way possible.
The Chancellor promised a growth Budget and the hon. Member for Livingston says it is a growth Budget, but sadly it will
“leave GDP largely unchanged in five years”.
The inflation forecast will compound that. Inflation is set to rise to 2.6% and interest rates by 0.25% just; mortgage rates, after a brief period of respite, are on course to rise again. For years, people up and down these islands, especially in Scotland, have been hammered by the cost of living crisis. They, alongside small businesses, will be looking at this hatchet job by the Labour party and wondering what on earth will be coming next. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, no less, has pointed out that somebody will pay for these higher taxes; that somebody will be the ordinary working person. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that there is only a 54% chance that the Labour Government will meet their own fiscal rules through this Budget, raising the question of why the Chancellor thinks this amount of economic pain is worth such a low level of fiscal gain.
What about investors in the agricultural sector? Scotland’s agriculture is a very much larger part of its economy than overall UK agriculture is of the UK economy, but I am sure the Chancellor never bothered to speak to anybody in Scotland about her raid on farms through her farmers’ death tax. Labour could have done something progressive to stop outside investment and farmers disrupting that market, but they did not and they threatened the very existence of Scottish agriculture.
What would the SNP have done? We would certainly not have put this colossal fiscal drag on the economy of Scotland. We would have made sure that what we did was progressive and proportionate and that it would increase economic growth. I am sure Labour Members are not very supportive of an income tax in Scotland—
Torcuil Crichton
Can I ask the hon. Member which taxes the SNP would raise?
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens that he has spoken for 10 minutes already. If every other hon. Member takes that amount of time, we will not be able to hear from everybody.
Dave Doogan
That is fine, Ms Vaz; I am just closing now. I do not think Members will be speaking for 10 minutes, but that is not my job.
On the progressive income tax regime implemented by the SNP in Scotland, I should say that Labour criticised us when we had the powers and did not use them, and criticised us when we had the powers and did use them. If the UK Government had mirrored our fiscal policy on income tax, they would have raised about £16.5 billion across the United Kingdom. That would not have been reduced to £10 billion because of compensations that they would have had to make, because there would not have been a raise on employer’s national insurance; they would not have had to compensate anybody. They do not want to talk about Brexit, but I do, because it cost the UK £30 billion a year and Scotland £10 billion a year, which would otherwise have been a great increase in the economic output of Scotland and the rest of the UK.
My final point is that the UK Government could scrap nuclear weapons. In four years, the estimated budget has gone up from £44 billion to £100 billion over a 10-year period. An awful lot of investment could be made in Scottish communities with that money, which would boost Scotland even more. We already enjoy the highest number of GPs, nurses, midwives and teachers per head in Scotland; nowhere else in the United Kingdom can touch our level of provision. The Labour party are just going to have to suck that up.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
The hon. Member obviously has the title of Mr Scotland. I am afraid I will have to impose a very informal time limit of around four minutes so that everyone is able to get in.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) for securing this debate, and for his excellent survey of the considerable benefits of the Budget for Scotland.
On economic forecasts, I am a somewhat boring Member of Parliament—I like to read the Financial Times. It wrote a leader a few days ago that was, in some parts, somewhat critical. However, the article pointed out that
“Britain’s economic outlook in fact looks quite robust compared to other advanced economies. According to the Financial Times’ annual poll, economists reckon that the UK will outgrow France and Germany this year…Labour’s strong parliamentary majority is another positive for investors as political uncertainty ramps up elsewhere.”
I could go on. I simply point out that this Government are pro-growth and pro-industry; people understand that and economists understand that.
The Budget delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivers on our commitments to the electorate. It adds VAT to private school fees, providing more funds to state schools, including in Glasgow; it tackles poverty by increasing the national living wage, giving thousands of my constituents a pay rise; it provides pensioners with over £400 this year due to our commitment to the triple lock; and it reduces the level of deductions that can be made for universal credit payments—a boost to struggling families in Glasgow.
If one were to listen to the SNP, one might think that the Budget was terrible news for Scotland and an absolute disaster. In fact, it delivers the largest settlement ever for a Scottish Government, with £4.9 billion of additional funding over the next two years—a UK Labour Government and 37 Scottish Labour MPs delivering for Scotland. That significant boost to Scotland’s public finances is critical, with nearly one in six Scots on an NHS waiting list. As we heard just before Christmas, there are many people who have been waiting for more than two years for NHS treatment in Scotland—many more, proportionally, than in England.
One in three Scots children is regularly absent from school, and there are declining police officer numbers on the street at a time when people are petrified about crime. Scotland’s public services are in utter crisis after almost 18 years of SNP misrule. This Government have provided the SNP Government with the money. They have no excuses; they must use the funding wisely to clear up their mess.
SNP and Tory colleagues have repeatedly criticised the Government’s Budget, but failed to offer a credible alternative. Time and again, they say we should spend more money but fail to explain where the funding should come from. That is not credible. One hears about “magic money tree” economics—here we have a whole forest of magic money trees. Yes, we have made difficult decisions in our Budget, but government is about confronting difficult decisions to manage public finances carefully. Independent experts are clear that the SNP has failed to manage the Scottish public finances. There have been three years of in-year emergency budget cuts due to their mismanagement and £5 billion wasted on failed SNP pet projects, while, for example, ferries do not sail and the islands suffer from appalling connectivity.
John Grady
No, I will not. Time is marching on, and many people wish to speak.
The SNP cannot be trusted with public money—remember that this is the public’s money. People in Glasgow East face much higher income tax rates than their counterparts in England because of the SNP Government’s mistakes. As my friend, the Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, set out yesterday, after nearly two decades of SNP failure in government, Scotland needs “a new direction”. It needs a new Government, with
“new hope, new thinking, new solutions”,
not more of the same divisive politics of the last two decades.
On 4 July, the people of Glasgow made a choice: that our great city, in its 850th year, shall be represented by a Labour Government. That Labour Government have delivered for Scotland by providing a record funding settlement. Scotland chose a Labour Government, electing 37 Labour MPs. This Budget, with its record increase in funding for Scotland, demonstrates this Labour Government’s absolute commitment to Scotland.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) on securing this debate, although I find it odd that Scottish MPs have been celebrating the Budget, as if it was the best thing ever to come to Scotland, given that it is nothing short of disastrous for so many of the key sectors that underpin Scotland’s economy, communities and livelihoods.
The Chancellor spoke, and still does, about protecting working people—and, indeed, about growing the economy in order to help working people—yet her decision to increase employers’ national insurance contributions does exactly the opposite. This £25 billion tax grab from businesses impacts on their resilience, growth, investments, hiring decisions and longevity. The scale of this tax rise and the betrayal by Labour, who promised not to raise taxes on working people, including national insurance, is completely unprecedented.
For the avoidance of any doubt, and because I know that Labour seems to struggle with this, business owners are working people, and they employ working people—they are working people who contract working people and supply working people, who then can work elsewhere. This NICs rise is a tax on working people across Scotland and the UK, and there is no credible way that that can be denied. It is also an up-front tax and a tax for having employees. Businesses pay it just for having employees on the books, before they even open their doors. Take weeks like this in Scotland, including in my Gordon and Buchan constituency, where many businesses have not opened because of snow and ice; the bill for this tax is still racking up, despite them not being able to trade.
Of course, the effects of NICs are felt more widely, not just by businesses. Charities, GPs, pharmacies and local authorities are all also impacted. I have met with my local medical practice in Inverurie, and its NICs bill is going up by £75,000. It cannot pass on that cost, and if it reduced services, its funding would be reduced. What do the Labour MPs who are celebrating the Budget suggest that that practice should do? As I have mentioned, Aberdeenshire council now needs to find £13 million to cover the NICs rises, and that is on top of the £40 million black hole it already faced due to north-east councils being so poorly funded by the Scottish Government.
Moving on to other matters, the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief are cynical, cruel, misguided and absolutely damaging to the key sectors of our economy. Family businesses up and down the country, including in Scotland, are the backbone of our economy. These changes will decimate family businesses, who have been nurturing for generations, who are the centre of their communities and who employ over 14 million people nationwide. The changes to APR, which I have spoken about a lot, demonstrate the Government’s complete disconnect from rural farming and ways of life. We know that the Treasury figures are incomplete. They do not consider farms where only BPR had been claimed. Labour seems to think that all farmers are married, that both spouses will be able to pass on the farm at the same time and that, effectively, it is okay to force farmers into early retirement—for them to have to leave their family home or pay full market rent to stay at the property where they have lived their entire lives.
The Treasury is hiding behind the claim that only 2,000 estates will be affected, but the Country Land and Business Association, the National Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union of Scotland say that the number of farms affected will be more like 70,000. These figures need to be considered. The Chancellor, as we know, is literally making farmers decide between selling their farm, their land, their buildings or their machinery to raise the funds. This will leave farms commercially unavailable or severely damaged, and we are talking about farms in our constituencies across Scotland, including many of those of the Labour Members here.
We have heard others talking about whisky, so I will touch on that just briefly. The Prime Minister stood in a whisky distillery in Scotland and promised to back the Scotch whisky industry to the hilt, but he failed to mention that he was going to increase tax by 3.6%, bringing the tax on a bottle of whisky to over £12 for the first time.
Dr Arthur
The hon. Lady is making heartfelt points, but we are yet again hearing a long list of our money-raising initiatives that the Conservatives opposed while being cheered on by their SNP colleagues. I would be interested to know how the Conservatives would have raised the money needed to get public services in Scotland back on track. An extra £5 billion is going to the Scottish Government to fund services such as the NHS in my constituency and in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Where would her party have found that money?
Harriet Cross
As I said, the Government can give with one hand and take with the other, which is what is happening with NICs; they are taking that money out of councils, so the increase is completely irrelevant. The removal of the ringfence from some budgets has meant that there has been no real-terms increase in the rural affairs budget in Scotland, and that has impacted our farmers—it goes round in circles.
On oil and gas, the changes to the energy profits levy and the removal of the investment allowances in the Budget had an instant impact. Apache announced very soon afterwards that it would pull out of the North sea, citing the onerous impact of the EPL. The Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce warned that 100,000 jobs are at risk, and Offshore Energies UK said that 35,000 jobs tied to specific projects are at risk. Those changes in the Budget have real-life consequences across Scotland, but particularly in Gordon and Buchan, Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen and north-east Scotland.
The Budget shows the Labour Government’s fundamental misunderstanding and undermining of Scotland’s economy and communities. From family farms and businesses to distilleries, our energy sector and the high street, the Government have chosen to burden, rather than support, businesses across Scotland.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
We are going to have to go down to an informal three-minute limit to get everyone in.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) for securing this important debate. I join him in welcoming this record settlement of more than £4 billion for the Scottish Government, but I would not want Members to go away with the impression that the SNP Government are somehow benignly mismanaging the economy, carelessly not controlling the NHS or accidentally running down educational standards in Scotland. They are involved in nothing less than the wilful destruction of the pillars of public life and public services in Scotland, because they are neglecting to make difficult decisions. They are putting off the reckoning that there must be in education; we must leave educationalists to educate and teachers to teach. They are also wilfully neglecting transport in the Western Isles and the west coast, and the health needs of constituents like mine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said that one in six Scots are on waiting lists. My constituents in the Western Isles are not on waiting lists; they are waiting for the sound of a helicopter to take them to hospital, because the NHS does not properly function in the Western Isles thanks to the Scottish Government’s neglect and the lack of resources given to it. In the Western Isles, people do not take an ambulance or a taxi to hospital; they take a bus to an airport, to take a small flight to another airport, to take a flight to a mainland airport, to take a taxi to hospital to get chemotherapy. That is the state of the NHS in Scotland under the SNP.
Torcuil Crichton
I will give way. I would love to hear the hon. Gentleman’s excuses.
Dave Doogan
The hon. Gentleman mentions the litany of failures, as he sees them, in Scotland’s NHS. How then does he explain that spending per head is greater than it is the rest of the UK, that the number of doctors per 100,000 people is higher than it is the rest of the UK, that the number of nurses per 100,000—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. You have had 10 minutes, Mr Doogan. I am really sorry, but this is unfair to other Members.
Torcuil Crichton
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passionate defence of his own position, but the truth is that, despite higher spending per head in Scotland, that money is inefficiently used on a massive management structure—boards upon boards and quangos upon quangos—that does not put patients first, as evidenced in the Western Isles.
There is no better evidence of these issues than the transport decisions made over my constituents. We have three companies—a Bermuda triangle—running ferry services: CalMac, Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd and Transport Scotland, with hardly an island representative.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. I must ask you to address the Chair, Mr Crichton.
Torcuil Crichton
I am sorry, Ms Vaz.
On ferries, we welcome the very late arrival of the Glen Sannox and soon the Glen Rosa. A minor earthquake welcomed the Glen Sannox through the Sound of Mull as she made her test run. We are glad they are there, but that is only one ferry crisis; there is also the inter-island ferry crisis. The two ferries that connect and hold our Western Isles chain together are limping on, but under the SNP’s replacement scheme they will not be replaced for another decade. Those ferries are meant to have four engines but are running on three. Our road between the isles has also been neglected and run down by the SNP.
I know that time is short, so I will not detain the House much longer. I have mentioned the neglect of rural areas. We see that in rural housing, where we are facing a depopulation crisis and where, from a budget of £25 million for rural housing, only 17 homes have been built in rural Scotland. All this happens because the Scottish Government have a bigger budget. We have no transparency on where that budget is going or how the money is spent. The SNP Government have one year to turn that around. They had better shape up or ship out.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz—and I mean that most genuinely. One of the things Members should never do in this place is bore the House, but I am afraid that I am about to do so, because I am going to sound like a cracked record.
How many times have I mentioned the ongoing scandal of pregnant mothers having to travel a 200-mile round trip from Caithness to Inverness to give birth? In weather like the stuff we are having right now in the north of Scotland, you have to be joking. The A9 was blocked at Helmsdale a view days ago, and thank God no pregnant mum tried to make the journey down to Inverness. I have gone on again and again to the Scottish Government about having a safety audit done on this perilous policy. We had a consultant-led maternity service based in Wick in Caithness.
Torcuil Crichton
I take what the hon. Member says about pregnant mothers having to travel long distances. In my own constituency, pregnant mothers have to travel two weeks before their baby is due to another island where they are given an overnight allowance of some £50 or £60 in a tourism economy where beds cost £120—so they are having to pay out of their own pocket for their pregnancy.
Jamie Stone
It is a nonsense. Constituents like the hon. Gentleman’s and mine are losing out and have lost out for years. We had a consultant-led maternity service in Caithness until, hey presto, this SNP Government took over; very shortly after, it was downgraded and got rid of—as simple as that. I and others have written to John Swinney inviting him to come north to Wick to get in the back of an ambulance in winter and make the journey for himself to see what it is like. I do not believe we have had an answer, and I expect a dusty one when it comes. It is a scandal and a disgrace, and it is on the watch of the SNP Government.
Right now, we have one psychiatrist in the north of Scotland—just one—and we have a huge problem with the mental health of young people. This morning I rang a mother from Caithness, Kirsteen Campbell, who thinks it will be two or three years before her child can be seen by a professional to sort out their problem. During the election, I spoke to a mother in Evanton in Easter Ross, who told me how her child—who I will not name for obvious reasons—had not been to school for a number of years because the school could not deal with the issues that this poor, wretched child had. It is a scandal.
In the short time available, I have given just two examples of failures. Turning to the subject of debate, I sincerely hope and pray that the Scottish Government will use this extra money to address these issues finally, before it is too late and something terrible happens on the youth mental health front or a mother or child loses their life. We had an issue where a mother was pregnant with twins, but one twin was born in Golspie and the other had to be born in Inverness. Imagine how awful that is for a family—it is a shocker.
I close with this: the two issues I have outlined are issues that really, really matter to ordinary people. We can talk about this or that in politics, but these are the big, chunky issues on the doorsteps. People are not stupid out there. I hear my good friends in the SNP sitting to my left, and they are good personal friends, but something happened in July, when the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) was returned with the bump that he was and when my majority went up from 204 to just 11 votes shy of 10,500. That, I think, is the Scottish people telling us something, and anyone who does not listen to that is simply whistling in the hurricane.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz.
The Budget of autumn 2024 marked a significant change—a break from the recent past. For too many years, Scotland and the rest of the UK have suffered from an era of austerity, bouts of ideologically charged fiscal and economic illiteracy, and a failure to invest in the present to deliver for the future. The UK Budget heralded a new era of growth and investment for Scotland. It keeps the promises to Scotland made at the general election: ending the era of austerity, providing billions for public services and prioritising economic growth. As has been highlighted, the Budget delivered the largest funding settlement for Scotland in the history of devolution. In this Budget, we get an end to the flawed, ideologically driven years of austerity—replaced with investment, sound public finance and redistribution. The Budget delivered a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest paid in Scotland through increases in the national living wage.
A key test of any Budget is how it balances the cost of expenditure with the raising of revenue to cover that expenditure. The significant test is who gains benefits and who covers costs, and how they are balanced. Inevitably, in most Budgets, costs and benefits are spread, but what is key is how the distribution is stacked up. This Budget shows a very clear pattern of redistribution: those with the most bear the greatest costs, and those with the least gain the greatest benefits.
The Budget, together with the Government’s commitment in the new deal for working people and the Employment Rights Bill, indicates a significant and welcome change in direction at the UK level, with direct benefits for Scotland running through it, including investment for economic growth, resources for our public services, an end to austerity and a commitment to redistribution. The Chancellor’s approach—this break from the recent past—needs to be built upon by the Scottish Government; sadly, their recent budget proposals fail to show the leadership required. Despite the record level of funding in the UK Budget for the Scottish Government, the SNP Government have failed to use the opportunity to deliver better outcomes for the people of Scotland in their budget proposals.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) for securing the debate. It is important to have such an opportunity to reflect on the scale and ambition in the UK Budget, turning the page on the recent years of economic ineptitude and missed opportunities and, in their place, securing investment for economic growth, public services and the redistribution of resources. It is a Budget for Scotland and for the rest of the UK.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I call Seamus Logan. Oh, do you not want to speak?
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I was not going to speak, but seeing as you have asked me to, Ms Vaz, I will speak briefly. I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship.
I thank the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) for securing this important debate. I have only one point to make, because we are short of time. Labour Members continually mention to us the ferries—I have heard the ferries mentioned more times than I heard Slade played over Christmas, and that was quite a lot—but they never mention High Speed 2. The people of Scotland are paying for that. They are also paying for Trident and for Hinkley Point.
Seamus Logan
No, I am not giving away—in retaliation.
Hinkley Point reactor 1 has now been delayed until 2029 or maybe 2031, we have no date for reactor 2, and as for reactor 3—
Torcuil Crichton
I hope the hon. Member will forgive me for not giving way to him when I was mid-flow during my own speech. We are waiting until 2031 or 2032 for our ferries. We need ferries this winter, not next decade.
Seamus Logan
The point I am trying to make is that Labour Members continually refer to fiscal mismanagement, when in fact I have described examples of fiscal mismanagement that the people of Scotland are paying for. I will leave it there, Ms Vaz; thank you very much for inviting me to speak.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) for securing the debate.
This Labour Government have committed £47.7 billion in funding for Scotland for 2025-26—the largest Budget settlement in the history of devolution. That includes £3.4 billion allocated through the Barnett formula, supporting Scotland’s public services to get back on their feet. The settlement prioritises investment in key public services, including significant funding for our NHS. That is an additional £789 million in health-related consequentials for 2024-25 and £1.72 billion for Scotland’s NHS in 2025-26. Despite that unprecedented financial support, Scotland’s NHS remains in crisis. One in six Scots now sits on an NHS waiting list.
Social care remains a significant area of concern under the SNP’s leadership. Whereas our UK Government have announced plans for an independent commission on social care and have put in place an interim package of support, the SNP has had to abandon its National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money while 9,000 people in Scotland wait for social care assessments and support.
My constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire South would no doubt question why, given the level of financial support the Scottish Government have, the local SNP-controlled Renfrewshire council has just made the disgraceful decision to approve £19.1 million of cuts to health and social care provision across my constituency. That decision will directly affect the most vulnerable people in the communities in my area. It comes on the back of cuts already made with the closure of the Montrose care home and cuts to vital services such as the Falcon day services, which support people with disabilities. They are further evidence of the SNP’s lack of a coherent plan to fix social care in Scotland.
We are running short of time, so to enable others to get in I will leave it here. The Labour Government’s investment in Scotland marks a new chapter for Scotland—one that prioritises investment in public services that work for Scottish people and fixes the foundations of our country. The SNP has no excuses now and nowhere to hide. It should use the money it has been given to support the most vulnerable people in our communities.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) for securing this debate.
It is right that we recognise the positive impact the Budget will have on Scotland. For too long residents in my Airdrie and Shotts constituency have been let down by Governments who have treated working people as an afterthought. They have been let down by incompetence from Conservative Governments here in Westminster and SNP Governments in Holyrood. They have felt the impacts in their pockets and can see the impacts in their depleted public services. However, this Budget puts us on a positive journey towards changing that.
The Budget delivers the largest settlement for Scotland since devolution. It will allow potential to be unlocked and public services to be invested in. It is a Budget that has ended the era of Tory austerity, puts working people back to the forefront and prioritises economic growth. It is a transformative Budget that has been a long time coming, and it is little surprise that it is a Labour Government delivering it.
I thought the Scottish Government would be pleased with the settlement they have received from the UK Labour Government. It has given them the opportunity to right the wrongs of their almost 20 years of mismanagement and incompetence and deliver a budget that works for Scotland’s working people.
Jamie Stone
Does the hon. Gentleman, who is making an excellent contribution, agree that the reason why the SNP Government did not welcome the announcement was that the Labour Government successfully shot the fox?
Kenneth Stevenson
I entirely agree, and we could go on. We could go on about the promised 800 GPs that are missing. We could go on about ferries. We could go on about everything. We could go on about selling off the seabed for well under what was required and not having any manufacturing input in Scotland for wind turbines or solar or any advanced manufacturing.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Kenneth Stevenson
No, I will not give way.
Only yesterday we heard from the First Minister of Scotland, who ironically warned that not supporting his budget would play into the hands of populists. All the while he leads a party that has spent almost two decades pitting working Scots against one another in the interests of the Scottish National party, rather than the interests of Scotland. People can see through the Scottish Government, just as they saw through the Conservative UK Government. Their attempts to desensitise the electorate to the horror stories that we hear on a daily basis will fall flat, because this Labour Budget ensures that they have the money and the power, and there cannot be any more excuses. They have the votes. The First Minister should end the shadow boxing and focus on using the settlement provided by the Labour Government to deliver for Scotland.
This Labour Budget is promising for the people of Airdrie and Shotts and I look forward to working with the Scotland Office and other Departments to ensure that the impacts are felt. The Airdrie and Shotts constituency was at the heart of Scotland’s old industrial heartlands and it has all the skills and ability to be at the heart of a modern industrial strategy in this new era. I am pleased that this Labour Budget will unlock the potential of my constituency and its people to do so.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. For years the SNP Scottish Government were able to blame an incompetent Tory Government for their own failures. Tory austerity had huge impacts for Scotland. The Tories crashed the economy, took money out of vital reserved areas such as defence, oversaw the systematic destruction of communities and failed to properly invest in our country. But the SNP has also failed in its 17 years in power.
The Scottish Fiscal Commission, Audit Scotland, the Fraser of Allander Institute and others have all criticised the SNP’s failure to respond to the pressures on Scotland’s public finances. Just before I came to this debate, I read that the Scottish Fiscal Commission has warned the Scottish Government that their back-of-a-fag-packet commitments could mean a cut of 15% to other areas of public spending. Scottish people deserve better.
Graeme Downie
I choose not to give way because I am conscious of the time and the others who still wish to speak.
The SNP has fundamentally failed to use the powers of the Scottish Government to grow Scotland’s economy, and has instead presided over low growth and low productivity—areas that this UK Labour Government are now fixing, from which the Scottish Government should be learning lessons. Time and again, they have chosen political division over real progress. The litany of failure is embarrassing and they do not like hearing about it, but here it comes again: millions of pounds of public money wasted on ferries; failed and expensive attempts to fix health and social care; reductions in police numbers; cuts to fire and rescue; longer NHS waiting lists; and higher taxes on working Scots than on people in any other part of the UK. They even robbed Scotland’s offshore wind resources to paper over 17 years of failure. All that lies firmly at the door of the SNP Scottish Government.
Most worryingly, they have failed in fully devolved areas, such as education and skills, to give young people the opportunities and support they need and deserve to fulfil their ambitions and meet their aspirations. The long-term impact of the pandemic on young people is often forgotten, with isolation leading to missed opportunities, lost life experiences and still unknown impacts on mental health. Yet the SNP are telling health boards not to even ask for additional funding, despite the increase in the budget.
SNP excuses must now be at an end. This Labour Government have ended austerity in the UK by delivering the largest Budget settlement in the history of devolution, with an extra £4.9 billion available to spend. It delivers a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots and ends the injustice of the miners’ pension scheme, giving more moneys to miners in constituencies like mine, with money that will now boost the economies in those areas.
The question for the SNP is: what will they do now that they have run out of excuses? I would hope that they would use the power and funds they have to take action, like finally making good on a promise to build a new health centre in Kincardine that was promised more than 10 years ago in my constituency, or to invest properly in NHS dental services—it is an outrage that there are currently no dentists in my constituency taking on new NHS patients—or to properly fund our police to help to tackle the antisocial behaviour we have seen recently in Dunfermline city centre.
The 2024 UK Budget has delivered for the whole country, and this UK Labour Government are getting on with the job in health, education, transport and the funding of local services, all while the SNP whinge, complain and deflect. It is time for the SNP to take responsibility or get out of the way for a Scottish Labour Government that will get Scotland heading in the right direction once again.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I can get the last two speakers in if they take a minute each.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) on securing this important debate. Seeing as we are so short of time, I will try to cut my speech down to a minute.
An area of the Budget I welcome is the announcement over the recess from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government of the allocation of £150 million to community projects across the UK, including £1.7 million to North Edinburgh Arts, part of the new MacMillan Hub in my Edinburgh North and Leith constituency. The new hub is the first of its kind in Scotland, co-locating a community-owned venue and third sector and council services for the benefit of local residents.
The MacMillan hub will provide an accessible and high-quality creative learning, enterprise and meeting space, alongside a social enterprise café, a community garden, a public library and a dedicated skills hub, as well as an early learning and childcare centre for 185 children. The investment will be transformative for Muirhouse and the constituency, and will be a joined-up approach of the sort that I hope to see more of for our communities.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. In my one minute, I will talk about a real opportunity for my constituents to boost our renewable sector through the investment that has been outlined in the Budget, and also through the crucial decision made by colleagues in Government—through the hard work of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade—to secure the future of the Methil yard in my constituency, along with the future of the Arnish yard in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton). Together, that will save over 350 jobs and skilled apprenticeships. What a fantastic opportunity we have.
I hope there will be collaboration between the Scottish and UK Governments to look at the future of both those yards. We have so much more potential in our energy sector than we are currently realising—particularly our renewable sector—and those yards have a crucial role to play. Their potential to grow the workforce and their economic impact are massive. Through the £125 million investment in GB Energy, based in Aberdeen, the opportunity is there to build for the future.
With almost £5.8 billion allocated in the national wealth fund, we should be working together to look for bids for how those yards can work in the future to ensure economic benefit and growth for Scotland. Those are the priorities that we should look to for the future, and they are being offered because of the actions taken by the Chancellor in this Budget.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) on securing this debate on the impact of the UK Budget on Scotland.
I welcome the increase in investment for the NHS and the vital cash boost for Scotland, but with all due respect to the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), it cannot be underestimated how much we needed it, given the mess and chaos that the SNP Government have created in our public services over the past 17 years. Indeed, they have also created chaos in our ferries, as we heard today that the new Glen Sannox is being removed from service again. I agree with the comments from many Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), about the problems that we are facing.
While I welcome the money in the Budget, we have heard repeatedly from the Chancellor and other Ministers —no doubt we will hear it again today—that the Government have had to take tough decisions since coming into office. Many of my constituents in Edinburgh West are beginning to say, “Yes, every Government have to make tough decisions, but did this one have to make these decisions?”
Before Christmas I spoke to a number of businesses in Edinburgh West, and many of them were concerned about the negative impact that increases in employer national insurance contributions will have on them. Some are worried that they will have to make cuts to staff; others are trying to avoid putting up prices and passing the tax hikes on to the public. All of them are trying to find ways of making it work, and all of them are struggling. Some 40% of Scots now believe that more small and medium-sized enterprises will close in their communities as a direct result of this Government’s decisions. More than half of Scots believe that prices will have to go up. After the worst cost of living crisis in a decade, that is not what any of them needed.
GPs and many social care providers are saying that they do not know how they are going to cope with the tax changes. Private contractors or operators, who will not be eligible for employment allowance, will have to take on those extra costs directly. Within days of the Budget, several GP practices contacted me and estimated that the changes will cost them more than £10,000 extra in the next year. After 17 years of mismanagement under the SNP and 14 years of the Conservatives, our GPs need support and investment, but everywhere we look in Scotland, the impact of this Budget is not positive.
Another tax change that will have direct consequences for my city of Edinburgh is the Government’s decision to impose VAT on private school fees. It is not just because I do not support taxing education or reducing the choice of parents that I do not agree with the proposal and see it as negative, but because it will have a real impact on both the state and independent school sectors in Edinburgh. Edinburgh has the highest proportion of independently educated children in Scotland, at between 20% and 30% every year.
According to the local Labour authority, 16 schools are expected to reach capacity before the end of this decade. If the predicted percentage of children dropping out of independent education into the state sector is true, the system will be stretched to breaking point. Sadly, introducing the change halfway through the school year is causing issues for many parents. I have already had representations from parents who cannot find places in local schools for the children they have taken out of the independent sector.
I would have liked to touch on other issues, including the impact on the whisky industry—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—and the farming industry, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross). However, it is sufficient to say that Scotland, which is already under pressure from mismanagement by the SNP, is now facing a far-from-positive impact from the new Westminster Government in which it put its faith.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure, again, to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) on bringing forward this debate, although, rather like the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), I was a little surprised that it was a Labour MP bringing forward a debate on the impact of the Budget on Scotland.
As much as I would like to spend my time attacking the incompetence of the Scottish Government and their record, this is a debate on the UK Budget brought forward by the UK Government, so that is what I will focus on. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Livingston has given us the opportunity to express the worry and the concern felt across Scotland as a result of the frankly disastrous Budget that the Labour party unveiled at the end of October, which has already seen business confidence plummet, inflation tick up and hard-fought-for growth stall—quite a feat.
Members do not need to take it from me, though; they can take it from Scottish business organisations. The Scottish Hospitality Group called the Budget a
“blow to businesses across the country.”
The Scotch Whisky Association called it a “hammer blow” to the industry, Offshore Energies UK called it a “difficult day” for the oil and gas sector, and the National Farmers Union of Scotland said it will cause “huge difficulties” for family farms, all while the OBR forecasts lower growth for the UK as a whole. With the biggest ever tax increases in one Budget hitting Scotland—already the highest-taxed part of the UK—even harder, Labour’s tax-raising Budget is straight out of the SNP playbook, and sadly will hammer hard-working Scots.
Let us take some of the decisions in turn. There was the decision to raise employer national insurance contributions, which, by the way, was a flagrant breach of the manifesto commitment not to do so. NICs have been raised by £25 billion, lowering the point at which contributions start. This Labour Government are hammering the worst off, those in part-time work and those starting out by hampering their ability to get or hold a job. Labour’s jobs tax will cost nearly £900 for the average Scottish job.
Tracy Gilbert
Does the hon. Member agree that, actually, 200,000 Scots—some of the lowest-paid, poorest families in our communities—will benefit from the new deal for working people?
Andrew Bowie
There are businesses across Scotland that are now seeking to lay people off, not employ new staff. In Aberdeenshire in the north-east, energy companies are seeking to lay off staff as a direct result of decisions taken by this Government. In fact, the negative impact of the Budget on growth and investment in Scotland will actually have a detrimental effect on all people in the workplace. So no, I do not agree that any of the decisions taken in the Budget will be to the benefit of hard-working Scots. In fact, I believe directly the opposite. This jobs tax—the increase in national insurance contributions —is an attack on our working people, our small businesses and our economy by this economically illiterate, as proven so far, Labour Government.
For family businesses such as Walker’s Shortbread, William Grant, Tunnock’s or GAP Group, the situation is compounded by the changes to business property relief brought in by the Government. In GAP’s case, that will mean that a company that employs 2,100 people and that already pays more than £50 million in taxes annually will have an additional tax bill of between £50 million and £100 million, simply for wanting to move the business to the next generation. As Douglas Anderson of GAP said to The Times yesterday, this is
“a state penalty on family businesses.”
It is simply unfair.
Dave Doogan
Does the hon. Member agree that money talks? Despite how we might argue here in Parliament, money talks. Is he concerned that the yield on UK Government gilts over 30 years is now 5.22%, which is even higher than when Liz Truss tanked the economy?
Andrew Bowie
I read that a couple of seconds before I stood up to speak, and of course it is extremely worrying. The trajectory of the UK economy under this Labour Government should give us all cause for concern, which is why it is right that we are having this debate today. I am just surprised that it was secured by a Labour MP.
Torcuil Crichton
If the hon. Gentleman does not wish to blame the SNP Government for the economic mismanagement of Scotland, why does he provoke SNP Members with his choice of Union Jack socks?
Andrew Bowie
These socks were a Christmas present from my mother; I promised her that I would wear them at work and that is what I am doing today. They are very good socks, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing the Chamber’s attention to them.
As I was saying, that was Labour’s workers tax—their state penalty on family businesses—and its first attack on business. Let us turn to its second attack on successful Scottish industries, specifically the Scotch whisky industry. The week after Burns night, which is in a couple of weeks’ time, tax on spirits such as whisky will rise, and will continue to rise by a percentage higher than the consumer prices index. The industry is already suffering from a decision to raise duty by 10% last year, which some of us protested about from within Government at the time, and which led to a reduction by £300 million in revenue for Treasury. The move by Labour increases the tax discrimination on spirits and undermines any claim that this Government can make about supporting brand Scotland. If this is how the Government treat Scotland’s national export, we really have some big questions to ask.
This Labour Government are taxing entrepreneurship and penalising success. However, they are not content with hammering small businesses, our workers and our most successful food and drink export. They are also intent on destroying one of our most successful industries, one which is integral to the economic success of north-east Scotland and on which so many thousands of jobs and indeed our energy security depend—our oil and gas sector.
The decision to extend and increase the energy profits levy, to remove most of the investment allowances and to ban all further exploration is driving away investment and leaving us far more reliant on foreign imports. The evidence is there. Apache has already said that it is pulling out of the North sea and there were others to follow. Labour’s changes to the windfall tax will cost up to 35,000 jobs and £13 billion in economic value, and all so that it could splurge on eye-watering public sector pay rises to buy off its union paymasters, who supported Labour into Government. But I have not finished yet.
Johanna Baxter
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is not buying off union paymasters but delivering a pay rise for hard-working Scots?
Andrew Bowie
The hon. Lady should tell that to the hard-working Scots who are being laid off in Aberdeen in north-east Scotland as a direct result of the decisions of this Labour Government, including their decision to extend the energy profits levy, ban new investment in the North sea and preclude new exploration. She should tell that to those hard-working Scots who are worried about what the decisions by this Government will mean for them and their families, and whether they will have a job in Aberdeen in north-east Scotland in the next few years. Those hard-working Scots look with terror at what this Government are bringing down the line.
I have not even turned to farming yet. I am incredibly proud to represent some of the best farms producing the best berries, beef, lamb and crops in Scotland. The vast majority of those farms are family-owned, but due to the changes in the agriculture and business property reliefs that I outlined when I described the situation facing family businesses, their future is incredibly uncertain. Many farmers have already come into my office and claimed that it is now simply too expensive and too difficult to countenance passing their farm on to the next generation. This Labour Government are overseeing the destruction of our family farms. Even worse than that, however, is that their naivety or their incompetence, or possibly a terrifying combination of both, has seen the Labour Government announce that the agricultural funding to Scotland will no longer be ringfenced, despite the specific and pointed ask of the NFUS during the election and in the run-up to the Budget.
The impact of Budget 2024 on Scotland is, in one word, disastrous. Our small and medium-sized businesses have been hammered by additional taxes; our family firms and family farms fear for their future; our whisky industry is punished yet again for its success; our oil and gas industry, and its workers, have been sacrificed on the altar of the eco-mania, or possibly the egomania, of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero; our agricultural sector has been ignored; and our Union, frankly, has been undermined.
Growth is falling, confidence is collapsing, uncertainty is rising and people in business are worse off. That is the impact of Budget 2024 in Scotland. I wish my friends in the Labour party well in trying to sell this Budget to the people of Scotland, who seem mightily unimpressed with the Government’s performance thus far.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) on securing this debate on the impact of the autumn Budget on Scotland, and on his very dogged advocacy on behalf of those in his constituency who need the East Calder medical centre.
The UK Government were handed a challenging inheritance: £22 billion of unfunded in-year spending pressures, debt at its highest level since the 1960s, an unrealistic forecast for departmental spending, and stagnating living standards. This Budget took difficult decisions to restore economic and fiscal stability so that this Labour Government can keep the promises we made to the Scottish people. We promised to put Scotland at the beating heart of this Government; we have. We promised to end austerity; we did. We promised we would invest in Scotland’s future; we are.
It is no surprise to me that we have heard the usual carping from Opposition parties. They simply cannot face facts, because the facts are that this was a great Budget for Scotland.
Kirsty McNeill
I will make some progress. The Budget ensured the largest real-terms Budget settlement for the Scottish Government in the whole history of devolution, with an additional £1.5 billion for the Scottish Government to spend this financial year and an additional £3.4 billion next year. It means that the Scottish Government are receiving more than 20% more per person than equivalent UK Government spending in the rest of the UK. It delivered the most for those with the least, because that is what Labour Governments do.
Kirsty McNeill
At the election, Scotland was offered a choice—the politics of protest or the politics of progress. It chose the latter, and the result is a Budget that protects working people in Scotland and delivers more money than ever before for Scottish public services. That is what change looks like. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) asked whether these were the choices that needed to be made, and to that I say an unequivocal yes, because this Government are simply not prepared to write cheques that we cannot afford to cash.
The spectacular recklessness of the last Conservative Government is something for which we await an apology, but in the meantime, it falls as ever to Labour to do the work of repair and renewal. It is our task to make whole what has been broken, and to make the long-term decisions that will ensure Scottish families can get on and not just get by.
Kirsty McNeill
I will in just one minute. The Chancellor has made it clear that, while protecting working people with measures to reduce the cost of living, difficult decisions would be required. Unlike the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), we are not prepared to shirk them.
Seamus Logan
The Minister speaks of broken promises and Labour keeping their promises, but what about the promise not to attack the whisky industry and the promise not to raise national insurance as a tax?
Kirsty McNeill
We have made responsible tax choices entirely in line with our manifesto. That is why the rates of employers’ national insurance will increase by just 1.2 percentage points. The smallest businesses will be protected as the employment allowance will increase from £5,000 to £10,500, allowing Scottish firms to employ four national living wage employees full time without paying any employer national insurance on their wages.
Kirsty McNeill
I will make some progress. This Budget asks businesses and the wealthiest to pay their share while making taxes fairer. Those are Labour choices and they are inspired by Labour values. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) has made clear, this is a progressive Budget that values redistribution.
Kirsty McNeill
I will make some progress. And just as our Budget choices reflect our values, the ways in which the Opposition parties choose to oppose them represent their values, whether that is their opposition to our end to the VAT tax break on private schools or opposing, as the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) does, our attempts to bring agricultural property relief into balance. As she will know, the latest figures from 2021 to 2022 show that 40% of the value of APR went to just 7% of claimants; that is neither sustainable nor fair, which is why I support the Labour Government’s changes.
Harriet Cross
That means, therefore, that 60% went to everyone else—that 60% of farms in this country rely on APR to pass their farms down to the next generation. They rely on BPR as well. This is the next generation of farmers who provide our food security and who employ people in local and rural areas. Does the Minister not think that that is a really important thing to maintain?
Kirsty McNeill
As the hon. Member will be aware, each year almost three quarters of estates eligible for APR in the UK are expected to be entirely unaffected by these fair and proportionate changes. Ours was a Budget, just as this is a Government, squarely for working people. The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) complained of the tax burden. Unlike the SNP Scottish Government, which simply want to clobber teachers and nurses with ever higher taxes, we have delivered on our pledge not to increase national insurance or VAT on working people in Scotland. That means that they will not, thanks to this Budget, see higher taxes in their payslips.
Hundreds of thousands of workers in Scotland will benefit from an increase in the national living wage and a record increase to the national minimum wage. The Chancellor made the decision to protect working people in Scotland from being dragged into higher tax brackets by confirming that the freeze on national insurance contribution thresholds will be lifted from 2028-29 onwards, rising in line with inflation, so that people can keep more of their hard-earned wages.
We have begun the difficult work of restitching our fraying safety net. Thousands of Scottish households will be £420 a year better off on average, as a result of our change to the universal credit fair repayment rate. Around 1.7 million families in Scotland will see their working-age benefits uprated in line with inflation, a £150 gain on average, in 2025-26. Maintaining the triple lock means an increase in the state pension of £470 next year, on top of £900 this year, for 1 million Scottish pensioners.
Let me pay special tribute to the campaigners and fellow trade unionists who fought for changes to the mineworkers’ pension scheme. Thanks to their efforts and the decisions of this Labour Government, nearly 7,000 retired mineworkers in Scotland will get an extra £1,500 on average in their pension. Finally, that is justice for those who powered our country.
Kirsty McNeill
I will make some progress. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) shared moving testimony about the impact of changes by the Scottish Government on rural communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) talked about the crisis in NHS and social care. The answer to all those challenges is the same: investment in our public services. That is exactly what this Budget is designed to do.
Kirsty McNeill
I will make some progress. I have been listening very intently to the speeches and chuntering from some hon. Members; I have not been taking any notes on economic credibility. The Fraser of Allander Institute, Audit Scotland and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have all confirmed that the challenges in Scotland’s public finances are a mess of the SNP’s making. As for the party that brought us Liz Truss, the verdict of the people of South West Norfolk tells us all we need to know.
I urge everyone instead to listen to my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson), for Glasgow East (John Grady), for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) about how to get Scotland growing. Our objective is not simply to rescue our economy from the havoc wrought by the Conservatives, but to grow it. That is why we support Great British Energy, providing £125 million next year to set up the institution at its new home in Aberdeen. That is a huge boost to the granite city, inexplicably voted against by the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and his fellow SNP MPs, all sent here to deliver for their constituents but who instead sought to sabotage investment that would benefit them.
I am also pleased that we have been able to confirm our commitment to invest nearly £1.4 billion into important local projects across Scotland over the next 10 years.
Kirsty McNeill
I will make some progress. We have also confirmed that all 12 regions of Scotland will be covered by a growth deal. Our investments include nearly £890 million of direct investment into freeports and investment zones, the Argyll and Bute growth deal and other important local projects across Scotland.
Kirsty McNeill
I will make some progress. Those are all the choices of a Government resolutely focused on the future. In conclusion, the Budget does exactly what Scottish Labour was elected to do. It secured billions for Scotland; the SNP voted against it.
Dave Doogan
On that point, will the Minister give way with only seven minutes to go?
Kirsty McNeill
I am going to make progress. The Budget secured billions for Scotland; the SNP voted against it. It delivered a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots; the SNP voted against it. It ended Tory austerity; the SNP voted against it. The simple fact is that they are out of road, out of excuses and out of time. This Budget helps us invest in Scotland and rebuild Britain. I am proud to tell my constituents that I voted for it and I look forward to seeing all the ways that it will change Scotland for the better.
Gregor Poynton
This has been a valuable, if not always consensual, debate. I thank the hon. Members for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) and for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan). I did not agree with all or much of what they had to say, but I do believe their views are genuinely and passionately held. To the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone): I for one will not tire of hearing him continue to raise the issues he raised until we have resolution to them, and I know he will do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) is right to raise the opportunities we have in the energy sector that are supported with this Budget; my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) right to raise the new deal for working people; my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) right that business confidence is growing; my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) right that in his constituency it is an NHS unfortunately in name only due to mismanagement; my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) right to talk about the choices we have had to make in this Budget; my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) right to talk about the social care problems we are seeing in Renfrewshire; my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) is a champion for manufacturing jobs; and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) is an expert on the mineworkers’ pension scheme.
The Chancellor’s Budget provides the Scottish Government with the largest financial settlement in the history of devolution—an additional £1.5 billion to the Scottish Government to spend in this financial year and an additional £3.4 billion to spend in the next. Let us have no more buck-passing, blaming Westminster and ducking of tough decisions. This Budget provides the SNP Scottish Government with more than adequate resources to deliver real and meaningful change in our economy and our public services. Let there be no question about it: any ongoing failures are those of the Scottish Government. They must own them and take that responsibility. They have nowhere to hide. The ball is in their court. As the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill), said, I was proud to vote for this Budget.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the fiscal impact of the Autumn Budget 2024 on Scotland.
Town Centres
(2 days, 9 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
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I will call Luke Murphy to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for town centres.
Thank you for the opportunity to lead this important Westminster Hall debate on the future of Britain’s town centres under your chairship, Ms Vaz. Like so many towns across the UK, my constituency of Basingstoke is grappling with the consequences of years of neglect under successive Conservative Governments and the changing habits and shopping trends of consumers. High streets have suffered from an array of pressures, made worse, not better, by the policies of the previous Administration.
For more than a decade, the Conservatives failed to modernise the business rates system, leaving small businesses disproportionately burdened while allowing major online retailers to shirk paying their fair share. The failure to secure our energy supply and tackle retail crime, and the disastrous mini-Budget, which sent interest rates soaring, stifled the ambitions of our high street businesses, leaving them grappling with higher costs and a lower footfall.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am sorry, Ms Vaz, but the hon. Gentleman said to me, “Get in early,” so I have taken him at his word and done as he asked.
The hon. Gentleman has clearly outlined the issues for his own town centre. In the past, the Government here gave the devolved Administrations and institutions money sensibly. I know the Minister will respond to this when the time comes. They also did that through the levelling-up fund, so money did come through. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more needs to be done to promote the economic and social regeneration of disadvantaged areas? After all, this is the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are always better together, so we should be helping each other.
Luke Murphy
I think it was the hon. Gentleman who suggested that he might come in early, but I thank him for his intervention. I agree, but I will leave it to the Minister to respond more fully. I will take interventions from a number of Members. I am grateful to those who made it clear in advance that they wish to speak. I will try to get to them first, and I will do my best if others want to come in, but I am conscious that we do not have a huge amount of time.
Because of the issues and trends that I have highlighted, Basingstoke’s Festival Place shopping centre now contends with long-term vacancies. Some of the largest storefronts, such as the old Debenhams building, have sat empty for years. All too often, new businesses open their doors with optimism in the Top of the Town, but they find themselves shuttered within a matter of months.
After 14 years of Conservative Government, Britain’s high streets and town centres have been hollowed out. According to the Centre for Retail Research, more than 10,000 shops closed in 2023 alone. The high turnover of shopfronts leaves not just holes in the high street but a sense of instability that undermines confidence in the local economy, yet amid the challenges there is undeniably an opportunity to breathe new life into our high streets.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for securing this really important debate.
Rural market towns are really important. In my constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton, Wincanton would benefit massively from regeneration. In fact, it was due to receive a considerable amount of funding—£10 million. The council put together a strong bid, but the former Member was unable to support it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that encouraging regeneration in our town centres and boosting footfall is the best way to bring prosperity back to our rural market towns?
Luke Murphy
I fully agree, but I will leave it there—for the sake of time, I will be short in agreeing with interventions.
None the less, like many towns and villages across the country, Basingstoke’s town centre is a hub of remarkable independent businesses that continue to thrive, despite years of neglect, from the unique offerings of Afrizi and the cherished Willows to the flavours of the Chennai Express and the ever-popular Festival Street Kitchen. These diverse ventures highlight the incredible entrepreneurial spirit in our town. The wealth of talent and creativity showcases the untapped potential of small business owners in our town, who deserve greater support and investment.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points about our high streets. The Government’s recent move to introduce high street rental auctions is a game changer for places such as Leigh and Atherton. Local businesses such as local construction firm WJ Structures are eager to regenerate, but are often held back by obstructive landlords. Does my hon. Friend agree that empowering businesses with a genuine stake in the area will only boost the local economy? It will create jobs and foster skills and training for industry in communities such as mine.
Luke Murphy
I fully agree with my hon. Friend and look forward to seeing auctions playing a role in rejuvenating high streets such as those in Basingstoke and in her constituency. I also welcome the Government’s action on small business access loans in the Budget, with £250 million for the British Business Bank’s small business loan programmes.
We know that the high streets of tomorrow will not look like those of the past. The modern consumer is looking for more than a place to shop. They are looking for an experience, and a reason to visit that goes beyond everyday retail. Independent, forward-facing business owners such as those running the Dice Tower and the Post Box in Basingstoke, which provide engaging experiences alongside the food and drink offerings, show that they already understand the habits of their customers. Events and experiences are clearly the future of the high street.
Innovation is the way forward for our town centres. A shift towards more diverse, mixed-use developments, integrating housing, leisure, culture, banking hubs, centres of education and public services, will help to create more vibrant high streets where people want to spend time and money. Alongside innovation, we must also address the factors that deter footfall.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the importance of regenerating our high streets with a new modern vision for their success. Does he agree that, for them to be successful, they must be seen to be safe? That is why it is so important that this Government do not tolerate, as the last Government did, a rise in antisocial behaviour and retail crime. A strong neighbourhood policing presence is required to assure residents that our high streets really are there for them, safely, when they need them.
Luke Murphy
I totally agree with my hon. Friend—I was just about to come on to that point. Antisocial behaviour and retail crime remain significant barriers to a thriving town centre. I am sure that businesses in his constituency have shared with him, as those in mine have shared with me, their frustrations over theft, vandalism, drug use, knife crime and things like illegal car meets. These are not merely nuisances; they are economic threats that drive shoppers away and force businesses to close. Labour’s plan to tackle these challenges head on—with robust action to tackle antisocial behaviour, stronger powers for local police and more town-centre policing, as well as support for businesses to invest in safety measures—is critical to restoring confidence in our town centres.
Since 2014, our police force has been diminished and retailers have been left to fend for themselves against the so-called low-level crime of shoplifting, which we know is absolutely nothing of the sort. It wrecks the bottom line and puts staff and shoppers in harm’s way.
I am glad to see the Government tackling shoplifting by reversing the rule under the previous Government that meant that the police would not usually investigate shoplifting of goods worth less than £200. Only by putting more police on the streets and empowering them to tackle shoplifting and antisocial behaviour can this Labour Government truly bring consumer and business confidence back to town centres like ours in Basingstoke. I would welcome an update from the Minister on the recent work in his Department to support high street businesses that continue to be victims of antisocial behaviour and retail crime.
The recent Budget provided £1.9 billion of support to small businesses and the high street in the next financial year by freezing small business multipliers and providing 40% relief on bills for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, up to a £110,000 cash cap. I welcome those measures, but would also be grateful if the Minister updated us on the progress of the Government’s plans to deliver the promised permanent reform of business rates. This is an absolute key issue that is raised with me time and again whenever I am in the Top of the Town.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I agree with the point that the hon. Member has just made. Does he agree that businesses are facing not just a cost of living crisis, but a cost of doing business crisis? In my constituency, a restaurant called Huxo, which only opened a year ago, has unfortunately had to close—he referenced that issue in his own constituency. Does he agree that it would be useful to hear from the Minister what the Government intend to do to help our local businesses with the cost of doing business crisis?
Luke Murphy
Absolutely, and this is something that we have seen businesses plagued with over the last 10 to 14 years. It is really important that, as well as improving footfall and stabilising the economy, we tackle those costs facing businesses.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister and the businessman Theo Paphitis visited Gabardine Bar together—a fantastic independent business in my constituency. It is great to see Kevin and Fran, who run Gabardine, here with us today. They represent exactly the kind of small business owners we have to support—ambitious for their own business, but also for the Top of the Town and Basingstoke as a whole. I rarely have a chat with Kevin that does not include a new idea, not just for his own business, but for rejuvenating the town centre.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Hearing about my hon. Friend’s constituents and the great work they are doing reminds me of the excellent work happening in my own constituency of Rugby around the night-time economy and live music, particularly in places such as Inside the 22, which provides live music, and The Squirrel Inn. Does he agree that this shows that small businesses are very entrepreneurial? They have the ideas about how to regenerate their own towns; what they need is an empowering ecosystem, which I believe is what the Government are seeking to create.
Luke Murphy
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is just those kinds of entrepreneurial businesses that are seeking a better future not just for themselves, but for the town as a whole. We must create a supportive environment for them. Like many local businesses, they are community minded at The Gabardine—they put on food and refreshments for the recent local remembrance activities—but they need to operate in a stable economic environment, which is why I welcome the recent Budget to protect the smallest businesses and shore up our economy.
It is also important that the Government deliver on securing our energy supply, with a credible plan to increase the availability of cheap, clean, home-grown sources of power through Great British Energy. I would value knowing what more the Government can do, and are planning to do, to support high street businesses in Basingstoke and elsewhere, which have been crippled by the weight of soaring energy costs.
One of the other issues raised with me by local businesses is about reliable bus routes and public transport. These are essential for driving footfall in towns such as Basingstoke. The Government’s plans to allow public transport to be put into local hands is a welcome step towards ensuring that every town and village has the bus services and public transport access that it needs.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. One in seven shops are empty—I have noticed that in my constituency, and the situation is similar in many constituencies across the country. Many owner-operators, like some of my hon. Friend’s constituents here today, want to get their town centre going again. They know what is best. The communities that bounced back the quickest after lockdown had owner-operators at the front and centre. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should be trying to provide infrastructure such as buses and routes to enable entrepreneurs and community stakeholders to get their communities back and vibrant again?
Luke Murphy
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Public transport plays a role in making town centres accessible, but we must think about the wider need for infrastructure that supports all modes of travel, to ensure that additional footfall to support entrepreneurs such as Kevin and Fran.
Central to this debate is the recognition that town centres are not just about bricks and mortar, but ultimately about people. When my neighbours visit the Saturday market at the Top of the Town, I want them to see a bustling town centre with plenty to offer—somewhere they want to keep coming back to.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing a debate on this issue. Bournemouth town centre has just had a very busy Christmas period. We had fantastic Christmas lights funded by the Bournemouth town centre business improvement district. We have also had the successful opening of The Ivy, which is fantastic. Otherwise, the town feels like a ghost town. Does he agree that the roll-out of the high street rental auctions, for which Bournemouth is a pilot area, could be critical to restoring confidence in our high streets, increasing footfall and making our town centres safer? Ultimately, that will help more businesses to grow and help our local economy.
Luke Murphy
I completely agree. I look forward to seeing the role that those auctions can play in Bournemouth and elsewhere, and to seeing them rolled out in places like Basingstoke as well; they are a really exciting innovation.
I want our town centre to be a vibrant place that people keep coming back to. The opportunity is there, but it will take the Government, local authorities, and our communities and businesses to work together to realise that potential. Last year I stood on a Labour manifesto pledging to breathe new life into our high streets, and in February I committed to hosting the first Top of Town summit in my constituency of Basingstoke as a step towards achieving this collaboration. I hope the Department will support efforts in constituencies like mine to break down the barriers that stand in the way of local economic growth.
I hope the Minister will agree that delivering a boost to town centres like Basingstoke’s through tackling antisocial behaviour, retail crime, the scourge of empty shop fronts and soaring energy prices, and reforming outdated business rates, must be a priority for the Government if we are serious about reaching our milestone on growth in a way that improves local economies, builds up small businesses and puts more money in people’s pockets.
I would welcome—as would Basingstoke business owners like Kevin and Fran, who are here today and who met the Prime Minister during the election campaign —any updates that the Minister can provide on the work that the Government are doing on these issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for securing this important debate and for the spirit in which he has led it. Despite this being a half-hour debate—one of the shorter ones—the interest from colleagues, shown through interventions and through being here to listen, demonstrates the importance of town centres and their health to all our communities, wherever we are across the UK.
My hon. Friend’s diagnosis of the challenge was really well put, because although no two town centres are the same, all our town centres face the same problems: lower occupancy rates and footfall due to economic headwinds and changing consumer habits; the legacy of austerity on public amenities; and hollowed-out high streets becoming a breeding ground for crime and antisocial behaviour, which then feeds a vicious cycle that affects the confidence of consumers and investors alike. That is true in Basingstoke, it is true in Bulwell in my constituency and it is true in the constituencies of colleagues across the room. This is an important debate for us all—it is a significant debate for the Government of the day and for Parliament.
I was struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said about the entrepreneurial spirit in his community, which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger). As we see across the country, there are brilliant business owners who are taking risks, bringing their ideas forward and making them real under very difficult circumstances. Quite rightly, they are not looking for the Government to operate their enterprises, but they are looking for the Government to make their life easier, which is entirely reasonable.
Today I will cover the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and talk about some of the support that will be coming from the new Government. I will also reference that critical underpinning—that whatever we do, whatever support we give to business, and however good the trading environment, we have to have safe communities. If we do not have those, even if we have all the other pieces, people will still not feel safe and will not be able to visit their town centres, and businesses will not be able to thrive.
I will start with the high street itself. My hon. Friends the Members for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) and for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) referenced high street rental auctions, so I will start there. In December we brought forward new powers for local authorities to require landlords who have persistently vacant properties to bring those properties back into use. The new regulations will make the tenancies more accessible and affordable for tenants, and give local businesses and community enterprise a right to rent valuable space on their high street. We are calling time on those persistent vacancies, and this will be a significant development in reducing vacancies and improving footfall along the way.
We have heard about the work going on in Bournemouth. We are also working with Bassetlaw, Darlington and Mansfield as early adopters, and I want as many areas to come forward as possible. I encourage colleagues to talk to their local authorities about getting the best out of these powers. There is also a lot of insight that we can support them with centrally. If they lean into this, it could be a really good way of addressing vacancy rates and of giving business and local community enterprises their first steps.
We will continue to invest in the high street accelerator model and from that learn what else we can do to improve communities across the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned, that model is telling us a lot about partnership between local communities, businesses, and property owners, who want to see their communities thrive. We also heard about business improvement districts convening that family of interested parties to drive forward a shared vision for an area.
At the moment, the overheads are really challenging—the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) put it very elegantly as the “cost of doing business crisis”. As the Government of the day, we want to help and to ameliorate that situation. Retail, hospitality and leisure form the backbones of our high streets, and support our local economies and communities, providing jobs and attracting visitors, but they cannot do that with a chokehold on them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said. He asked for more specifics on permanently lowering tax rates for such ventures. From 2026-2027, we intend to introduce permanent tax cuts for those with rateable values of less than £500,000. Those businesses will have certainty going forwards, not having to wait from Budget to Budget to see if cuts have been maintained; they will be baked in. Indeed, I believe that legislation has been making its way today. It means that businesses will have certainty around costs, so that they can plan and can operate their businesses in a profitable way.
There are other ways in which we can make life easier, including by tackling the scourge of late payments and long payment terms. That is a theme we hear constantly when we talk to small business and self-employed people. We are therefore introducing a new fair payment code, and we want people to engage with it to make sure that it works for real—for the way in which they do their business—and they are not caught in the ripple effects of bigger organisations that do not pay on time. That is an important point on support.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke about the importance of energy costs, which we know have been a problem domestically and for businesses. There are businesses now that were in a cycle of contracting when markets were at their most challenging and which are now locked into longer deals. We encourage businesses or non-domestic organisations to engage with suppliers about moving away from contracts agreed at higher prices and instead move towards approaches such as blend and extend contract to try to reduce costs. That would give short-term relief.
What we have to do in the medium and long term—as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said—is transition away from fossil fuels and towards home-grown, clean energy through the establishment of Great British Energy. In December, we took steps with our 2030 action plan, outlining our efforts in this regard. That will mean there will be access to clean, green energy, and that there will be domestic jobs and more money in people’s pockets—the single biggest problem affecting my town is that people simply do not have enough money in their pockets to shop. We will be winning each way: keeping bills down with better energy, and putting support and vitality back into our communities with jobs too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned transport, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba). Reliable bus and public transport services are vital to the economic success of our high streets. At the back end of last year, we made announcements about the £5.7 billion long-term transport settlement to transform the local transport networks of our largest city regions, helping to drive growth and productivity, and perhaps bringing back into use those routes that have been lost. There is also a further £650 million for local transport outside city regions in the forthcoming year, to make sure that we can improve connections between our towns, villages and rural areas as well as our major cities. On 17 December, we introduced the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which will put power over local bus services back into the hands of local leaders, so that those decisions reflect the nature of the local community and public transport gets to the right places.
On driving footfall and making sure that the high street has the amenities that our constituents want and need, we are also pushing hard on the roll-out of banking hubs. I know, having talked to colleagues, that that is of significant interest across the country. We have plans to roll out 350 such hubs, and there is plenty of work to do on that. Again, this is about having anchors on the high street that mean that people routinely come in and out of their town centre and, while they are there, perhaps go for a cup of tea or whatnot. We need those staples come what may, and that is an important way of making sure that we protect banking.
The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) talked about some of the ways in which Government have funded projects previously. To be clear—I could speak for another hour on this—we want to move away from the competitive, beauty parade-style bidding process that has pitted communities against each other, created a lot of disappointment and, frankly, been less than the sum of its parts. Our approach to local growth funding will be more integrated settlements over the longer term, with less central direction and more local choice. We think that will get the money to the areas that need it. In the meantime, we have the UK shared prosperity fund and the transition year there. I know that that is important for Northern Ireland—I have had the chance to see some of the services it pays for there—and across the country. Colleagues can look for more information about that when we get to the multi-year spending review later this year.
In the time remaining, I will move on to a couple of points about safety in town centres, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern). As the Chancellor’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, he is surely our man with a direct line on the spending review and other things. The point about safety is so important. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke has, like me, raised the issue of car meets. This has, at times, really dogged my town, making me want to tear my hair out. In order to push these kinds of behaviours out of our town, we have had to chase them and really be on top of it. The issue has caused misery and anxiety, and people do not want to leave their houses because they do not think they are safe. That is also true for crime in town centres more generally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned that terrible phrase, which I absolutely hate: “low-level crime”. The previous Government ceded ground around theft below £200, which has led to an explosion of stealing and other types of antisocial behaviour in our towns. That has made working in a retail environment a misery for people at times. We see staggering levels of violence, which we have to address. That is at the core of our safer streets mission, and we are committed to restoring neighbourhood policing through our neighbourhood policing guarantee—13,000 more police and police community support officers as a visible deterrent.
My hon. Friend also asked about timelines and where we are in the process. On 5 December, the Prime Minister announced our Plan for Change, which committed to a zero tolerance approach to ASB. That means a dedicated lead officer in every force, working with communities to work up a local antisocial behaviour plan. There are also our recently announced respect orders, which will give police and local council stronger enforcement powers, so that proper action is taken to change the behaviours of people who are persistently disruptive—others in our towns could name those people, and retail workers certainly could. This means banning them from the amenity they are disrupting, but also tackling the root cause of their behaviour through, for example, mandated alcohol and drug treatment. If people break respect orders, there are significant penalties, with offenders facing up to two years imprisonment—a real deterrent.
We want to tackle the root cause. For time out of mind, the behaviour of young people around town centres has been a challenge, whether they are on bicycles or causing shopkeepers challenges. Through our young futures programme, we want to give young people a positive thing to do, but it is also a chance to tackle and reduce offending where it happens. Together, all these things will make our communities safer for people to live, work and visit.
I am coming to the end of my speech, so I will probably leave it there. There are important points to be made about housing and our role in ensuring that, as more housing is created in town centres, it is done in a sensible and planned way with local communities. I think most people would accept the value of that—but if there is not proper planning and co-ordination, we end up with units in different places, as well as the weird and desperately sad situation where people move next door to a pub that may have been there for many years and then put in public order and nuisance complaints, leading to the pub closing down. We have to plan these things, so that residents can live alongside business in a way that promotes all of their interests.
To conclude, the interest that my colleagues have shown means that we could have gone on for a very long time. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke for securing the debate; it is a really brilliant way to start the new year. Our town centres are the beating hearts of our communities, and the Government are committed to giving that support. We will continue to engage with business to make sure the things we are doing are reaching the places they need to, and we will also work on that with our parliamentary colleagues. There is an awful lot to consider in terms of business support and public safety, so now is the time to grab this for our town centres—for my community, and for all of our communities. I think we can make a real difference.
Question put and agreed to.
Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities
(2 days, 9 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
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of changes to employers’ National Insurance contributions on the charity sector.
The background to this debate is the October Budget presented by the Government, and in particular the rise in national insurance contributions for employers. The rate was raised to 15% and the threshold at which national insurance contributions apply was brought down from £9,100 to £5,000, bringing in some part-time workers who previously had not caused their employers to be subject to national insurance contributions. Much has been said about the impact of the rise on the economy, but less has been said about the impact on charities.
Charities deliver almost £17 billion-worth of public services a year. Public services and civil society could not operate without charities. There is a tendency to overlook the important work they do. Particularly at the level of local government, charities are responsible through contracting for the delivery of a lot of the services that local governments are required to deliver.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. The Balsam Centre is a charity in Wincanton in my constituency that delivers some of the vital services that the hon. Member talks about, including maternal mental health support and youth counselling. The NI changes mean that it will have to find an extra £40,000 for its salary costs next year, cancel any pay increases and operate at a reduced capacity from April. Its work relieves pressure on the NHS and on local government, so does the hon. Member agree that the Government must rethink the national insurance changes?
Joe Robertson
I of course agree with the hon. Member that the Government must rethink the changes. I will go on to use examples from my own constituency, and I thank her for doing so with hers.
Joe Robertson
I will make a little progress and then I will be happy to give way.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates that the overall cost of the money taken from charities and transferred into the Treasury will be £1.4 billion. That is money being taken from charitable sources and transferred into the Treasury. Sarah Elliott, the chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, said:
“This is the biggest shock to the sector since pandemic. Charities already juggling rising demand, escalating costs, and the falling funding cannot absorb an additional £1.4 billion in costs without drastic service cuts...This additional cost, for which there is no headroom in budgets to cover, will be devastating.”
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. In Northern Ireland, the effect on charities will range from £5,000 per year to £200,000 per year. The costs are extreme and incredibly worrying. Does the hon. Member agree that charities are the backbone of many local communities across the UK, as he said earlier in his speech, and that as such they deserve even more support? Does he feel, as I feel on behalf of charities in my constituency, that the change could ultimately be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, and that charities could well disappear?
Joe Robertson
I agree with both those points. Charities tell us that the change will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for many. I know that because, immediately before entering Parliament, I worked for a nursing charity supporting dementia carers.
The Government know the pressure created by the national insurance contribution rise. They exempted the NHS because they knew the impact it would have on healthcare, but they ignored or failed to understand the contribution that charities make to health and social care.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The Midlands Air Ambulance Charity, which serves my constituents, receives no Government funding whatsoever for its daily missions. It does not burden the NHS financially, yet it adds immense value to the healthcare sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time the Treasury considered giving organisations and charities such as air ambulances the same exemption they are giving to NHS trusts, hospital trusts and NHS bodies?
Joe Robertson
I agree. Ultimately, the Government should exempt all charities from national insurance contribution rises. Another possibility, which would be much less beneficial, would be to target the exemption at health and social care provider charities, without which the NHS could not function, but I ask the Minister to expand the exemption to all charities, not just those in health and social care.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Shooting Star and Demelza House are two children’s cancer hospice charities that make a significant contribution to the national health service. Is it not absolutely ludicrous that money given for charitable purposes should effectively be siphoned off to the Treasury instead of being used to provide the support to children and their families for which it is intended?
Joe Robertson
I agree: of course it is ludicrous. This is charitable money—most of it is charitable donations—that is given to charities to provide valuable work, and the Treasury is taking it and putting it into the Government’s coffers. Some of these charities, such as those in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, are small charities doing valuable work and are the least able to afford to give money over to the national Government. It is therefore unsurprising that 7,000 charities have signed an open letter to the Chancellor. This is about not just the increase in national insurance contributions but the timing of it and the combination of factors.
Joe Robertson
I will make a little progress and then come back to the hon. Gentleman.
Most charities are suffering as they try to raise charitable funds, yet the Government have decided to take some of those charitable funds for themselves. For charities that support older people, such as Age UK, the simultaneous impact of the withdrawal of winter fuel payments has meant that more people are using their services, and at the same time the Government are taking money off them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joe Robertson
I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart).
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. We can see from the attendance on one side of the Chamber how important charities are to Opposition parties of all sorts. We are united in opposing the change, not least because those who are the most vulnerable, such as users of Citizens Advice, are likely to see services cut. There is an £88,000 impact just on the Citizens Advice service in Hull and East Riding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to go back to her colleagues and change direction? No one voted for a Labour Government to attack charities and the most vulnerable.
Joe Robertson
I agree that the Minister needs to go back and do that. That is why I secured the debate.
The chief executive of Crisis said:
“Increasing employers’ National Insurance contributions will have a dreadful impact on charities at a time when we are seeing unprecedented demand for our services.”
Some 75% of charities are reducing or considering withdrawing from public service delivery. Who will pick up that shortfall? In the worst case, no one will pick up where charities withdraw, or the Government and the public sector will have to, and I am fairly sure it will cost them more than £1.4 billion to do so. I prefer to put my trust in charities with experience in what they do, rather than the Government having to put emergency measures in place because charities are forced to withdraw. Some 61% of them are likely to cut staff.
The Government’s stated aim is not backed by their tax policy in three areas in particular: in health and social care, which we have already spoken much about; in poverty and homelessness; and for vulnerable groups.
John Milne
On the hon. Member’s earlier point about Age UK, it estimates that just in my Horsham constituency it will cost £150,000 per year to cope with the changes and the extra charge. Age UK is not a business and cannot raise its prices; it can only cut its service. Does the hon. Member agree that when one in five pensioners are adjudged to be living in poverty, this is the wrong time for such a measure?
Joe Robertson
I agree with the hon. Member. Broadly speaking, Age UK operates as small charities in individual communities. Age UK in the Isle of Wight, where my constituency is, also faces paying tens of thousands of pounds. On a national scale, that might not seem like much money, but it makes a huge difference at the local level and leads inevitably either to service cuts or to staff cuts. I agree with the hon. Member that no good can come of it.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) about the additional costs hitting Age UK, in West Sussex and Brighton and Hove the change has had an astonishing impact which, combined with the increase in the real living wage, is going to double Age UK’s fundraising target for this year, which it cannot bear. Combined with the cost of the cuts to the winter fuel payment, that goes against the very sentiment of the Budget, which was to try to prioritise the NHS. More elderly people will be, and are presenting, in A&E. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to rethink?
Joe Robertson
I do agree. It looks like the Government do not understand that healthcare is delivered not only by the NHS, so when they chose to exempt the NHS from the damaging rises, they either did not understand or had disregard for all the other healthcare providers, without which the NHS could not function properly.
Joe Robertson
I will give some examples before I give way to my hon. Friend.
The change will cost Marie Curie almost £3 million a year, and it says that without further support critical services for the terminally ill may be scaled back. Hospices throughout the country will pay between £30 million and £50 million a year. For the Mountbatten hospice in my constituency it will cost £338,000—just for one hospice. Just before Christmas, the Government announced £100 million of investment in hospices over two years—so £50 million a year—which is merely giving back, broadly, what they have already taken. That money is targeted at capital spending, when hospices tell me their main pressure is revenue. Are the Government taking revenue from them and giving it back provided they spend it on capital? Clearly, they are not going to give money to all hospices, but they are going to take money from all hospices—that seems inevitable.
Helen Grant
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. The Heart of Kent hospice in my constituency does amazing work caring for families at a time of crisis, but the Government changes to NICs and the national living wage will cost the charity more than £200,000 per annum. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s approach is undermining many hospices, damaging the vital services they provide, and ultimately putting more pressure on the NHS?
Joe Robertson
I agree. Putting pressure on other health providers and social care providers inevitably leads to pressure on the NHS. My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head in her comments and I thank her for them.
For Carers Trust the cost of this rise is £3 million—that is not its tax bill; that is just the bill from this rise in the Budget. For Stroke Association it is £2.1 million over two years, and for Teenage Cancer Trust it is £300,000. It is not just about health and social care charities, but charities tackling poverty and homelessness. The Labour Government say it is their aim, and it was in their manifesto that they would develop a new cross-party strategy
“to put Britain back on track to ending homelessness”.
What good is a strategy when it is stripping £60 million from charities trying to do what the Government want them to do? The homelessness charity Crisis says the rise will cost an additional £750,000 and—here is the point—with little or no time to prepare. That announcement was made just a few months before the effects will kick in, and Crisis says it is likely to lead to a reduction in frontline services.
I will mention a few other charities. The changes will cost Single Homeless Project £650,000. Rick Henderson, the CEO of Homeless Link, says—his words, not mine—that they are “desperately worried” about closures of homelessness services, leaving thousands without support, and that this NI increase
“could be the final nail in the coffin.”
Those are not my words, or the words of politicians, but the words of charity leaders up and down the United Kingdom.
The change affects charities supporting other vulnerable people, as well as charities supporting women and girls. Labour pledged in its manifesto to halve violence against women and girls, but chief executives of seven charities, including Victim Support and Rape Crisis, have warned the rise could result in their losing staff, closing waiting lists and ultimately closing the doors to some vulnerable victims of crime. That is the result of this Budget national insurance rise.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this issue. I agree with him completely in so far as violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland is at crisis levels. It is one of the most dangerous places in Europe to be a woman, and we have women and girls who have lost their lives already this year to violence. Would the hon. Member agree that if the Government are serious—as I believe they are—about tackling violence against women and girls, surely this increase flies in the face of everything we are trying to achieve in terms of ending violence against women and girls?
Joe Robertson
I agree, and would like to share the hon. Member’s optimism that the Government do intend to make improvements in this area. This debate is a second chance for them to go away, then come back and provide relief to all charities, but particularly those that are operating in what might be called emergency services, because nobody else is doing what those charities are doing. Earlier today I spoke to a journalist who was involved in reporting the criminality and repulsive scandal in Rotherham. He said that when he went there, it was charities that were providing those emergency services—no one else was doing it—yet those are the groups that are having money taken off them in order to fund the Government.
Women’s Aid is a conglomerate representing 175 member organisations across England. It says that the national insurance contribution rises will effectively negate gift aid. The Government are giving a tax relief through gift aid and then taking it back through the Budget NIC rises.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate. I think we can all suggest what the Government are going to say today, and they are not going to change their mind, so surely we should ensure that they do other things to support charities. Does the hon. Member agree that one thing the Government could do is to support my private Member’s Bill, the Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill, which would remove the charity lotteries cap and allow charities to raise more money at no cost to the taxpayer?
Joe Robertson
I agree, although I am perhaps a little more optimistic than the hon. Member. The Government might not make the promise today, but they have an opportunity to go away and provide financial relief to all charities, even if they might not want to admit that in black and white. I congratulate the hon. Member on her Bill.
I am grateful to Members who have come to this debate to talk about their constituencies. In my constituency, the local charity Aspire is currently building, for the first time on the Isle of Wight, accommodation specifically for vulnerable women—and now the Government want £27,000 from it. Community Action does amazing things on the Isle of Wight, and provides a lot of contracted services for the Isle of Wight council; the Government want £45,000 from it. The employment allowance will offset £5,000 of that. The Government will tell us that is what they are giving back, but those are very small returns on the money they are taking.
I could say much more about other charities that operate in sports, the arts, live music and culture, but clearly there are time constraints. This debate is not just about charities in the sectors that I have talked about, although broadly speaking they are the ones doing things at the coalface that the public sector tends not to be able to do itself directly—otherwise, frankly, these charities would not exist.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The hon. Member was exactly right to draw particular attention to hospices, given that the House will shortly be debating the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I have heard from constituents that if we are to introduce that Bill, they would like to see also proper investment in palliative care. Does he agree that that is another reason why national insurance needs to be prioritised for hospices?
Joe Robertson
I agree, and the hon. Member perfectly illustrates the point that the Government’s stated aims are not backed up by their tax decisions. If the Government want better palliative care—I hope that they do—they should not be taking money away from hospices, or from charities, such as Marie Curie, that operate end-of-life care. He makes that point well; I thank him for it.
Before finishing, I will again quote the interim CEO of Refuge. She has said that the violence against women and girls sector
“is already under immense financial pressure”,
and that not only did the Budget
“fail to include detail about how much funding has been set aside to tackle violence against women and girls, the Government’s plans to increase National Insurance contributions for employers could have dire repercussions for charities.”
My ask of the Government is to extend to charities the exemption that they have given the NHS and public bodies. It is not difficult; there is no lack of clarity about what a charity is. Nobody will wish to beat the Government for making a sensible decision for charities. There are some alternative options, but that is plainly the only ask that will really deal with the problem. The alternative options are to provide some other form of relief, but that relief should be felt by all charities. If the Government cannot go as far as to relieve all charities, they should target relief to specific sectors. We have heard in this debate about those sectors, such as those operating in poverty and homelessness, and in health and social care, and those tackling violence against women and girls. At the very least, they should do an impact assessment. No impact assessment has been carried out of the impact of this tax increase on the charity sector. That must be the most basic ask: there can be no good reason not to have an impact assessment. Finally, the Government must go back and rethink their whole approach to taxation on charities, to help to deliver—not hinder—their stated aims.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Hon. Members can see the time now and we have to take wind-ups from about 5.8 pm. A number of people have put their names down to speak, so could Members stand if they want to speak and then we can work out timings?
Several hon. Members rose—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I am reliably informed that each person will have one minute in which to speak; I am afraid that I will have to stop people after one minute. Obviously, this is the debate of the Member in charge and therefore he could take as long as he liked; he also took quite a few interventions.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I will be really quick, Madam Chair.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing such an important debate. I am absolutely astonished that so few Government Members have attended. It was not so long ago that they were community champions seeking election.
In Mid Bedfordshire, our charities do absolutely fantastic work to help keep our area the special place that it is. In particular, I will talk about The Greensand Trust. I was pleased to visit the trust recently. It does some absolutely fantastic work in the community and in supporting environmental improvements within Mid Bedfordshire. However, I was deeply concerned to hear about the impact that this Government’s job tax will have on the trust. There will be £100,000 extra on its staffing costs next year. With no efficiencies that it can find and no extra income that it can raise, that means that next year the trust will have to cut staff to make ends meet, which means a reduced service for everyone, and a huge loss to our local environment and our green spaces—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. I am really sorry, but I have to stop you. Could Members bob each time, in between speeches, so that we can get a clearer idea of how many Members wish to speak?
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Chair, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing today’s debate.
As the former chief executive of a community regeneration organisation, I speak from direct experience of working with charities on the ground. Although it is nice that today the Conservatives care about charities, that was not the case previously. The cuts started right at the beginning of the Conservatives’ time in office, with their “big society” policy, which in my experience was just an underhand means of implementing cuts. I know that because, like many organisations, the charity that I worked for spent year after year managing cuts after cuts. Vital local community services were forced to close or to reduce in size.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to resetting the relationship with the third sector and to rebuilding a new partnership through the civil society covenant. I am also pleased that the Government’s policy statement on local government finances will provide a multi-year financial settlement and adjust the funding formula to local Government to rebalance funding where it is most needed. These measures will be welcomed by charities.
However, I am concerned about the impact of the national insurance increase on organisations—
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for bringing this really important topic to this place. It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Ms Vaz.
We are very short of time, so I will just highlight a couple of facts about charities that serve my constituency of Chelmsford. We have Farleigh hospice, which does what its name suggests. It does incredible work, but it has to fundraise most of its money, and it will need to cover an extra £250,000 in addition to the current deficit budget that it is operating under. That equates to the cost of five registered nurses or the direct running costs of its children’s bereavement service. I wonder which one the Government would prefer it to cut.
I could go on about loads of different charities. However, I have just 20 seconds left, so I will just say that I am so incredibly disappointed by the Government about this policy, because they must have known the impact that it was going to have on the charity sector, and to choose to ignore the sector and to implement the policy without any compensation and without talking to the sector first is just disgraceful. And I really want to know what the Government are going to do to—
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz, and I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing this debate.
Prior to the election, the Labour party made a promise to the British people not to put up taxes on working people and I am proud that they have not put up taxes on working people. However, everybody in this country has known for years that the state was failing on its own terms. Prior to the election, I spent a year as my party’s candidate and I canvassed every single street in my Southport constituency; I know pretty much every dodgy garden gate and letterbox in the whole town. The one complaint I heard over and over and over again was that nothing works properly in this country any more. The reason why nothing works properly in this country any more is the economic legacy of the Conservative party. GP appointments, train journeys, street lights, social care—none of it works. We had to do something to put this country’s economic policy on an even keel, and this is what we had to do. [Interruption.] I will take no lectures from anybody over there who opposes it.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. I will be a little more generous and say that this situation was an unintended consequence of the Budget, because it is unravelling very quickly. However, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the charity sector could cease to exist.
Jasmine House, which provides support for women who have been victims of sexual violence and are having to wait five to six years for a court appearance, has a two-year waiting list. Last year, when I spoke to the charity, it was intending to expand. Now it is going to more or less shut down because it just does not have the money. It will cost too much to continue operating.
Another charity, which is close to my professional career, is Vista. It is 170 years old and provides support for partially sighted and blind individuals in the city of Leicester. The changes will cost Vista an extra £25,000 a year. It is calling for an exemption for social care providers and charitable organisations, or for ringfenced funds to be provided to local governments to cover the cost in full.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Now, as we are debating here, senior members of the Thames Valley Air Ambulance are working out how to cover the £130,000 extra bill for the jobs tax next year. The charity, an outstanding resource for Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, works exclusively for the NHS and saves it many times over what the jobs tax will raise. Thames hospice in my constituency will have an extra £300,000 bill; once we add in the effect of the minimum wage and matching the nursing settlement, it will have to find well over £0.5 million next year just to stand still.
The Government say that they want to help the NHS, but their Budget is doing the opposite. Why are they doing this? Is it an accidental oversight or a misunderstanding of how the sector works? I call on them to rethink their approach and fix this.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing the debate. A reference was made to the unintended consequences of the Government’s decision, but actually they are not unintended consequences; there was a dereliction of duty because the Government did not do the impact assessments that they should have done to understand what they would do to our charity sector.
I recently visited West Berkshire Mencap in my constituency of Newbury. As a result of the financial pressures, the organisation will need to find an additional £163,000 to cover national insurance contributions, and its agency costs are projected to rise by approximately 12%. I also recently met Rachel Peters, the chief executive of Volunteer Centre West Berkshire, which last year provided advice and support to 403 individuals on volunteering. She expressed grave concern about the impact that the changes will have in Newbury, with staffing costs alone projected to rise by 18%. Overall within the charities that she represents, an additional £387,000 will need to be found in the next financial year, with hardly any time to plan.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for bringing forward the debate.
I want to speak about the impact that the jobs tax will have on my community. One excellent charity working in my constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill is South East London Mind. It faces a £190,000 increase in its tax bill, which is the equivalent of hiring five mental health advisers who could support 1,000 people a year. However, instead of working hard fundraising or reworking NHS contracts to expand, staff will be working to pay tax, and in all likelihood to do less. That is not a unique case. Another fantastic charity working in Bromley and Biggin Hill is Aurora Nexus, which employs 240 people right across London, supporting people with autism and learning disabilities. It faces a £194,000 tax grab.
Every Member present will know of a local charity that Labour’s jobs tax will hit hard. This is a poor policy, and quite frankly an attack on the most vulnerable in our society.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing this important debate and for his excellent contribution.
If the Labour Government thought that the national insurance controversy would die away as we moved into 2025, I am afraid they will be very disappointed. They have offered Scotland an additional £300 million to meet the additional costs, but the Scottish Government estimate that the actual cost is in the region of £750 million. This past week, 48 organisations from across civic Scotland have joined with First Minister John Swinney and president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities Shona Morrison to call on the Chancellor to cover the additional costs and to ensure that that is extended to the full range of organisations delivering public services. They are all facing a huge rise in their costs. According to the Scottish Government, the UK Government did not even bother to consult with them on this change. How is this change contributing to growth? It is reducing services for vital support at a dark time in people’s lives.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. There are 328 charities in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole, including Safe Partnership, which is run out of Wareham. It installs safe rooms and secures properties for people who have been victims of domestic abuse. Not one of those people has to pay for that service; it is paid for by councils that of course are not going to be funding the additional cost of those commissioned services. In Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole alone, the cost of the additional employers NICs for the commissioned services in children’s and adult care is £5.5 million. Becky, who runs Windward Day Services in my constituency, said:
“The feeling in adult social care is bleak. The people we support do not deserve to…be the ones who receive lower quality…services through…no fault of their own.”
Mark Powell is chief executive of Diverse Abilities Plus, and the charity is to celebrate its 70th birthday this year. Phyllis Edwards, who founded it, wanted to protect children with disabilities, but Mark is concerned that it will not make its 70th birthday.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this debate. The Government’s proposed changes pose a severe threat to vital charities at the heart of our communities. Again and again, we have heard that. Age UK in Hertfordshire has calculated that the rises will impose an additional cost of £85,000 per annum and, when combined with unexpected increases in operational costs, they have pushed its total cost increases close to £250,000.
Higher national insurance contributions mean increased costs, reduced capacity to hire and retain staff, and ultimately fewer resources to deliver the services our communities rely on. The wonderful team at the Hospice of Saint Francis in Berkhamsted shared with me the heartbreaking experience of having to turn away people from their health and wellbeing service, their nursing support and their at-home support.
The situation will only get worse. Time and again, charities have spoken to me about how the Government’s snap decision undervalues their essential work, such as supporting covid-19 vaccine roll-out, picking up the pieces after the winter fuel allowance was cut and filling the gaps left by the last Conservative Government. With our NHS and public service in crisis, I urge the Government to reconsider these national insurance rises for charities.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this debate. I want to highlight the impact of the national insurance rise on just two West Dorset charities. Weldmar Hospicecare already subsidises 60% of its NHS-commissioned care through fundraising. It will have to raise an additional £600,000 next year. Julia’s House, which provides end-of-life care to sick children, gets just 8% of its income from state funding. It will have to raise nearly £250,000 next year as a result of these changes. Charities such as Weldmar and Julia’s House play a critical role in alleviating pressure on the NHS. They provide care in the community, reduce avoidable hospital admissions and support families in their darkest hours. Their work aligns with the Government’s priorities of shifting care out of hospitals into community settings, yet this policy actively undermines their abilities to do so. Weldmar and Julia embody selflessness and service. By exempting hospices from national insurance rises, we can protect their critical work and ensure they continue to provide comfort.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for bringing this debate forward. I want to mention two charities that I have interacted with in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough. The first provides support to unpaid carers, who are now facing £90,000 in additional employer national insurance contributions. That will completely pull the rug out from underneath them and have a massive impact on people providing those services to their loved ones.
Secondly, Harrogate is home to one of the two police treatment centres in the UK. They help to rehabilitate police who have been injured in the course of their duties, and we know that every pound spent saves the taxpayer £3.80 in rehabilitation and mental health and wellbeing provision. Obviously, the impact of NICs on them is going to be huge—£160,000 of employer NICs will be passed on to them. It is really clear that, although the Government are hoping to raise some tax in the process, the additional costs are going to end up costing them a lot more in the long run. They need to rethink this.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I think we can squeeze one more Back-Bench speaker in. I call Clive Jones.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing the debate. A number of charities in my constituency of Wokingham, including The Cowshed, First Days and Citizens Advice, have been really disadvantaged by these national insurance charges, one of them by up to £16,000 a year. The Government could have been bold by taxing banks, online gambling and social media giants to raise more money.
Can the Minister answer this simple question? Is she content with putting bankers’ bonuses first instead of debt advisers and support for people facing evictions, homelessness and genuine need?
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I thank hon. Members. Everyone who wanted to speak has done. I now call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Daisy Cooper.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate. I believe I have up to five minutes to make some remarks, which feels positively luxurious in the context of the canter we have just had. I will kick back as I think about what to say.
I have been struck by the examples colleagues have given. We have heard a number of charities named from different constituencies: Age UK branches, charities that support survivors of domestic violence, those supporting women and children, ambulances, Mencap, Mind, physical rehabilitation and various volunteer and advice centres. But the one type of charity that has been mentioned more than any other has been hospices. Almost every hon. Member who spoke or made an intervention referred to a hospice in their area. That should surely send a strong message to the Government about the amount of cross-party support in this House for the hospice sector, and why we want to see more from the Government in that regard.
As the MP for St Albans, I have heard, as others have, about charities in my area. One hospice, Rennie Grove, says that the changes will potentially increase costs by around £250,000. A doctor working in palliative care in another hospice that serves my constituents says that the decision not to exempt hospices is “nothing short of devastating.” A trustee from a local mental health charity says that the cuts that need to be made may result in an increase in demand for NHS services. National Age UK has also said that this will put an intolerable strain on its organisation.
We know the Government have a terrible inheritance from the previous Government, but different choices could have been made. The Government say that the national insurance hike will result in additional tax revenue of around £25 billion per year, but the Office for Budget Responsibility clearly states that, after allowing for behaviour changes in response to the tax, such as reducing pay, and once public sector employers are compensated, it will only raise revenue closer to £10 billion.
Instead of raising national insurance contributions on small businesses, health and care providers and charities, the Government could have raised that same amount of money through much fairer tax changes. For example, the Liberal Democrats have proposed reversing the Conservative cuts handed to the big banks; increasing the digital services tax to 6%; doubling the rate of remote gaming duty paid by online gambling companies; and introducing a fairer reform of capital gains tax, so that the 0.1% of ultra-wealthy individuals would pay their fair share, while keeping things the same or cutting tax for other capital gains tax payers. Those other choices could have been made.
Like other hon. Members in this debate, I urge the Government to think again about what they can do to restrict the impact on our charity sector. The national insurance contribution rise is unnecessary when alternative tax-raising avenues are available, as I have just set out. It is self-defeating, because in many cases it will put more pressure on the NHS, and it is fundamentally unfair. It will hit charities that are supporting some of the most vulnerable in our society. Those charities are the glue that hold our societies together and, unfortunately, we are going to see their services slashed.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. We are expecting a vote but I will call the Opposition spokesperson, Saqib Bhatti.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate. He made an impassioned speech, and may I be the first to say on record that I think he will have a long and fruitful career in this House? I hope I have not just given him the kiss of death. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said, the strength of feeling on this issue is demonstrated by the turnout for this debate. I thank every Member who has contributed.
Charities play a huge part in our lives, providing critical support to individuals who face poverty, illness and injustice. One of my many privileges as the Member of Parliament for Meriden and Solihull East is to have many fantastic charities in the local area. It is always inspiring to meet the volunteers who do so much to support people, year in, year out, wherever those volunteers come from.
In my constituency, I have the Colebridge Trust, which strives to get more people into work, improve health and tackle the effects of loneliness. I have the Lily Mae Foundation, which was set up to help support parents who suffer the unimaginable trauma of baby loss—I had the privilege of jumping out of a plane for it not so long ago. I also have the fantastic Lily’s Tea Parlour in Chelmsley Wood, which helps struggling people by offering warm food, drink and a safe space.
Alongside the great local charities in my constituency, like many Members, I also have Age UK and Marie Curie. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East made the case for the challenges that they face and will be facing as a result of this Budget. Supported by an army of volunteers, these organisations are enormously important features of our high streets, towns and our society.
On a national level, the UK is one of the most generous nations for charitable giving. Our charities are a huge source of pride for people in this country, and Members across the House must always continue to come to Parliament to do all they can to stand up for the UK’s charitable sector.
The country’s charitable spirit can be seen by the fact that the British public donated an estimated £13.9 billion to charity in the last year. In our communities, local people gather regularly to take part in charity bake sales and sports fixtures and watch performances where ticket costs are donated to local charities. In some respects, some of the nation’s favourite cultural pastimes are deeply intertwined with supporting our charities, and there is no doubt that these charities bring all of us together.
But in spite of that, our charities are under threat. I have been contacted by a number of charities about the impact of this Budget. Local mental health charity Birmingham Mind told me that
“the rise, combined with current financial pressures, presents serious challenges for charities like ours”.
The brain injury charity Headway contacted me estimating that the proposed changes will push up its costs by tens of thousands of pounds, forcing it to “reduce services” and potentially putting employees at
“risk of redundancy or reduced days”.
Birmingham-based Services for Education, run by its formidable chief executive, Sharon Bell, wrote to me to say that
“the impact of national insurance changes will hit”
it “hardest—unfairly so.” She paints a very concerning picture about how the charity will be forced to limit the fantastic services it offers because of this unprecedented cost.
When the Chancellor delivered her Budget of broken promises, she did exactly what she promised during the election that she would not do: she significantly raised employer national insurance. What is even more concerning is the devastating effect that this has had on the charity sector. Just a day after the Budget, more than 7,000 charities came together to sign an open letter co-ordinated by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, warning that the sector’s increased national insurance costs would amount to £1.4 billion a year. They all called on the Chancellor to either exempt or reimburse charities for these additional costs.
Let me tell the Minister that the impact is already being felt, and it is dire. Over Christmas, the chief executives of five domestic abuse charities made it clear that increased national insurance would force them to cut services, run down reserves and even make redundancies. This will have a catastrophic impact on the safety of vulnerable women and girls. Has the Minister had discussions with the Minister for Women and Equalities about the possible impact on women in this country? Has she spoken to the Chancellor? And where is the impact assessment?
More than 110 chief executives of homelessness charities in England have warned that these changes could cost the sector between £50 million and £60 million. Can the Minister give cast-iron assurances that homeless people will not lose vital support, especially over this cold and wet winter, because of the unprecedented rise in NI contributions?
The Opposition voted to exempt charities from the additional costs of NI increases. I regret that a staggering 348 Labour Members voted against that amendment, which will have a far-reaching impact on charities that provide essential services. Will the Minister give certainty that the Chancellor’s job tax will not have a negative impact on charities? And can she be certain that the Chancellor will not be coming back for more?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this debate, and I thank Members from across the House for their contributions. As the Minister for Civil Society, I have seen at first hand the huge contribution that charities and voluntary groups make to our country; and as the MP for Barnsley South, by working directly with local groups, I have seen the impact that they have in my area.
As part of the autumn Budget, the Government took a number of difficult decisions on tax, welfare and spending to fix the public finances, fund public services and restore economic stability. In an open letter to the voluntary sector on this issue, the Chancellor stated that raising the rate of employer national insurance contributions was one of the most difficult decisions in the Budget. I will address the specific point around the change to national insurance alongside some of the questions and issues raised in the debate, before discussing the wider support that the Government provide to the sector.
The Government recognise the need to protect the smallest businesses and charities, which is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance, from £5,000 to £10,500. That means that more than half of employers, including charities with NI liabilities, will either gain or see no change next year. In addition, we are expanding the eligibility of the employment allowance by removing the £100,000 eligibility threshold to simplify and reform employer NI, so that all eligible employers now benefit. Almost all charities are eligible for the employment allowance, as outlined in the HMT guidance. The changes will mean that a small to medium-sized charity could employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer NI, to give one example.
Graham Stuart
Does the Minister agree that if it turns out that it will cost the NHS more to bring in the changes than it will gain, as colleagues from across the House fear, then it would be worth reviewing them? I know that she is not personally responsible for the initiative.
Stephanie Peacock
As the right hon. Gentleman makes clear, I am not personally responsible for the specific policy, but I will reflect his point to the Treasury.
Employers, including charities, will still continue to benefit from employer NI reliefs, including for hiring those under 21 and apprentices under 25 where eligible. I am aware, however, of the concerns of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector about the impact that the changes will have on their organisations. I acknowledge that the last few years have been difficult for voluntary and community sector organisations, many of which have seen a rise in demand for their services while dealing with increased financial pressures. After the last 14 years, where the state at every level has been cut back, more demand has been placed on charities. Indeed, my local authority saw some of the worst cuts in the country, despite being one of the areas of greatest need, so I completely appreciate the role that charities have played during that time.
The simple reality is that the situation cannot be reversed overnight. To grow our economy and our country, tough decisions have to be taken, and I appreciate that that is difficult.
Seamus Logan
The Minister mentioned a number of mitigations for charities, and she said that she thinks that virtually all charities will benefit from those, so where are the Government actually obtaining the resources to fill the hole in the public finances?
Stephanie Peacock
I did not catch all of that intervention, but I said that half of charities would either stay the same or gain from the changes. I am happy to discuss that with the hon. Member after the debate, or write to him if I have misunderstood his point.
I have met representatives from the sector to specifically discuss the NI changes on more than one occasion. They have put forward many of the same arguments and questions that hon. Members have today, and I have shared those in turn with the Treasury.
A number of specific causes and sectors have been raised during the debate, and I would like to address some of those in the time available. Individual Departments will continue to provide direct funding and support for specific causes and areas. As has been mentioned a number of times, most hospices are charitable, independent organisations. As announced by the Department of Health and Social Care, the sector is set to receive a £100 million boost, alongside a further £26 million for children and young people’s hospices. Clearly, that will help with financial pressures. That sits alongside some of the other actions taken by the Government, including an £880 million increase in the social care grant and an additional £233 million of funding on homelessness, to help prevent rises in the number of families in temporary accommodation and to prevent rough sleeping.
The Home Office is working to agree decisions on its wider budget in support of the ambition to halve violence against women and girls, and it will communicate that as soon as possible. To answer the point made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), I have a cross-Government meeting on violence against women tomorrow morning.
Sir Roger Gale
I am sorry to intrude on the Minister’s time. As I understand it, the extension of the children’s hospices grant will not meet the costs of national insurance for children’s hospices. Will she ask the Treasury to clarify that, and if necessary, discuss it with the executives of the children’s hospice movement?
Stephanie Peacock
I know the huge amount of work that children’s hospices do, and I have done a lot of work with Bluebell Wood children’s hospice in South Yorkshire. I will take away and reflect the right hon. Member’s points, and the relevant Department will write to him after the debate.
Patrick Hurley
The Conservative party has been very clear that it wants tax cuts, but less clear on what public services it would cut to pay for them. Perhaps the Minister might wish to reflect on that.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate that point. The bottom line is that we have been very clear that we want economic stability, and the money does have to come from somewhere—it is tax, borrowing or cuts. That is a very clear choice. Members will appreciate that many of the issues raised in this debate fall outside of my Department, but I will reflect the points made from across the House to the relevant Departments after the debate.
The Government will continue to support the sector in a number of other ways. Through the tax system, the Government also provide support to charities through a range of reliefs and exemptions, including reliefs for charitable giving. The tax reliefs available to charities are a vital element in supporting charitable causes across the UK, with more than £6 billion in charitable reliefs provided to charities, community sports clubs and their donors in 2023-24.
Stephanie Peacock
I have taken a number of interventions, so in the interests of time, I will make some progress.
The biggest individual reliefs provided are gift aid, at £1.6 billion, and business rates relief, at nearly £2.4 billion. My Department also supports the voluntary and community sector, particularly through the delivery of direct grant funding—delivering, among other things, the £26 million voluntary, community and social enterprise energy efficiency scheme, which helps organisations with capital energy efficiency measures. That is still under way, as is the social enterprise boost fund, which delivers grants and peer support for emerging social enterprises, and the Know Your Neighbourhood fund, which is focused on increasing volunteering and tackling loneliness.
Alongside that, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport sponsors the National Lottery Community Fund, which is the largest non-Government funder of voluntary and community organisations across the UK. During 2023-24, the National Lottery Community Fund made grant awards totalling over £900 million, 84% of which were under £10,000, with the majority supporting grassroots organisations.
My Department is also focused on developing other sources of funding support for the sector. That includes establishing a stronger, more ambitious partnership with the impact economy, such as by unlocking the multimillion-pound potential of the dormant assets scheme. This includes making charitable giving as easy and compelling as possible, building on the estimated £13.9 billion that the UK public donated to charity last year. My officials are also working to deliver the VCSE contract readiness programme to help to improve the capability of VCSE organisations when bidding for public contracts.
As we have heard from Members across the House, the voluntary and community sector plays an important role across all areas of public life, up and down the country. As the Minister for Civil Society, I have seen at first hand the work that charities and social enterprises do. Since being appointed, I have held a number of visits, meetings and roundtables with charities and voluntary organisations across the UK—from Leeds to Stoke, from Huntingdon to Brent. I am committed to continuing that engagement with charities and voluntary groups up and down the country, especially as we continue to develop a framework for the new civil society covenant, which will reset the relationship between civil society and Government.
We have heard a number of examples today of the brilliant work that charities and volunteers do. I thank them for their work and I thank hon. Members for their contributions today.
Joe Robertson
I thank the Minister for coming here to address the arguments that have been made, particularly as they were about a set of decisions that were not made by her personally or by her Department. I thank her for assuring Members in this debate that she will go back and make strong representations to her colleagues. There is probably no option other than to do so, given the strength of feeling she has heard today, particularly from Opposition Members. This is not her fault, butthere is no compelling argument that money had to be taken from charities to deliver the Government’s objectives. I urge her to say to the Chancellor, “Please give charities their money back. This is their money—give it back.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of changes to employers’ National Insurance contributions on the charity sector.
Written Correction
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
At every turn, Ministers have refused point blank to tell us how much their Chagos deal will cost British taxpayers. Now we know why: the Mauritians want £800 million a year. Whatever the figure is, will the Secretary of State tell us what percentage of the cost of leasing back a base that we currently own will come from the Ministry of Defence budget?
John Healey
I regret the Conservative carping over the Diego Garcia deal. The negotiations were started by Conservative Ministers, who conducted 11 rounds of negotiations. The agreement safeguards the effective operation of the joint UK-US base for at least 99 years. It is supported by US agencies and is welcomed by India, the African Union and the UN Security Council—almost everyone, it seems, except the Conservatives.
[Official Report, 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 588.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey):
John Healey
I regret the Conservative carping over the Diego Garcia deal. The negotiations were started by Conservative Ministers, who conducted 11 rounds of negotiations. The agreement safeguards the effective operation of the joint UK-US base for at least 99 years. It is supported by US agencies and is welcomed by India, the African Union and the UN Secretary-General—almost everyone, it seems, except the Conservatives.
Written Statements
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Steel Strategy: Next Steps
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
Today the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and I will convene the first meeting of the renewed Steel Council. This forum brings together leaders from across the sector to provide strategic guidance and external expertise in the development and implementation of our steel strategy.
Steel has for too long been a neglected industry in this country. Staggeringly, steel production has declined by more than 50% in the last 10 years. Internationally, unfair actions by some overseas nations have undermined free trade, meaning our steel companies are not able to compete on a level playing field.
I believe steel should and could become a positive story. We are not naive to the scale of the challenge, or the situation we inherited. We know these are tough circumstances and it will take time to make things better. This Government will not let the UK lose our steel industry.
In Victorian times, we were the country which invented the modern way of steel production. Now is the time to find our next approach which enables steel growth and innovation. We are the Government determined to make the hard-headed decisions to make that happen. This is why we have committed to publishing a steel strategy in spring 2025.
Such a strategy will need to set a strong vision for the future, combat those factors which undermine competitiveness, and highlight the opportunities and future demand for green steel made in the UK.
As part of this steel strategy, this Government will look seriously at options to improve steel capabilities across the supply chain, including in primary steelmaking. As such, I am also announcing today that the Materials Processing Institute, a not-for-profit research and innovation centre based in Teesside, will lead an independent review into the viability of technologies for primary steel production, including direct reduced iron. The MPI will produce a recommendation to the Government on the viability of iron making and primary steel production technologies in the UK with a view to the current and potential future market.
Our new Steel Council will help us develop the strategy together. It will put the expertise of its members at the heart of our policy making process. It will provide a vital link between the Government, industry, workers, and our innovative thinkers.
Following the publication of the primary steel review and the steel strategy, we will continue to convene the council throughout this Parliament so we can make sure we drive implementation of the strategy and we make great use of the up to £2.5 billion of funding that we have committed to help rebuild the sector.
The council will be chaired by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and co-chaired by Jon Bolton, who has extensive experience of working in the sector both at home and aboard. Its membership includes representative from steel producers, the supply chain, research and development, trade unions and the devolved Governments.
We have published the full membership on gov.uk at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-sets-out-plan-to-secure-the-long-term-future-of-steelmaking-and-safeguard-steel-communities We will be uploading the terms of reference for the Steel Council and the primary production review to this page in due course.
[HCWS355]
Intimate Image Abuse and Sexually Explicit Deepfakes
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Advances in technology have meant that intimate images can now easily be taken or shared without consent. The technology to create realistic deepfake sexually explicit images of any person, without their consent, is also readily available. These behaviours cause untold harm to victims’ lives, particularly the women and girls who are so often targeted. We must ensure our criminal law is adequately equipped to protect victims and punish those responsible.
Today I can confirm that we will, in the crime and policing Bill which will be introduced later this year, introduce new offences for the taking of intimate images without consent and the installation of equipment with intent to enable the taking of intimate images without consent. These are crucial steps in delivering on our ambition to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. We must ensure our criminal law enables us to tackle perpetrators, better protect victims and survivors, and deliver effective justice.
To that end, we will repeal two existing voyeurism offences that relate to the recording of a person doing a private act, and recording an image beneath a person’s clothing—the so-called “upskirting” offence—in sections 67(3) and 67A(2) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 respectively and replace them with three new offences that will cover a broader range of behaviour, improving the protection for victims.
First, the legislation will create a “base” offence of taking or recording an intimate photograph or film without consent or reasonable belief in consent. Secondly, there will be an offence of taking or recording an intimate photograph or film without consent and with intent to cause alarm, distress or humiliation. Thirdly, there will be an offence of taking or recording an intimate photograph or film without consent or reasonable belief in it, and for the purpose of the sexual gratification of oneself or another. Offenders who commit the latter offence may be subject to notification requirements, commonly known as being on the “sex offenders register”. These new offences for taking an intimate photograph or film without consent cover a broader range of behaviours than current offences, providing greater protection for victims. For example, is it not currently an offence for an abusive person to take an intimate photo of their partner, without their consent, to shock and upset them or humiliate them by taking the photo of them in that intimate state. Under our new legislation, this will be criminal.
We will also introduce new offences that criminalise someone if they install or adapt, prepare or maintain equipment, and do so with the intent of enabling themselves or another to commit one of the three offences of taking or recording an intimate photograph or film without consent. Victims of any of these new offences may qualify, where applicable, for anonymity and special measures. We will also amend the sentencing code to ensure courts have the power to order, upon conviction, that the offender be deprived of any images in respect of which they were convicted of a taking or recording offence, as well as anything on which the images were stored, such as a computer or hard drive. The courts already have this power in relation to offenders convicted of sharing intimate images without consent.
These offences are designed to complement, and in some respects mirror, the offences of sharing or threatening to share, intimate images in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as inserted by the Online Safety Act 2023. Taken together, these measures give law enforcement a holistic package of offences to effectively tackle this abhorrent behaviour. They will offer victims whose images have been taken or shared without consent the clear and comprehensive protection they deserve.
It is already a criminal offence to share, or threaten to share, a sexually explicit deepfake without consent, but not an offence to make one. The Government made a clear manifesto commitment to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfake images, a central aspect of our commitment to halve the prevalence of violence against women and girls within the decade. We are bringing forward legislation to honour that commitment in the crime and policing Bill which will be introduced later this year, making this behaviour criminal so that perpetrators can be brought to justice.
[HCWS354]
House of Lords
Health: Obesity
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boycott
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the obstacles presented by industry to delivering policies to prevent obesity, and what steps they plan to avoid such obstacles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, we will make the shift from sickness to prevention to tackle the obesity crisis, working with industry where necessary and finding the most effective approach between mandatory and voluntary action. Since July, we have implemented our manifesto commitment to limit advertising of junk food to children, uprated the soft drinks industry levy and given councils clearer powers to block fast food outlets near schools, and we will continue this momentum.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, and it is great to hear the steps that the Government are taking, but when we held our recent inquiry into ultra-processed food, we found a considerable conflict of interest. Although this is a legal and declared conflict of interest, it happens between the scientists advising the Government on food policy and the food industry. As we and, indeed, The BMJ magazine, revealed, the majority of the members of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition are either directly or indirectly in receipt of food industry money. Given that obesity rates continue to rise and, on the whole, government policies have either failed or been abandoned—there have been over 700 of them—do the Government think it is now time to insist that bodies such as SACN have no declared or otherwise financial links to food companies, which, after all, are the only ones to profit from the obesity epidemic?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness refers to the report of the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee. I am grateful to her and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for chairing that committee and for the report. We are looking forward to responding by the end of this month. On the very specific question, I will look into the matter that she raised. I emphasise that our work with industry is to seek the most effective way forward between mandatory and voluntary action. What matters to us is successful outcomes in tackling what we regard to be an obesity crisis in this country.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the major problems with tackling obesity in the UK is that we are second only to the United States in our consumption of ultra-processed foods? While the steps she announced are welcome, do we not need further measures, such as providing free, healthy, nutritious school meals as an alternative to the unhealthy fast food shops close to many schools?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord about the need for favourable alternatives, and to educate people, particularly at a young age, about what healthy eating can look like, but it is also important to create the right environment and circumstances, and not everybody has that to hand. The provision of free school meals in the way the noble Lord referred to is of course a matter for local government to decide. I can say that the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition has reviewed the evidence about ultra-processed foods and believes that further research is needed, which we have commissioned. Importantly, the committee has added UPFs to its watching brief and many are covered by existing legislation, because there are regulations on foods high in fat, salt and sugar which are applicable to ultra-processed foods.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to hear the Minister say that the department has commissioned some more research. The small amount of research that is available suggests that processed, and particularly ultra-processed, food causes addiction, stimulating some dopamine centres, and that people who consume ultra-processed food want more food. In a small study of two groups of people, one consuming ultra-processed food and the other not, it was found that far more calories were consumed by those eating ultra-processed food. I would be glad to hear what research the department has commissioned to address this issue.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very interesting point. It is certainly the case that those who consume ultra-processed food have around 50% of their calorific intake through that matter. Where there is not clarity is on whether the foods are unhealthy due to processing or to their nutritional content. On that, the jury is out. We need to establish that. That is the why the Government’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition has concluded that the association between UPFs and health is concerning. We need to get to the bottom of why that is.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, the Minister rightly talked about the importance of creating the right environment for people to eat healthily. Some noble Lords may have seen daytime television programmes that help families to eat healthily on a budget. The challenge has always been how we take these lessons into people’s homes. I recently spoke to BRITE Box, a local community charity which gives families the ingredients and a recipe card with instructions to help them to cook healthy meals together. This helps with not only budgeting but addressing obesity. Rather than a top-down approach from the Government, what steps are they and the NHS taking to work with existing projects such as BRITE Box to take a bottom-up, community-led approach to tackling obesity?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and commend the organisation that he refers to—there are a number which are working very hard on this. We take a great interest in and seek to learn from such groups. This is a matter not just for the Department for Health and Social Care; it crosses government. We collaborate across government, particularly in pursuit of our health mission.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that alcohol is a substantial contributor to obesity and a range of related diseases? Is she aware that, notwithstanding promises given, the previous Government did not force the drinks industry to show calorific effects of their products on labels and consistently opposed doing it? Would our new Government be prepared to look at that and introduce such changes?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for raising that point. We are in the process of reviewing the evidence on front-of-pack nutrition labelling, which can include bottles as well as foods. We will consider whether any further action is needed to support healthier choices.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I was a member of the Select Committee and I remind the Minister that the industry was reluctant to come and give us evidence. However, in the evidence that we took from young campaigners—the average UPF intake of some young people is 80% of their diet—they told us that they are overwhelmed with targeted advertising on social media, both from the food industry, particularly the UPF and HFSS industry, and local food chains. Do the Government have any plans to reduce that or encourage the industry to bombard them less on social media?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I accept the noble Baroness’s point about the influences on young people, in particular. It is exactly why, in December, we laid secondary legislation to implement a 9 pm TV watershed for the advertising of less healthy food. The noble Baroness referred to social media, and we are looking into that to see what may be necessary, but I accept the link she made.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, nowhere do I see a declaration by this Government or the former Government that up to 50% of people who present themselves to our A&E and medical services are suffering from food poverty. If we threw that around more often, we might decide to do something significant about the role of poverty.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, the Mental Health Foundation produced an excellent report on body image, which is about how not just younger people are affected by it but an increasing number of older people as well. It leads to people undertaking cosmetic surgery, some of whom go abroad because it is billed as being cheaper. What is the Minister doing to track this surgical tourism? What is the cost to the NHS?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is right that there is certainly an increased cost to the NHS. I do not have the exact figures available, but I would be pleased to look into it. We are very mindful of this and advise in particular that people should not go to areas where healthcare services are not properly regulated. They do so at their own risk, and it often comes back to the NHS to put that right. This is an increasing problem and one we are seeking to tackle.
Electric Scooters and Electric Bicycles: Pedestrian Safety
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they are giving to introducing safeguards to protect pedestrians and the disabled when considering whether to permit additional categories of electric scooters and electric bicycles.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, safety is our top priority, especially for our most vulnerable road users and disabled people. There will be no new categories of e-cycles or e-scooters before the impacts on these groups have been thoroughly considered. Any new regulations will be subject to public consultation before they come into force and designed with disabled people—not for them—utilising the Government’s independent expert committee, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
There are a number of troubling features about e-scooters and e-bikes, and disagreements on solutions, including licensing, insurance, speed restrictions and better enforcement, such as the impounding of vehicles ridden on the pavement, which is my favourite. The problem is getting worse. It is a Wild West out there, with deaths, injuries and a growing fear among the disabled and elderly, not to mention the mushrooming of crime. Will the Minister ensure that early action is taken and, at the very least, could he work with the mayor and the Met to introduce much more robust action in London, where this is such a problem?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I certainly understand the noble Baroness’s point. As far as e-scooters go, the last Government commissioned the trials in 2020 and legislation was promised in 2022 but not delivered. That trial is therefore still in force and the length of time is regrettable. A very similar Question was answered on the last sitting day before Christmas. It is a complicated area. We need to work out what the best forms of regulation are. I note her plea to me to talk to the mayor and the Metropolitan Police. Of course, the enforcement of these regulations is always a matter for chief police officers and I know that the mayor is as concerned as the Government are about this.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the design of these bikes is a real problem. At the moment, they are limited to 15 miles per hour, but hardly any of them observe it. By simple modifications, two things can happen: the speed can be increased to 30 miles per hour and, by pressing a button, they can maintain the speed without any cycling. We should really have something done about that. Along with all the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned, I have argued that cyclists should be legislated against. What is the argument for not legislating for registration marks, licensing and insurance for e-cycles, which, in 2023, killed the most people on the roads that we have ever seen?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I certainly know that the noble Lord has a strong view on this. We had a debate in the autumn and, as I said, a Question on this before Christmas. He is right in saying that there is a limit to the legal use of pedal cycles—a maximum assisting speed of 15.5 miles per hour and a maximum power of 250 watts—and it is clear that plenty of e-cycles have been either sold or adapted that do in excess of that and, as a result, are in fact motor vehicles and should be registered, licensed, ridden and insured as such. In the end, it is up to chief police officers to enforce this. He is remarking on a subject of growing concern in our urban areas, which should be addressed by chiefs of police.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, many bikes are being imported from abroad that are illegal. Do the Government have any plans to clamp down on the illegal importation of vehicles that should not be on the road?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is right: there are plenty of imports and plenty of illegal sales of these in this country. It is a trading standards matter and there has been some action. If I leaf through these pages fast enough, I will be able to find the statistics for what we know about what has happened so far. But, of course, that is a local authority matter. In the end, we need legislation. It is a shame that it did not start with e-scooters. The Government are committed to doing something. The subject of the original Question—the effect on disabled people—is clearly of great concern and we will seek to address it.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am really grateful that the Minister just referred to disabled people. Many people in wheelchairs are finding that dockless bikes being dumped all over the pavements means that they do not just have a problem but cannot go down the street. Just before Christmas, the RNIB’s most recent survey of its members said that 47% of respondents had said that they felt unsafe on the pavements. Will the Government consider ensuring that e-scooters and e-bikes are more visually and audibly detectable? Whether or not they are illegal, they are on the pavements and causing problems. Will they also please ban dockless bikes?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I certainly recognise the passion with which the noble Baroness speaks. Before Christmas, the Government published the English devolution White Paper, which has in it a provision for local transport authorities to be empowered to regulate on street micromobility—that is, e-bikes and e-cycle schemes—so that local areas can shape these schemes and tackle the scourge of badly parked e-cycles and e-scooters.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, as well as being potentially criminally ridden, these vehicles are also being used in the course of committing crime. In 2023-24, there were 11,000 offences recorded involving the use of e-bikes and e-scooters—a huge growth on previous years, and there is no sign of abatement. Do the Minister and his Government have a plan for curbing this epidemic?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It is easy to recognise the position the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, talked about. Indeed, he talked about it in very similar terms the week before Christmas. It is primarily a matter of enforcement by chief police officers, simply because, as he says, there may or may not be a crime in relation to the use of e-scooters and e-bikes, but crimes are being committed as a consequence of using them. This debate is one of the ways of drawing it to the attention of chief police officers, so that enforcement action is appropriately taken.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, despite rental e-scooters being legal for use in public places in some English cities, they remain illegal on the roads and footpaths of Northern Ireland. However, they do sometimes appear, which prompted the Police Service of Northern Ireland to take to social media before Christmas to warn that any e-scooters gifted in the Province could be used only on private land. Using his good offices, can the Minister offer an assurance that any possible change to the legal status of e-scooters in Northern Ireland will not happen without full and proper consultation with the PSNI?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am certainly willing to commit to consultation with all the enforcement authorities on this, because it is very important, when we are able to do something about this, that the law is framed in a way that can be enforced both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one of my concerns is the number of scooters and bikes, whether electric or otherwise, ridden on the pavements. Does the Minister have any statistics on the number of people injured or killed by this method in this country?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I certainly have statistics about the number of people injured and killed in connection with cycling in general. I do not believe there are statistics specifically about these things being ridden on pavements, but I am not wholly sure we need to see that, because it is quite clear that riding e-scooters, e-bikes and bicycles on pavements is the wrong thing to do. The original Question is about the effect on the disabled. It is clearly a threat to the mobility of disabled people to find these cycles or scooters being either ridden or just dumped on the pavement. Both things are unsatisfactory for the mobility of our disabled people in Britain.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, given the huge safety concerns, what is the timescale for new legislation to regulate private electric bikes and e-scooters?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It is a shame that the previous Government did not carry through their intention to legislate in 2022. Deciding what the overall legislative policy of the Government should be is above my pay grade, but it is clear that this is an issue we need to confront and the department is thinking very clearly. The noble Baroness will recall that I wrote to her to show her the variety of rules and regulations for these things across Europe and other countries. The department is thinking about this in advance, because framing this legislation will be more difficult than it might be because of the range of solutions adopted in other countries.
European Convention on Human Rights: 75th Anniversary
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, this year marks the 75th anniversary of the signing of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, known as the ECHR. This Government are proud that the UK was one of the original drafters of the ECHR and will use the anniversary to illustrate our renewed commitment to the international human rights framework and the rule of law.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that excellent reply—eventually. Will he and the Government involve my noble friend Lord Touhig, the leader of our delegation, and other Members in the plans? Can he confirm yet again that our Government believe in the integrity of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and particularly that, unlike the previous Government, we will not renege on our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am happy to give my noble friend the assurances he is looking for. We would be happy to consult him and my noble friend Lord Touhig on the events which we will organise during the coming year for the anniversary of the signing of the ECHR. My noble friend may be interested to know that I was chairman of the celebration of the ECHR’s 50th anniversary, and it is something that I am very pleased that I did.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Does the Minister accept my concern that the court is becoming increasingly interventionist and is making decisions in areas which should properly be left to national Parliaments, and that where this is happening national Parliaments have very limited ability to modify or reverse those decisions?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The Government support the European convention, but we want to work constructively within the convention as laws develop within it. We want to have a constructive, long-term approach that we can properly celebrate in this anniversary year.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Ending the ban on gay people in the military, ending teachers hitting children in schools in Scotland, ending the retention for life of DNA samples of innocent people, ending the persecution of gay people in Northern Ireland because of their sexuality, and ending the practice of imprisoning and hospitalising autistic people are all areas in which campaigners have had to fight, but they are rights provided by virtue of our membership of the convention. Does the Minister agree that perhaps some of the people who now believe most strongly that it has been interventionist take for granted the benefits that it has provided for citizens of the United Kingdom?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question and agree with everything he said. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been clear that this Government are committed to the international human rights framework and that we will never withdraw from the ECHR. The noble Lord’s points are well made.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, last year, the European court ruled that Switzerland violated the ECHR by failing to adequately address climate change. This was just the latest example of judicial overreach by the court. I am pleased to say that there was an excoriating dissenting opinion from the UK-appointed judge. Does the Minister agree that this is a dangerous precedent to set? Will he commit to working with other democratic European countries that have also expressed concern to ensure that substantive reforms to the system are progressed?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the incoming Secretary-General of the Council of Europe is a Swiss national and former Swiss president. I am sure he will be very well versed on the issue which the noble Lord raises. It is right that we want to work with the European convention in trying to address environmental problems. That is a body of law that is currently being developed. The Government are committed to that, and we will work within the various European agencies to develop that body of law.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, Articles 10 and 8 of the convention protect our rights in respect of family life and private life and freedom of expression. The Minister will be aware that the former Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson, and the European court itself expressed grave concern about mass surveillance in the United Kingdom by Hikvision cameras and about the increase in surveillance generally. Will the Minister take the opportunity of this anniversary to undertake to look again at whether we are sufficiently compliant with Articles 8 and 10?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I remember dealing with those types of questions while I was an Opposition Minister in the Home Office. Whether Articles 8 and 10 are indeed breached by these cameras is a very live question; they are everywhere and they are being used in ways that we do not always understand. The noble Lord makes a good point.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, in the interest of cross-party amity—an ambition that I know my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock shares—it is important when celebrating something as significant as the ECHR’s founding to assign credit where it is due. Given that Churchill called the ECHR into being, David Maxwell Fyfe and Harold Macmillan were instrumental in its drafting, and Margaret Thatcher described our membership as “common sense”, will my noble friend the Minister strain every nerve to ensure that the Conservative Party is given due prominence and credit as we celebrate this anniversary?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am happy to agree with what my noble friend said. I want to mention one other name, that of my former honourable friend Terry Davis MP, who has died, and whose funeral is at the end of this month. He was Secretary-General of the Council of Europe between 2004 and 2009.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the anniversary would be a good opportunity to dispel the myths just promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that this was a purely British or Conservative invention, and to recall that the Attlee Government reluctantly agreed to sign the ECHR only on the basis that the court would not have jurisdiction in the UK as British citizens would not be allowed to take cases to it? It was a policy continued a few months later by Winston Churchill, when he came into power. Both were presciently advised of the risk to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, recently pointed: that it was inconceivable that any Government would take the risk of entrusting to an international court legislative powers that Parliament would never entrust to the courts of this country.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The original Treaty of London was on display at Blenheim Palace on 18 July when European Ministers were meeting. We were proud that that treaty was on show. It is a symbol of the originating nature of the British Parliament in the founding of the treaty and something of which we should be very proud.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that one of the really important virtues of the European court is that it protects the human rights of people in member states with poorer records than our own?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am very happy to agree with what my noble friend has said.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, Article 9 of the ECHR guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The impact of the Saturday pro-Palestinian marches on central London synagogues has been severe, leading to dropping attendance, intimidation, disruption of services and the forced cancellation of events. The next march is scheduled for 18 January, close to the Central Synagogue. Will the Minister work with police to move the start location of the march far enough away so that families can go to and leave synagogues in safety?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is a matter for the Metropolitan Police. If appropriate, I will draw his comments to the Met’s attention.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the benefit of ongoing membership of the ECHR is, among other things, that it is vital for the continuation of the Belfast agreement?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. He is right that the Good Friday agreement is underpinned by the convention, and it is important that that should continue.
Foreign-owned Social Media Companies
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to restrict the impact of foreign-owned social media companies upon UK democratic politics and public order.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, we are committed to the implementation and integrity of our democracy, but we cannot be complacent. It is a collective endeavour to protect it against threats and ensure that it remains robust. The Online Safety Act creates a new regulatory regime for online platforms and search services, with new duties to act to protect UK users from harm in both the design and operation of their services. These duties apply to overseas services with links to the UK and include offences relating to public order and terrorism, as well as illegal foreign interference that undermines our democratic politics.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, not least on her birthday. To reflect the previous Question, does she agree that free speech is given constitutional protection in this country and elsewhere in the Council of Europe by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights? However, even in the US—famously, the land of the first amendment—free speech does not extend to, for example, the malicious and deliberate spreading of incendiary libels and the incitement of public disorder.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, free speech is crucial, but it brings with it responsibility. I think we would all say that, although people have no right not to be offended, it is important that any comments made, whether on social media or in any other form of media, are factual, accurate and well-informed. It strikes me that on issues that are contentious we should perhaps lower the temperature, not the tone.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
The Leader of the House may be aware that, in the latest incident, Elon Musk has responded to Ed Davey’s criticism in language that Tommy Robinson might well use but, I am sure, Nigel Farage would disapprove of. It is important to have a sense of commonality in public debate. A public broadcasting network on which there can be a national conversation becomes all the more important when misinformation is being put into this country by social media outfits abroad. Can the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will do their best to defend and promote the BBC, which all public opinion polls show is the most trusted source of news for the largest proportion of our population?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am a great defender of the BBC, not least for its fantastic production of “Wolf Hall”. If we look back through history, we find that misinformation has caused enormous chaos time and again. It is important that all of us see truth, accuracy and decency as a collective responsibility, and that debate is conducted in a way that is conducive to providing information and helping people to understand the issues. I repeat that we should lower the temperature on contentious issues. It seems that some people are sometimes too interested in lowering the tone of the debate, not the temperature.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, are the Government looking at whether it is necessary to strengthen the Online Safety Act?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the first point is to ensure that we bring the Online Safety Act into force in full. That is a foundation on which we can build. It is fairly new legislation that the last Government brought in, which we supported. I hope the Act helps and shows providers the responsibilities they have to ensure that there is a proper debate with good and accurate information. Disinformation is not a new issue, but it is a serious one, because information can travel around the world far faster than it ever has before. Let us see how the Online Safety Act works, make sure that it does and use it as a foundation to build on.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, has my noble friend the Leader seen that, just in the last couple of hours, there has been a report from the United States that the founder of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, has announced his intention to reduce fact-checking on his platforms and to move the way in which those platforms operate closer to the way that X, formerly known as Twitter, now operates? I think most people in this House know what that means. Does she agree that, in those circumstances, it is more important than it has ever been for safeguarding within our national environment to be as strong as it can possibly be?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point about fact-checking. I think all platforms will want to ensure their information is as accurate as possible. In fact, the Meta decision does not apply to this country; it applies only to the US and it does not remove fact-checking in Europe, which will remain.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does the Leader of the House think it is time that we looked at the rules regarding foreign contributors to political parties, albeit through domestic companies which they may own, and that we should also perhaps tell our nearest and dearest ally, the Americans, that just as we supported them in their resentment of Russian interference in their elections, so also we should expect American citizens not to interfere in our political process?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a really important point about foreign interference, whether financial or otherwise, in other countries’ democracy. All of us in this country value our democracy and want it to remain robust. The issue of ensuring not just that donations to political parties are legal under the current rules but that the rules are fit for purpose is one that we should take very seriously.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Leader agree that although free speech can be extremely offensive at times, the dividing line is the context in which it occurs, and that the rules governing hate speech in this country—and criminalisation of speech—must always take into account that context? It is the context that determines whether that speech will have further very undesirable outcomes.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
If a matter appears before the courts regarding hate speech, I think that would be taken into account. The context is very important. We have to remember that we should choose our words carefully when we speak, whether that is in public or online. The days when you had a conversation in the pub and went home and everyone had forgotten about it are gone; now it seems that everything is recorded and amplified at speed around the world. There are people who are vulnerable and people who have malign intent. These things happen in real time and people can face real dangers from people not choosing their words carefully.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, do the Government agree that widespread online media literacy is by far the best defence against misinformation and disinformation online and that, consequently, the more resilient we become to these harms, the less our need to restrict freedom of expression online? If so, could the Minister briefly summarise the Government’s planned approach to drive up online media literacy?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not sure that I really understand the noble Viscount’s point. To be media-literate or social media-literate does not stop somebody making inaccurate or offensive comments. The key issue is that we should not say that different rules apply to people on social media. We should look to have public discourse, which is the responsibility of us all, to be at all times courteous and factual, and to conduct debate properly. That is not to say people cannot disagree or debate, or even be offensive. We cannot have what is almost incitement, and people not worrying about what the truth is and what is accurate if it gets a reaction. Sometimes too much of what is being said on social media is designed to get a reaction rather than to help inform people.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, the victims of many of the actions that have led to this tsunami of bad words are being revictimised by that sort of language and the way people are talking. I work with many of them—with small women’s groups, particularly in the north, around Doncaster, Rotherham and Newcastle, that are working still with victims who have been abused and violently treated. Is it not time that all of us said that our main concern has to be for them, and to be working to make sure that social media is not a means of abusing and exploiting vulnerable women?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a profound, wise and appropriate point. A lot of the current issues around social media have arisen on child sexual abuse, and there can be no crime more vile or abhorrent than that. If it is used for political purposes or is somehow stirred up, then I come back to the very point I made at the beginning: we must lower the temperature of the debate, not the tone. We should not seek to use such an abhorrent crime for political purposes but, at all times, try to have a debate that moves the issue forward in a positive way and seeks to protect those who are vulnerable.
Health and Adult Social Care Reform
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I begin by echoing the comments made by my right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State in the other place in support of all those who worked in the NHS and social care sectors over the Christmas period. They sacrificed their time, which could have been spent with their friends and families, to care for those most in need.
On the NHS app, we support the digitisation of health and care to modernise the NHS, and support digital patient records to allow joined-up health and social care to deliver better outcomes for patients and to inform patients. However, the NHS app already sends appointments and updates on treatment to some patients, while some GP surgeries prefer patients to use their own website, not the app. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on how the updated app will differ and offer up further information to your Lordships’ House. Also, where your GP cannot see you, is the plan to allow all patients to book an appointment with another GP without having to deregister from their current practice and reregister with another practice? Will that be allowed with the updated app? One of the problems was always where there were GPs who could not see their patients but other GPs in the same area had spaces on their lists.
In the Statement, the Secretary of State said:
“We are rewarding trusts that cut waiting times fastest”,
and the carrot of “extra capital investment” is used as an incentive. This appears to make sense, but noble Lords will know that I have always been interested in potential unintended consequences. If the Government reward trusts with extra investment if they cut waiting times fastest, what will happen to those trusts that are not able to cut their lists as quickly? Will they see reduced investment, and will that simply lead to them continuing to perform poorly? What is the solution? Will hit squads—in the best possible terms—be sent in to turn them around? What other plans are there to tackle underperforming trusts which do not qualify for these extra incentives? How do the Government and NHS intend to avoid perverse incentives such as trusts prioritising certain patients over others—not necessarily based on medical needs—to cut waiting times to win this extra cash? How do we avoid that?
On social care, I appreciate the candour of the Statement in acknowledging that Governments of all colours, for decades, have not really dealt with this problem of long-term social care. As my right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State said in the other place, we will work with the Government and the commission. However, I will put a few observations to the Minister. For decades, successive Governments have known about the ageing population, and Governments of all colours have commissioned report after report, which mostly gathered dust on the shelf. Although I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, given that most commentators on social care agree that everything to be written about funding social care has already been written, I am curious to know what the Government expect to achieve by initiating yet another commission.
A solution was proposed in the Health and Care Act 2022. Noble Lords welcomed that we finally had a solution but disagreed on some of the details. But we had a solution to which the Treasury agreed. I remember the Opposition criticising the Government not for introducing the social care cap but for not doing it earlier, and they also suggested a number of tweaks. The incoming Government could have tweaked the numbers to address the concerns that they expressed at the time, and they could have grasped the nettle, but I am afraid that the announcement looks like yet another Government kicking the can down the road. So will the Minister write to noble Lords with the terms for the commission led by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey? This time, will the Department of Health and Social Care continue to work with the Treasury to ensure that whatever solution is finally proposed, even if it is likely not to be a new solution, has the agreement of the Department of Health and Social Care, other government departments and the Treasury? If not, it will simply find itself kicking the can down the road yet again when it comes to 2028.
My final point is on how to cut the backlog. These Benches welcome the Government continuing the policy of the last Government in opening new surgical hubs and community diagnostic centres at weekends and evenings. But, when we were in government, we found a potential workforce issue in opening community diagnostic centres at weekends and evenings. Of course, there are only so many staff who can be employed to keep these services open for longer, so have the Government made an assessment of how many staff they envisage will be available to keep these centres open for longer hours? What is the plan? Will it be a redeployment of existing staff, will existing staff be asked to work longer hours and overtime, or will they recruit new staff?
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement and can see some positives in the way forward, but we have some reservations about timescales and unintended consequences in the implementation that I would like to explore with the Minister.
On social care, we have already called for cross-party talks, as many noble Lords will know. Social care is in crisis and at a tipping point, and it is an unbearable pressure for many families. But we cannot understand why the review will take until 2028 and full implementation will probably not happen until 2029-30. It is a bit like calling the fire service when your house is on fire and asking it to attend once it is out. So what specific components of this review that are not already in the public domain have the Government already determined will take until 2028 to be dealt with? Will the review tackle all forms of social care, including continuing care and young people’s services?
The NHS elective reform plan marks a significant initiative for reducing waiting times and enhancing patient access to elective care. The plan introduces some welcome measures, but many are not new, such as the expansion of the diagnostic and surgical hubs, increased utilisation of digital platforms such as the NHS app and a commitment to meeting the 18-week referral to treatment standard by the end of this Parliament. Although these proposals are commendable, I have been of the view for many years that elective and emergency care need to be provided in different, and probably separate, ways. Several critical concerns warrant attention to ensure the plan’s success and sustainability.
A primary concern is that the plan focuses predominantly on elective care, potentially overlooking the broader health and social care ecosystem. The Nuffield Trust emphasises that, for the plan to be sustainable, there need to be concurrent reforms in social care, significant investment in community services and attention paid to the determinants of ill health, such as housing and education. The focus on throughput measures will mean that it will be focused purely on those. What outcome measures will be put in place, not just for the quantity and speed of care but for the clinical outcomes for patients?
The emphasis on meeting elective care targets should not overshadow other clinical priorities. It is critical to ensure that resources allocated to elective procedures do not detract from urgent and complex care needs. Indeed, the financial model set out in the plan on tariffs will create incentives to focus on elective cases when budgets are stretched. What measures will be put in place so that the expanded diagnostic and surgical hubs, along with the extra reported 3.5 million procedures in the independent sector, will avoid pulling staff away from urgent care and complicated patient needs? This must be based on a fully costed workforce plan, so when will that be presented?
The plan has been announced with little firm detail on funding, especially considering that the £3 billion ring-fenced for cutting waiting times this financial year will not be available from April. Will this ring-fenced scheme be reintroduced? While we welcome the thrust of this plan, there will be some unintended consequences, and we really need to see a detailed implementation plan to ensure that elective care does not overshadow emergency care and those seeking social care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron)
I thank both Front Benches for their welcomes, in varying degrees and to varying aspects, for the two plans: one to deal with social care into the very far future—something that I would want to emphasise—and the other on electives. I, too, pay tribute to NHS and social care staff, not just for the work that they did through Christmas and the new year but for the work they do and the commitment they show in some very difficult circumstances all year round. That is exactly why we have come to your Lordships’ House and the other place with this Statement.
To start with social care, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, talked about the agreement that was around in respect of the social care cap, but that really dealt with only one aspect of social care; what we seek to do is something that actually has not happened before, which is a very comprehensive and long-lasting approach that will transcend politics and last, no matter who the Government are, and that is perhaps what has been lacking. Certainly, I would agree that there has been no shortage of ideas in the past 15 years—some good and some, as I am sure some people would say, less good—but what there has been a lack in is a different way of doing things and a different approach, and that is what the independent review led by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will seek to provide.
I am glad that both opposition parties have accepted the challenge or invitation from the Secretary of State to participate in a cross-party solution, and I am most grateful to party leaders and spokespersons for that. I want to put on record that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is regarded as Whitehall’s number one doer; she is a leading social reformer, and she has served Governments of all political stripes, which equips her very well to talk about building a national care service.
I understand the concerns raised about the amount of time that is being taken. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to that. Perhaps I can reassure your Lordships’ House that the first report will be published next year, with recommendations that can be implemented as soon as possible. The final report will be later in the Parliament.
I should also say that we have not actually waited. It is important to say that there are a number of things happening right now, because I do not want your Lordships’ House to believe that everything is waiting for the conclusion of the report. I shall run through some of them because I think they are helpful in terms of social care. Legislation has happened for the first ever fair-pay agreement, which will tackle the 131,000 vacancies that social care is currently carrying and is a real problem in providing service. On the budget, I was very glad that your Lordships’ House welcomed the biggest increase in carer’s allowance since the 1970s. There has been an extra £3.7 billion for local authorities and, last week, the immediate release of £86 million for the disabled facilities grant, which will enable some 7,800 home adaptations before April. There has been a whole range of reforms, including the current introduction of new standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about digitisation. Joining together medical and care records is so important. I know from the report of the House of Lords committee chaired by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley that the most concerning aspect for those who care for those who need that support is that they constantly have to say what is wrong and what the issues are. Always having to repeat things was the number one issue that that report identified. We are also training care workers to perform more health interventions. I would say that there has been a lot done but that there is an awful lot more to do, which is why I am very glad about this approach. I do not regard this, by the way, as kicking the can down the road; I regard this as realistic for the situation that we are now in. I must emphasise that we really want a cross-government approach that will outlast any Government, no matter who they are, into the future.
On electives, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked about measuring outcomes and ensuring that, in meeting one target, other matters are not overlooked. He makes an extremely fair point, and we will, as part of the ongoing work, look at how we measure and how we avoid the unintended consequences that both noble Lords have referred to. I am grateful for the reminder on that point. It is important, and noble Lords will have heard it said by the Secretary of State, that we take the best to the rest—I think that is crucial. There is some excellent work that goes on across the country, but it is not universal or serving everybody.
On reducing waiting times, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, used the word ecosystem, which I would absolutely share. For example, the failure of social care currently puts enormous pressure on the NHS. It is an ecosystem, and not always a positive one, I might add. If we go back to November, some 12,400 people every day were well enough to leave hospital but could not do so because it was not possible to discharge them. That is a failure of social care very much linked to the NHS, but we also have an ageing society. By 2050, we will have 4 million more people aged 65 and over than we have now and if we do nothing, for example, on social care, the costs will double over the next two decades. Neither exists in isolation. Social care and the NHS come together.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that this is absolutely a cross-government problem which will require a cross-government solution. Of course, it will be very much part of the 10-year plan and part of our three immediate pillars of change, which are sickness to prevention, hospital to community and analogue to digital.
This is about major reform, not kicking the can down the road on social care and the NHS. I know the noble Lord was not suggesting that of the NHS. On workforce, we are currently making plans which are different from those of the last Government, so we must carefully look at not just numbers but the range of skills and professions needed. This reform requires change. It is not about standing still.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked how we will keep centres open for more hours. It was one of our manifesto commitments, and we have held many discussions with workforce representatives to seek a wide range of solutions. One proposal, which has been extremely well received, is to offer to pay people overtime to do the work. We are already reducing waiting lists through this. We all know that the current working hours of the NHS do not reflect the reality of people’s lives.
This is a really big opportunity to make a major change and grasp the many nettles. I wish all of it could happen immediately—particularly on social care, as we know that it has taken a long time and many have failed along the way—but it will take time. However, we have the plan and a commitment to support, guide and resource not just the NHS that we need now, but that we will need in the many years ahead.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Statement is most welcome, not least the attention given to social care services. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on striking that proper balance between health and social care. The issues are hugely challenging, very expensive and important for the whole of society, especially if the National Health Service is to survive and prosper, for reasons that the Minister has touched on. The issues in social care range from recognition of the very important contribution of unpaid carers to the fact that a large number of local authorities face financial problems which place their future in a degree of jeopardy. The commission to be chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will tackle these and many other issues, but we have to get through the immediate situation. Can the Minister assure the House that, in taking the social care agenda forward, from today these matters will be kept in sharp focus and handled with great vigour and determination?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am pleased to give that assurance and thank the noble Lord for his welcome for these measures. As I mentioned earlier in response to opposition Front-Benchers, we have not waited. In the last six months, we have made a number of immediate changes. He mentioned carers, and it is worth emphasising that, as I said, the increase in carer’s allowance is the largest since the 1970s. It will mean roughly an extra £2,300 a year for family carers. That is extremely significant. This House rightly presses me on the need to recognise carers, in particular unpaid carers, which we have done. The whole range of measures I described earlier will show our direction. I look forward to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, publishing her first report next year. Those recommendations will also be there straightaway. We are doing this on all timescales.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, it is indeed gratifying, as the Minister has mentioned, that many of the health proposals take into account the report of the Committee of your Lordships’ House on integrated care, which I had the privilege of chairing. I am going to take it for granted that the issue of unpaid carers will be the focus of the commission’s report, since the whole edifice of social care depends on unpaid carers.
Does the Minister agree that social care and health care work best when you cannot see the join between them? Therefore, are we able to look at employing people across both disciplines—and indeed across the voluntary sector as well, which provides many of these workers—in order that the focus can be on the patient or the user, and not on the institution?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the House knows, my noble friend is a great campaigner on this issue. I can certainly assure her that the review will include exploring the needs of the 4.7 million unpaid carers who effectively hold the adult social care system together. On the point about the care workforce, we are already improving career pathways by expanding the national career structure, including new role categories. The suggestions my noble friend makes about a seamless service are quite right. We are a long way from that, but I hope we will be able to get to it, and the workforce will be key in that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, may I tell the Minister that the Statement is not an accurate representation of what happened in 2009-10? More importantly, it is now over 13 years since Andrew Dilnot produced his report, and there have been many promises to implement it that have not been kept. There should be no further delay. The Minister should acknowledge that if there is further delay in implementing a social care cap on costs, many thousands more people will face the catastrophic loss of their life savings and earnings as a consequence of meeting those costs. Until we implement the cap on social care costs, we will not know whether it will deliver a market in providing insurance against long-term care costs, which in itself would make a significant contribution towards meeting some of the costs of social care in the future.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the wish of many, myself included, for more urgent action. However, the reality is that acting in haste will not solve the problem, not least because of the depth of the difficulties we are looking at. The noble Lord is right that many promises have been made—a number by his own Government—but not fulfilled regarding what should happen on the cap. I reiterate the point I made earlier: while I appreciate that there are Members of your Lordships’ House who believe that Dilnot is the answer, it deals with just one aspect, and that is not what we need. As my noble friend just said, we need a comprehensive look at creating a more joined-up service that will work around people, rather than focusing on institutions or one particular problem.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I am grateful to His Majesty’s Government for trying to get cross-party agreement on this really important issue; it is important that it does not get lost in party politics. It is good to hear about the improvements to the NHS app, which is working quite well in some areas already. However, some people are digitally excluded, and there is a lack of connectivity in rural areas. How are we going to ensure that these groups are not excluded as we go forward with this important work?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is correct to mention—I have raised it myself—not just the digital exclusion of individuals but connectivity. It is one of the reasons that we will approach this in a cross-government fashion. However, on our move from analogue to digital—the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, rightly mentioned the capacity of the NHS—our view is that it can do so much more than it is doing currently. The Secretary of State said in the other place that restaurants, for example, have been texting customers for many years, have they not? They remind customers about their booking and give them a chance to cancel or change it. That is the kind of connectivity and service that we need from the NHS. I assure the right reverend Prelate that, where people are unable to use whatever the digital solution might be, they will be able to deal with it person-to-person or on paper. We will be flexible enough and actively seek out those who are not, as he described, immediately connected.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, the Darzi review estimated the impact of delayed discharges at some 13% of total hospital beds. Given this, can the Minister say how confident she is that the immediate steps to improve the rate of discharge from hospital into social care, which she has already outlined, will happen? How quickly will that happen and over what timescale, and what accountability measures will be established at both national and local levels to ensure that those delayed discharges start to come down, and quickly?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The independent review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey—in addition, as I mentioned, to producing recommendations that can be implemented straight away next year—is focusing on completing its final report later in this Parliament, so we are looking at the longer term. I cannot give an exact timetable, although I am hopeful that we will be able to update your Lordships’ House with further information, as the noble Baroness quite rightly asked. The matter of discharge requires there being suitable facilities in the community, but we are not in that place, so this will take some time. But I am very hopeful that all of the measures here, and the measures we have taken already, take us further to that point. We will continue to strive on the matter of discharge, because it is a problem not only for the NHS but for patients and their carers and for social care. We are carrying, as we know, a lot of vacancies and a social care system that is creaking at the seams: we must be honest about that.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and many of the proposals in it. We have learned from past experience that all reforms to, and any proposal to change things in, the NHS—and, for that matter, social care, but more so with the NHS—lead to increased bureaucracy but not the benefits that we thought they might deliver. One of the waiting list initiatives is that GPs will have a consultation with hospital staff to try to reduce waiting times and avoid unnecessary duplication. There is some financial incentive attached to that, but it certainly will increase bureaucracy. What modelling has been done to find out whether it will work, whether it will increase bureaucracy and by how much it will increase costs?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for welcoming many of the measures in this announcement. He referred to the £20 fee that will be paid to GPs to call the consultant where necessary. I understand the concern about increasing bureaucracy, but all these reforms are intended to work the other way. We will very closely monitor them and have very carefully considered them with all those who will be dealing with them. I am actually more than hopeful, because the intention is that allowing the GP, for example, to get further advice, and making sure that people are being seen in the right place, will save money. It will mean that people are not taking up a referral place and that they will be referred for the necessary tests, scans, et cetera without the middle bit, which is a very backward-facing way of dealing with things. We will continue to monitor that to ensure that we are reducing what is currently wasted clinical time, while also preventing unnecessary out-patient appointments. The monitoring should show all of that and I will be very happy to update the House on that. The fee is to ensure that it can happen and is an incentive to do so. Of course, the greatest prize is an increased and speedier service for patients.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, it is pleasing to welcome the proposals from the Government. It is also very pleasing to hear of the immediate things that can be done for social care, because we should not be waiting for the final report.
There are some more suggestions that we could make that do not require any money—that should be music to the Minister’s ear. We do not need more money to reduce the bureaucracy that people in the community are required to go through to gain admission to a care home. It is horrendous. They have a means test and a needs test serially, which can be very bureaucratic and time-consuming, and there are waiting lists. We must reduce that bureaucracy.
The second thing, which the Minister has already referred to, is the value that we place on care home workers. It is good to hear that they will get a rise in their money and that ideas will be put about on their careers, but, unless they have a recognised national qualification and registration of that qualification, career prospects will be limited. We must do more for them to allow them to see themselves in a career that could go on to nursing in the NHS. We must do more in that field if we are to retain these enormously valuable people.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend, as always, makes very practical observations. I totally agree with the point about bureaucracy in terms of care homes. I have experienced that as I have power of attorney for an elderly friend, and I constantly wonder: if I am struggling with it, what would it be like for somebody who perhaps is not as used as I am to dealing with forms, organisations and, indeed, bureaucracy? It is extremely troubling. Yes, that will be part of what we will be looking at to improve social care—and also the discharge ability that we were talking about earlier. Valuing care workers, professionalising the service and recognising them are all key. I agree that it should be a natural move from being a care worker into a clinical setting, but we also need to recruit people to be care workers, retain them and upskill them, which is so important.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, on the vexed subject of delayed discharge of very elderly patients who have been admitted from care homes, quite often with ailments such as flu, medicine management, wound-dressing management, et cetera, surely the key is to ensure that many of these patients are not admitted in the first place. This follows on from the last question about the training of care workers. Is there an argument for enhancing their training so they become better carers in terms of dealing with these problems? Can the Minister say something about what I know has been tried in a number of care homes: having intermediate NHS beds in care homes?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Both the points that the noble Lord makes are very welcome and shine a light on the need to be more flexible in the range of services and care provided. It should not be just an either/or. People have intermediate stages. Some of the issues about discharge are about having a position in the middle, which is more about rehabilitation, and having the things in place to allow people perhaps to return home or to some other setting.
There is also the point about having a range of settings. Currently, the offer is perhaps too restrictive, although not in all places, as there are some excellent examples. We must be much more creative in the kind of offer that is available and in the training of care workers, not just for the service that they offer to patients, which is important, but for their professionalisation and their morale in their jobs.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, why is there no mention of mental health in the Statement? What happened to parity, I wonder? For example, 12,400 hospital patients a day are well enough to be discharged. I presume that this does not include the 1,500 or so autistic people and people with learning disabilities who are waiting to be discharged from psychiatric hospitals but for whom there is no social care? Community diagnostic centres are mentioned but there is nothing about the need for 24-hour community drop-in centres for citizens who have mental health problems. Social care costs for elderly people may be expected to double, but what about the increasing costs of care for disabled adults of working age?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes very real and important points. Some of the points in the Statement cover mental and physical health but, if I might be honest about the situation, this is only one of the things that we are putting forward. As I said at the beginning of this Statement, how I wish that we could deal with everything immediately. It is not possible. This is just the first stage in the journey that we are on. I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured by the direction that we are taking, the commitments and the work that we have already done on mental health. The Committee stage of the Mental Health Bill next week will also be a very significant step forward. I absolutely accept that there is so much more to do, and we will be getting through that.
Flooding
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister in the other place for this Oral Statement. I start by paying tribute to the emergency services, local authorities and the Environment Agency for their efforts over the Christmas and new year period supporting those who have been affected by extreme weather. Our services sacrifice so much to help communities and businesses in challenging weather, and we are all most grateful for their work and commitment.
The recent extreme weather has caused flooding, road closures, school closures and widespread transport disruption on our railways and at our airports. As a result of the extreme weather, Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service has declared a major incident across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. I know that noble Lords from across the House will join me when I say that our thoughts are with all those whose homes and businesses have been damaged, and with all those who continue to be affected.
As I said when we discussed the Government’s response to Storm Bert last year, those affected by this extreme weather need support now, as well as reassurance that they will not be left to pick up the pieces alone, as they work to put right the damage caused by flooding. One of the key issues that people affected by flooding often face is the time taken for insurance claims to be processed. Can the Minister set out the engagement that the Government have had with the insurance sector to ensure that families affected by flooding can get on with rebuilding their lives as soon as possible?
In addition, the Minister in the other place said yesterday that the Government do not currently have plans to expand the scope of the flood reinsurance scheme that our previous Government introduced. We believe that this is something that the Government should look at, especially on the age of building eligibility and including businesses. Can the Minister say why the Government are not considering expanding the scope of the Flood Re scheme?
On school closures, the Government were asked yesterday in the other place about the steps they are taking to get schools open again. Can the Minister give us an update on the progress the Government are making on this to ensure that pupils do not suffer unnecessary disruptions to their studies?
As we have discussed in this House before, the previous Conservative Government established the farming recovery fund to support farmers recovering from uninsurable damage. Can the Minister give us an update on the progress that the Government are making to provide support to those farmers who have been affected by both the recent extreme weather and the storms we saw late last year? At a time when farmers feel that this Government are interested only in making farming more difficult, effective support for those farms that have been affected by flooding is the very least that the Government can do. I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests; in particular, as a dairy farmer in Devon—fortunately, not affected by this flooding.
We have discussed flood resilience at length in this House already in this Session, not least during the passage of the recent Water (Special Measures) Bill. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Environment Agency will allow the dredging of more clogged waterways to prevent future flooding?
Finally, the Secretary of State has set up the Floods Resilience Taskforce to improve flood preparedness. It has met only once. Can the Minister tell the House what work the task force did ahead of the latest bad weather? Does she feel that there is a case for it to meet more regularly?
I conclude, as I began, by thanking all those who have stepped up in the face of extreme weather, many of whom put themselves in danger to do so, and by wishing all those affected the very best as they put right the damage caused by this weather.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I begin by adding my thanks to fire and rescue workers for their invaluable help over these last few days. Their commitment and expertise have been exemplary. I add to that list the council workers and volunteers throughout the country who have helped in these emergencies, and in particular the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales for their invaluable expertise.
Yesterday morning, as a result of a rapid thaw of lying snow and extremely heavy rain overnight, the Environment Agency in England had 167 flood warnings in place, where flooding was expected, and 312 flood alerts, where flooding was possible. Trains were cancelled and roads closed. Behind these facts are stories of people: people struggling to protect their homes and defend their businesses—all in the knowledge that their lives would be affected, sometimes for years—and people struggling to get to work. My commiserations go to them too.
I come from a valley that has always flooded, and I well know the misery that such events bring. In 2009, my area was badly flooded and a flood alleviation scheme was put in place by the Welsh Assembly Government, as it was then. My town now has demountable defences, flood walls and lowered spillways on the riverbanks. It is a massive scheme and our town is protected, but sometimes the floodwaters now travel down the valley and other places are badly affected. On New Year’s Day, although my town was fine, the A470 north to Llandudno was closed because of floods. This area had never flooded before, so we know what people are going through.
However, I welcome the Statement and in particular the extra £60 million for farmers in recognition of the battle that they have with flooding on their land. I also welcome the extra funds for internal drainage boards and the opportunity to review how flood relief money is distributed.
Plenty of notice was given of severe weather so that people could be prepared but, of course, some people were not. One could argue that, where storm and flood defences were overrun, a lack of funding over the past few years for maintenance or new defences contributed to some of the problems. The Chancellor has committed to £2.4 billion of funding for flood defences over 2024-25 and 2025-26 in the Autumn Budget. This is also to be welcomed, but experience has taught us that curing one problem can create another downriver: it is a never-ending battle against flood water. What plans do the Government have to commit substantial funding for flood defences past 2025-26?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, in thanking all the people who responded and supported local communities during these floods. There have been many volunteers from the communities, such as farmers—in my community, it was a farmer who came and helped out—as well as the emergency services, the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and so on. Without the extraordinary response that we always get from local communities and our emergency services, things would be so very much worse. Our thanks go out to them.
The Government recognise the terrible impact that flooding has on householders and businesses, and we absolutely sympathise with all those who have been affected over the last week or so. We know that flooding has a devastating effect, whether that is physical damage or disruptions to daily activities. There are also impacts on health, particularly mental health, for those who suffer from flooding.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about insurance. This is always a difficult issue once you have been flooded. It is really important that Flood Re exists in the first place. It has made a huge difference over the past few years for those who have struggled to get insurance. As the noble Lord said, we do not currently have any plans to extend its scope, but it will be part of our review of all policies, because there are clearly concerns about those who do not come under Flood Re, whether multiple occupancy homes, businesses or properties built after 2009. If colleagues have examples where properties, particularly those built after 2009, have suffered, I would be very happy to take examples so that, as we review, we have clear evidence in front of us.
We need to consider how we best support households. When Flood Re came in, its scope for eligibility and its duration were agreed alongside government and industry. It is really important that industry supports what government is doing in this space. Any changes to the scope of the scheme have to be consistent with the original agreement and premises that came through with industry—but, clearly, we will keep this under review.
The impact of flooding on farming was mentioned. I thank the noble Baroness for her support for the £60 million that we have distributed to 13,000 farm businesses through the farming recovery fund. In the floods investment programme, the amount of funding a project can attract will depend on the damages that it will avoid and the benefits that it will then deliver. The impact of the project on agricultural land is also included as part of any funding calculator.
We are also looking at reviewing the existing funding formula, which is really important because it has not worked for lots of different people and communities. We will review it to ensure that the challenges businesses and rural and coastal communities face are adequately taken into account. We are looking to open the consultation on that very soon; noble Lords may wish to input into it.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about dredging. On average, the Environment Agency spends between £30 million and £45 million a year on river maintenance, which enables it to dredge approximately 60 kilometres to 200 kilometres of main river watercourses every year. Where watercourse maintenance is the responsibility of the Environment Agency, it focuses its efforts on those activities that will achieve the greatest benefit in protecting people and property from flooding, therefore delivering the best value for money—that includes dredging. The assessment is undertaken by the Environment Agency, working in close consultation with local communities. It is important to remember that dredging is unlikely to be effective in isolation and is usually part of a wider approach because the silt can easily build up again.
The Floods Resilience Taskforce was mentioned. It met for the first time in September and is due to meet this year. There are 27 attending organisations, so it is comprehensive in its approach. At the first meeting there was a shared understanding of the weather and flood risk of the current winter to ensure we can be as prepared as we possibly can. It is important that we have a better awareness of EA flood asset conditions across England. There was also an agreement to share lessons from flood response from all tiers of government and with flood responders. Clearly, what we have just been through will be an important part of the next meeting of the Floods Resilience Taskforce.
The task force provides Ministers from Defra, MHCLG and the Cabinet Office with a combined overview of flood resilience, along with flood risk organisations and charities—flood insurance, for example. Although it is devolved, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are standing members. The idea is that it will learn from this instance so that next time we continue to build on how we can best prepare for the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, talked about flooding caused by displacement. That is a really difficult issue, which is why any response we provide is not just about building barriers but about looking at bigger, broader support mechanisms, whether that means bringing in balancing ponds, for example, or better surface water flooding assessments. We have to look at this in the round; building higher only pushes water out.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the insurance industry is guilty of egregious delays in paying legitimate claims, and that this is a significant issue that is leading to people who are properly insured with enforceable contracts being forced to sue their insurance companies? For example, is she aware of the delay in compensating 100 shopkeepers for the damage caused by flooding in Newry in Northern Ireland early last year? Does she agree that the Government should have a word with the insurance industry to ensure that they become more efficient in this area?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am not aware of the specific incident the noble Lord referred to but if he would like to share the details with me, I would be happy to take a look at it. It is important that we do not tar all insurance companies with the same brush. Some are much better than others. They are not all part of the Flood Re system, for example, although the majority are. The incident the noble Lord referred to is clearly to do with business, which is different from Flood Re. There are particular challenges in managing flood insurance for businesses.
Lord Deben (Con)
Given that we are likely to have more and more occasions like this because of climate change, does the Minister acknowledge that the previous Government were strongly criticised by the Climate Change Committee for not producing a proper five-year programme for what should be done about resilience? In those circumstances, can she remind the House what the present Government will do to fill that gap and to produce a new report that will say how they will deal with this issue over the next five years?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord asks an important question, because future resilience is going to be critical, particularly as we will have more incidents such as this due to climate change. That is why it is so important that we have set up the Floods Resilience Taskforce. The idea behind that is to bring together everybody who has a genuine understanding and a mutual interest in trying to resolve these issues for the long term, not just for the short term. Part of the problem is that often we have looked at short-term solutions. Part of the work of the Floods Resilience Taskforce is to get a better understanding so we can build exactly the kind of long-term plans that the noble Lord is talking about.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s Statement, but I have some questions that are relevant to the fact that the noble Lord just mentioned, which is that extreme weather events are becoming more extreme and more frequent. We are going to be building many more houses in the future, and the rules on housing development in the flood plain or in areas of high flood risk are simply not working at the moment. Each annual report shows a small number of developments in the flood plain going ahead against Environment Agency advice, but that gives a false impression, because in reality many more new properties are being built in the flood plain that are at real risk of flooding. Does the Minister agree that rules about development in the flood plain or in areas of high surface water flooding risk urgently need to be reviewed? Will she commit to do so to make sure that the planned major programme of housebuilding is not simply putting more and more people and properties at risk?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, we have planning legislation coming forward. One thing we are doing in Defra is working closely with MHCLG around the future development of planning, particularly as we have ambitious plans for building a large number of homes that are so desperately needed. As part of the new home strategy that we have at the moment, we have committed to ensure that we are building more high-quality, better-designed, sustainable homes and creating places that increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery. It is important that, when we plan, we also look at the impact on the environment, and that clearly includes the impact on flooding.
The Government are committed to consider whether changes are required to manage flood risk, coastal change and sustainable drainage systems provision through the planning system when we consult on further planning reform, including a set of national policies that are related to decision-making in this area. Where development needs to be in locations where there is a risk of flooding because no alternative sites are available, we are stressing that developments should be flood resilient and resistant, safe for a lifetime and should not increase flood risk overall. The problem you can have is that, if you do not look at this properly in the round, you can build a house that potentially could flood, so you put in place resilience measures and, as the noble Baroness said, they push the water on to another estate that has not flooded before. So it is really important that we look at this carefully in the round.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister update the House on when we can expect to see the land use framework that has been much delayed? It will shed some light on the competing priorities for land, including flood plains.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am hoping that we will see it very soon. The target we are working to is that we are hoping to see it some time later this month.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, would the Minister like to take this opportunity to renew her commitment to not building on functional flood plains, such as zone B, which she was kind enough to support in an amendment in my name to an earlier piece of legislation, the levelling-up Bill? I add my congratulations to all the emergency services and others and add the drainage boards and declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. Will the Minister explain how many kilometres of minor watercourses she expects to be dredged and maintained during the course of this year?
I recognise the extra funds that the Government have awarded to drainage boards for this purpose. One issue is that we do not currently have a total—totex— budget. As the noble Baroness, Lady Humphries, referred to earlier, the budget is divided between maintenance spending and capital spending, with endless arguments. If there was a total budget such as there is for water companies, which also do some of this work, flood defences and flood maintenance would be in a much better state.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, drainage is an important part of managing any kind of flood risk. If the water cannot go through the drains, it will sit on the surface and cause problems. It is always difficult keeping drains clear throughout a whole flood event, because water inevitably brings with it things that will cause blockages in drains. But it is important that we manage the drains as effectively as we can ahead of flooding and that we also support internal drainage boards.
Internal drainage boards clearly do important work managing water levels and reducing flood risks to farmers and rural communities. The Government have committed to providing an additional £50 million to internal drainage boards over this year and next, to improve, repair or replace the flood-risk assets. This builds on the £25 million that was already being provided. As I have said, we are committed to continuing our work with internal drainage boards and also with MHCLG. With so much of this, the two departments need to come together to get a consistent and effective approach for the long term.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the UK Food Security Report, published on 11 December, identified extreme weather events as major threat to good food production, and therefore a risk to our own national security. The Minister has just been talking about cross-departmental work. Can she assure the House that, as the Government develop the national food security strategy, they will liaise with the food resilience task force? This all needs joined-up thinking if we are going to guarantee our security.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for mentioning that we are producing the food strategy. It will be incredibly important if we are to have proper food security going forward. Clearly, climate change brings particular challenges to our farmers and, because of that, to our future food security. We are very determined as a Government to bring departments together in order to produce sensible, forward-looking plans for the future. I am sure that we will be liaising with the group he mentioned. I will discuss it with the farming Minister, who is producing those plans, to ensure that that is done.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, further to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and my noble friend Lady Young, on planning and flood risk, I recall being a member of the board of the Environment Agency when it was given responsibility in the sense that it was a statutory consultee. I remember saying at the time, “This gives us responsibility without power”. Will the Government, in addition to the very welcome measures the Minister has already announced, give the Environment Agency and equivalents the power to override planning decisions if they consider the flood risk presented to be unacceptable? Will she also extend the period of help for the Environment Agency in terms of capital and staffing costs to ensure that the monitoring is effective?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, the Environment Agency does important work here. Of course, monitoring needs to be effective: otherwise, what is the point in doing the work? The Environment Agency provides regular reports for many applications. Regarding his suggestions, a review of the Environment Agency, alongside all other organisations within the Defra family, is currently being carried out by Dan Corry. As part of the Corry review, we should be looking at exactly what the different organisations should be responsible for and whether that is adequate or whether it should be looked at and changed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I preface my question by noting with approval that the Minister finished her answers to the Front-Bench questions by saying that building higher only pushes water out. I am pleased that she acknowledged that.
We should look at the tone of this Statement and indeed of much of the discussion we have had thus far. The Statement says that improving flood defences and drainage systems is a priority. It sounds like how we were talking about this issue in the 20th century. Where has “slow the flow” gone? Where is the understanding that pushing water from one place very often pushes it on to another community, and pushing it from one space simply causes damage in a different one? Where is the discussion about nature-based solutions to hold water and release it slowly and gradually?
A number of people have raised the issue of flood plains. Do the Government recognise that the flood plain is not beside the river? The flood plain is part of the river.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness asks what we are looking at beyond flood defences—the actual physical barriers. There was quite a discussion during the Water (Special Measures) Bill about natural flood management and the work we are doing and promoting in that area. She may recall that we amended the Bill to ensure that we looked at more natural flood management schemes—nature-based solutions, as she suggested. We are doing that not just through the Water (Special Measures) Bill; we have made a number of announcements on this issue because we see it as an important part of the long-term solution. We need to look at long-term solutions, particularly, as the noble Lord said, because of the climate change pressures. In a way, building a flood barrier is a short-term solution because we do not know how long it is going to last for, so we need to combine that with longer-term solutions. Recently, for example, some balancing ponds have been developed with a grant near where I live. That is the way forward: barriers and longer-term nature-based solutions hand in hand.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, a number of Members have raised the question of flood plains and building houses. There will already be a number of planning applications approved yet not activated by a number of those who own the land—they have their planning approvals and maybe five years to do something about them. Is it possible to seek a review of those to see that we are not putting more people into high-risk situations as a result of the applications that have already been approved?
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised a very good point about slowing down the flow. That may mean some form of additional forestation, or it may mean providing variations to certain waterways and so on. Is an attempt being made to combine the two things together? At the end of the day, we are facing change, and there is virtually nothing more debilitating than seeing people flooded out. Anyone who has had to go out and look after constituents in this situation knows there is nothing like the misery they face and how appalling the situation is, because it is not just water that goes into their houses. That is something that I think is often overlooked.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
If a planning application has been approved in a flooding area, I would expect it to have been granted alongside mitigation measures that the developer would have had to provide to get planning permission in the first place from a local authority. Clearly, I do not know the detail of every single planning application that the noble Lord is talking about, but whether that would be available for review would be a matter for policy development through MHCLG as well as for local authorities, because it is local authorities’ responsibility to provide planning grants and look at applications.
On some of the other matters that the noble Lord raised—this is probably relevant to some of the other questions too—I want to draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that we are reviewing the flood funding formula. A lot of the issues that have been raised are down to the fact that the existing formula follows a complex process and risks slowing down the development of the kinds of schemes that perhaps many noble Lords would like to see. We are aiming to bring in a new approach from April this year, and that is important. Where I live in Cumbria, the existing formula certainly did not work for us when we were badly flooded, and the Government had to provide an extra top-up amount of money. That is not the way to go forward. We need to ensure that communities are properly supported with the kinds of budgets that can bring in the long-term solutions that will be needed to protect them against potential future floods.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, since there is still a bit of time, may I ask the Minister what thought the department has given to the health of our soils and their decreasing ability to absorb water? A lot of the issues around flooding concern run-off and the reduced capacity of the land to absorb water that it used to be able to. Two issues arise out of that: increased water, which we have little way of dealing with at the moment, and the reduced replenishment of our aquifers, which is causing water shortages around the country. Is the department giving deep thought to that?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The quality of soils is incredibly important, for all sorts of reasons, but the noble Baroness is correct that when you have better soil it holds more water. Grants are available through different routes such as the environmental land management scheme; for example, for soil improvement. I have also been to see a Rivers Trust project where it has improved soil qualities around a particular river and was able to demonstrate that the water was held better by the improved soil when there were flooding incidents from that river. We have the evidence that it makes a difference, and we are looking at it extremely seriously.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Since there is time, let me say that I visited Lancaster after it was hit by serious and major flooding. There was a lot of assessment afterwards of how the community had been able to cope. It was found that there were not the community structures—the organisations within local community groups, with people helping out their neighbours, et cetera. We have just seen one business owner in Leicestershire rescue someone from a flooded car when their life was in extreme danger. Often, communities are going to have to help themselves in this new climate emergency situation. Are the Government looking at how they can strengthen the many communities around this country that are at risk of being affected by flooding, so that they can cope with those crisis situations?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that one thing we have been looking at as a Government is more devolution to local areas. As part of that, it is important that we look at how best we can support our local communities, because it is always those communities that pick things up when you have problems like this. Supporting local communities, whether that is our local authorities, our parish councils or our town councils, is a really important part of the work that we need to do.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Young—she can have another go next time—but the time allowed for this Statement is over.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Tuesday 7th January 2025
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 December 2024 - (9 Dec 2024)
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on the first Home Office Bill to come before this Parliament under the current Government. I want to start with why we are here today. It has been more than seven years since an appalling act of terrorism was perpetrated as a music concert drew to a close in the Manchester Arena. Twenty-two people were killed and many more injured on that terrible night in May 2017. We think of them today and hold their loved ones in our thoughts and hearts, as we do with everyone who has been impacted by terrorism.
Noble Lords will be aware that this legislation has been a long time in preparation, including—and I acknowledge this—by the previous Conservative Government. It has been a long time coming but is now before us today. This Government wanted to move swiftly to introduce the Bill following the general election, to deliver on our manifesto commitment and the promise that the Prime Minister made to Figen Murray, who has campaigned tirelessly to introduce today’s proposed law. Figen’s son, Martyn Hett, was among those killed in the Manchester Arena attack. The fact that we are debating this Bill today is a direct result of her tenacity and persistence, and that of her colleagues in the campaign team. The commitment and courage that she has shown in campaigning for changes that will benefit others is, quite frankly, extraordinary. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to her for all that she has done and continues to do in the field of terrorist prevention. The Bill we are debating today is the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill but, in essence, for the reasons I have just mentioned and due to the campaigning spirit of Figen Murray, this Bill is now Martyn’s law.
Noble Lords across this House will agree that the number one priority of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. Sadly, since the start of 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 43 late-stage plots and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks, including the Manchester Arena attack I referred to. These incidents have shown that the public may be targeted at a wide range of events and public venues and spaces. The nature of the terror threat has become less predictable and potential attacks harder to detect and investigate. While we recognise that the risks posed by terrorism are already considered at some premises and events, the absence of legislation and requirements means there is no consistent approach, which then results in varied outcomes.
Engagement with business has highlighted that counterterrorism preparedness often falls behind areas where there are long-established legal requirements, such as health and safety. If that were not enough, the Manchester Arena Inquiry and the prevention of future deaths report from the London Bridge and Borough Market inquests called for clarity of responsibility for venue operators regarding protective security. That simply is what this Bill aims to do. It is designed to bolster the UK’s preparedness for and protection from terrorism. It will achieve this by requiring for the first time that those responsible for certain premises and events consider how they would respond in the event of a terrorist attack. Further, at larger premises and events, additional steps will need to be taken to reduce vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
To be in scope of the Bill as qualifying premises, 200 or more individuals must be reasonably expected from time to time to be present at the particular premises at once. In addition, the premises must be used for one or more of the uses specified in Schedule 1 to the Bill—for example, as a venue, restaurant or bar. For those premises that are in scope, a tiered approach has been established by the Government, with requirements varying accordingly.
We have tried generally to put premises where 800 or more individuals are reasonably expected in an enhanced tier. Premises where between 200 and 799 individuals are reasonably expected to attend will fall into a standard tier. Events will be in scope only where 800 or more individuals are reasonably expected to be present on site for the event at any point and where the other conditions in Clause 3 are met, including that there is an appropriate level of control of access to the event. These qualifying events will also be in the enhanced tier. In limited cases, the Bill ensures that some qualifying premises will be placed in the standard tier regardless of numbers, such as places of worship. This recognises that places of worship play a unique and important role in communities across the country and are often readily accessible and welcoming to all.
This means that there will be certain requirements for those premises. Those responsible for the qualifying premises and events will be required to notify the Security Industry Authority that they are responsible for qualifying premises or events, and to have in place appropriate public protection procedures to reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals in the event of an act of terrorism at or near the premises or event. These two requirements apply to all in scope of the Bill but are the only obligations on those responsible for premises in the standard tier.
What does “public protection” mean? Public protection procedures are intended to be simple and low-cost. There is no requirement to put in place physical measures under this requirement, but there are four categories of procedure. First, evacuation—meaning the process of getting people safely out of the premises—needs to be identified. The second is a word I had not come across until recently: invacuation, which means the process of bringing people safely into safe parts within the premises if required. The third is lockdown, which is the process of securing premises to restrict or prevent entry by an attacker by, for example, locking doors or closing shutters. The last is communication, which relates to the process of alerting people on the premises to the incident and directing them away from danger.
In recognition of the potential greater impact of an attack, premises and events in the enhanced tier will be required to consider additional requirements. This includes the requirement to assess the public protection measures that are appropriate to reduce the risk of harm or vulnerability to a terrorist attack and, so far as is reasonably practical, to ensure that such measures are in place. These public protection measures are as follows: first, measures relating to the monitoring of premises and events and their immediate vicinity, which could include monitoring for warning signs and suspicious behaviour that might indicate a potential attack; secondly, measures relating to the movement of individuals into, out of and within the premises at an event, such as search and screening processes; thirdly, measures relating to the physical safety and security of the premises or event, such as safety glass or hostile vehicle mitigation, where appropriate; and, fourthly, measures that relate to the security of information about the premises or event that may assist in the planning, preparation or execution of acts of terrorism.
In the enhanced tier, the organisations responsible will be required to provide the Security Industry Authority with a document setting out their public protection procedures and measures, and how these may be expected to reduce the vulnerability and risk of harm from terrorism. Where the responsible person is a body and not an individual, it will be required to designate a senior individual to have responsibility within the body for ensuring compliance with the legislation’s requirements. However, I assure the House that this person will not be directly or personally liable for compliance. Part 2 amends the licensing legislation in England, Wales and Scotland to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information in those premises plans.
None of this is practical unless we have compliance and enforcement on top. I hope noble Lords will agree that it is no use having these requirements if an effective enforcement regime is not in place to ensure compliance. The Government have determined that, given the Security Industry Authority’s years of experience of increasing security standards around public safety and its wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation that better protects the public, it is the most appropriate body to oversee enforcement. My department, the Home Office, will work closely with the SIA to develop its new regulatory function, building on existing expertise and knowledge in both the Home Office and the SIA. It will, I hope, bring in the right people, with the right expertise, to ensure an effective and proportionate regulatory approach.
The Government are clear that they will expect the SIA’s role to be supporting and advising businesses in the implementation of the legislation in the first instance, if approved by this Parliament. However, it is necessary for the SIA to have an appropriate toolkit of powers and sanctions to carry out inspections and enforce the new regime. This will include the power to issue penalties for serious or persistent non-compliance. To reflect the potential for more serious consequences at larger premises and events, we have included in the legislation weightier penalties for the enhanced tier. These sanctions will be primarily civil, with a small number of criminal offences to underpin the regime and deal with serious non-compliance. Looking at Clause 20, I assure noble Lords that the SIA will be required to consider a range of factors when determining the amount of penalty, including the ability of the premises or event to pay any penalty.
The Bill also requires the SIA to prepare operational guidance, which will set out how it will discharge its duties. Such guidance will be approved by Ministers at the Home Secretary level.
I reassure noble Lords that there will be a significant amount of time following Royal Assent, if this House approves the Bill, before these requirements will be commenced—at least 24 months. We are doing that so that those organisations can plan and understand, guidance can be delivered and there can be a transitional period to ensure that the objectives are achieved in a way that is helpful to all. That will ensure that those responsible for premises and events will be given time to understand and, where necessary, act upon the new requirements. The Government will also continue to work closely with businesses and organisations to help them to prepare for the new requirements.
As the Home Secretary said when this Bill was debated in the House of Commons, wherever they are and whatever they are doing, people deserve to be safe and feel safe. This Bill is designed to complement the tireless and excellent work that our security services, police and other partners already do to keep us safe. To that end, I echo the words of the Home Secretary in saying thank you to everybody across the national security sphere for all that they do. This Bill is about action when a terrorist event occurs, but I reassure the House that the Government’s focus will always be making sure that the public are protected and that we use the powers of government to secure the safety of the public from potential attack in the first place.
Noble Lords will no doubt be familiar with the Bill’s long history, which I have touched on, and the extensive engagement, scrutiny and debate that have gone into the proposals. The proposals I have outlined have included a draft version of the legislation, which underwent pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Select Committee in the Commons, under the previous Government. The Bill has been developed with the aid of two public consultations, conducted by the previous Government in 2021 and 2024. Under this Government, as under the last, we are trying to get the issue right for this House and for the public.
Throughout these processes, a number of concerns have been raised about the legislation’s potential impact, some of which may be reflected in this House today—but I hope that I have listened to, understood and acted on those concerns as reflected. This Government have substantially adjusted the Bill, with some changes from the last Government’s proposals, to strike the right balance in achieving public protection objectives but without placing undue burdens on business or other organisations. Crucially, this Government have raised the threshold for the Bill’s scope from 100 to 200 individuals attending an event. Furthermore, premises and events will meet that threshold, or the 800 threshold for the enhanced tier, only when it is reasonable to expect that at least as many people will be present there at the same time. This approach has been designed to ensure that they are not unfairly brought within the scope based on size alone.
We have also further clarified that the requirements are not one size fits all, which I hope helps the House. Rather, they are to be based on a more location-specific approach. That reflects the fact that the procedures and measures in place at particular premises and events might not be appropriate, reasonable or practical at another event.
Finally, on the reason why the practical standard now applies to public protection procedures required in both tiers, this is a concept which we expect the majority if not all of those in scope to be familiar with, as it is utilised in other regulatory regimes, such as health and safety. We are confident that, with those changes, the Bill strikes an appropriate balance.
That is the Bill before this House. I expect that there will be comment and discussion on this Second Reading, which I welcome. Before I finish, I pay tribute once more to Figen Murray and all those who have campaigned tirelessly for change. It falls to us with this legislation to carry the heavy burden that they have carried since 2017 and to get it on to the statue book as a matter of some urgency.
I thank those in the House of Commons for their scrutiny of the Bill to date and my honourable friend the Security Minister, Dan Jarvis, for his leadership on that. Those in the other place worked constructively and collaboratively to ensure that the Bill is in the best shape possible. I am sure we will experience the same from noble Lords across this House, and I am grateful to those noble Lords who attended the briefing I held yesterday or other meetings organised to discuss the Bill in detail. There is a wealth of experience in this House, and I know that many Members will feel the contents of the Bill personally. I look forward to the scrutiny today and in the coming weeks by noble Lords from across the House. As I look at the list of speakers, I know that they will bring fruitful contributions and suggestions that we will consider, look at and reflect on in due course.
The Bill deserves urgent support to get it through this House. The public rightly deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events. We think we have the right balance. We hope the Bill, as designed by the current Government, will be given a Second Reading and will complete its passage in this House, but we know there will be contributions and discussions today. I think it is important that locations take appropriate steps, as far as reasonably practicable, to protect staff and the public from the horrific events of terrorism.
It does not happen very often, but this Bill, if passed by this House, will save lives. It will aid people to save lives. It will be a testament to the people who have lost lives in the past and I commend it to the House.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to address the House at the outset of this important debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill represents a critical step forward in our collective efforts to safeguard the public from the ever-evolving threat of terrorism. As we did when we first introduced this Bill, we on these Benches recognise our solemn duty to protect the security of our citizens while preserving the freedoms and liberties that underpin our society. The Bill seeks to strike a balance between these imperatives, and I welcome the Government’s decision to bring it forward.
I wish to speak to the work done by Figen Murray, the mother of Martyn Hett, who, among others, tragically lost his life in the Manchester Arena terrorist attack. Figen’s advocacy for this law, alongside that of Detective Chief Inspector Nick Aldworth and Brendan Cox, is a testament to how, from great tragedy and hurt, some good can come. It is fitting that the Bill is more commonly known as Martyn’s law, and I join once again in offering sincere condolences to the relatives of the deceased.
The horrific events of recent years, both at home and abroad, have underscored the need for robust measures to prevent attacks and mitigate their impact. The Bill places the onus on those responsible for high-risk premises to take practical steps to ensure public safety. The introduction of a Protect duty to ensure that venues assess risks and take proportionate actions to mitigate them is a principle that I wholeheartedly support. We live in an age when threats to our national security are diverse and very dynamic. The ability to respond swiftly and effectively, whether to physical threats or those emanating from cyber domains, is paramount. This legislation reinforces the message that we are serious about countering terrorism and protecting our citizens in public places.
We Conservatives believe in the principles of responsibility and accountability. The Bill reflects those values by requiring venue operators to play their part in safeguarding the public. It encourages businesses and organisations to take ownership of their security arrangements and supports a culture of preparedness that will undoubtedly save lives. Furthermore, by focusing on proportionality and risk-based assessments, the Bill will ensure that smaller businesses and community venues are not unduly burdened—a welcome consideration that reflects the realities that local enterprises face across the country.
However, while we broadly support the Bill, it is our duty as legislators to scrutinise it carefully to ensure that its implementation is both effective and fair. There are issues that require clarification, and I therefore have a few questions for the Minister. First, on cost and resource implications, many businesses, especially small and medium enterprises, are still recovering from the economic challenges of recent years. What financial and logistical support will be made available to ensure compliance, particularly for venues that lack the expertise or resources to implement these measures?
On the practicality of enforcement, how will the Government ensure that the Protect duty is enforced consistently across the country? Will there be a clear framework to avoid a patchwork approach that might leave gaps in our national security network? On co-ordination with local authorities, local councils will inevitably play a role in supporting the implementation of the Bill, so has sufficient thought been given to the capacity of local authorities to provide guidance and oversight, particularly in areas where resources are already stretched?
On cybersecurity considerations, in an increasingly interconnected world, how does the Bill address the intersection of physical and cyber threats to premises? Are venue operators equipped with the knowledge to protect themselves against both forms of attack? While the principle of proportionality is embedded in the Bill, how will it be applied in practice to ensure that smaller community venues are not inadvertently discouraged from hosting public events due to perceived administrative or financial burdens?
The Bill is a vital step forward in our efforts to protect the public from the scourge of terrorism. It embodies Conservative values by emphasising responsibility, proportionality, and a collaborative approach to security. However, as always, the devil is in the detail. It is incumbent on us to ensure that this legislation is implemented in a way that is practical, fair and effective. By addressing the questions I have raised, we can strengthen the Bill and ensure that it delivers on its promise to enhance the safety of our citizens without placing undue burdens on those tasked with its implementation. This side of the House looks forward to engaging constructively with the Government and noble Lords across the House to refine this important legislation. Together, we can ensure that our country remains secure and free, a balance that lies at the heart of our Conservative values.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to the Bill and for the very collaborative approach he has adopted so far, which is extremely welcome. I echo his words and those of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in paying tribute to Figen Murray and the work of the campaign team, which has been tireless and, I hope, will be ultimately successful in passing this Bill very soon.
Keeping people safe, protected and secure when they are in public venues has to be a key responsibility of the state. For that reason, these Benches welcome the introduction of the Bill and will continue to work with the Government and on a cross-party basis to ensure that we have at the end of this process the best possible legislation, which is both proportionate and workable in practice.
The Bill has been broadly welcomed by all key interest groups, including the victims’ families. It is important that we continue to reach out to all those with detailed or personal understanding and knowledge. In that regard, I am very grateful for the briefing we have received from the Martyn’s law campaign team and Figen Murray. In all our deliberations, it is essential that we remember the potential human impact of not getting this right. The Manchester Arena terror attack was utterly heartbreaking. Deliberately targeting children and young people at a concert is beyond evil. It is so important that we learn lessons from that and other terrorist attacks. Inaction is simply not an option.
The nature of terrorism is changing. There are increased global tensions, including ongoing wars in the Middle East, Sudan and Ukraine. There is growth in state terrorism and information—and misinformation —wars are constantly developing. Threats are no longer necessarily from organised groups. Lone individuals, often with mental health issues and motivated by things they believe that they have read online, can organise random attacks resulting in devastating death and destruction, as we so tragically witnessed over the Christmas holidays in Magdeburg in Germany and New Orleans in the United States.
All this means that we have to change how we think about security, terrorism and potential attacks. As the very powerful briefing note we received from the Martyn’s law campaign team reminded us, we need to ensure that this new law
“will mobilise society against these enduring, and ever-changing, threats and make us more resistant to terrorism, and more resilient as a society … As the tactics of terrorists change, so must our strategies to defeat them”.
As the Minister reminded us, there have been many stages to reaching the Bill we are debating today, including pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation, which have resulted in some substantive changes to the previous draft introduced by the Conservative Party. Notably, the threshold has been increased from 100 to 200 for the standard-sized venues or events. This has not been universally welcomed, with some believing the figure is still too low and others feeling it is now too high.
This is no doubt a subject we will return to in more detail in Committee, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could say in his concluding remarks how the Government intend to assess the appropriateness of setting the threshold at 200, and what criteria and timeframe they will use to make this judgment.
It is very important that there is public trust in this legislation. So many organisations will be directly impacted, from local government to the entertainment industry, the voluntary sector, small businesses and the insurance industry, to name just those that made contact with us ahead of this debate. It is important to keep consulting them to ensure that unintended consequences stemming from this legislation are kept to a minimum.
One issue raised by a great many organisations is the need for greater clarity regarding training and guidance. I know that some welcome commitments, specifically on training, were given to my honourable friend Ben Maguire MP in Committee in the House of Commons, but I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about how the Government intend to ensure an overview of the quality of the guidance and training. In particular, it would be helpful if he could say by whom and how trainers and training courses will be approved.
Closely related to the issue of guidance is the issue of communication and information flow. It is vital that all organisations that will have to comply with this new legislation are aware of what they have to do, in what timeframe, what their responsibilities are and why it is important. They will also need to know what financial assistance, if any, will be available to them. I am sure that the Government are planning a significant information campaign about this legislation, but it would be extremely useful to hear a little more about their communications plans from the Minister in his concluding remarks.
There is also the equally important issue of the information flow from the security services, on which I am sure other noble Lords speaking in the debate will concentrate. It is particularly important for larger venues, especially during times of enhanced national threat levels, that there is an adequate communication between larger venues and the security sector. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about how the interface between the security services preventing terrorism in the first place and those responsible for ensuring security in premises will work in practice.
My final area of concern is enforcement, on which the Minister concentrated rather a lot in his speech. Like him, I believe there is no point in passing new legislation if it is not enforced. Last week, following the New Orleans attacks, there were reports in our media that many of the permanent anti-terror barriers have still not been built in the UK following the 2017 attacks. Several key bridges in London, for example, have not yet introduced the necessary safety barriers. I appreciate that such outdoor attacks would be beyond the scope of this Bill—which is about protecting premises—but the wider issue of enforcement and implementation is incredibly important, not least in terms of ensuring public confidence in the process.
As I understand it, the SIA, the new regulator, will have the power to enforce the anti-terrorism measures springing from the Bill. The public need to have confidence that the measures will be backed up by rigorous enforcement and accompanied by the necessary funding. Can the Minister say whether he is confident that the enforcement measures in the Bill will be strong enough? How will they be monitored? Does he not agree that the SIA will require additional resources and funding?
Getting this Bill right is terribly important, but so is getting the balance right. People must never be too scared to go out and live their lives; nor should we produce laws that end up stifling creativity or local activity and volunteering. We need to ensure that the provisions in the Bill are proportionate. The costs of implementation must not be overly burdensome for small organisations. However, that has to be weighed against the cost of not having effective protection strategies in place. First and foremost, there needs to be confidence that systems and security measures are in place to protect people in public venues. As the Minister said, there has been an extremely long wait for this legislation, but I hope we can now work quickly and effectively, and as thoroughly as we can, to get it done.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, this Bill has been forged in reaction to a despicable terrorist attack, dignified by the name of one of its victims, promoted by his courageous mother and subject to a high degree of cross-party consensus. Those are all admirable things, but they also underline the need for serious and dispassionate parliamentary scrutiny.
It is sometimes said that the meaningful scrutiny of Bills is nowadays the province of this House only, and examples of that are not unknown. However, having followed the progress of this Bill through the Commons, with particular reference to the work of the Public Bill Committee and the Home Affairs Select Committee—the independence of which on this matter was notable— I have a lot of respect for the evidence they have taken and the work they have done. That is now reflected in the reformulated and, I must say, improved Bill. I particularly welcome the test of reasonable practicability, so familiar from health and safety legislation, and the changes to the lower threshold for qualifying premises, which is strongly supported by the National Association of Local Councils. It will take out of the scope of the Bill over 100,000 premises—including small parish churches, village halls and town centre cafes—that cannot reasonably be expected to host as many as 200 people.
I remember discussing with Tom Tugendhat, when he was the Security Minister responsible for the Bill, whether it was necessary to put the limit as low as a capacity of 100. He of course held the line at the time, but it was interesting to see that, once released from his responsibilities, he tabled an amendment in Committee that sought to raise the revised lower limit from 200 to 300.
I am grateful to the Minister for meeting with me on this issue. I hope he will forgive me if I remain slightly sceptical about the likely value of the obligations placed on the smallest standard duty premises. A £3,313 average cost over 10 years is not a trivial amount for a financially marginal business or a village hall struggling to raise funds. Yet compliance with the standard duty, as can be seen in Clause 1(1), is intended not to reduce the vulnerability of such premises to acts of terrorism, but to reduce only the risk of physical harm once an act of terrorism is imminent or has started. As the Minister covered in his opening speech, Clause 5(3) demonstrates what that will mean: guarding and locking doors, ensuring that people know where the exits are, and so on.
Bearing in mind the modest extent of the standard duty, I wonder how much the centrally available guidance, which operators are supposed to download, will add to the common sense of those who operate small venues and know them inside out, particularly when, as is thankfully the case in most places, the risk of a terrorist attack is almost vanishingly small. The Minister probably feels that by shifting the minimum threshold to 200 he has reached a widely acceptable compromise, and he may well be right.
However, I remain concerned by the ease by which, by affirmative regulation, 100,000 extra premises could be brought within the scope of the Bill, and many more made subject to the enhanced duties. After a terrorist attack, it can be tempting for any Government to be seen to take immediate action to tighten up the law. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady May, to whom it was my great privilege to report as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, was made of stronger stuff, and so, I suspect, is the Minister. But others do succumb to temptation of this kind, and activating such a power would be an obvious and tempting response.
I make two suggestions. Just to concentrate minds a little, could the operation of Clause 32 not be made conditional on the Secretary of State being satisfied that changing the threshold is justified on the basis of the terrorist threat? That is in the Delegated Powers Committee memorandum; why not put it in the Bill? This would not prevent it being done, but it would make it more likely that it will be done for the right reasons. Secondly, the Delegated Powers Committee memorandum claims as a precedent for this power Section 2 of the Fire Safety Act 2021, which indeed provides for a similar affirmative power to change premises to which the fire safety order applies, but that section contains a statutory obligation to consult. Bearing in mind the extensive consultation that arrived at the figures of 200 and 800, surely at least some consultation would be appropriate before Ministers intervene to change them by regulation.
I have a couple of other points. Noble Lords will have seen a submission from LIVE, which describes itself as the live music industry body in the UK. LIVE makes the point that music festivals, venues and events are already regulated under the Licensing Act 2003, with, where appropriate, highly developed counter- terrorism measures secured by licence conditions. This is overseen, it says, by safety advisory groups which take advice from local police forces and local counterterrorism security co-ordinators. Is that a picture the Minister recognises and, if so, can he give us some more detail on what the regime in the Bill will add to what is described? I do not doubt it will add something. Will the mechanisms described by LIVE persist after Martyn’s law has entered into force? How will any overlap be dealt with, and how will the existing mechanisms be integrated into the approach of the SIA? It would be good to hear more about this since, as the Regulatory Policy Committee points out, the Bill’s impact assessment provides no evidence that a new regulator with national inspectors would be efficient compared with local authority compliance, and the new regulator is of course given very strong enforcement powers.
Finally, I noticed from Schedule 2 that certain premises are excluded from the Bill. Premises occupied by the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are excluded, but those occupied by the United Kingdom Civil Service are not. I wonder if the Minister can tell us why. Also excluded from the Bill are premises occupied for the purposes of the devolved legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I assume that these premises, or some of them, are considered to fall within Schedule 1; otherwise, no exclusion from the Bill would be necessary. No doubt other precautions are in place, but although we are frequently urged to do our fire safety training, I do not recall hearing anything about the threat of terrorism, which is perhaps rather greater here than it is in my village hall. I should be grateful if the Minister told us what difficulties there are in applying the standard and enhanced duties to Westminster as they are applied to Whitehall, and explained why parliamentary buildings are exempt.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, as a bishop whose diocese includes around 300 places of worship, most of which will find that this Bill directly applies to them, I have, along with my right reverend friends on these Benches, a very obvious interest to declare. But as the Bishop of Manchester, I have a more specific reason for wanting to see this Bill reach the statute book. Martyn Hett, whose name is immortalised in the informal title by which we know this Bill, was killed some three minutes’ walk from my cathedral. We are all grateful for the persistence of his mother, Figen, over these last seven years, and for achieving the degree of cross-party consensus that has brought us to this point today.
In the immediate aftermath of the Manchester attack, it fell to me to help lead my city and its people in how we responded. I spoke then of the crucial difference between defiance and revenge. For me, that comes direct from my reading of the Christian scriptures, but the application is for those of all faiths and none. The terrorist sought to divide us. Acts of revenge by one part of the community against another would have played into his hands.
Instead, we showed our defiance. We came together in one of the most moving examples of a community embracing its diversity and showing its love that I have ever seen. We in Manchester were helped in responding to the atrocity by the support given to us by national leaders, not least the then Prime Minister, the now noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, whom it is a pleasure to see in her place among us this afternoon.
Crucially, by being defiant we did not allow the extremists to determine how we lived our lives. We did not cower behind our front doors. We did not retreat to the safety of those who looked, thought or believed like us. We got on with our lives, while being somewhat more vigilant than before. That same principle needs to lie at the heart of this Bill. Its provisions need to be such that they do not lead to mass cancellations of events, nor to the closure of social, commercial and religious venues which cannot afford the costs of compliance. What we enact in this Bill must be proportionate. It must balance the very real risks that we face with the need for us to live as we choose, not as the terrorists seek to dictate.
I think that we have got that balance broadly right in the form that the Bill has reached us. I am grateful for the various amendments made in the other place. It is right that we focus on the expected attendance at an event rather than some technical capacity of a building. Many of my churches are built to hold the largest occasion likely ever to be required. While I pray for the day when every service is as packed as it is on Christmas Eve, I need to be realistic, and we all need to pursue measures commensurate with the numbers that we expect. The same will apply to many other venues.
I am grateful, like other noble Lords, for the standard tier commencing at 200 rather than 100. This will save smaller events, often community-led and dependent on volunteers. It will help vital local venues remain open to serve their community. However, increasing the figure to 300 would go too far. I am minded to oppose any changes to the number during the future stages of the Bill.
While we are still at an early stage of our consideration of the Bill in this House, I hope that either today or at a later stage the Minister can offer faith and voluntary sector groups, along with other less commercial venues, training that is free, easy to access and available in a wide range of languages and formats. We all need to be fully equipped for the responsibilities that this Bill assigns to us. Given that places of worship across all main religions form between 10% and 20% of the affected premises at a guess, I ask the Minister for his assurance that His Majesty’s Government will produce guidance specifically to address these contexts before the Bill is enacted. I assure him that I and others stand ready to help in that task in any way that we can.
I thank those who drafted the Bill for recognising that places of worship are special and are allocated accordingly to the standard tier irrespective of capacity or likely attendance. As other noble Lords have noted, this appropriately recognises the relationship between those buildings and the communities that they serve and the deep experience that faith communities have of working with police and specialist security providers for those occasional very large events that we host.
Much will no doubt be said, later today and as we go on, about the role of the SIA as regulator. As with the other provisions of the Bill, the regulator’s powers and responsibilities need to be proportionate to the task. We do not want a toothless tiger or an overbearing and unaccountable overlord, but I will listen carefully to the arguments made on the powers, responsibilities and accountabilities of the regulator as the Bill progresses.
Finally, while reiterating my thanks and those of my colleagues on these Benches to Figen Murray, I also single out Brendan Cox, whose wife Jo was murdered while fulfilling her parliamentary duties. I have had the privilege of meeting him on a number of occasions and offering my support to what he, Figen and others have been doing over these last few years to address the ever-present threat of terrorist atrocities. However, Jo’s death reminds us that one of the main ongoing terror threats in the UK, as recognised by our security forces, comes from those inspired by extreme right-wing voices. These seem to be increasingly tolerated, perhaps even encouraged, on some social media platforms. Beyond the scope of this Bill but building on the exchanges that we had at Oral Questions earlier today, I urge His Majesty’s Government to complete the implementation of the Online Safety Act now, as a matter of urgency, so that fines based on total global earnings can be levied against those who seek to undermine our parliamentary democracy from outside the UK.
It is not enough for us to focus purely on security at public events; we need to get upstream. This year, 2025, must be the year when Britain takes decisive action against those who seek to radicalise others or to normalise violence in pursuit of political ends, whether they come from within the UK or beyond our shores, and no matter how wealthy or how powerfully connected they may be.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.
I will also start by paying tribute to Figen Murray: tempered by her own experience of the tragedy of the Manchester Arena terrorist attack, her work promoting the principles behind the Bill has been nothing short of extraordinary. Not only has she campaigned, but she has researched the subject and was awarded an MSc by the University of Central Lancashire in 2021. Her thesis, which I have read—particularly as I am quoted in it—argues that legislation needs to be part of a wider initiative to inform the public, so that people can be empowered to be more vigilant and more conscious of their personal safety. A legislative framework and public awareness not only have to go hand in hand but are mutually reinforcing.
In 2016, Mayor Sadiq Khan—I congratulate him on his knighthood in the New Year Honours List—asked me to report on London’s preparedness to respond to a major terrorist incident. One of my recommendations, published six months before the Manchester Arena attack, was that, as a condition of licensing, venues should have to be reviewed by a police counterterrorism security adviser and to have taken the necessary action as a result of that review.
The point of this, which is implicit in the Bill before your Lordships’ House, is that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. Each venue is different and faces a different type of threat, but the principle of carrying out a basic assessment of the risk and taking sensible, proportionate security measures is simple, straightforward and should be unavoidable.
Concert halls, theatres and other venues must, by law, take fire precautions as well as meeting other regulatory requirements. It seems extraordinary, therefore, that, until the Bill passes, there is no requirement on them to take advice on reducing the risk of a terrorist attack and to take sensible precautions. In some instances, bag checks may be enough; in others, they may want to look at other measures. In extreme cases, metal detectors or knife arches may be more appropriate for the largest of venues. Similar rules should also apply to sports stadia, large shops and shopping malls.
This principle was accepted by the previous Government. The 2019 Conservative manifesto said:
“In the wake of the terrible events in Manchester in 2017, we will improve the safety and security of public venues”.
Last year’s manifesto was even more explicit:
“We will urgently introduce Martyn’s Law … This will ensure premises are better prepared for terrorist attacks by requiring them to take proportionate steps to mitigate risks”.
Thus, there is wide political consensus about this measure and, after the delays of the last few years, I am pleased that this new Government are at last taking action.
Let us be clear: terrorism has not gone away. Only last week, we saw the car ramming in New Orleans. Ken McCallum—also knighted in the New Year Honours List, and whom I also congratulate—warned in October that:
“Since March 2017, MI5 and the police have together disrupted 43 late-stage attack plots”.
“Some of those … were … in the final days of planning mass murder”,
at the point when the intervention took place.
The nature of the terrorist threat has changed. It no longer necessarily comes from organised groups. In my second report for the Mayor of London, completed three years ago, I warned that attacks are increasingly committed by individuals who operate alone, frequently self-radicalising and learning techniques online. Attacks of this nature are inevitably harder to detect and prevent in advance. They may also be opportunistic and mean that the range and nature of potential targets have widened to include far more venues that previously would not have been considered under any circumstances.
What is more, while the majority of those planning attacks would appear to be Islamist extremists, an increasing proportion are domestic and extreme right-wing. As Ken McCallum said, MI5 and the police are increasingly encountering would-be terrorists who are more volatile and with only a tenuous grasp of the ideologies they profess to follow, and it is becoming harder these days to determine whether a particular act or planned act of violence is ideologically motivated or driven by another factor such as mental health. It does not really matter what the ideation or motivation is: the effects are the same, and the needs for the sensible precautions being included in this Bill remain under all those circumstances, irrespective of whether it is traditional terrorism or something else.
Of course, as I warned three years ago, in online spaces, extremism is increasingly prevalent and, more worrying still, has become almost normalised; this point has just been made by the right reverend Prelate. This spills over into greater polarisation in the real world, which, in turn, can and does lead to violence. That is the context of modern terrorism, and that is why anyone can be a target. The first volume of the Manchester Arena inquiry reported:
“None of those directly concerned with security at the Arena … considered it a realistic possibility that a terrorist attack would happen there”.
Yet, as we know, it did, and 22 people were killed and 1,017 injured. That is why this Bill is needed.
Nowadays, it is taken as a given that the places we visit abide by health and safety regulations and will take appropriate fire precautions. It is surely not unreasonable to expect them also to take appropriate and proportionate protection measures against terrorist violence. Now, of course, better security checks and a Protect duty will not prevent terrorism, but they make soft targets harder. Where many people congregate together, they have a right to expect that the appropriate and proportionate measures to protect them will have been taken. The aim should be that all venues have their own Protect plan and, in the event of an incident, be geared up to guide and shelter those who visit. At the very least, those responsible should have considered the implications—how to evacuate, how to invacuate, what doors should be locked, and so on—and that this has been conveyed to those working in the location concerned. It is much better to have thought about it, even just a little bit, before an event happens than to be doing so in the heat of an attack.
The principle has to apply to other sectors as well. In the past, most places of worship—again, the right reverend Prelate has talked about this—have often seemed to operate on the basis that an attack would not happen to them because of their innate goodness, but they, too, need to plan and take sensible precautions. They have been the subject of attacks in Europe and elsewhere. Of course, it is difficult: places of worship are intended to be open places of sanctuary and peace, but that does not mean that they cannot be targets, and sensible and proportionate measures should be taken there too.
In my 2016 review, I made a series of recommendations on strengthening the Protect responsibilities, which I think remain valid today, including that the Home Office will need to provide more funding for CT security advisers around the country; that counterterrorism advice should automatically be taken by those applying for venue and event licences; that there should be short- form advice on CT matters for small and micro businesses rolled out using local authority and neighbourhood policing networks, so that everyone has access to that sort of sensible advice; that owners and operators of shopping centres and other large venues should ensure that Project Griffin training is being given at regular enough intervals to deal with the high staff turnover that those businesses and organisations experience; and that there should be specific training for other sectors.
I also suggested that the Department for Education should build on the model of having a designated governor responsible for safeguarding, to ensure that each school appoints a governor responsible for ensuring security and preparedness against an attack—to at least think about it in advance. Each school should have a preparedness plan, and those plans should be tested. Schools have fire drills where they evacuate pupils, so they perhaps need to have lockdown drills to invacuate pupils or at least to have considered how those might operate.
I hope that the Bill gets a smooth passage through your Lordships’ House. I believe that we owe it to the victims of the Manchester Arena attack, the two London Bridge attacks and all the other attacks of recent years. It is our responsibility to give them, and the public who visit those venues, the security that this offers.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, the attacks that took place in Magdeburg and New Orleans over Christmas and the new year, as have been referenced by other noble Lords, show that we cannot be complacent about the terrorist threat. There is a danger, when terrorist attacks do not take place for a period of time, that we are lulled into a false sense of complacency, and we must not be. That is one of the reasons why this Bill is so important. I welcome the fact that the Government have brought it forward so early in their legislative programme, and I welcome the fact that it has such broad cross-party support.
As we debate and talk about this Bill today, my thoughts are with all of those who were the victims and affected by the Manchester Arena terrorist attack. Having visited some of the survivors in hospital shortly after the event, and having met more survivors thereafter subsequently, I realised the absolute horror of what took place on that night and the horror of a terrorist who deliberately focused on attacking children and young people. That night was a traumatic night for all involved, and, of course, as we know, that will be with them for the rest of their lives, but our response has to be that we do what we can to ensure that, in future, if a terrorist attack takes place where an event is taking place of that sort in premises where there are significant numbers of people, fewer people lose their lives and, as far as possible, injuries are reduced. That, of course, is the key focus of this Bill. As Clause 5(2) says:
“The objective is to reduce the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals if an act of terrorism were to occur on the premises, at the event or in the immediate vicinity of the premises or event”.
I also would like to commend Figen Murray and all those who have worked with her for their dogged determination in making sure that this legislation is now before Parliament and is—we all hope, shortly—to reach the statute book.
I want to make just a few points about some aspects of the legislation and slightly more widely too. My first point is about the SIA, and I think that it is important that this House properly considers the role of the SIA and the capacity of the SIA to undertake the tasks that it is being required to do as a result of this Bill, tasks which are different from the original purpose set up for the SIA, which was very much in terms of the licensing and consideration of the suitability of individuals to be part of the security industry. This is a significant expansion of its work, and we need to ensure that it understands and has the training that it needs in order to be able to undertake its tasks in relation to this, and I just ask the Government that they think very carefully about the SIA and its role, because I think it is right that we should debate that and consider it.
I also am concerned that we do not allow or do not see a situation where venues are almost bombarded by consultants who are all too keen to advise them on the steps that they should be taking, regardless of whether those steps are actually what is required in the legislation or not. That will be particularly the case, I think, for smaller venues, whose responsibilities will not be so great but which could be lulled into thinking that they have to do significantly more as a result of the advice that they receive from such consultants. So there is a very real issue there, I think, that has to be considered.
I want also to go a little beyond the Bill, if the Minister and the House will indulge me. This is about premises that exist already. One of the great things we did at London 2012 was to ensure that, when all those new Olympic venues were being built, security was built in and planned in at the earliest stage of planning those buildings. I just wonder whether the Government could look at encouraging—this would probably be in other legislation, perhaps planning or building regulations —efforts to be made at the earliest possible stage to build that security in, particularly for large-scale events venues, so that we do not have to look at it as an afterthought.
I also want to talk about communications, which has been raised by other noble Lords—communications in several senses. The first is communication between those responsible in a venue and the emergency services. I have been thinking of a situation where the people responsible in a venue know what to do, something has happened, and they possibly start evacuating, but the emergency services and the police—who would undoubtedly be, as they always are, the lead in this—might actually wish to see different action being taken. The communication between those two, and the staff in the venue understanding the role of the police and the emergency services and the importance of recognising the primacy of the police in that situation, will be an important part of the education.
One of the issues that arose in the response to the Manchester Arena attack was the lack of communication between the emergency services. Again, this is perhaps not something that is technically for the face of this Bill. But it is an issue that needs to be considered as we look at the whole question of the response at premises should an attack take place, making sure that the rules of engagement, the rules of communication, between the emergency services are rather better understood, and that the proper JESIP training takes place so that we do not see those gaps in communication.
Another point on communication is cyberterrorism, which my noble friend Lord Davies referenced. As we look at and think about the Bill, it is about premises, locking gates, evacuating people, having the right exits and so forth. But some of that will be about communicating, and cyberterrorism could actually mean that the means of communication with members of the public in a venue are affected. Indeed, if perhaps a venue has automatic door-locking systems, they could be affected. So, in looking at what people need to do, it is important that the potential impact of cyberterrorism is looked at as well.
As I said, this is an important Bill. It does something that, on the face of it, seems to be very obvious: that people who are responsible for venues, or for holding large-scale public events, just think about the safety and security of people within those events and about what needs to happen if there is an attack—if something goes wrong. But sadly, as we saw at Manchester Arena and elsewhere, what is obvious is not always done. That is why the Bill is so important, because it will bring home to people the responsibilities they have to ensure the increased safety of those people who attend events at their premises. The responsibility we have is to make sure that this Bill is the best it can be.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill and a particular pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, who has a long and distinguished record in this area of policy. I share her concerns about the appropriateness of the SIA as a regulator and, as she is aware, I have a few of my own.
Because of my noble friend the Minister’s characteristically collaborative approach and his and his officials’ openness to discussion not only in this context but outside aspects of the Bill, I have had the opportunity, as other Members of your Lordships’ House who will speak in this debate had yesterday, to discuss aspects of the Bill with him at his invitation. I shared those discussions to some extent, but I do not intend to take up much time today on the details of that; I will wait to see how far those off-piste conversations get me before I decide what I will say further. But in any event, I thank him and commend him for his comprehensive and helpful introductory speech. I am very conscious that he will live up to the offer he has made to be engaging and collaborative.
When measuring the effectiveness of legislation, the simple law of cause and effect should be adhered to. We should always ask ourselves two questions. First, why is the Bill needed? Secondly, does it do what it purports to do and address the problem that led to its creation in the first place? I believe that this legislation offers an answer to both questions. As your Lordships’ House has already been reminded—as if a reminder were needed—it is tragedy that has brought us here today. I do not intend to rehearse the circumstances at length, but I pay my own tribute to Figen Murray, whose indefatigable campaigning, with others, is not only a model of its kind but reflective of her selfless determination to ensure that no other parent should have to suffer the same grief she has suffered. Indeed, that is itself an answer to the first question I posed. The Bill is necessary to help protect our people from co-ordinated malign terrorist activity, to protect their families from unimaginable grief, and to increase our collective preparedness for acts of terror where they seem feasible.
The answer to the second question I posed is less stark but none the less positive. As we heard, the Bill establishes a tiered approach, linked to the activity that takes place at premises or an event, balanced against the number of individuals it is reasonable to expect might be present at the same time. It does not, and does not purport to, prevent terrorism, save, perhaps, at the margins. That is the job of the police and the security services.
In recognising that, I note the extraordinary work of the security services in disrupting 39 late-stage terrorist plots since 2017. In that context, can the Minister indicate what percentage of those plots would have affected premises within the scope of the Bill? Again, I realise that it is not a Bill designed to mitigate terrorist activity but to ensure that staff and volunteers know what to do in the event of an emergency. I ask that question because, when reading proceedings in the other place and the briefings that I suspect we have all received—I do not think they were sent to me for any particular reason other than that I was on the list of speakers—the bombings of two Birmingham pubs in 1974 came to mind. The Mulberry Bush and The Tavern in the Town were the two pubs in question. I re-read some of the things I was familiar with, and the testimony from a survivor who was in The Tavern in the Town tells us that everyone who was in the pub was either injured or killed. That was 111 people in total, with similar figures tragically reflected in The Mulberry Bush. If that information is correct, neither of these pubs would have been within the scope of the legislation.
The briefing that I and other speakers received from Survivors Against Terror suggested that the threshold has significantly reduced the impact of the Bill and that we should support, as it does, reducing that threshold, either now or in due course, to 100 or below. I am not making a case for this; I am simply reflecting the case that was made to us all. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister is familiar with the detail of its advocacy for such an approach. Interestingly, the Birmingham pub bombings, and possibly other atrocities, support that approach too.
The iterative approach by which the Bill has emerged from its chrysalis phase under the last Government into the proportionate, measured and effective shape of the legislation we are gathered to examine this afternoon, is testament to the value of our proceedings. It is Parliament’s scrutiny—principally in the other place, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, reminded us—that has achieved this.
In July 2023, a previous attempt at this legislation was described as a “not fit for purpose” by the Home Affairs Committee, which also outlined serious concerns about its proportionality. I do not often praise them, but the previous Government received this feedback in a constructive spirit and launched a further public consultation to remedy these shortcomings, the findings of which enabled the new Administration to fashion this improved legislation.
This spirit of constructive cross-party unity around this Bill has its dangers—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, reminded us—but, from my perspective, it is not merely enormously helpful from a practical standpoint but also holds symbolic value in that, in response to the amoral exercise of terrorist violence, we show the value of quiet diligence and a willingness to work across the House to find the remedy for it.
One of the comparatively small areas of contention has been the existence of the discretionary powers afforded to the Secretary of State to reduce the numerical threshold for the standard tier from 200 to 100 people. I recognise that the current number has been chosen for good reasons, not merely financial but in terms of freeing small businesses and organisations, such as village halls and community cafés, from more than necessary regulatory burdens. But, while they are all equally important in absolute terms, some venues of equivalent sizes are at significantly divergent risk of terrorist attack: for instance, a pub or a café near a military base that habitually hosts off-duty soldiers incurs a more significant terrorist threat than a hospitality business located elsewhere. With the proviso that the responsibility for monitoring such threats lies elsewhere, is any scope being considered to take specific venues of this type into either the standard or the enhanced tier?
My final point of clarification at this stage in the debate is that, subject to some minor qualifications, the extent of this Bill is for the whole of the UK. However, it has implications for policy areas that are devolved. I understand that officials are discussing these areas. I know from my experience as Secretary of State for Scotland that that process has proven positive many times before in relationships between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Government in Scotland, for example. Can the Minister confirm that these discussions will be appropriately supported by Minister-to-Minister dialogue to preclude any difficulties in this respect further down the track? They can arise very quickly.
Despite my few points of clarification, I emphasise that I support this Bill, its intentions and the way in which they have been reflected in the drafting of its provisions. As it stands, this legislation is referred to as the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, but we all know, as we were appropriately reminded by noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, in his speech, that it will forever be known as Martyn’s law. I believe we owe it to his memory, and to all those who have been victims or survivors of terrorism, to ensure that it undergoes that transformation as soon as possible.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, having spent just over half of my life in one or other House of this Parliament, I regret that I have become more resistant than I should be to campaigns. But I am proud to support the campaign that has led us here today, and I congratulate the Government and, indeed, the Opposition on their support for this legislation in general terms and on their willingness to improve the Bill as we work our way through it. I particularly congratulate Figen Murray, whom I have met on a number of occasions, and her supporting team, on everything they have done. They have taken a balanced and constructive approach and have been ready to listen to arguments on some of the difficult issues that have already been discussed during today’s debate. Of course, we should never forget all those who suffered as a result of the Manchester Arena attack.
I also congratulate Sir John Saunders, who conducted a magnificent inquiry into the Manchester Arena attack, using all the skill that he gained as a judge in Birmingham Crown Court and later as a High Court judge. It was an absolute model of its kind and we owe Sir John a great deal.
What we are discussing here is not something that fills a gap but something that completes more fully counterterrorism law and provisions in this country. Making these particular provisions is going to be very useful in that task.
In supporting the Bill, I do however want to raise a few issues that I urge the Government to consider. The first echoes what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady May, in relation to the SIA. I had some dealings over the years with the SIA and, as the noble Baroness said, it has been dealing mostly with security guards and other individual issues, so it is embarking on new and difficult territory. The two-year introduction period, which is long, nevertheless allows for full and proper implementation to be achieved. It will need that time and it will need every bit of help that it can be given, including by us as legislators.
Part of the SIA’s task is to produce legal guidance on the provisions of the Bill. I hope that some scoping of that legal guidance has taken place and I also hope that we can see at least a draft of such a legal guidance before Committee, so that we can consider and comment on such guidance. There is a great deal of expertise in your Lordships’ House that would assist the SIA and it is perfectly reasonable to ask for that to be seen as part of the legislative process.
I turn next to a difficult issue about civil liability. There may well be cases where normal civil liability—that is to say, mostly for negligence or breach of statutory duty, under ordinary civil claims procedures—might be justified and appropriate in relation to the failure to meet the requirements set out by the Bill, the Act as it will become, and the legal guidance that has been issued. Clause 31(2) appears to share that view. However, Clause 31(1) as described and explained in paragraph 166 of the Explanatory Notes—I will not read it now because it would take too long—excludes claims for breaches of statutory duty. I do not begin to understand the rationale for that. As a veteran of industrial injuries claims—hundreds and hundreds of them in my time as a barrister—I know that it is absolutely common- place to plead in a claim both breach of statutory duty and negligence, and often judges give judgments in which damages are awarded for both breach of statutory duty and negligence. Why is that excluded here? I believe it is an inadvertent mistake that should be reviewed.
I turn next to the question of corporate civil liability. In some parts of the Bill there are provisions that appear to extend corporate civil liability—but they do not. What is provided in the Bill is that, if a company commits an offence, an officer, as described in Clause 26(2)(a) may also be liable for the offence that has been committed. But it does not make the company liable if an individual who works for that company has committed an egregious act that otherwise might give rise to criminal liability. The bar against establishing the liability of a company in any civil proceedings is high because, to use the vernacular phrase often used by lawyers, there is a requirement to show that someone who is the eyes and ears of the company is responsible for the wrong that has been committed. That has not been extended in this Bill, even though it has been extended elsewhere in legislation in the recent past. So I ask the Minister to examine that issue and I would be very happy to discuss it with him further. Indeed, I pay tribute, as others have, to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, who could not have been more available to all of us in this House who wished to discuss this Bill with him.
I turn next to planning and licensing considerations. Planning considerations arise when an application is made for planning consent for a new venue, obviously, or for significant alterations in the planning provisions for a venue. The issues raised in this Bill should become central to such planning applications. Equally, it should become central to licensing authorities’ considerations when they are deciding whether permanent or temporary licences should be granted. Indeed, I would suggest that those who are already involved—I know there are distinguished organisations, particularly in Manchester, involved in training commercial entertainment and retail centre providers—should be asked to train planning officers, councillors and licensing authorities in these matters.
I echo something that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady May, about consultancies. I fear, having represented at one time a lot of villages in rural Wales, that those village hall committees may find themselves paying not £300 a year but a great deal more to some good and some pretty awful consultancies, which do not have very much to offer and where such things could be offered in a different way. We owe a duty to those who run village halls and similar entities to be assisted to avoid unnecessary costs arising from the Bill. If there are necessary costs, so be it, but not unnecessary costs.
I emphasise—and this has not been said—that the Bill does not remove from the public their sense of responsibility. How many of us have been to venues where we waited in a queue while somebody brought into that venue—be it a theatre, nightclub or restaurant where there is security—large bags full of unnecessary quantities of possessions that are almost impossible to examine in a meaningful way without the mechanics or machinery for search? The public must understand that it is their responsibility when they go to such a venue not to take with them haversacks on their backs containing their overnight clothes and equipment for the weekend. This is something that requires all of us to do our duty as citizens.
Finally, I regard this as a very good Bill. If the Minister can provide reassurances on the subjects that have been raised by me and others, it would be very welcome. What we are doing is improving the safety of the public, albeit arising from tragic circumstances that should never have occurred.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for his very reasonable opening statement. I regret not being able to make his consultation meeting yesterday.
I have a dilemma with this legislation. On the one hand, it is clearly true that we all have a responsibility to consider how we as a society face up to the sickening evil of major terrorist attacks. We all have huge sympathy, of course, with the families of victims. We understand their outrage and anger at the failings, and we admire their work to try to ensure that what happened to them does not happen to others in future. On the other hand, we as legislators have a duty to take a wider perspective and to assess whether proposed measures will genuinely reduce risks without imposing disproportionate burdens.
I am not the first person to make these points; they were made a couple of years ago by the Commons Home Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament. It is striking to me that both consultations on this legislation, in 2021 and last year, produced quite a wide range of responses, with concerns about implementation and costs being just as strong as recognition of the need to act further against terrorism.
This Bill was in the manifestos of both main parties, which is unusual—although perhaps not as unusual as it should be. It will clearly pass in some form, but we still have a duty to scrutinise. History shows that, when there is wide consensus on legislation, it often ends up being quite difficult legislation to make workable in practice. That is what we have to look at.
Against this background, I welcome the rethinking for which the Government have clearly been responsible with this version of the Bill. It is clearly better and more proportionate than the one introduced by my own party when in government. Equally, I believe there is a case for further thought in some areas, as many noble Lords have already noted.
Personally, I think the case for the measures in this Bill is much stronger for major events and major venues—that is, those in the so-called enhanced tier—where there is clearly a need to respond to the IOC’s call back in 2018 to clarify the legal responsibilities, and where the size of events and premises, such as major halls, theatres, et cetera, requires a degree of co-ordination and pre-planning. If legislation can help in that, it is sensible that it should.
I cannot help echoing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about the exclusion of Parliaments, devolved Administrations and indeed schools from this legislation. I wonder whether we are seeing another example of the phenomenon of the Government imposing duties on others while excluding themselves—a point that we discussed in this Chamber yesterday.
I have three concerns about the standard tier. The first is a point that has been made by other noble Lords. I welcome the fact that the threshold has been increased to 200 but I still believe there is a case for increasing it further—for example, to 300, as the then shadow Security Minister proposed in the Commons last year. I agree with those who have asked the Minister to set out more fully in winding up just why this threshold has been chosen and what the Government see as the potential pressures, in either direction.
My second concern is the nature of the burden on small organisations. This Bill will produce a burden. Unless the threshold changes further, it will hit small organisations and voluntary organisations, particularly perhaps those that have events that occasionally go above the threshold and thus permanently come within the scope of the duty. Indeed, the fact that the Government have excluded certain categories reflects a recognition that there is a burden imposed by the Bill.
The cost of £330 annually for smaller voluntary organisations is not trivial. In effect, it pushes up the cost of insuring, say, a village hall by between a third and a half every year. For organisations that are under pressure, that is significant. I note that the Night Time Industries Association has similar concerns about smaller venues. I agree with it and others who have made the point about the need for clarity on the relationship between the powers in this Bill and those in the Licensing Act. Perhaps the Minister could address that point as well.
My third concern is about the consequences—perhaps unintended, but arguably foreseeable—of legislating at all. When you give something the force of law you do two things. First, you increase the risk to individuals of non-compliance. As a result, you increase the risk of risk-aversion: the pressure to do more than is necessary just in case, to make sure that the law is fulfilled. In other areas, the observed behaviour of regulators is that they often encourage this through defining and spreading so-called best practice. The Bill imposes the reasonably practicable duty on the responsible individuals, but it is a subjective test, drawn from a different, albeit related, area of legislation. I think it will be subject to mission creep, as these vague forms of words often are.
The second thing you do when you create a duty through legislation is, in effect, to create an industry that depends on that regulation, that has a potential interest in maintaining and developing it and which, in practice, often has a big influence on setting and defining the levels of standard practice and in seeing them promulgated by the regulator, industry bodies and others. I think that is foreseeable in this case too, and the Henry VIII clauses in the Bill certainly give the Government the power to support that kind of mission creep over time, and to give it the force of law over time if they are so minded.
This all means that what may be a limited and justifiable burden at first may well grow over time, and that is often hard to reverse. The problem is that none of this adds to productive activity. When you give something the force of law it has to take priority over other activities. Again, for smaller businesses and voluntary organisations this means that it must often take priority over the actual purpose of that organisation. That is what giving something legal force means. When we are adding so much to the burdens on those organisations already, we have to think very carefully about the value added.
There is a particular risk in areas of voluntary activity. For example, one in eight village halls is still apparently caught by the Bill, according to the impact assessment. The risk in voluntary areas is that people are just not ready to devote the extra personal time or take the extra risk and the burden, so facilities simply close rather than take on board the burden of compliance.
I hope, and actually I believe, that the Government will not just dismiss these concerns, which came strongly out of the consultations and the evidence sessions. I hope and suspect that we will see amendments covering them, and I hope the Government will take them seriously. As the Minister noted, if and when the Bill passes it will have a lengthy pre-implementation period in which they can be addressed too.
I note that many noble Lords have asked whether the SIA is the right regulator. I note that the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health has proposed the creation of an advisory board for the SIA for these purposes, and some form of that could be well worth the Government considering.
Let us reflect on what the Bill will do. It will mean that most businesses and organisations serving the public in any numbers need to consider the risk of a terrorist attack all the time. You may say they should, and certainly the threat, regrettably, is substantial—very high. However, even now, the risk of any individual person facing an actual terrorist attack remains extremely low. The Bill may reduce the risk slightly further as regards events or premises but, equally arguably, might only deflect it. After all, we have plenty of evidence that the risk exists in other places too, most notably on the street or in parks, both of which have been the location of serious attacks in recent years—indeed, very recently.
We cannot reduce the risk to zero through prevention measures and, as a society, we should not try. An attempt to do so may cause more harm and more problems of other kinds. To take one analogy that is perhaps imperfect but it makes the point, just as our streets have filled up over the years with street furniture, barriers, controls or whatever in a partly—but only partly—successful effort to reduce road deaths, they have also become more ugly, complex and difficult to navigate for many people as a result. The Bill may well see many public facilities go down the same route and, as we have seen from the barriers on our bridges across the Thames, once they are introduced, these measures rarely get removed.
I hope we do not have to—and I do not want to—live in a society where all our public facilities become like airports, with security checks, barriers and cordons, and with security officials barking at us if we put a foot wrong. We have already gone some way down that road. That is all the more reason to be sure that the Bill’s provisions are genuinely proportionate, reduce risks in a worthwhile way and do not take us further down a path that risks never being reversed.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill, and the collaboration and working manner of my noble friend the Minister. The Bill is about improving the safety of the public, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
I am well aware, coming from Northern Ireland and having been a former public representative for a long period, of the impact that terrorism had on our local communities and people, and of how it robbed families of their loved ones, livelihoods, homes and businesses and placed many restrictions on their lives as a result of the ensuing security measures. Thankfully, political dialogue became the prime order of the day. It showed that terrorism had failed and that compromise and the Good Friday agreement succeeded. That is the issue that we have to address—the need for compromise and political development—but in many cases this new form of terrorism may not lend itself to political dialogue.
Although I support the Bill, I realise that there are some challenges, and I have some questions for my noble friend the Minister about its implementation. I am very much in favour of the concept of the protection of premises from terrorism, considering what happened in London in March 2017, when I was a Member in the other place and we were all in lockdown in the Chamber, what happened on London Bridge and what happened at the Manchester Arena in June 2017. In that regard, I pay tribute to Figen Murray and the Martyn’s Law campaign team, who have demonstrated such tenacity, fervour, diligence and determination in the face of tragedy and adversity.
However, I do not want any additional financial burdens to be placed on the owners of premises to protect their properties and restrict their civil liberties without a clear indication of adequate financial and other support measures being put in place. What assistance, including the provision of finance, will be provided to the owners of premises to ensure full protection from the ravages of terrorism? At the end of the day, there must be proportionate risk.
I have received representations from the Heritage Railway Association. In this, I am minded of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who chairs the APPG for Heritage Rail; I know that similar representations have been made to that group. I have a heritage railway in my town of Downpatrick, and its members feel that the Bill’s provisions and its application to heritage railways are not realistic or proportionate to the risk. Many heritage railways are staffed by volunteers who operate on a part-time basis. I have also received representations from the insurance industry and from Martyn’s Law, which support this legislation and want it to move forward, but I would like my noble friend the Minister to favourably consider the position of heritage railways. The Heritage Railway Association believes that the legislation is premises-based, and its guiding principle is to require different levels of terrorism protection by reference to capacity in terms of the premises. For the purposes of the Bill, heritage railways and tramways are treated like hospitality and entertainment venues, including all parts of a railway line from end to end.
I understand that a Minister wrote a letter to the Heritage Railway Association, dated 23 December, stating that a railway line itself and passengers on a train are excluded from the Bill’s scope—I understand from his gesticulation that it was my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench. I hope and believe that that exclusion may help to reduce the likely impact on some heritage railways, but I feel it needs to be clearly stated in the Bill. As it stands, the legislation would effectively place many heritage railways in the higher-capacity category, adding significant and costly compliance burdens. What assurances can my noble friend the Minister provide about this issue to assuage the fears of the volunteers in the heritage railway movement, and could they be placed in the Bill?
It is also felt that organisations including heritage, cultural and tourism attractions that rely on volunteers will face higher training costs or, if volunteers choose not to take on responsibilities required under the Bill, those organisations may be faced with the costs of engaging additional personnel to meet compliance requirements. What provision will be made for the training of volunteers and the owners of heritage and tourism premises? This factor was raised in a representation received today from the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health’s personnel.
The Heritage Railway Association feels that the Bill as drafted perhaps does not address the realities of dealing with those burdens. The threshold for eligibility is too low and that could make some businesses, particularly those in the tourism and cultural sector, unviable. Perhaps the Minister could advise whether effective consideration will now be given to their inclusion on the excluded list.
Coming from Northern Ireland, I suppose there is a fear about the provisions in the Bill extending there. I would like the Minister to clarify that. Why are the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive not included, since this issue was discussed by the Assembly commission? It has overall responsibility for the management of the Assembly and for the Parliament buildings at Stormont, so what is the issue there?
Do the provisions extend to tourism and heritage attractions? What additional assistance will be provided to the owners of premises? Will small premises be excluded, and what are the size thresholds for eligibility for businesses to comply with this legislation?
Finally, considering the political and febrile history of Northern Ireland, what discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Justice Minister regarding the implications of this legislation? With the need for additional investment in police resources in Northern Ireland, what discussions have taken place with the chief constable regarding the implications and consequences of implementing the legislation, including capacity levels for enforcement?
In conclusion, I support the thrust of the Bill. I support it in its entirety because, undoubtedly, terrorism in any form is a divisive, cancerous menace in our society, and that is irrespective of where it comes from.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, it has been so heartwarming to listen to every speaker. Every bit of wording has been correct and it is so heartwarming to hear that, after so long, we are going to have something set in stone to protect future lives.
The events of the Manchester Arena bombing are seared into our collective memory. The shock and horror that we felt as the news unfolded on our television screens remain deeply ingrained. Any act of terrorism is abhorrent, but an attack targeting an event attended by thousands of young people is an evil of unimaginable cruelty.
Today, we remember the victims: Saffie-Rose Roussos, Nell Jones, Sorrell Leczkowski—apologies, I knew I might get that wrong—Eilidh MacLeod, Megan Hurley, Olivia Campbell-Hardy, Chloe Rutherford, Liam Curry, Georgina Callander, Courtney Boyle, John Atkinson, Philip Tron, Kelly Brewster, Elaine McIver, Angelika Klis, Marcin Klis, Alison Howe, Lisa Lees, Michelle Kiss, Wendy Fawell, Jane Tweddle and Martyn Hett. These names are not just a roll call; they represent lives filled with dreams, love and potential, all cruelly taken that night. My heart goes out to their families, who will carry the pain of their loss forever. As many grieving families will attest, you never truly move on from such heartbreak; you simply learn to live alongside it.
Let us also not forget that over a thousand other concertgoers suffered physical and psychological injuries that night. Many young people witnessed death and destruction first hand, a trauma that they will carry for the rest of their lives. The impact of this attack ripples far beyond those whom we lost.
Among those affected, as we have all said, is the tremendously courageous Figen Murray, Martyn Hett’s remarkable mother. I have had the privilege of meeting Figen several times; most recently, I was privileged to present her with the Women of the Year achievement award for her extraordinary efforts to make change in her son’s name. Figen is indeed an incredible and dignified lady, whose tenacity and grit are an inspiration to everyone in this Chamber. In fact, I recall her sharing how, during the trial, she was allowed to bring her knitting into court—a simple but meaningful comfort for her. As a knitter myself, I appreciated how this small act of compassion from the police and security helped her to endure the harrowing process that she listened to on a daily basis.
Despite facing her own health challenges, Figen has also achieved other extraordinary things. She walked 200 miles, from the site of her son’s death to London, to raise awareness of Martyn’s law—a campaign born of her pain but driven by her hope that no one would suffer as she and other families did that night.
I welcome this Bill, which has been a long time coming. If implemented effectively, it has such potential to save lives. The need for such a law is painfully clear. The Manchester Arena bombing was not an isolated incident. While successful attacks have, thankfully, been fewer since 2017, the threat of terrorism has not gone away. Only last year, Assistant Commissioner Matt Jukes, the UK’s most senior counterterrorism officer, warned:
“It’s hard to remember a more unstable, dangerous and uncertain world”
and that Britain faces
“the most acute period since the Cold War”.
As the tactics of terrorists evolve, so too must our strategies to combat them. Over the past decade, we have seen a shift from centrally co-ordinated, sophisticated plots to decentralised and crude attacks. Individuals radicalised by hatred are prepared to inflict unimaginable violence on innocent civilians, as we saw only last month. This changing landscape presents significant challenges for our law enforcement agencies yet without adapting our approach, we leave ourselves vulnerable. The greatest power of this Bill lies in its ability to increase public and corporate awareness of the threats that we face. It mobilises all parts of society to respond to the ever-changing risks of terrorism, helping us become more resistant to attacks and more resilient as a nation.
I understand the concerns about whether the requirements of this Bill are proportionate. I too would not wish to see businesses burdened with unnecessary regulations and more red tape. However, the measures outlined are far from excessive. The duty created by this Bill is tiered, balancing the risk of a potential attack against the capacity of premises. Smaller venues expecting 200 to 799 attendees would be required to implement simple, practical steps to protect the public. Larger venues expecting over 800 attendees would be required to take more robust measures to prevent attacks. Manchester City Council has already demonstrated the feasibility of implementing the principles of Martyn’s law. Licensed businesses in the city have embraced these measures, and feedback indicates that they do not find them unduly burdensome when it comes to cost or time.
There has been debate about the threshold for the provisions of this Bill. The initial proposal, as we have heard, was a threshold of 100 attendees, but the Government have set it at 200, while some amendments have even sought to raise it to 300. My concern is that the higher the threshold, the less effective the Bill becomes. I would welcome the Minister’s explanation for the Government’s choice of 200 as opposed to 100, which was originally proposed.
The Bill represents such a vital step in addressing the persistent threat of terrorism. Its provisions are reasonable and proportionate, and its potential to save lives is immense—after all, is that not what we are here to do today? By supporting this legislation, we honour the memory of those lost and injured in the Manchester Arena bombing, ensuring that their legacy is one of action and progress. I am delighted to see such cross-party support.
It has taken all these survivors and families to get us where we are today. I would like us to recognise that they all have three things in common in their lives: fortitude, tenacity and sheer guts. They have the fortitude to stand no matter what, the tenacity to stick with it, and the guts to deal with whatever and whoever stands in front of them and puts up another barrier. This sums up the energy and the passion it takes for anybody to come to Parliament and say it as it is, for legislators to truly understand. This sums up Figen Murray and all other campaigners. The pain never leaves you; I know what it feels like. I am delighted to take part in this debate and honoured to speak about those who cannot be with us today.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing this Second Reading debate, and I speak to support the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, otherwise known as Martyn’s law.
This is practical legislation that will empower communities to fight the ever-present threat of terrorism. Indeed, the need for this Bill and its contribution to the UK’s counterterrorism response cannot be understated. Since May 2017, the UK’s security services have stopped 42 late-stage terror attacks, there have been 15 successful terrorist attacks, there are 800 live investigations for terrorism offences, and there are 2,500 subjects of interest and 30,000 persons who are taking an unhealthy interest or curiosity in this area. These are not my figures; they come from the police and the director of MI5.
The nature of the terrorist threat facing the UK is changing and it is imperative that we have a comprehensive and robust approach to protecting our communities. We need look only at the recent vehicle terror attacks at a Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany, and in New Orleans and other places since—to which noble Lords have referred—to see how vulnerable public locations can be. Copycat atrocities are being seen all too often.
Martyn’s law, as we have heard, is named after Martyn Hett. Martyn was one of 22 innocent victims murdered in the 2017 terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena. This has been campaigned for by his mother, Mrs Figen Murray OBE, referenced by most noble Lords. Mrs Murray is not just a grieving mother, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has already mentioned; she understands terrorism and the complexities surrounding it only too well. She has never looked for sympathy, and she holds a master’s degree in counter- terrorism. She is a quite remarkable woman. I am most grateful for her personal help in preparing this speech and will refer to her again shortly.
I also thank Mr Nick Aldworth, a former counter- terrorism national co-ordinator, who has given me excellent advice, and Mr Brendan Cox, the husband of Jo Cox MP and founder of Survivors Against Terror, who has been involved with this Bill throughout.
Although this is one of those rare pieces of proposed legislation that comes before us after being driven forward by private citizens, it is not unique. Nevertheless, it is hugely important and imperative. As we have heard, the Bill has entered this House after years of development, which has included contributions from our security services, counterterrorism policing officers and experts from across the security industry. Its very existence was recommended by Sir John Saunders—already referred to by my noble friend, if I may, Lord Carlile of Berriew—as a finding of his extensive inquiry into the Manchester Arena attack. It has not just been developed on a whim; it is deadly serious and involves the safety of millions of people. This legislation has been the subject of two rounds of public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny by the last Government’s Home Affairs Select Committee. By any measure, the Bill arrives before us having been well considered and refined in response to the views of the public, which is demonstrated by the wide cross-party support in the House of Commons.
Chief among these considerations has been to make the Bill a proportionate contribution to countering terrorism. Its standard duty requires premise operators to establish highly achievable procedures that will make businesses more resilient to terrorist attacks. In most cases, these procedures will be at no cost to the premises, as they simply require the creation of a plan for how they will respond to an act of terrorism. Only those that derive their revenues through having the greatest numbers of people on their premises will be expected to do more, through the enhanced duty. This will require them to take measures that will stop acts of terrorism being successful at their premises.
Wise choices about the scope of the law’s application have been made. Proof of the Bill’s proportionality is that there are 1 million premises in the UK to which this law could apply. A sensible threshold, I believe, of 200 persons present being the point at which premises engage with the law means that only 180,000 of those premises are now in scope. These are the places where we gather to commune, socialise and be educated or cared for. The people who use these spaces deserve to be protected. I anticipate that some in this House might consider 180,000 premises to be an example of overregulation, but I suggest that those in London and Manchester in 2017, and those on the streets of London, Birmingham, Manchester and Belfast in the 1970s, would probably take a very different view. They might suggest that 180,000 premises is not enough.
The Bill recognises and respects those different views of the threats we face. In recognition of the ebb and flow of terrorist intentions, it contains a sensible mechanism through which the Secretary of State might vary this threshold in times of need. Dynamic threats require dynamic responses, and the Bill supports that. It takes an encouraging approach to enforcement, with the creation of a new regulatory role within the Security Industry Authority, which I was pleased to see. I know that my late dear friend Lady Henig would have been delighted to see the authority she chaired so ably involved in its implementation. I echo the calls to ensure that the SIA has the ability to fulfil its new enhanced role.
There is a clear declaration in the guidance notes to the Bill that the regulator will act as
“an educator in the first instance”.
This is a further recognition of a proportionate approach. However, if the premises operators wish to be reckless with the safety and security of others, the Bill has the teeth to encourage compliance.
The eighth anniversary of that terrible attack in Manchester will be on 22 May this year. Mrs Murray told me:
“No legislation was put in place to enforce security at that time. There was no legislation to mandate that venues keep people safe. There are laws about the number of toilets venues must have; laws about noise levels a venue is allowed to create—but nothing to help keep people safe”.
This is a good Bill, with good intentions and good outcomes, which my party wholly supports. It has been tailored to proportionately meet the needs of those affected by it, and it will serve to make this country stronger and more resilient. I commend it to the House.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support this legislation, which commemorates the lives of terrorist victims from the past and obviously intends to reduce the chances of more deaths and injury in the future. Therefore, for all the reasons that have been described, it has my full support. It is the latest manifestation of the UK counterterror strategy Contest, which is there to Prevent, ideally stopping people becoming terrorists; to Pursue, so that, if they do become terrorists, they are locked up and put before the courts; to Prepare, so that, in the event that terrorists get through, we make sure that we recover as quickly as possible; and to Protect—that is this strand—the targets that terrorists may find the most attractive.
For a long time, where people have gathered in large numbers, venues have tried to reduce either the likelihood of an attack getting through or, if one did get through, the damage caused. But I am afraid this has been inconsistent and has lacked an evidence base on which to operate. In my view, this is the ideal opportunity to make sure that does not happen.
I will make only five points. I will first briefly respond to some of the points raised. There is clearly a debate about where we should draw the line: it could be 200 or 100, and some people prefer 300. I would be careful about altering it from 200. In 2018, at the request of the royal commission in New Zealand, I visited to look at the terrorist attacks on the Christchurch mosques, when 51 Muslims were murdered and 84 other people were injured. They were two small mosques—small in the numbers of people who gathered but terrible in the outcome of what happened when one man with an automatic weapon swept through them. So I would be really careful. Of course, they were places of worship. Although there is an exclusion in this legislation for places of worship, the fact that they are places of worship can actually amplify the target. Thousands of people can gather at—and do visit every day—some of our national venues such as Westminster Abbey. We have to be really careful before, in trying to accommodate their difference, we leave people who visit more vulnerable.
Secondly, I raise something that is not directly relevant, although it is relevant to the issue of communication in emergencies. The Minister may want to reassure himself about the latest level of the Airwave project, which is now eight years late, running at £12.5 billion and has no procurement in place to deliver the new system. It is indirectly impacting on the ability of the emergency services to respond to these terrible events together. We all ought to take this seriously, and it is worth at least contemplating when considering this legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady May, raised a good point about who is in charge when emergency services attend. Is it the people who are already running the venue? There is some good experience there post the Hillsborough event, and the Green Guide makes some clear recommendations about how this happens at football grounds. Rather than reinvent this, it may well be worth at least considering the advice there.
On CTSAs, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, got it right: there are very few of these people across the country, and they will need enhancing. There are tens of them throughout England and Wales, and I suspect that, given the number of premises involved here, there will have to be a significant investment to make sure that can go forward in the future.
The first of my five points is to support the point from the noble Baroness, Lady May, on design. This is about the design of new buildings, of course, but also the retrofitting of existing buildings. Design can help to reduce the number of attackers, can help to reduce the impact of attacks and can allow people who can escape to do so—or keep them safe where they choose to be. But this needs some clear thinking. Our shopping malls are open plan—they are not compartmentalised—but it is possible to design them so that they could become compartmentalised in the event of an attack. But it is not straightforward, as this place found out when PC Palmer was murdered. Do you lock down or do you open up? If you open up, where do you go and how do you communicate with people? Of course, people are in a panic and are not always able to hear you clearly. What advice will you give them when you at the time are not sure exactly what is happening? These are very difficult problems, but design can play a major part in making sure that we give the people who are operating these places a good opportunity to respond as well as they can.
Secondly, on technology, many of the venues that we are talking about—not the smaller ones, perhaps, but even some of them—have CCTV. We often have debates in this place about the horrors of AI and the terrible things that facial recognition can do, but actually it can do some pretty remarkable good things as well. If CCTV is available at some of our bigger venues—think about ExCeL and some of our big shopping malls such as Westfield in London, of which there are two—it can play an important part in spotting unusual patterns of behaviour in individuals. AI can assist with that, but I argue that the Bill is silent about how it might help. I will come back to why I think it is particularly important that it says something about this.
Facial recognition is another great opportunity. I am not necessarily talking about randomly checking people’s faces and whether they should be there or are terrorists. I am talking about checking them against lists of people who we know are dangerous: terrorists on control orders, people who have been released on parole from a terrorist sentence, or people on bail who have not yet been charged. These are significant characters, and I guess that any operator of a significant venue would like to know whether they have bought a ticket to some of these events, are strolling around their car parks or are carrying out reconnaissance in the days preceding their attacks, as we saw in New Orleans, to make sure that they are as effective as they can be.
How do we enable our CCTV to be as effective as it can be? If we cannot get this right for counterterrorist legislation, we will struggle to get it right for volume crime and general surveillance of public areas. This is a live debate, and we should not go to one end of the spectrum and say that AI and facial recognition are always bad. They can be, but they can also be incredibly effective, and we should not dismiss technology just because we occasionally have some concerns about privacy.
The third thing that I urge the Bill to say something about is different regulatory bodies. As we have heard, the venues are covered by different regulatory bodies: the Health and Safety Executive, local authorities looking after football grounds and some of the venues for alcohol licensing, and fire brigades, which inspect these places too. So there is a chance that they approach the same problem inconsistently—not intentionally, of course. We need to make sure that all our regulatory bodies approach these issues consistently and do not end up giving inconsistent advice—not least given that we have many local authorities but intend to give this to one national body, the SIA.
Of course, the methods of security are regulated by other people, too. The SIA already regulates the security operatives who work at these places. The Biometric Commissioner has interests in how data is collected, and the Data Protection Commissioner has an interest in privacy, while the Surveillance Commissioner has an interest in how all those systems come together. I would argue that we need them to consider the terrorist threat in a wide, not a narrow, way and that, when we come to things such as facial recognition or AI application, we need them to give consideration in a generous, not a narrow, way.
At the very least, we need the venue operators to know that, when they are trying to get agreement on how they operate their systems, they will get an open hearing and they do not have to approach the same problem in 172,000 ways—because there are 172,000 venues out there that will have to resolve some of these problems. Of course, the smaller ones are larger in volume, but some of the bigger ones are pretty high in numbers, too. So we need to consider at this stage how the various regulators are going to work with this legislation and make sure that it works effectively.
My fourth point is about research. We have already heard concerns about whether the SIA will be well equipped by the time this Act comes into force, and I can understand why those concerns are there. It is a relatively small organisation and there have been mistakes in the past: security operatives have had convictions for manslaughter and we have seen various things that have not gone well. But that could be said of many public organisations—so it can learn and it can improve. But the Bill is silent on where it is going to get its advice. It will of course need good research and academic support to work out how to deal with a crowd that is panicking. There is a science in this. We have had to see it through football matches and learn how to deal with large crowds, and how crowds respond. So I should like to hear a little more about how it is anticipated that the SIA will get its advice and develop research over time, because it seems to me that it should be able to develop commissions of research so that it can respond to new problems—because new terrorist attacks will come up and it will be vital that the SIA is dynamic and responds to the new threats.
My final point is about powers of search. At the meeting earlier, I said that you might think, “Well, that’s just what policemen say, isn’t it? That they need a power of search”. But my point is that all these venues often have security operatives. Sadly, in the Manchester attack we saw that the terrorist who attacked entered at the end of the event into an area that was not protected and was not being excluded, and was carrying the device that murdered so many people. But of course, if some of the security operatives had tried to approach and deal with him, they had no power of search. It is expected that security operatives are able to search as a condition of entry to the premises—you either get searched or you do not come in. But of course some of these people are trespassers—not all are terrorists—and with some people you cannot be sure whether they have a right to enter. So I wonder whether it is worth thinking about whether security operatives should have some kind of right, because the alternative is that you have to call the police, which will be inefficient; it will be slow and might be too late. So we should give some consideration to security operatives’ powers, used properly and reasonably, in a way that enhances security.
Finally, I realise that, on some of my points, the Minister might say, “Well, actually, there’s going to be advice issued and there will be secondary legislation”, so I am quite content that some of those points might have to be covered there. But I would argue that some of the regulatory issues need to be considered in the Bill because, if the regulator is faced with controlling legislation that gives it very clear direction and is then faced by secondary legislation that gives advice, it may have to go with its first statutory, primary legislation. So it is worth saying something about this in the Bill to help the other regulators. Things such as stop and search would certainly need primary legislation: in my view, it should not be the subject of secondary legislation, if it is considered applicable.
My final point is that I wish this Bill speedy progress, as the Minister said, so that we can implement it quickly. Although I agree that two years is a good period in which to implement it, in that we want to build the credibility of the SIA and make sure that the businesses are ready, I would keep an open mind that, if the businesses and the SIA achieve that more quickly, we should implement more quickly, too. Two years is quite a long time and we are already saying that the terrorist threat is high. Those two years could be a time in which we have some awful attacks that could have been prevented had we all got our act together a little earlier. So I would keep an open mind about the implementation date, should the evidence show that in fact the systems are ready and we are able to implement more quickly.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who made some very wise points based on his considerable experience in this area. I, too, very much support this Bill. Like other noble Lords, I remember all too well the night of the Manchester Arena attack during the 2017 general election, as well as the generous and defiant response of the people of Manchester, as the right reverend Prelate rightly reminded us in his contribution. We all remember today with admiration Martyn Hett and his mother, Figen Murray. As the briefing note from Survivors Against Terror puts it, Martyn was living his best life—as were the other 21 victims who lost their lives that evening and the more than 1,000 people injured in that appalling attack.
It will not surprise noble Lords to know that I associate myself with everything that my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead said, or that I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the diligent and dedicated way in which she reacted to evil acts such as this, and how she and others worked with the brilliant men and women of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to prevent others like it.
While the Prevent and Pursue elements of the Contest strategy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, alluded, receive considerable attention sometimes, it has always seemed to me that the Prepare and Protect elements receive comparatively less, especially when one considers that these are the elements in which so many more of us can play our part. We need a whole-society response to countering the ever-present and evolving threat of terrorism. The owners and operators of cultural and heritage venues want to play their part in that solemn task, and they take their responsibility very seriously. My purpose in speaking in this debate today is to reflect some of the points they have raised with me and other members of the shadow Culture, Media and Sport team regarding how they can do that most effectively. In particular, I am grateful to those who took the time to join my right honourable friend Stuart Andrew, the shadow Secretary of State, and our colleagues for a round-table discussion about the Bill last month, as well as the cultural and security professionals I had the pleasure of speaking to at the International Arts and Antiquities Security Forum in County Durham in October.
It is clear from talking to those people that there is nervousness about the Security Industry Authority’s ability and capacity to act as the new regulator in this area. The role envisaged by the Bill, as noble Lords have noted, is quite a departure for that organisation, which already has a mixed reputation in the sector. Is the Minister satisfied that the authority has the resources and expertise—and indeed the confidence of the sectors it will be regulating—it will need to succeed? Has it begun its engagement with the people who are on the front line in each of the varying sectors it will be regulating? This Bill has been long in gestation, as noble Lords have reminded us; the authority does not need to wait for Royal Assent to begin engaging with the people who have the practical knowledge about how it can best be implemented.
In the absence of that sort of engagement, as my noble friend Lady May said, these organisations will be bombarded with consultants. Indeed, a number of those whom we spoke to in our round-table discussion said that they are already being contacted by what one described as “snake oil salesmen” purporting to advise them on how to implement a Bill that has not yet become law. Of course, many of those organisations have dedicated professionals who have worked out detailed and well-considered plans to maintain the safety and security of those who visit them. Those plans are, by necessity, sensitive and confidential documents, and many are wary of sharing them externally, even with a new regulator, potentially opening them up to new vulnerability. Therefore, it is vital that the new regime that this Bill brings about enjoys the confidence and support of those with whom it will work.
A number of speakers mentioned the tiers that the Bill sets out. A capacity of 800 or more tips a venue into the enhanced tier, so a moderately sized theatre such as the Lyric or the Noël Coward becomes in the same category as Wembley Stadium or the Glastonbury festival. I welcome the exemption that the Government have introduced for churches and other places of worship, but there may be a case for more granular tiering, or perhaps a super-enhanced tier for the very largest venues and events.
The seasonality of venues is also worth considering. A venue which is extremely busy for only one day, or one part of a year, such as a live music festival or an annual sporting event, would stay in the enhanced tier for 365 days of the year. There is also the complexity of multi-event venues. For instance, a conference or exhibition hall, such as the ExCel centre, which has been mentioned already, might stage a number of different events, of different sizes, all at the same time. Are these to be considered separately or counted cumulatively?
The Bill defines the premise operator as the freeholder or leaseholder, and the event organiser as the entity overseeing the delivery of an event. As the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre have pointed out, a number of theatres operate within multipurpose venues, such as university complexes—Northern Stage in Newcastle is one example. The Society of London Theatre and its members can provide useful insights into these operational differences and how they might be overcome; how can we make sure that the SIA takes account of this practical, first-hand advice?
A number of speakers raised concerns about physical thresholds—the grey areas or “zone Ex” as people leave venues. Where do the boundaries of a venue’s responsibility begin and end? The Bill seeks to enhance security measures in what it refers to, but does not define, as “the immediate vicinity”. The vicinity of an event space, including transport routes and the public realm, is, by definition, beyond a venue’s perimeter and control. As LIVE, the body representing the live music industry, has set out in the briefing noble Lords will have received, event organisers and security personnel have no jurisdiction over crime and disorder in the public realm; only the police do. That needs to be reflected in the Bill. In particular, LIVE argues that the SIA should not be allowed to serve a notice requiring action outside the premises or outwith the control of the person who is being served the notice.
UK Theatre also raised the concern that external measures, such as bollards, should not get in the way of the essential operations of our cultural venues. The public space around a theatre can be essential for its operation. The changing of sets, where equipment for one show is dismantled and another installed, is critical, particularly for plays in repertory or an opera, where a number of productions are staged simultaneously.
As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, set out, we need to ensure consistency with existing legislation, such as the Licensing Act 2003, and data protection laws. Many venues have seen the burden of complying with subject access requests relating to the use of closed circuit television rise exponentially. If they are being encouraged to make greater use of CCTV, which can provide protection to the people who come to their venues, or indeed facial recognition technology, as we have just heard, what support will they be given to comply with data protection regulation and the potential burden there?
Many venues operate as franchises. On whom do the new duties fall? Will these be on the parent company or on the franchisees? Who ought to pick up the bill for compliance? All this speaks to a need for sector-specific guidance but, as the sectors understand it, that is not currently planned. Is that the case? If so, will the Minister urge the SIA to reconsider that? I echo the very reasonable request of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, that the guidance that it is minded to prepare should be made available before Committee.
Finally, we must be mindful of the burden on the venues and organisations that will play their part in this important new law. Many are run not for profit while others are very small businesses in which profit margins are extremely tight: 43% of grass-roots music venues in the UK made a loss in 2023, to give just one example. They are reliant on a mixture of their own full-time staff, contactors and volunteers. They are squeezed already by the additional burdens of the new and higher national insurance bills that the Budget brought. For this Bill to work and to make the difference that we all want it to, the duties that it places on businesses and venues need to be practicable, effective and proportionate. I hope that these are aims we can keep in mind as we scrutinise the Bill further.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it seems appropriate that we are discussing the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill today, on the 10th anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. Armed with Kalashnikovs, two Islamists, enraged by the satirical magazine’s depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, stormed into a workplace and murdered 12. There was a memorial protest at Trafalgar Square this morning: well done to the organisers, OurFight.uk, and all attendees, because it is important that we do not forget.
Ten years ago, “Je suis Charlie” rang out as an international call to action in defence of the Enlightenment principle that no idea, belief or figure is beyond scrutiny or satire. We were united then against the culture of fear that Islamist terrorism was trying to impose on free speech and a free society. Sadly, within months, too many liberal apologists in the arts, literature and media started to argue that the cartoonists had been a bit too offensive to Muslims, and that perhaps the staff were asking for trouble. Since then, terrorist atrocities have become too normalised in European cities, in my opinion.
I am all for any measures that tackle terrorism head-on, but I have concerns about this particular legislation. I have heard the message to this House from Dan Jarvis, Minister of State at the Home Office, who, to quote him, gave
“a gentle word of encouragement to colleagues in the other place”,—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/24; col. 758.]
meaning us, calling for consensus and stressing that the Bill should proceed smoothly. That sentiment has been echoed here today, and in the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, who has urged us to deliver without further delay.
I am also aware of the emotional weight on our shoulders here. The Bill has been called Martyn’s law, as we have heard, in honour of Martyn Hett, who was so brutally and tragically murdered in the Manchester Arena attack in 2017. I am very conscious that these legal changes have been vigorously and compellingly argued for by Martyn’s mother, Figen Murray, for years, as we have heard. Despite the undoubted admiration that has been expressed here today for Figen’s courage and determination, I think we need to take a step back.
Our obligations as legislators means that we need to remain cool and dispassionate in bringing in laws, ensuring that legal changes are fit for purpose and proportionate, and that we consider the unintended consequences. In that sense, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Frost, that however emotional this might be, and however serious it is, we have to be cool-headed. There are certainly points of concern and clarification that need to be probed during the stages of the Bill, and we should not have undue haste.
On a positive note, I welcome some modifications that this Government have made to the Bill. I am glad that concerns raised in consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny were listened to, especially the raising of the standard tier from 100 to 200, which will remove a large number of village halls, for example, from scope. I actually disagree with Figen, Brendan Cox, Nick Aldworth and the Martyn’s law team, who urged us, in a briefing today, to return to a starting threshold of 100. I am rather concerned that the Bill gives the Home Secretary discretionary powers to lower it to 100, without any clarity as to what might justify such a move.
I am pleased that education settings are now classified as standard duty premises regardless of capacity, although I am rather mystified that universities and higher education institutions are not included. We have already seen the way that the costs of security measures have been used as an excuse to close down debates on university campuses. The last thing we want is to turn universities into fortresses against public debate in any way.
It is positive that the Government claim to want a lighter-touch approach but, as we know from bitter experience, any powerful national regulator can lead to mission creep, and the paraphernalia around regulation is what worries me. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady May—though it is not reassuring—who is not in her place, that the consultants she talked about are already queueing up at the doors of those of us who organise events, offering to give us cheap advice on how we can comply with this law.
I declare an interest here. The Academy of Ideas, of which I am director, organises public events and debates ranging from our annual Battle of Ideas festival, now in its 20th year, which attracts thousands of members of the public, to more modest salons, seminars and panel discussions. We work with a wide range of venues of all shapes and sizes. The Bill will impact on our work through the potential added costs in hiring venues, liability, bureaucracy, et cetera.
More crucially, the aim of our work is to reinvigorate the public square and cultivate political and social engagement, for all ages but particularly for young people, at town hall-type gatherings, to open up conversations for the public with the public in public. That broader public square may be adversely affected by this law if we do not keep our eye on it. Civil society, people self-organising and getting together and grass-roots gatherings risk being curtailed. We need to think hard when we are told by small venues and event organisers, such as voluntary organisations and community groups, from church halls to small football clubs, that people will be put off volunteering by too much regulatory responsibility and paraphernalia. We need to probe what the consequences of such legal burdens could be in terms of loss of community infrastructure and assets.
In the most recent consultation, many respondents still expressed reservations about not just the financial implications and the fear of big fines—you cannot underestimate that—but the time spent on burdensome and bureaucratic admin. Venues are worried about their ability to meet legally mandated requirements with the limited resources available to them. There is genuinely some panic about how people will cope.
The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, was spot on to note that the Protect duty must not be so prescriptive as to prevent people enjoying normal life. Yet consider the plethora of venues swept up by this law: pubs with beer gardens, swathes of the hospitality industry, which is already on its knees, libraries, museums, galleries, entertainment venues and even childcare facilities—lots of places where people socialise. These are places where normal life happens. I appeal to her idea that we must ensure that, although it might not be the intention of the Bill, there are no consequences which will lead to a more restricted public square and more impoverished normal life; otherwise, the terrorists win.
The Minister says that the Bill will save lives. That is quite a “gulp” moment. We need to be clear about whether it does. We are told that it will lead to a reduction in terrorist attacks or less vulnerability to them, but it is a bit disconcerting that the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report and the Regulatory Policy Committee both queried the lack of evidence about whether the proposals will lower the threat of terrorism. Will lives be saved? I am still not convinced.
I understand the explanation about the changing nature of the threat, with DIY lone wolf attacks emerging out of the view of the security services, but if this means that greater swathes of public space can be possible targets, where anything can be used as a weapon—we think of the lethal use of the car in the recent awful New Orleans and German Christmas market attacks—is a focus on protecting bricks and mortar not rather missing the point? But if everywhere is a target and everything is a weapon, how will we avoid living in a police state? The worry is that the legislation could lead to energy being expended on a process-driven, box-ticking approach that may miss, for example, the deeper cultural and social challenges that we face.
It was harrowing to read in Sir John Saunders’ Manchester Arena inquiry, which others have commended and which is crucial to this discussion, about the preventability of Salman Abedi’s suicidal atrocity and the catalogue of failures in the months and even hours before he detonated that terrible bomb at the Manchester Arena. Venue regulation formed only a tiny fraction of Sir John’s recommendations. It seems pertinent to look at what the first volume of the inquiry told us about security at the venue.
In plain sight, Abedi was lurking around the arena for an hour and a half, acting suspiciously. We are told that he looked shifty and nervous and was fidgeting, carrying a huge, bulging rucksack and praying. One of the waiting parents, Christopher Wild, was so alarmed that he reported concerns that Abedi might be a bomber to security guards at 10.14 pm—16 minutes before the explosion happened. Mr Wild was fobbed off.
Maybe the training in this Bill would make those guards act differently. But let us also remember that we know from the inquiry report that one guard was suspicious but did not confront Abedi because he was
“fearful of being branded a racist”.
This points to the dangers of narrowing the threat of terrorism to organisational or technical issues. It suggests that we need to tackle more difficult challenges, such as the corrosive creed of identity politics, that can act as a barrier to acting on our instincts or using common sense for fear of being demonised—or recognising that promiscuous use of accusations such as “racist” and “Islamophobic” can paralyse individuals in society from doing the right thing. As we are all vividly aware at present, myriad local authorities, social workers, educationalists, care home staff and police officers failed to expose or intervene to stop gangs of men of largely Pakistani heritage committing industrial levels of rape and sexual abuse of girls throughout the UK, for fear of appearing racist, stirring up community tensions or being seen as—maybe I should not say this—jumping on a far-right bandwagon.
This Bill will not work if we do not confront that chilling impact of trepidation about speaking out over suspicions, exposing the ideologies fuelling and inspiring modern-day terrorism and doing the right thing. Je suis toujours Charlie.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a humbling experience to sit through this debate and listen to every speech, for a number of reasons. The most important is the degree of expertise from all over the House from so many different angles—whether the police, the Church of England, former Ministers, lawyers, academics or other experts—who are united on the purpose of this Bill and want to see it work and for it to be brought into effect as soon as possible. I share that view completely.
I will, though, as the Minister will know, raise a subject which I hope he can be even more helpful on tonight than he has been in private meetings about it. I declare my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association, which represents around 200 lines and railways around the country. They are run largely by volunteers but attract several million visitors a year and make a major contribution to the tourism economy.
The title of the Bill makes it clear that it is to deal with the security of premises: buildings like the Manchester Arena, profitable organisations running huge events for thousands of visitors with the paid resources to provide comprehensive security protection for visitors and the professional expertise to manage it. I whole- heartedly support that aspect of the Bill.
However, I underline the points made by my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick about the heritage rail sector. I am sure the drafters of the Bill did not have in mind when they were putting it together the case of a small country station run by a handful of volunteers and providing a unique visitor experience, which is just able to cover its costs, often with the help of generous donations from those who work on the railway. Originally it looked as though the Bill would treat the big arena and the small station the same. If that had happened, it would certainly have undermined the future of some—maybe many—railways already reeling from the escalating cost of fuel and raw materials. But, importantly, the Minister has moved on that, which I welcome.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I talked to Robert Gardiner, the chairman of the Downpatrick and County Down Railway, one of the member railways of the HRA, which has a long history of dealing with the very real terrorist threats that existed in Northern Ireland for many years and has direct experience of being used as part of a terrorist plot in the past—fortunately, directed not at its passengers but, sadly, at the British Army.
Mr Gardiner made the point that the railway is happy to work with the security authorities to protect the safety of the railway and its passengers without special legislation, but the crucial words are “reasonable” and “proportionate”. They are the key words for the small and impecunious volunteer organisations which need to be supported and taken account of in the consideration of the Bill.
There is a case for the security of heritage railways to be dealt with in the same way as for the national rail network in Great Britain, which is outside the scope of the Bill because its security is managed by the Department for Transport through the national rail security programme. This programme does not currently apply to heritage railways but there are many similarities, particularly at the around 40 stations used for interchanges by both heritage and mainline railways. I hope the Minister may be able to give me some encouragement that they at least will be treated alike and that the heritage sector will not be treated any differently.
The Minister was kind enough to write to me on 23 December. It was actually to me that he wrote just before Christmas, not to a Member of the House of Commons. He clarified in his letter some of the areas where doubt existed. He told me that the Home Office has decided that while heritage railway stations should be included within the scope of the Bill, rather than covered by the Department for Transport’s national rail security programme, the Bill would not apply to the trains themselves nor to the railway line linking the stations—again, an important assurance. That was very helpful in making the scope of the Bill clearer, but it would be more helpful still if that clarification was included in the Bill. I hope the Minister may be willing to consider this in the later stages of the Bill’s passage.
There is the question of stations. They are not big structures like a concert hall but are generally a collection of small buildings of a former country station, more akin to a sports ground with a pavilion, which could actually be exempt from the Bill. It would be really helpful if that could be recognised in the schedule dealing with premises to include enclosed buildings but to exclude open platforms or those covered simply by an open canopy.
A proper transition period is important, and the Minister has agreed to that. I was originally going to ask him for two years rather than one year, but he has already made it clear that that is the Government’s intention. A proper transition period is important because budgetary provision will need to be made for training and physical works as well as for undertaking the analysis of risk as newly defined, and for carrying out the work. So that is helpful, and I warmly welcome it.
I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in convening the all-Peers meeting yesterday which I and a number of your Lordships attended. He is aware of the concerns that I have and has listened carefully to them, and I hope that the modest amendments I have proposed to table will clarify and make the Bill more workable and less onerous on smaller enterprises which would otherwise struggle with it. He encouraged me to table amendments for Committee and I intend to do so.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, the very fact that we are discussing this topic today highlights that we are living in dangerous times and that we have a fundamental problem in this country when it comes to security.
Government’s first and foremost duty has always been to protect the public, and while the Bill laudably aspires to do just that, as with any draft legislation of this magnitude, there are a significant number of areas that require much greater clarity and careful scrutiny as the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House.
I fear that I am going to sound a little more negative than many speakers this evening. I fully acknowledge that the Minister has considerably improved the Bill from some of the early drafts I have read, and he has gone a long way to answering a lot of the questions, but there are still a number of very difficult issues.
I start by touching on the changes the Bill proposes to make to the Licensing Act 2003. I fear that the House needs better to understand from the Minister how the integration of security duties into licensing requirements could place additional responsibilities on local councils, or on the already pressured court and enforcement systems. While councils and councillors are more than accustomed to managing licensing regimes, the Bill could impose further burdens on already under-resourced councils, including the need to oversee compliance with enhanced security measures. I therefore ask the Minister to outline how the Government intend to support local authorities with these changes, and what will be expected of the courts or existing local authority licensing regimes in implementing the proposed changes.
Furthermore, we need to better understand how the Security Industry Authority and the Licensing Act will work together to ensure there is no duplication or conflict. Co-ordination between these frameworks, and their practical implementation, will be critical. If the Government intend to use the SIA, there is a real risk of overlapping responsibilities with other bodies, and the Bill as drafted does little to explain how these responsibilities will be allocated. Will the Government provide clearer guidance on how the organisations involved in the implementation of the Bill will work together, rather than hinder one another, and how will the Government ensure that they support the bodies that will have new powers or responsibilities under the legislation?
If the SIA is to become the regulator for this new duty, we must consider the practical implications. How will venues and event organisers differentiate between inspections for compliance with this duty and standard SIA inspections? I am particularly concerned about the powers of entry. If my understanding is correct, SIA inspectors do not currently operate under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, so the Government will need to clarify whether they or another body will be granted additional powers for the purposes of the Bill, or whether these inspections will rely on existing frameworks.
If the power of entry or RIPA will not be used, who will be the authority responsible for ensuring that building owners comply? Surely the courts and councils will not have these responsibilities, unless more funding and resources—particularly for training provision—are provided by the Government. The House would benefit from the Minister’s clarification of these points, as the need for security measures must always be balanced with the need to ensure that the rights and liberties of both businesses and individuals are protected and maintained.
I also worry about the cost of the Bill and the financial burden that the draft legislation could place on businesses across the UK, which are already working to balance the books under extreme rising costs. To implement these requirements, businesses face costs of between £3,000 and £52,000. As a result, some businesses could be unable to afford to adapt. I am therefore seeking today from the Government an understanding of any finance that may be available to support businesses with initial adaptations to the legislation.
Additionally, I would like to hear from the Government about the possibility of improving planning law—either through this Bill or through additional means—to ensure that the design of new buildings both complies with this legislation and ensures that we can design out terrorism, as we have been trying to do over the past decade or so in designing out crime.
I would be interested to know whether, on the back of this Bill, councils will therefore be encouraged to consider such measures in assessing planning applications, and whether the Government are minded to bring in new legislation or statutory provisions on the incorporation of counterterrorism measures into the design and construction of new buildings. While this is not directly related to the Bill, the House needs better to understand how the Government plan to move forward in this area.
Some measures in the Bill may be necessary; they are a sad acknowledgment of the reality we face in Britian today. However, when it comes to anti-terrorism measures, or indeed measures to protect the public from terrorism, I cannot help but feel that we are firefighting an industrial blaze with a water pistol. It is deeply disheartening that we must legislate for protections against acts of terror in spaces that should be open, safe and welcoming to all. We have seen horrific acts committed in recent weeks and the fabric of our cities and venues changing in the face of the onslaught of people who seek to exterminate the existence of our values and destroy our way of life.
Today we are discussing how venues will have to share the burden of responsibility when it comes to countering terrorism. The additional burden in both time and expense that this will place on them prompts an important question: what steps are the Government taking to address the root cause of terrorism in this country? We cannot go on adapting our way of life to constantly counter those who wish to cause us harm. The Government should urgently update this House on what is being done on a society-wide basis to root out terrorism and the cause of terrorism in these islands.
We know from past and recent cases here in the UK that terrorism is not born in a vacuum. Terrorism in Britian today is fuelled by ideological extremism, social dislocation, weakness in our immigration and asylum systems, and a lack of trust in and respect for authority. Local authorities across the UK have a vital role to play in countering these root causes, yet many have faced significant challenges, particularly when it comes to resources. I am therefore keen to understand, in the wake of the reorganisation and creation of combined authorities, who will be responsible for countering terrorism at community level and how they will do it. I therefore seek clarity today from the Minister on what powers and resources government will hand over to reformed or devolved local authorities—particularly elected mayors—to ensure that they can effectively address the underlying factors that allow terrorism and ideological extremism to breed as an undercurrent in many communities across the UK. As we all know, it is far better to cure and we must grasp this problem before it is too late.
I welcome some of the intentions of the Bill. However, as it progresses, it is essential that these key areas are addressed to ensure that the legislation is both workable and proportionate, and that we balance protections with freedoms. We owe it to those whom we seek to protect, and to the venues and organisations tasked with implementing these measures, to provide them with a clear, fair and effective framework. I fear that we have a lot of work to do when it comes to clarity on what is being asked of whom, and the indirect consequences of this legislation. We must therefore provide businesses with support and certainty, and I urge the Government to listen to the concerns raised by industry in this regard.
In finishing, I say that I do believe that the legislation is significantly better than where it was before; I just feel that this House needs to do a lot more scrutiny.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome this Bill, as well as the discussions in the other place and what Minister Jarvis said. I am so pleased that it has come to this House speedily. I thank all of those who sent me briefings, who have been in touch with me and with whom I have had meetings, including Figen Murray and her colleagues.
Doing nothing is not an option. The public can be, and have been, targeted at a wide range of public venues. The terror threat is not predictable. Attacks are hard to deflect. Everyone needs to be part of the measures to keep people safe. “Reasonably practicable” is in the text: that is a familiar foundation of health and safety. However, as so often, there are concerns about an additional responsibility being imposed on local authorities without necessary resources—or proportionality, which is the key in the case of bodies with considerable resources and more liberty to resource. The measures in the Bill are proportionate: they are the result of two very extensive consultations, pre-legislative scrutiny and the legislative process so far. They are not unduly onerous and they have proceeded smoothly so far.
However, for local authorities, we have to find a way of giving them further support. We must ask whether there should be an extra way in the planning department, without having a planning Bill, through which we could amend planning legislation—perhaps through statutory instruments—to make this support go hand in hand with this Bill, without having to delay everything. We also have to look at resources for local authorities, because we know how strapped they are. This is a necessary and essential part of our day-to-day life. This should lead to speedy conclusions, legislatively and in terms of resources.
It is already almost eight years since the Manchester Arena attack and the attacks on London Bridge and Borough Market. As the Chief Coroner recommended after those attacks, protective security must be enhanced and duties must be clarified, with appropriate guidance on the implementation of duties and an assessment. As public authorities need to work together, there has to be joined-up partnership between private security firms, the police, local authorities and government. This cannot be done in silos; it has to be joined together. The more I have listened to colleagues today, the more I know that it is correct to recommend that we try to have this working together.
We must consider the reality of places and spaces, with consideration of terrorist attacks becoming part of planning procedures. We also have to ensure that there is more training for staff on how to use CCTV cameras. Staff have to check that they are actually working and that there are not just blank tapes inside. There has to be proper training and we have to work out how it will be paid for. It also has to be linked to the police and so on.
I know that there is a working relationship between private security and the police, but it now has to be stronger. As many Members have said today, we also have to consider the cost of consultants. We need to have a list of the consultants and to identify who are just working on the back of a brown envelope. That is very important because many lives are at risk.
Physical protection measures are only one part of the necessary security measures; they are component parts and embody an important principle. The owner of a public space has the responsibility for the safety of the public. This is an important piece of the counter- terrorism measures; it is paramount that it is included.
I have previously thought about something that my noble friend Lord Harris said about the protection of schools. Perhaps we could look at schools with local authorities, which could work joined up with the Department for Education and some other bodies. We have to look at both primary and secondary schools. We have been relatively lucky so far that we have not had in the UK what we have seen in other parts of the world, but we have to be conscious that this could happen in any state school, religious school or wherever else. We know that this could happen—I am sorry to say that. My noble friend’s recommendations are very important.
Also, in all places of worship, this is becoming more important than we have previously thought. We go to church, to synagogue or wherever else, and we do not really think about this. We just go in, see our friends, wander around and leave—but we know now, the more that we think about it, that we could be at risk. There needs to be some training, but that has to be linked to the police and the local authority; it should not be left to churches and other religious spaces to work out for themselves how this should be done using private security and other advice. That is very important. Resources must all be joined up together. This Bill could use statutory instruments—but not in the long term—to make this happen. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest, having for a long time been a member of the board at the Rose Theatre in Kingston, the capacity of which is over 800 when you include staff, volunteers and performers. I declare the interest because I still refer to them as “us” and “we”.
There is a lot of experience in the Chamber today, among not only the speakers but the people listening too. My experience is minor, but because I feel quite affected by it, I am declaring it as an interest as well. On 7/7, when the Mayor of London was in Singapore, after the announcement about the 2012 Games, the officers at City Hall told me that I was the most senior politician in the building—I was chair of the assembly at the time. I realised rapidly that the officials needed someone to report to, and that my role was to be supportive and make sure that those in operational roles were able to get on with the job without any interference from people such as me. That was my big learning from that. Subsequently, the London Assembly looked at communications on the day, including the role of the media. I echo a good deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady May, said about communications.
It was inevitable that words such as “balanced” and “proportional” would be used a good deal today, and they have been used by those who have made representations to us. What they mean to the user is of course affected by where that person is looking from. I would add the words “objective” and “measured”. It may be difficult not to focus on the most recent event, but not every situation is coverable and the Bill does stop, or seek to stop, all terrorism.
As my noble friend Lady Suttie made clear, Liberal Democrats support the Bill. Personally, I would have preferred the title to mention people, or at least the Bill to give them some priority over premises, because this is about people. I welcome the amount of consultation and general work in the lead-up to this. That needs to continue, as many noble Lords have said, including in the preparation of regulations and guidance. I accept that regulations will be needed. I do not think that from these Benches we will be quite as critical about regulations as we often are—although we reserve the right to be a bit of a nuisance.
I asked the Rose Theatre for its views, and it gave me only about three lines. Basically, it said that it wants easy to follow guidance. It will not be entirely easy, because events differ, numbers of volunteers and casual staff differ, incidents differ, and there are different factors and responses required—evacuation or invacuation —and the right response may be counterintuitive. Premises do not follow a single pattern, and the Bill extends beyond buildings.
At this point, I ask the Minister if the Government have in mind further clarification of the term “in the vicinity”. That is clearly troubling owners and operators as to how far their responsibility extends and what, in practical terms, they can do. It troubles me because of consequences for compliance and, perhaps, insurance cover.
We have made it clear that our principal concern is about training. I have seen the letter from the Security Minister to my honourable friend Ben Maguire MP, which says that guidance will signpost a range of suitable free training offers. I am interested in the term “free”. I know that it is envisaged that the SIA will provide a good deal of guidance, but like other noble Lords I think that the legislation seems to create quite a market for trainers, not all of them as skilled as they would present themselves. I gather it is not envisaged that the SIA will have to approve training programmes or trainers. I would like to explore at a later stage whether there is scope for some sort of franking approval, so that it is the properly skilled consultants who are relied on, as it is likely that people will think that it is the responsible thing to do to get in someone to make sure that they are doing the right thing.
The SIA is in a pivotal position—again, the noble Baroness, Lady May, talked a good deal about this. Under Clause 12, it is to prepare guidance about how it itself proposes to exercise its functions. I find “guidance” a rather curious term here. It is to have extensive powers. For now, I will just mention non-compliance penalties: the maximum of the greater of £18 million and 5% of qualifying worldwide revenue. That is an awful lot of power. It also suggests quite a lot of scope for avoidance through how accounts are structured and gives the SIA a lot of scope in determining—the word is how it “regards”—what comprises revenue. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, mentioned the briefing we received today from the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health. It raised some of these points about how the SIA will operate, given its new functions, so can the Minister say something—anything—about its governance?
On insurance, perhaps I am too cynical in envisaging the scope for squabbles about the extent of cover and exclusions relating to alleged non-compliance and the assessment of what is “reasonably practicable”, but I think I have a fellow cynic sitting across the Chamber from me at the moment. I may also be too cynical about legislating for co-ordination and co-operation, but I do not think this is a novel provision.
Related to this, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about Clause 31, which provides that the Bill gives no right of action in respect of non-compliance. I do not really understand how this can work. One question is whether non-compliance can be used in evidence in civil proceedings. The noble Lord shrugs his shoulders—exactly; that will not show in Hansard, I am afraid. I also want to pursue the observations of the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation on Clause 18—he refers to a number of provisions and queries their impact—and on Clause 32, as it affects alterations to thresholds. He draws attention to the shortcomings of unamendable regulations, which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned. If it would be helpful for the Minister, I would be happy to table amendments for these matters to be discussed in detail later rather than today.
Planning and licensing have rightly been mentioned, but perhaps we should add building regulations, which may be more relevant on a day-to-day basis. Various organisations have raised concerns about the costs, and we have heard what the Minister had to say on them. We must acknowledge the burden, including costs, which local authorities will incur.
The Government’s explanation for the particular treatment of places of worship is that they, to quote the Minister’s letter,
“are different to other premises … in being readily accessible and welcoming to all, without the same commercial drivers … usually having no restrictions on entry, or staff routinely present.”
A lot of community organisations would say, “Well, that’s us too.” The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, had quite a lot to say about this; I agree with very much of what he said. The Government also refer, with regard to places of worship, to
“developing measures to better mitigate threats through local police engagement”,
but that must also apply across the board. Of course, a lot of places, particularly places of worship, have their own security arrangements.
Recently, I visited a synagogue that I had not been to before. Its entrance was not easy to spot, but the Muslim cab driver who took me did spot it. He said, “It must be here: I can see the security”. If there is a danger in this Bill, it is perhaps that people will see the regime as a complete substitute for other measures, including their own common sense. There will be points raised in the form of amendments because it is what we do here, but from these Benches, supporting the Bill, our amendments will be because we want to see the Bill as clear and effective as it can be.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister identified, the principle that the first duty of government is the protection of its people is one that is redolent in this legislation. In an era when terrorism remains a persistent and evolving threat, as the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, both noted, it is essential that we equip ourselves with the tools necessary to mitigate risk and enhance public safety. This Bill, by introducing a Protect duty, sends a clear message that safeguarding our citizens in public spaces is a shared responsibility. As the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Hogan-Howe, noted, this legislation completes the triangle of counterterrorism law and, indeed, it gives substance to what was previously a thinner field in the Prepare and Protect arena, as identified by my noble friend Lord Parkinson. All in all, this Bill is a significant step, but its practical implications warrant close scrutiny.
One of the most encouraging aspects of this Bill is its emphasis on partnership. Public safety cannot be the sole preserve of law enforcement or the intelligence services. Venue operators, local authorities and private security firms, together with the owners of establishments covered by this Bill, all have a role to play. However, to make this partnership effective, we must ensure that all stakeholders are properly equipped to meet the challenge. This includes access to training, resources and clear guidance on best practices. Prior to implementation, the Government should establish a comprehensive support framework to help businesses and organisations meet their obligations under this legislation. I understand that this is planned, but we have yet to have the detail. I have no doubt that the Minister will provide further detail on that in due course.
As was so well put by my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and a number of other noble Lords around the House, there are significant concerns about the identification of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator in the context of this Bill. It may be that there are other bodies—for example, local authorities—which would be better at providing this regulation, and there may be an argument that it is consistent with the roles in respect of licensed premises. However, that can be explored further in Committee. At the least, as moved in the other place by my honourable friend Alicia Kearns, we believe that there should be a report reviewing the role of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator, to be laid before Parliament 18 months after Royal Assent. This would allow stakeholders to review and provide input on the appropriateness of the Security Industry Authority enforcing the measures in this Bill —in due course again reviewing whether their enforcement is done properly and to appropriate standards and ensuring that people attending venues are safe.
We also need to be alive to preventing the expansion in costs caused by gold-plating the provisions in these Bills in accordance with suggestions by consultants, about which we have heard so much across the House this evening and was particularly noted by my noble friend Lady May and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
In passing, I endorse the call by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the House be shown at least outlines of the draft guidance, which is suggested in the Bill at Clause 12(2)(a), to be generated by the SIA, and the guidance to be generated by the Secretary of State in Clause 27. I also endorse the call that the Government provide an indication as to whether such guidance would be sectoral, for the reasons identified by my noble friend Lord Parkinson in his speech.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, stated, the Bill provides an opportunity to leverage technology in our fight against terrorism. Advances in surveillance systems, AI and data analysis can play a critical role in identifying threats before they materialise. I therefore encourage the Government to look at ways to encourage innovation in this area. Could we, for example, incentivise the adoption of security technology? Could we establish a recognition scheme for businesses that go above and beyond in their security measures and in relation to measures and steps taken to address the problems in communication, as noted, again, by my noble friend Lady May and others? Such initiatives would not only enhance public safety but encourage a proactive security culture.
As my noble friend Lady Newlove made clear, one of the hallmarks of our society is the freedom of our citizens to gather and enjoy public spaces without fear. It is vital that, in our pursuit of public safety, we do not inadvertently stifle the very freedoms which we seek to protect. If I may echo the powerful points made in different ways by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that is another way in which terrorism wins. This Bill must not lead to an environment of excessive regulation or create barriers for community events. It is all a balancing act.
I therefore ask the Minister to clarify how the Government intend to monitor and evaluate the impact of this legislation, post commencement, on civil society and volunteering. This goes directly to the issue which I have no doubt we will explore in Committee as to the threshold. I agree with many of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The House will want to look both at the threshold and at the power of the Secretary of State to lower that threshold.
Terrorism knows no borders, and our approach to security must reflect this reality. While the Bill focuses on domestic venues, we must not lose sight of the international dimension. The UK has a proud history of leadership in counterterrorism co-operation. How will the measures in this Bill align with broader international efforts? Are we sharing best practices in relation to the protection of public spaces with our allies and learning from their experiences? This exploration of factors is all part of the cool-headed approach encouraged by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and I would endorse such an approach in Committee in this House.
Finally, I highlight the importance of community resilience. No piece of legislation can be a substitute for an engaged and vigilant society. This Bill provides an opportunity to foster greater awareness and preparedness at grass-roots level. Simple measures such as public awareness campaigns and community training programmes can make a significant difference. Empowering ordinary citizens to recognise and report suspicious activity is one of the most effective ways to prevent attacks.
The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill is now a necessary piece of legislation. It reflects our commitment as a party to safeguarding the public and addressing the challenges of the modern age. However, as my noble friend Lord Frost observed, we must ensure that this Bill is implemented with care and foresight by fostering partnerships, embracing innovation, safeguarding freedoms and preserving community volunteering. We can create a security framework that is not only robust but reflects our values. We on these Benches look forward to working with colleagues across the House, as we have done hitherto, to ensure that this Bill delivers proportionately the protections that all our citizens deserve.
I have a few final questions to pose to the Minister. What assurances can the Government provide that businesses and venues will have sufficient time, importantly, and resources to comply with the new requirement before the penalties are enforced? Will implementation take place only when the relevant authority, possibly the SIA, is able to cope with the implementation of the provisions in the Bill? It may be that 24 months, although it is a period that has found some favour in the House, may not be long enough for the SIA to arrange its affairs such that it can administer the system. Is it right that the regulator would adopt a pragmatic and understanding approach to enforcement, particularly at smaller venues, at the outset of the commencement of the Bill’s provisions? Secondly, will there be specific government-funded training programmes to help smaller venues understand and meet their obligations under the Bill? Thirdly, is it intended that the new measures will integrate with other existing counterterrorism efforts on intelligence sharing and operational co-ordination?
On a specific point, there is a provision in the Bill for enhanced-tier premises to submit revised security plans to the SIA whenever they are changed or created. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson noted, there are concerns about the routine provision of these highly sensitive documents to the SIA. Would it not be better simply to have a dip-sample approach, such that every premises has to update its plan and make it available for a spot check by the SIA? This would have the benefit of reducing the administrative burden on both the participants and the SIA. No doubt that can also be explored in Committee. Finally, will the Government keep these measures under review to ensure they continue to strike the right balance?
While I look forward to the Minister’s responses, I also look forward to continuing the co-operative and iterative cross-party process that the Bill has hitherto enjoyed. I am sure that it will achieve its vital aims effectively and fairly in the end. It is a matter of grave regret that we need to have such a Bill, but it is clear, given the present and enduring terror threat, that we need such a Bill.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions in the House today. There has been a great deal of expertise and reflection shown, and the serious issues that have been addressed demand a serious response from the Government.
I particularly thank the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Davies of Gower, for their broad support from the Opposition Front Bench, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her similar approach to cross-party agreement. There may be some areas that we need to look at and examine between us, but I am grateful, and the House and public need to know that there is a broad support for the Bill from the House.
I start with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, because she mentioned victims and they have to be at the heart of our consideration in the Bill. The reason for this Bill is to prevent more victims in the future, as she mentioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, held very high office at the time of this atrocity, and I could tell from her contribution how that impacted her and she carried it upon her shoulders. She is one of the few people who has seen the vast vista of the impact of this on individuals, the community and the Government.
I was struck also by the speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. In reflecting on the impact on his city, he also reflected on something that came out of the contributions of all Members, which is the spirit of this nation and that city to ensure that we have integration and a positive approach to our society, and that we do not bow down to terrorists or their threats but do what the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, and uphold the security of our people as the first tenet of good government.
Figen Murray has been mentioned and we have focused on her great efforts, but I think she would also recognise Brendan Cox and others who have supported her, and I want to refer to them from the Government Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris of Richmond and Lady Fox, also mentioned Sir John Saunders, chair of the Manchester Arena inquiry. He deserves our credit and support for focusing the minds of the political class on the solutions to this problem. He said in his report:
“Doing nothing is, in my view, not an option”,
which was repeated by my noble friend Lady Goudie, and he is right: doing nothing is not an option.
Today, after seven years in gestation, two consultations, a Home Affairs Select Committee report and the power of Figen Murray and her campaign team, we have brought to this House and the House of Commons a Bill that will, I hope, address the issues raised by Members and deliver the prevention of victims that began with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove.
Your Lordships made a number of points and I will try to cover them in broad terms. The points that I will try to address are cost, guidance and communication, enforcement and the SIA, the threshold issue, exclusions, the terror threat and a number of other individual issues that I will come to in due course.
First, I hope I can give confidence to my noble friends Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lady Ritchie that the devolved Administrations were involved in discussions on this at administrative and ministerial level, and will be during the passage of the Bill and in particular during its implementation in due course. But the issues that have been raised are important and I will try to address them in the time that I have.
The cost to business was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Frost, Lord Udny-Lister, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Davies of Gower—in his Front-Bench contribution—my noble friend Lady Ritchie, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. The reason we decided to reduce the number of venues in scope was to ensure that costs are proportionate and do not fall on a range of bodies that it would have been disproportionate to hit.
The changes that we made to the Bill that was produced earlier have taken the number of properties or venues in scope from 278,900 to 154,600 in the standard tier and to 24,000 in the enhanced tier. Overall, the costs have therefore decreased from the estimated £2.17 billion over 10 years to £1.83 billion. For standard-duty premises, we estimate the cost to be around £330 per year, in time and money, and around £5,210—not £52,000, which I think one contributor mentioned—for enhanced-duty premises. Those are the costs, but our focus to prevent victims and to ensure that we put in place some preventive measures is relative. We have tried to assess costs and ensure that the Government take as light a touch as possible to achieve our objectives, while acknowledging that obviously there will be some costs.
We have to take these actions. I appreciate the potential difference of opinion between the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Udny-Lister, and me about some of the burdens—as they described them—but I regard this as an important issue of the security of people who use these venues. Therefore, that is a burden, like many other burdens in society, that we have to accept, adopt and adapt to. That is one of the reasons we have tried to make it as limited as possible.
The second issue that was raised was that of guidance. The noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, all mentioned guidance. Guidance will be set down by the Government on the requirements of the Bill. We will publish it as soon as possible, but I do wish to get it right. I cannot give a timescale on the guidance at this point, because I want to make sure that the Government undertake engagement with key stakeholders across relevant sectors, in industry and in government, to support our understanding of the Bill and the ultimate Act and to address any questions posed.
Guidance was also linked to training. Following pre-legislative scrutiny, it was determined that we did not want to prescribe specific training obligations that applied to both tiers, and that that was not necessary or desirable, but it is entirely reasonable that practical procedures and measures are implemented. Therefore, we will be looking to issue guidance in due course to support identifying suitable training opportunities in an effective and cost-effective way for the individuals concerned. In fact, the noble Baronesses, Lady May of Maidenhead and Lady Harris of Richmond, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, mentioned that.
There has rightly been a debate about the SIA enforcing and having the ability to oversee this potential legislation. First and foremost, the SIA has a full regulatory approach to this matter. There is a two-year implementation period. That goes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, from the Front Bench. The noble Lords, Lord Udny-Lister, Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady May, all mentioned that aspect of the role. We have set out the powers of the SIA in the Bill. It will be given powers to gather information, to inspect premises for such events and to ensure that we assess compliance with powers of entry and interview, consistent with other regulatory regimes.
The SIA will be accountable to Home Office Ministers. This Government have four and a half years left of their term, and this legislation will be implemented after a two-year period as a potential minimum—it may be longer. We will implement the legislation only when the SIA is ready to adopt that role. Home Office Ministers such as myself and my honourable friend Dan Jarvis will be accountable for the performance of the SIA in the period up to it taking on that role, so that the Home Office can make sure that it does the job we want it to do. The SIA has already been engaged in this, it obviously knows the Bill and the direction of travel, and it is working with senior officials in my department to bring forward proposals. It is important that we give the SIA that power.
We can undoubtedly debate this issue further during the passage of the Bill, but we can already understand how the SIA deals with the security industry. Guidance, support, training, point of contact and the inspection regime are issues we will work through and no doubt discuss further in Committee and at Third Reading, but they are solvable and, with political ministerial control, will be about delivery. It is not about passing legislation but delivering an effective mechanism that has that balance between inspection, guidance and training. It is not about setting up an organisation that is not fit for doing that job; we want to make sure that this is a good job done. I hope that will reassure a number of noble Lords who have raised this issue.
The impact of the threshold has been a key issue. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, with his experience, mentioned that, as did the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Frost. The Government have to take a decision on this. Some people have argued for 300 as a minimum threshold, and some for the original figure of 100. I have heard a number of other figures put into the domain at different times. We have had to settle on a figure, and that of 200 is in response to the consultations and the feedback we have had. We have therefore taken out a large number of properties that would have been in the scope. The threshold is something we just have to settle on. I am hopeful that, for all the reasons that have been mentioned, we do not focus so much on the threshold but on the Bill’s ability to encourage good practice as a whole. But we are where we are with the threshold, and colleagues will have to look at that.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, mentioned the 800 figure and the understandable issue that it is in use for maybe one day a year, and there are different thresholds on other days, for perhaps even a month. We have to have a settlement, and we are trying to make things simple. If we had a different regime for different days or months of the year for organisations that might have an 800-plus threshold on certain days of the year, that would overcomplicate the regime we are trying to introduce and create more implementation difficulties downstream. I hear what the noble Lord says, but I hope that he can also hear what I am trying to say about the simplicity of a regime as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred in private discussions, and today on the Floor of the House, to the powers of the Secretary of State—I wrote “SOS” in my notes, and it sometimes it feels like an “SOS” in this job. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Murray, also mentioned the power of the Secretary of State to make those changes. I have heard what individuals have said, but, again, we have had to make a judgment that, at some point, the Secretary of State might need to look at what has happened with the wider terrorist activity in the country and make a determination accordingly. We can revisit that, I am sure, in due course.
My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond—there are too many Harrises—the noble Baronesses, Lady May, Lady Newlove and Lady Hamwee, my noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Udny-Lister, all mentioned the wider terrorist threat. There is a growing threat, and New Orleans, Germany and the 10th anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo attack have shown us that that terrorist threat moves. There is a public responsibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for all of us to be vigilant about how that threat evolves.
There is a need for us to look at long-term conflict resolution, as my noble friend Lady Ritchie mentioned. There is a need to look at all the terrorist strategy elements that we can, including facial recognition, AI, and stop and search, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned. Those are all part of the issues we need to look at in the wider terrorist prevention field, which are, in a sense, separate to the Bill but are still drivers for all the reasons why the Bill is necessary. I take that on board and we can have further discussions in due course.
A number of specific issues were mentioned, which I will try to cover in the short time I have left. The first is the issue mentioned, quite rightly, by the noble Baroness, Lady May, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Udny-Lister, and others, about how we design and build terrorist activity out of buildings in new build—it is an extremely important point. The National Planning Policy Framework—the devolved Administrations have their own national policy frameworks—already includes security considerations, as appropriate for new builds, to ensure the health and safety of communities. But I will consider and take away those points as they are very important. They are not in the scope of the Bill but it is important that we talk to the appropriate Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and in the devolved Administrations, just to make sure that we are on the ball on those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the issuing of instructions and the overriding of the tenets of the Bill by the emergency services on the day. It is not the intention of the Bill to have the responsible person, in the event of a terrorist attack, not follow the instructions of the most senior person in the police, fire or other agency that arrives on their doorstep. I make it clear from this Dispatch Box that in that co-operation the lead person should be the responsible professional officer who deals with this on the day. I hope that reassures noble Lords who raised the issue.
We have had some correspondence and discussion around why places of worship are treated differently. We have taken a view—again, it is challengeable in this House but we have—that 200 or more individuals present should be a standard tier impact issue for places of worship, because they play a unique role in our community and across the country. Although they are not invulnerable to attack, I hope that we will continue to work with faith communities to look at how we can help support them in any vulnerability on terrorist issues. I know that is an important issue.
The noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Harris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, asked why schools are treated differently. There are existing safety and safeguarding policies and procedures in place, such as access control measures, lockdown, and evacuation procedures for schools, so we have not tried to impose further burdens because that is good practice that they are already following.
I will reflect on the question of exclusions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, including this building as a whole, if he will let me, and write to him in due course about those particular issues.
On the civil liability issues mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others, the Bill provides for new requirements on those responsible for qualifying premises, and the effect of Clause 31 is only to prevent these requirements giving rise to a distinct right of action in civil proceedings. I reassure the noble Lord that no provision in the Bill seeks to remove or limit current civil liability. The noble Lord is looking at me quizzically. The lack of time means that we do not have the opportunity to discuss that in detail now but there will be opportunities to discuss that in due course outside this Chamber.
On the issue about railways, raised by my noble friends Lady Ritchie and Lord Faulkner, I wrote to my noble friend Lord Faulkner on 23 December, as he knows. I hope that has satisfied him but, if it does not, we can potentially look at it further. Heritage railways will be in the scope of the Bill—but the buildings, not the railways, if that helps.
The noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Udny-Lister, mentioned licensing conflicts. The licensing regime is separate. There are different regimes; we do not believe the two regimes will conflict.
On the question raised by a number of noble Lords—they know who they are; I will not list them all—about local authorities, in line with established good practice on new burdens assessment, we will undertake an assessment on that, which is in progress and will be discussed and taken forward further.
Finally, I give thanks to those who have contributed and those outside this House who have put pressure on political leaders to make these changes. To extend a hand of friendship to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who said as his first words today that the first duty of Government is public safety—I agree. The first duty of this Bill is public safety. The first duty of this House is to help prevent further terrorist atrocities. We want to understand what has happened to date. We want to take action. The Bill will, I hope, ensure that with all the other measures the Government take, we are putting in place a further deterrent to terrorist offences and giving hope to people that we can honour the memory of those who died in Manchester in 2017, including Figen Murray’s son, Martyn Hett. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 5 to 12, Schedule 3, Clauses 13 to 34, Schedule 4, Clauses 35 to 38, Title.